The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-17 00:00:00

0,......ma1.

[Coat inued from our first page.]
totally ',nsufficient to meet the ordinary demands of the ser-
vice, to say nothing of those extraordinary demands which
!might arise from, losses by sea, or in time of war from dam-
pge if not loss lay the enemy—(hear)—and which did arise
from the more rapid decay of the timbers of steam-vessels
occasioned by the heat which was within them, and by the
vibration occasioned by their machinery. The Storekeeper-
General had furnished them with a return of the supply and
consumption of timber in the navy from the year 1830 to
the present time ; and they also possessed information as to
the number of ships and men in the navy during the same
period. Frown these facts, which furnished the only elements
for coming to a sound conclusion upon this subject, it was
demonstrable that a store of only 60,000 loads was not suffi-
cient to keep up a supply of timber properly seasoned and
Et for conversion. (Hear.) In the period from 1830 to
3314—which included three of the periods of five years into
which the Storekeeper-General had divided the consump-
'ion—the greatest number of ships in the navy was 620,
the average number 589, the greatest number of steam-
vessels 112, the average number of men 33,000 (omitting
thee odde figures). The permanent establishment of timber
'was 53,000 loads, and the average yearly consu.raP tion
16,200 ; so that the establishment contained rather
,more
than a supply for three years. Between 1845 and 1851 the
greatest _number of vessels at any time in the navy was
690 ; the greatest number of steamers 205 ; the average
Clamber of vessels of all kinds 655. The number of sea-
men had increased to 43,000. The permanent establish-
ment of timber remained the same as during the previous
15 years, but the average annual consumption had risen to
25,000 loads. He was not seeking to cast blame upon any
particular Board of Admiralty, but only endeavouring to
show that since the necessity for creating a steam navy had
arisen, the stock of timber had not been kept up in propor-
tion to its consumption. In 1845, the consumption of timber
being 25,000 loads per annum and the establishment only
53,000 loads, it was clear that the timber, instead of being
in store between three and four years, could only be there,
upon the average, for a little more than two years. During
the 14 years from 1845 to 1858, both inclusive, the greatest
number of ships in the navy at any time was 927, the ave-
rage number 720, the number of steamships 478—a vast in-
crease in the number of that class of vessels which caused
the greatest consumption of timber—and the number of
seamen 48,000. The establishment of timber up to the be-
ginning of 1858 was, as he had said, 53,000 loads ; it was
now 60,000. But what was the annual consumption ? 28,000
loads. Therefore, the stock was still only equal to a little
more than two years' consumption. Nor did that repre-
sent the whole of the case—not by a good deal. The late
First Lord of the Admiralty, when explaining the navy
estimates last year, stated that in the last ten years,
though three line-of-battle ships and a fraction had been
ordered by successive Boards, two and a fraction only had
been produced. Something ought to be allowed for that
deficiency ; and, moreover, if ships were built of green tim-
ber they could not be expected to last very long. He might
mention another fact. The whole quantity of timber re-
ceived from 1830 to 1858 was 631,000 loads ; the quantity
used in the same period was 636,000 loads ; and in 1859 the
storekeeper had 65,000 loads in hand. It was clear, there-
fore, that in 1830 there must have been a stock of timber
larger than the establishment. But the case did not end
here. Among the papers recently presented there was an
account by the present Surveyor of the Navy of the amount
of timber required to build three line-of-battle ships, one
frigate, and two corvettes, sailing and steam vessels respec-
tively of the same rates. The sailing vessels required 15,700
loads, and the steamvessels 22,000 loads, being a difference
of 6,300 loads. Seeing, therefore, how our steam navy had
increased, and what would be the probable expenditure for
the next few years, there could be no doubt that if the sup-
ply of timber had been short hitherto, it would be still
shorter in future. No amount of money, said the Store-
keeper-General, could procure large supplies, consisting ex-
clusively of timber of the largest dimensions, and undoubt-
edly the present wants of the service were not easily met.
England, he added, could not supply them, and cargoes of
shipbuilding timber imported from foreign countries could
not consist only of the largest sizes, even if such timber of
hard and durable quality and unobjectionable weight was
forthcoming in abundance at the ports of shipment.
That was a most important and suggestive statement. We
might get metal to any amount, shipwrights to any num-
ber, but seasoned timber could not be got at all, and the sup-
ply of raw timber was not over-abundant. A gallant Ad-
miral bad said that England might lose the command of
the Channel. Suppose our supply of timber from abroad
was interrupted even for a few months. That was a con-
tingency which ought to be guarded against, and we could
guard against it only by having in stock a supply of timber
sufficient to meet, not only the ordinary demands of the ser-
vice, but any extraordinary demand which might suddenly
come upon us. He did not think that 60,000 loads-would
make a proper establishment of timber, especially when dis-
tributed among six dockyards, for if the aggregate supply
was insufficient it would be still more so when divided into
half-a-dozen parts. There was another point to which he
wished to direct attention. It appeared from the Parlia-
mentary Paper No. 174 of the present year that the average
expense of repairing 203 steamvessels in commission, ex-
cluding labour, was £325 each, while the cost of maintain-
ing 211 vessels in ordinary was £449. That showed the
necessity of keeping up an ample supply of timber in stock,
whether our ships were in commission or in ordinary. By
putting the figures together the average might be found,
and it showed that even if this country should be fortunate
enough to be able to dispense with having so large a number
of ships in commission, it must not be concluded that the
vessels not in use would not be the occasion of great expense.
