The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-12 00:00:00

present, partly carried on at ,'Whitehall, and partly at
Somerset-house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE hoped the house would pause before
it did an act of injustice to an absent man, Sir Baldwin
Walker, who, on account of his valuable services in the
departmenti over which he presided, had been made a
baronet and a K.C.B. had been charged with living
created a deficit of 4000,000 in eleven years. These
figures of the noble lord were well-considered, and it
was impossible to answer then; off-hand ; but he merely
rose in defence of Sir Baldwin Walker. (Hear, hear.)
He was a permanent officer of the navy, and in jus-
tice to him and to former Boards of Admiralty,
he ought to call for a select committee. (Hear, hear.)
As to the remarks of the gallant admiral, let him move
for a select committee, and he should have his cordial
support.
Mr. BENTINCK said that the object of the, noble lord
did not appear to him to be intended for an attack upon the
Surveyor of the Navy. Neither did he think the noble
lord intended to attack the present First Lord of the Ad -
miralty, who had donehis duty in a department ,about which
he previously knew nothing, , with great ability. (Hear.)
The noble lord did not attack any person, but he attacked
'the system. He was inclined to think, however, that the
form of this motion would not tend to obtain the object he
had in view, which was to insure the careful expenditure
of the sums voted for the naval service. He would, how-
ever, co-operate with any member who would propose a
system of careful and guarded expenditure. He thought
that, under the present constitution of the Board of Ad-
miralty, efficiency and economy were impossible. (Hear.)
He had taken a deep interest in this question, and he had
inquired in private yards whether if they were to carryon
their business in the way her Majesty's dockyards were
carried on, what would be the result, and the answer was
—lf they were to act upon that system, even with the Bank
of England to back them, they would be ruined. (Hear.)
He contended that, under the present system, efficiency and
economy were impossible. The reductions of the late First
Lord of the Admiralty were more in accordance with the
requirements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the
maintenance of the maritime supremacy of the country.
The Admiralty was now made a political jobbing horse.
If they were to place a civilian at the head of the army
it would be monstrous. The First Lord of the Admiralty
was the most important of all the departments, and they
selected men to fill the office without asking whether he
knew the difference between a steamship and a jolly-boat.
Was that the way in which this important service ought to be
dealt with ? They ought to appoint a naval man at the head of
the navy, and if any man in that house would propose it, he
would support him. Now, a man was selected for the
office without reference to his antecedents, but merely for
political convenience. It was said the heads of that de-
partment were guided, in cases of difficulty, by the naval
lords. Well, what was the consequence ? Why, that the
responsibility was really not with them, but with the First
Lord, who was guided by them. He must conclude by
again saying that the efficiency of the navy involved the
very existence of the country, but he thought the present
system defective in many important respects, and he, for
one, was prepared to support any inquiry which would have
the effect of putting a stop to any malversation of the funds
of the country.
Sir F. BARING said, that if the noble lord really be-
lieved there was waste and reckless expenditure in the
administration of the navy, he was quite right in bringing
the subject forward. What he blamed the noble lord for
was, that he did not adopt the only mode in which his pro -
fessed object could be gained, namely, that of moving for
a committee of inquiry. The house ought to proceed in
this inquiry like men of business, not by examining the
estimates of one year, but of several; and by doing so he was
confident that a great public object would be gained.
Sir G. PECHELL, thought that great credit was due
to the noble lord for the motion he had made, and though
he was persuaded of the efficiency of the Surveyor of the
Navy, he augured much good from the figures and
statements which he had communicated to the house. He
felt the highest esteem for the character, ability, and
services of Str Baldwin Walker ; he was a most excellent
public servant, and he could not allow the occasion to pass
by without paying his humble tribute to his merits.
Sir J. ELPHINSTON believed that the inquiry moved
for by the noble lord would be unproductive of good, and
therefore could not vote for it.
Mr. M. GIBSON suggested that the noble lord should
not press his motion, but that a committee of inquiry should
be appointed with reference to the figures and statements
he had made. When the block-ships were first introduced
into this country, they were thought to be so formidable
that Baron Dupin was directed to inquire into the subject,
and he made a report to the French Chambers, that it was
indispensably necessary for France to have a force of the
same description ; and yet those were the very ships that
were now described as useless. He believed these very
block-ships were now courted in the French navy. (Cries
of "No, no.") He would suggest to the noble lord to
withdraw his motion as regarded the supplies for the navy,
and move that part which related to the naval expenditure.
Lord J. HAY was of opinion that the inquiry ought to
be limited to the naval expenditure.
)Ir. W. S. LINDSAY thought the noble lord who
brought forward the motion rendered essential service to
the navy and the public. His noble friend intimated a
few days ago the nature of his motion to the right hon.
gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, so that he
should be prepared to contravene his statements, but he
had not done so. He. produced a statement from the Sur-
veyor of the Navy, but he had not accounted for the five
millions which his noble friend said was entirely unac-
counted for. His noble friend asked what was done with
it, but no answer was given. His hon. friend the member
for Portsmouth filled the office of First Lord of the Ad-
miralty for some years, and ought to be able to give an
explanation, but he did not do so, Ho would suggest to
his noble friend to withdraw his present motion, and to
move for a committee to inquire, not into the naval adminis-
tration, but the expenditure, and he trusted the right hon.
gentleman would not oppose it. There was another reason
why this expenditure should be inquired into, because there
was a very strong feeling out of doors that they were too
lavish of the public money. He hoped, therefore, his noble
friend would adopt the suggestion, and that the house
would agree to it.