(Hear.) He had the figures with respect to sailing ships, but
as they were not accurately given he was unable to draw
any conclusion from them ; but the figures in respect to the
steam vessels were quite enough to show what the fact was,
and that even if the number of men were reduced to the
average of the last few years, it must not be supposed that
the expense of maintaining the vessels would be got rid of.
(Hear.) The whole expense of putting the establishment
of timber in a proper state would be simply an expense once
for all of about £300,000 or £lOO,OOO. But, whatever might
be the cost, the country world be secure, with a proper
store of timber, of having well -seasoned materials for the
work to be done. (Hear.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought tho house should be dis-
tinctly informed by the Secretary to the Admiralty what
course the Admiralty intended to pursue in reference to the
very important report made by the commissioners appointed
to inquire into the dockyards. Those commissioners stated
that 10 per cont. of the expenditure in building new ships
might be saved. No one was more anxious than he to see
the navy maintained in an efficient state, but nevertheless
he considered it high time that the expenditure incurred
year after year for the navy should be inquired into. From
1832, the commencement of the reformed Parliament, to
1838, the average expenditure on the navy in those seven
Years was £1,770,000; the expenditure on the navy in
1858-9, only two years ago, was £8,800,000, and in the pre-
sent year the expenditure was estimated at £12,800,000. It
seemed as if they were preparing for war against some
wnaetriecni: and he knew not what nation that could be unless it
; yet the French naval expenditure during the
last se'rveallcaes'ears had been much less than the English. The
two countries were carrying on a
nsortjet and of contest as to which
of them should have the most efficient the
hadlargestp l
a eneud mu;
ber of screw ships of war, and yet the French
in fear by a navy which had cost just one-half of ours.
What was still more extraordinary, the whole expense of the
French navy in 1858-9 was £1,600,000,
while in our esti
finites for the present year the wages and victuals alone
amounted to £4,900,000. The gallant admiral (Sir M.
Seymour) had spoken in high terms of the character of the
shipbuilding carried on in our yards ; but how was it that
the cost of building varied so much at these establishments ?
By returns which had been published it appeared that the
cost of shipwrights' labour upon vessels of precisely the
same tonnage and character was at Chatham £4 Bs. 2d. per
ton ; at Devour ort, £4 10s. ; at Sheerness, £6 2s. 7d. ; and
at Woolwich, £6 18s. How did this arise ? Not, he pre-
sumed, front higher wages paid ; but, at any rate, the fact
remained, and monstrous it was, that at Woolwich ship-
building cost 50 per cent. more than at Chatham. There
must evidently be something wrong somewhere. With
regard to the timber, it quite puzzled him to account for the
vast quantity which had been paid for by the country.
At the termination of the French war we had 210 sail of the
line, while now we had only 59 afloat and on the stocks,
and yet in the interval, notwithstanding this vast
diminution, £88,000,000 had bean expended upon
timber and wages for the construction of ships in
our dockyards. He thought there must have been
gross mismanagement. No attempt, however, was
made to check the system until the late commission ;
and he thought, after the disclosures which they had made,
it was high time that this house should interpose to prevent
the mismanagement which :prevailed in our dockyards. A
commission of efficient men, who thoroughly understood
every branch of the suhject,would probably do more effectual
service with this view than even a committee of the house.
(Hear.)

Sir H. LEEKE urged the necessity of having efficient
6ua
a rdships in our ports, these vessels being the groundwork
of fleet. At every port there should be two, and these
would form a fleet ready for any emergency. IV ith regard
to corporal punishment, he had lived much among seamen,
and took a
deep ti
. •Use
o f interest
the
erest in their welfare, but he did not
think that the
lash ought to be abolished, nor was
this the wish of the men themselves. Being in conversation
with some of them y
recently,theyie gave him clearly to under-
stand that they Were favour, ab to the retention of corporal
to
punishment, and he was desired
express their views upon
the point. For himself, he believe that the abolition of
flogging would be fraught with danger. O board
9 °b
y- gtiltine
some
ship recently the crew were made so uncomfortablen
misbehaviour of the newly-raised men that
of them
came aft and complained to the officer of the watch
that they should never be comfortable until those m'en stating
Were
punished. The captain was not a flogging man, and the
thing went on, until at last the captain declared that the
next offender should be 'severely punished. The man was
. flogged accordingly, to the great delight of the crew gene_
rally—if a punishment so barbarous could ever be witnessed
with delight ; and the consequence was that the vessel
was now one of the best-ordered ships in the service. He
was not a punishing man, and his experience taught him
that corporal punishment might almost be abolished. With
respect to captains on the reserved list, he thought they

were entitled to progress in rank, and to an increased half.
pay ; but, according to the letter which had been signed by
the Secretary to the Admiralty, those officers were to remain
in their present position. Many of them were most distin-
guished officers, and some of them he would sel •ct for his
flag captains if he had the opportunity. As the whole cost
to the country of granting to those officers the ustice they
sought would be under £2,000 a year, he ho_ Ed their just
claims would meet with due consideration.
Admiral NVALCOTT agreed with what bad fallen from
the hon. member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone), and
in advocating the claims of the reserved captlins he was en-
couraged by the statement of the right hon. baronet (Sir F.
Baring), who had said that in drawing up the minute affect-
ing those officers he did so with the clear understanding that
he confined the reserved list to simply advancing them to
the rank of captains, and allowing them to receive the gra-
duated pay of junior captains. That class of officers, how-
ever, accepted that promotion in the firm belief that they
would receive an increase of pay agreeably to seniority,
though they were aware that in b. ing so advanced they gave
up all hopes of good-service pensions, and of ever being
called into active service, except in times of emergency. He

had heard it stated in the course of the discussion, with

some regret and astonishment, that in the United States
there were no less than 150,000 seamen in employment, of
whom only one-fourth were American subjects. He was
one of those, however, who firmly believed that in the event
of this country being, unhappily, involved in a war we
should find the same loyalty and devotion among our sea-

faring population as had been displayed throughout the rest
of the community in the formation of volunteer corps. We
had 180,000 seafaring men, 23,000 of whom were mates,
60,000 were able seamen, and a considerable number were
ordinary seamen. In the event of a war a great number of
the merchant seamen would be prevented following their
ordinary calling; they would therefore be available for the
navy, and would flock to the national standard with alacrity
in ease of need. Nevertheless, he would wish to see an effi-

cient reserve maintained ; but still, let the Governmen
offer what temptation they might, the result would always
be limited, for merchant seamen liked to rove about
the world, and were averse from the discipline of a
man-of-war. In 1853 he impressed upon the Govern-
ment the necessity of having ships stationed at all
our mercantile ports, under the command of officers of
high character, for the training of men for the navy ; and
if that suggestion had been adopted we should now have
had between 20,000 and 30,000 young able seamen in a high
state of efficiency and discipline, on whom we might have
relied as a reserved force in an emergency. He would now
suggest to the Admiralty the necessity ef urging the whole
service to become familiar with the new modes of naval
warfare. (Hear, hear.) Numbers of the lieutenants in the
navy had unhappily lest heart, so few were their chances
of promotion. It had been said that the list of officers had
become crowded in consequence of the unusual longevity in
that department of the service. It should, however, be
borne in mind that the time was when this country was in-
volved in war, not with one but with several nations, when
there were a thousand pennants in the service, and when a
corresponding number of officers was required. But in 1815,
when peace was established, three-fourths of them were
placed on half-pay, and there they had remained.
Mr. BENTINCK, before adverting to the subject under
discussion, wished to tender his thanks to his hon. friend
the member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) for the
graceful and feeling allusion he had made to a recent me-
lancholy event. (Hear, hear.) He believed there was no
member on either side of the house who would not readily
acknowledge that the amiable qualities and the great ability
of the late lamented member for Berkshire (Captain Lei-
cester Vernon) were such as to render his untimely end a
source of the deepest regret. (Cries of Hear, hear, from both
sides ef the house.) He (Mr. Bentinck) could not forbear
reminding the house that the Government had inaugurated
a new financial policy, the obvious result if not the avowed
object of which must be so to cripple our financial resources
as to render the maintenance of the national defences next
to impossible ; and he asked how they could reconcile the
conflicting positions of in all probability decreasing re-
sources with an increasing expenditure. Reference had
been made during the debate, by a gallant admiral, to
recent disturbances on board some of her Majesty's
ships. He (Mr. Bentinck) believed the real cause of those
disturbances was referable to the tendency of the existing
state of public feeling to resist authority. In the navy dis •
graceful occurrences of that kind were constantly occur-
ring, and he believed there was no member of that house
who would not say that when discipline ceased to exist in
the navy the navy itself might as well ceese to exist alto •
tether. In the case ef the mercantile marine the tendency
of their legislation had been that, in the ease of disputes
between masters of vessels and the men, the former were
sometimes compelled to have recourse to what must be re-
garded is very unjustifiable acts. (Hear.) The gallant
admiral opposite had referred to the subject of bounties.