Sir CHARLES WOOD congratulated 'the noble lord
on the able manner in which he had brought forward
this question. He denied that he had been insensible to
the necessity of placing this country on a proper footing as
regarded its naval power, and he hoped to be able, when the
proper time came to satisfy the house that every attention
had been paid to the building of the larger class of ships, as
well as those of the smaller kind. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CORRY heard with regret the statement that his
right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) had not defended Sir
Baldwin Walker. His right hon. friend did defend Sir
Baldwin, and he (Mr. Corry) would say that Sir Baldwin
Walker was not to be accused of any extravagance. He
could, on his own part, and on that of every membefof the
Admiralty, bear the highest testimony to the conduct of
that gentleman. He denied that the annual charge for the
wear and tear of ships in commission was so small as the
noble and gallant lord had estimated, namely 6 per cent.
In reality, the maintaining rate of those ships was fully 81
per cent.
Lord J. RUSSELL considered the question was not at
present in a satisfactory condition. There "were two matters
before the house. The motion of his noble and gallant
friend, and the statement he had made in withdrawing it.
With regard to the motion, it might not be satisfactory to
the house, with its present imperfect state of information as
to the details of their shipbuilding expenditure, that a par-
ticular form of plan should be prescribed with regard to the
construction or conversion of their line-of-battle ships • but
on the other hand it was most unsatisfactory that the ships;
of his noble and gallant friend, the result of personal
inquiry and evidently of great research, should be entirely
set aside, because it was said that all his calculations might
be wrong, and that inquiry was therefore unnecessary. The
statement made by his noble and gallant friend, corrobo-
rated as it had been by the statement of the hon. and
gallant admiral (Sir C. Napier), certainly left the im-
pression on his (Lord John Russell's) mind that
further inquiry was necessary, and when he said
so, he was not supporting an unusual course, for in
the years 1818, 1828, 1838, and 1848, there had been
select committees on their naval and military expenditure,
but there had not been any in 1858, though his right hon.
friend the member for Portsmouth had stated that with re-
ference to the navy he intended to move the appointment of
such a committee. The statements of his noble and gallant
friend, and of the hon. and gallant admiral certainly re-
quired some answer by way of inquiry. Sir Baldwin Walker
was no doubt a very able officer, deserving of the confidence
reposed in him by the Admiralty, but the house was not
acquainted with the fact respecting the degree in which he
ordered the extensive alterations of our vessels of war.
What he wished to know was, did the Admiralty ever in-
terfere with Sir Baldwin Walker, or was he allowed the free,
absolute, and uncontrolled exercise of his own will and
judgment. If the alterations so constantly made in our
vessels were required on scientific principles and by reason
of the progress of science, then that state of facts would be
an answer to the demand for inquiry ; but it was not satis-
factory to go on increasing our naval estimates, and neces-
sarily increasing them, and voting large sums of money
without inquiring whether that money was properly ex-
pended, and whether the utmost economy was exercised in
the building of these ships. In saying this he did not wish
to lay blame on any particular persons. He should be un-
willing to vote on the motion as it stood, but rather than
allow the statement of his noble and gallant friend to be
passed over, he must record his vote for the proposition un-
less the Government agreed to some kind of inquiry which
could easily be arranged.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that,
as a general rule, the Government had no objection what-
ever to inquiry being made into every branch of the
public expenditure ; but let the proposal be fairly made,
let time be given for its consideration, and let the house
not be hurried into the sanction of an inquiry until, at
all events, it was clearly shown and ascertained that valid
grounds existed for taking such a course. He was quite
surprised that the noble lord the member for the city of
London should in so inconsiderate a manner urge the
Government to accede to the motion for inquiry. The Go-
vernment had already inquired. There had been three in-
quiries by competent professional commissions into the
state of their dockyards, the condition of their steamships,
and the general expenditure of the navy. They were con-
ducted by men of the greatest ability, and with a devotion
of time, earnestness, and intelligence than which nothing
could be more praiseworthy. His right hon. friend the
First Lord of the Admiralty had undertaken to lay the re-
sults of those inquiries before the house, and until the in-
formation so promised was placed in the hands of members,
so that they might have ample materials wherewith to form
a correct opinion, no further inquiry ought to be sanctioned,
inasmuch as it would be premature. The proposition of the
noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was not founded on reason, and
he trusted that the house would not agree to the request.
Mr. T. G. `BARING argued that Lord Clarence Paget's
'calculations as to an unaccounted-for expenditure of five
millions was incorrect, inasmuch as he had omitted to in-
clude surpluses to the extent of £780,000, which ought to
have been placed to the credit of ship-building, and had
calculated at least £500,000 of excesses on steam machinery.
Instead of five millions, there had only, in reality been
£2,800,000 unaccounted for; and, if investigation were
made, it might be found that many of the noble and gallant
lord's calculations with regard to that sum were also inac-
curate.
Mr. J. LOCKE thought the noble lord had been very
badly treated, and should he divide tho house, he should
certainly vote in support of his motion, for that which ought
to be conceded—a strict inquiry into those matters. (Hear.)
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For going into committee ...... . ... 117
For Lord Clarence Paget 's amendment.. 97
Majority for going into committee —2O
Mr. WILLIAMS submitted that the estimates ought t)
be referred to a select committee before any more money
was voted away, and with that view he objected to any
votes being taken at that late hour, and should move that
the house do now adjourn.
Sir J. PAKINGTON expressed a hope that the hon.
gentleman would allow one vote to be taken that night for
the wages of the navy and marines.
Mr. WILLIAMS, after cries of " Divide," " Withdraw
the motion," and "Agreed," consented to withdraw his
motion.

The house then went into committee.
OA the propoal that a slim not oxceocliDg• 095,647 bo