There might no doubt be cases in which a system of boun-
ties might be beneficially resorted to, but he believed those
cases were of an exceptional character. In most instances
where bounties were resorted to the fault lay with the Ad-
miralty in not providing the means of keeping up a regular
supply of seamen for the service. But here, again, he be-
lieved the origin of the evil was to be found in that house.
There was a constant struggle between the Board of Admi-
ralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was al-
ways making use of every expedient to make the two ends
meet, and driving the Board of Admiralty to practices of
which they were ashamed. (Hear.) The system of bounties
was one of extravagance in the long run, and he believed
that if they were to pay their seamen well, so as preserve
them to the navy, they would not only add to the security
of the country, but effect an actual saving of money. (Hear,
hear.) Complaints had been made of the enormous cost of
building, and the large outlay of public money at the docks.
He agreed with those who thought it desirable to reduce
the expenditure ; but contended that it was impossible in
the present state of things to have any efficient reduction
of expenditure. He attached no blame to any board
past or present for this. The cause lay in the system—
(hear, hear)—in the fact that they placed men in respon-
sible positions, who could have no possible knowledge of
their business—(hear, hear)—and, above all, because they
made the Board of Admiralty a political jobbing office.
(Lieu, hear.) If they wanted to have efficiency and eco-
nomy they must have at the Admiralty a continuous sys-
tem, managed by persons continuously responsible and
wholly independent of political movements, and they must
place at the head of it a man who, by profession and repu-
tation, was admitted to be thoroughly competent to under-
take the whole management. (Hear.) They had heard
something about the price of anchors ; and he had no doubt
the Admiralty paid twice as much they ought to do for
their anchors ; but this arose from the same cause. (Hear,
hear.) His right hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire
(Mr. Henley) had brought beforo the house the important
question of timber, and he impugned tho figures and calm-
! diens of the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty. His
right lion. friend made out his case with that clearness and
force which always distinguished him ; but he could not
agree withhim when ho impugned the conduct of the noble
duke. He believed the noble duke was as good a man for
the position he held as could be got, and he knew that his
noble and gallant friend (Lord C. Paget) had worked hard
to remedy the abuses of the Admiralty. But it was impos-
sible fully to remedy those abuses under the present system
which his noble and gallant friend knew to be perfectly in -
defensible. (Hear, hear.) Zhey had been told time after
time that if any private building yard was carried on upon
the system pursued by the Admiralty, the Bank of England
would not be able to keep them going:six months. (Hear,
hear.) lie believed that the great body of officials at the
Admiralty time after time had been doing their best to remedy
abT:vnhiutc,lehs oei sttxh,
was
auunsttsfeosuonfdt
ht
ohne
am beyond
likelythei r control.ton
e re a (Hear,o ye
ar h
b yye
ea
ar
r.
)
omf
0%1 ley
gt
tml
aons
et
e the importanceexpendttht
na
rt
et ho ef yeshouldhwi
lel
nc hg
in the dockyards. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Williams.)
The hon. member for Lambeth cheered, but his views and
) He would not
very different upon this
those of that hon. gentleman
and all hourisoeletaegrcr
hedvagse
subject. (A laugh.
tthhaet
th moste money liberal
outlay for the navy,
(Hear,,
itieeaeciarTrin..?iiT,t!ltlhteheayhaotuesme
should bo judicioasly applied.
thaenddiswcuasatstinong
was prepared to grapple with the
all committees of inquiry were uselegreleatt
of details they were only wasting thei:ti
millions of the public money.
Lord C. PAGET said he would not then make an
marks, but when the house went into committee hewYourled.
take the opportunity of answering the various statements
that had been made.
The house then went into committee on the
NAVY ESTIMATES.
Mr. MASSEY in the chair.
Tho first vote moved was a sum of £160,230 to defray the
expenses of the Admiralty-office.
Lord C. PAGE 1' said, before referring to the vote which
had just been brought under the notice of the committee, he
was desirous of replying to statements that had been made
on various subjects connected with the navy.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY rose to order. He wished to
know whether the noble lord was entitled to make a general
statement in committee when a particular vote was before
hem ?

The CHAIRMAN said it was not usual or convenient to
make a general statement in committee, but the noble lord
would no doubt exercise a sound discretion, and limit his
explanation as much as possible to the particular vote be-
fore them.
Mr. LOVAINE said that several questions were put to
the noble lord. before going into committee, and it was unfair
to hon. members to make his answer-in committee.
Sir J. PAK INGTON thought that no exception could be
taken to the manner in which the Chairman had explained
the rule of the house. At the same time, as a matter of pre-
cedent, he remembere& none worse than• that set by the
noble lord, who had taken a most objectionable course. A
long debate had taken place, matters of serious importance
had been discussed, and it was the duty of.the noble lord, as
the representative of the Admiralty, to give a frank and
fair answer to the questions put to him ; instead of which
the noble lord had completely departed from the rules of
the house. To his extreme astonishment, the noble lord
said he should offer no answer, but that he had a statement
to
make which he should make in Committee of Supply.
The noble lord, deviating from the established and recog-
nised rules of the house, now proposed to offer an answer

and explanation to that which had been stated in another
debate. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said he could not concur in the
objection which had been taken. If the strict rules of the
house were enforced when an hon. member moved the ad-
journment of the house, in order to discuss some topic un-
connected with that motion, he ought to be stopped and told
to confine himself to giving reasons why the house should
adjourn. The vote before the house was for the Admiralty-
office, and it was competent for his noble friend and for the
house upon that vote to discuss every thing which could be
said for or against the Admiralty and the manner in which
they conducted the affairs of the navy. His noble friend
might, it was true, have made his statement before the
Speaker left the chair, but nothing was more common than
that a person charged with the conduct of a department
defer his reply until the house went into committee. No one
who had sat long in that house but must have observed
that frequently, upon the Array Estimates and other mat-
ters, that course had been pursued. So far from being in-
convenient, it was rather an advantage, because, before the
Speaker left the chair, the mouths of members who had
previously taken part in the debate were closed.
Lord LOVAINE said that if the noble lord was right
the Chairman was wrong, because the hon. gentleman in
the chair had limited the explanation of the noble lord (C.
Paget) to the subject to which the vote refarred.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY remembered that elate Secretary
of the Treasu-,y (Mr. Wilson) had deferred his reply in a
debate on the Civil Service Estimates until the Speaker had
left the chair. The consequence was a general debate, which
continued all night and ended in an adjourned debate. Did
the noble lord (Palmerston) consult the interests of the
Government in the doctrine he had laid down ? Was it not
wiser to have a matter discussed and disposed of ? If mem-
bers were to go on talking in committee de omnibus rebus et
quibusdam aliis, some one at 12 o'clock would move an ad-
journment. It was the duty of the house to adhere to the
strict point before it, and he trusted that this rule would net
be departed from.
Lord PALMERSTON said it had been his duty for many
years to move the Army Estimates. What was done on those
occasions ? On proposing the first vote the practice was to
go into detail and explain everything connected with the
army. The present vote, being for the Admiralty, would
justify his noble friend in defending the manner in which
that department conducted the naval service of the country.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to remind the noble lord that the
Secretary to the Admiralty had, on moving the first vote,
made his statement relative to the navy. (Hear.)
After a few words from Admiral Duercomnu,
Lord C. PAGET said that his only object was the conve-
nience of public business. He did not want to shirk any ex- •
planations of the various matters which had been brought
under the notice of the house. If he had erred, it was from
ignorance rather than any bad intentions. (Hear.) His first
duty now was to notice the remarks of his hon. friend the
member for Portsmouth relative to the reserved captains of
the Royal Navy.
Lord LOVAINE again rose to order. He could see
nothing in the vote before the committee which in any way
related to the subject referred to by the noble lord. (Hear.)
Lord C. PAGET said he would defer the explanation he
had to offer in regard to the case of the reserved post-captains,
although he regretted to do so, as many gentlemen were
naturally anxious to hear it. (Hear.) He hoped he would
be in order in replying to the observations of the right hon.
member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley).
Lord LOVAINE remarked that the subject of timber
came under vote 10. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Lord C. PAGET—Very well, then I will confine myself
to the vote before the committee. (Hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER drew attention to the fact that the vote
for the Admiralty-office was continually on the increase.
This year it was larger than it was the year before by
£143,230. His great objection to the vote, however, arose
from his conviction that the constitution of the Admiralty
was incompatible with the proper management of the naval
business of the country. As long as the Admiralty was
presided over by a man destitute of practical experience of
naval life, the same absence of order and economy would be
observable as at present. The First Lord had to discharge
duties which as a civilian he could not possibly know any.
thing about. The professional man who acted as a sort of
" dry nurse," being generally selected by the First Lord
himself, was as likely to be inefficient as not, and even if
fit for the post his advice was often disregarded, or perhaps
not asked for at all. Each member of the Board had a parli
titular department allotted to his charge, but very often the
First Lord gave orders which his colleagues knew nothing
about. When Sir J. Graham was First Lord, and assumed
the responsibility of acting in that manner, Sir J. Pechell,
a very conscientious officer, protested against it; but all mem-
bers of the Board were not equally independent. The per-
petual changes in the Board which took place under the pre-
sent system could not fail to be prejudicial to the service.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that one of the chief causes of
the discontent which had prevailed in the, navy for some
time past was that the sailors were confined too closely to
drill at Portland, and debarred from the privilege of going
ashore, which they used formerly to enjoy. Drill was
always irksome to a sailor. When carried too far it in-
variahly produced discontent ; and when the men were
called off from "leave" the irritation was sure to be in-
creased. The patronage of the Admiralty was practically in
the hands of the First Lord, and it was not easy to see how
that was to be prevented. The First Lord claimed a certain
share of the promotions and appointments as his own private
patronage, and indeed seldom asked advice as to the disposal
of any of it. The Duke of Somerset was the present First
Lord, and how had he distributed the patronage ? lie had
bestowed a command on Admiral Milne—a very excellent
officer, certainly, who, while captain, had been in constant
service, but had been for 11 years a Lord of the Admiralty.
Admiral Milne was a canny Scotchman—(a laugh)—and
had retained his seat at the Board under both Whigs and
Tories. He was now despatched to the North American
station. Then there was Admiral Bruce, a very excellent
officer too, who had had three commands running. He had
commanded on the coast of Africa, was removed thence to
the Pacific, and was now installed at Portsmouth Dockyard.
Admiral Bruce was a very good officer, as he had said, but
then he was not the only good officer in the service. The
next was Admiral Fanshawe, who had held four previous
commands, and had not remained in any one of them long
enough to complete his time. He was, no doubt, a very ex-
cellent officer ; but he was not the only good officer in the
service. They were doing everything they possibly could
to prevent the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary at War
constantly keeping the same officers in each department of
the army, and the same thing ought to be done with regard
to the navy. The next appointment of the present First
Lord was Admiral Elliott, who was removed from the
Channel squadron to Portsmouth, then to the Admiralty,
and now to the Mediterranean. He had not the least ob-
jection to any of these officers, but it was very hard that
officers who were equally as good should not have a chance
of gaining experience. It might be necessary to change the
First Lord with each change of Administration, but the
other Lords should be put in for a certain time—say five
years, and ono changed every year, so as to keep up a con-
stant supply of experienced men. It was not his intention
to oppose the vote, but he should take an early opportunity
of submitting a substantive motion upon the subject.
neLedoerdd
ofL tohVe AinleNreE sa
aseei that so
of charge
ehargefmere eexleprinkas,tion
nni wa5£18,732
last last year to £19,210, when it was remembered that the
packet contracts had been transferred to the Post-office. He
took the opportunity of stating that Mr. Clifton, the head
of the steam department, brought under his notice the
whole of the documents relating to the Churchward con-
tract, and that he was not amenable to the censure which
the right hen. member for Portsmouth had passed in the
course of a recent debate, under the supposition that he had
not done so. He believed Mr. Clifton to be a most active
and intelligent public servant.
Lord C. PAGET said that the gallant admiral seemed to
find fault with the Duke of Somerset for appointing proper
men.

Sir C. NAPIEIL said ho found fault with the constant
continuation in commands of the same officers.
Lord C. PAGET said that if they had a good man he
thought it best to give him another command as soon as an
opportunity, occurred ; but all the appointments of the Duke
of Somerset had been made after consultation, and with the
unanimous approval of the professional members of the
Board. The increase of charge for clerks partly arose from
promotion of third-class clerks to second-class clerks, and
partly frem the progressive increase of salaries. There had
been no reduction consequent on the transfer of the packet
contracts to the Post-office, because an immense increase of
work had been entailed by the augmentation of the service.
It had Veen necessary to appoint temporary clerks, and they
had preferred to do so because they hoped the necessity was
only temporary. -
workn After w o
thesualvmdo
tab° o
further
betterz 2 87 doowne
for
o r th
Admiral DUNCOMBE believed that it would be more
ships by efficient vfaheretashdateeabl
economical to make permanent appointments, and that the
and Naval
C.
ARpesieErvße , conversationa
salariest he vote
of wasthe
Cagroaesetgdutaord.
askedO whether the 9,000 men figuring
onthais vote as Coastguard's Reserve were fit for actual ser-
vicen board a man-of-war, and whether it was the inten-
tion of the Admiralty to replace the present coastguard
yssaffdd Admiraltypr
aa department, la ea
and the
andhwe h
housei re ehc o m
was ma
ae
pam-
phletnmedroees
Sir J. ELPHIN3TONE advocated the placing of th
d
ts oe. r t %h e
latelyattentionun d under
pau bseliops
t
useful compendium of the whole subject. The duties of the
Coastguard, whether officers or men, were extremely ardu-
ous, and the only advantages which that service offered were
those which arose from enabling them to live with their
families. In order to render the Coastguard thoroughly
efficient .as a naval reserve, he recommended that a large
addition should be made to its numbers, and that the men
should be thoroughly trained and drilled, so as to fit them
for the position of captains of guns, in case they were sud-
denly required to embark.
Admiral WALCOTT inquired whether he was correct in
men
believinghad thatn porieitteonfsi7o,n2otooC:ohae character uar len 1
seamen,
s tg
could not be relied on in an emergency ?
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped the noble lord would also
sm
of
0 0 o r 2,
dOO
be able to state how many naval coast volunteers were now
enrolled, and to what extent they had come forward for
drill during the past year.
Lord C. PAGET said on the Ist inst. there were on beard

Coastguard ships and tenders 3,206 men, which, with 3,438
serving on shore at the different stations , made a total of
6,644 seamen available for tho fleet. Be sides these, there
were 1,356 landsmen, whose places would, , however, be filled
by seamen as rapidly as they were pensb med off. He did
not mean to deny that there were able pe tints in the pam-
phlet of Admiral Martin, but he shell] like to ask what
additional security could be provided for ascertaining whe -
ther a man was really an able seaman— the point on which
Admiral Martin found so much fault with the present scheme.
The man on presenting himself was first examined by the
shipping master, and as an additionei security he could not
be admitted without being taken before .the naval officer for
the district, who put such questions w.l.th regard to reefing
and steering and the "narks of the Lead as must sufficiently
test his ability as a seaman. In f act, if a defect existed in
the scheme, it was, as had been pointed out by the right
hon. gentleman the member for Omfordshire, that the pre-
liminary examination was too searching. (Hear, hear.)
Admiral Martin was a most excel ent and efficient member of
the commission, but he maintained that the statement in
which he took pains to show that the men who were being
entered could not be depended on, was, as regarded the Ad-
miralty, very unfair and unjust. Without incurring the
risk of being called to order, he could not refer to the case
of the commanders of the coastguard, but he might state
that they were included in the scheme of the retirement of
officers which he was most anx:ions of hang an opportu-
nity of laying before the house.
Sir C. NAPIER complained that his question still re-
mained unanswered, and that the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty had given a very poor account of Admiral Mai tin's
pamphlet. The noble lord ropresented that there were 6,000
men ready to go on board ship, while Admiral Martin li-
mited the number to 3,200 ; and he further stated that there
were only 1,300 landsmen in the coastguard, while Admiral
Martin held that there were 4,000, who ought to be got rid
of as quickly as possible. The noble secretary further in-
formed the house that nothing could be done by the ship-
ping master in reference to the enrolment of volunteers
without consulting the naval officer, but in a letter which
he had received from an officer well acquainted with the
nature of this reserve, it was stated, " The sailors complain
that they do not understand the regulations—that the ship-
ping master tells them one thing and the naval officer
another." (Hear.) “W hen men come forward to volun-
teer they wish to be drilled at once, and not to have it hang-
ing over their heads. Many now regret that they have
joined the reserve, and prevent others from doing so, while
efficient sailors are often turned away by the foolish ques-
tions which are asked." The noble lord the Secretary to
the Admiralty might be a very good sailor, but if he were
to put before him the shear-block of a line-of-battle ship,
and ask him what sized rope he would strop it with, he
might feel equally at a loss with Jack to give an answer off
hand. (Laughter.) The fear of punishment by the lash
without previous trial by court-martial likewise operated
injuriously on the volunteer force. (Hear.)
Lord LOVAINE wished to know whether any disincli-
nation to enter the coastguard had been manifested from a
belief that the retiring allowance was not as attractive as in
former years.
Mr. LINDSAY hoped some explanation would be given
of the discrepancy between the statements of Admiral Mar-
tin and the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. It
was very desirable to ascertain whether those 6,000 men
were all really able seamen, or whether any portion of them
were mere landsmen, who had been put into the Coastguard
through favour or patronage. As to the mode of entering
seamen for the navy, if they were to be obtained from the
merchant service the usual shipping masters were more
likely to get them than naval officers. He believed, one of
the greatest discouragements to enteriug the naval service
was the objection seamen felt to the present form of the
Articles of War, that inflicted the penalty of death for com-
paratively trifling offences, though, of course, the punish-
ment was very rarely carried into effect. The Admiralty
would not obtain sailors freely till the Articles of War were
modified. He wished to know what had been done with
the nOO,OOO voted last year for the Coast Volunteers ; and
what would be done with the same sum asked for in the
present estimates ?
Mr. HENLEY thought the regulations under which sea-
men were required to enter the navy should be simplified ;
as they stood, no one could understand them. Why could
not the Admiralty allow a man to enter for a month, and
then rate him an A.B. if capable, or send him about his
business ? At the utmost they could only lose the few
shillings they might pay the man more than ho was worth,
and they would have the advantage of a month's trial, in-
stead of first asking a series of questions that real sailors
disliked and resented.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS ascribed the unwillingness to enter
thenavy to the continuance of the punishment of flogging,
and hoped the Admiralty would find some substitute for it.
Admiral WALKER asked what were the ages and quali-
fications foAntering into the Coast Volunteers ?
Lord C. PAGET, in reply to the question of the hon:
member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), said that of the
£lOO,OOO voted last year for the Coast Volunteers only a
small part had been expended; the rest would fall in to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of the present vote of
the same amount a portion would be immediately expended
in fitting up two training ships in the river for the volun-
teers. The number of the naval reserve entered was, he
might add, about 800.
Mr. LYGON complained of the large amount -which was
set down in the vote for lodging accommodation.
Admiral DUNCOMBE, adverting to the difficulty of
procuring an adequate number of men for the naval reserve,
expressed it to be his op3-iion that the cause was to seine
extent to be found in the fact that the value of the article
required was not given.
Sir C. NAPIER said that, as there seemed to be no dis-
position on the part of the Admiralty to provide efficient
ships in the place of the block ships, he felt it to be his
duty to move that the_ vote for the coastguard be reduced
by £4,000.
Lord LOVAINE feared, whatever bounties they offered,
they would not get the number of A.B.'s wanted. They
were not to be had. It was in evidence before tho Mer-
dhant Shipping Committee that the number of A.B.'s in
the merchant service had within the last 20 or 30 years
diminished beyond all precedent. The advantages offered
in future might, however, do much.
Sir C. NAPIER withdrew his amendment, thinking it
better to bring forward some sppeffic motion on the subject.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE recommended smaller vessels
to be employed as school-ships than the line-of -battle-ships
now used. It was not convenient to congregate together
2,000 boys in one ship.
Lord C. PAGET replied that the block ships were quite
unfit for school ships, there being no room below. They
did not mean to place more, probably, than 500 boys to-
gether.
A vote was then agreed to.
On the vote for the scientific branch being proposed,
Mr. B. JOHNSTONE inquired whether it was true that
at one of our largest dockyards an immense number of ar-
tificers and shipwrightshad been discharged, and that they
were going over to France ?
The CHAIRMAN said the question was not relevant to
the present vote.
Mr. B. JOHNSTONE would then move that they re-
port progress, in order to have an answer to his question.
Lord C. PAGET said he had not heard that any arti-
ficers were going over to France, but a number had been
discharged at the end of the financial year in consequence
of the reduction of the estimates.
In reply to a question from Admiral WALCOTT,
Lord C. PAGET said there would be no objection to al-
lowing officers who had retired from the service the value
of their chronometers as determined by the Astronomer
Royal. The Board of Admiralty had framed an order—to
which he trusted they would soon obtain the sanction of the
house—for granting three chronometers to line-of-battle
ships, frigates, or troopships, two chronometers to sloops,
and one to gunboats. It was only fair that cfficers should
be relieved from the expense of providing their own chro-
nometers.
The vote was then agreed to, and the chairman ordered
to report progress.
ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered.
CENSUS (ENGLAND).

Mr. CLIVE moved for leave to bring in a bill for taking
the census of England.
The motion was agreed to.
The bill was then brought in and read the first time.
The house adjourned at a quarter past 12 o'clock.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]--Holloway's Pills and Ointment.—
Irresistible Remedies.—For weak or diseased lungs, drop-
sical symptoms, and chronic rheumatism, Holloway's pint-
ment and pills stand unrivalled. Mr. Turner, chemist, of
Banham, Norfolk, writes that James Turner, of Kenning-
hall-Heath, was grievously afflicted for many years, by a
complication of sueh disorders. This poor man was quite
incapable of any exertion The best procurable medical ad-
vice gave-no relief, when fortunately Holloway's prepara-
tions were recommended. Considerable easo was obtained
immediately on their use, and the power of motion returned,
while every untoward symptom gradually departed. By
persevering friction with the ointment over the affected
parts the patient was soon enabled to resume his usual em-
ployment, and gratefully testifies to the efficacy of Iloilo-
way's purifying remedies.
LADVERTISEMENTd—Fifty thousand cures without medi-
cine, by Du Barry's elicious Revalenta Arabic& Food, of
indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous,
bilious, and liver complaints, debility, cough, asthma, con
sumption, /cc. Cure No. 71, of dyspepsia, from the Right
Hon. the Lord Stuart de Decies,—" I have derived consi-
derable benefit from Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food,
and consider it due to yourselves and the public to autho-
rise the publication of these llnes.—Stuart do Decies."
Cure No. 49,832.—" Fifty years indescribable agony from
dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatu-
lency, spasms, sickness at the stomach,' and vomiting, have
been removed by Du Barry's excellent food.—Maria Joly,
Northam Ling, near Diss, Norfolk." Cure No. 4,208.
" Eight years dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps,
spasms, nausea, for which my servant had consulted the
advice of many, have been cured by Du Barry's health
restoring food. I shall be happy to answer any inquiries.
—Rev. John W. Flavell, Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk."
In tins, at ls. 6d. •, 11b., 3s. ; 21b., .ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b.,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-
office order. Du Barry and CO., 77, Regent-street, London;
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly ; Alibis, 60,
Gracechurch-street • 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150 Oxford-
street; 330 and 451, Strand • 49 and 60, Bishopsgate•
street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin,
Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimea and Cc.;
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp an.
Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and Co.; at,Soutk
ampton, Itanda'il and Son