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

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY,

Mr. HADFIELD asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether the Government intends to bring in a bill to enable
serjeants, barristers at law, attornies, and solicitors to prac-
tise in the High Court of Admiralty, without compensation
to proctors ; and whether the yearly compensation to
proctors and other officers of the late ecclesiastical courts,
made and to be made under the late act had been ascertained,
and if so, the probable yearly amount thereof, and what yearly
amount had been received by way of contribution, in
fees or otherwise, in diminution of such compensation to
proctors and other officers of the new Court of Probate,
from suitors and parties proving wills and taking out ad-
ministrations ; and what may be the probable yearly amount
of the expenses of the said Court of Probate, and of the
compensation to proctors and other officers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that it was not his intention to introduce any bill to enable
sergeants, barristers, attorneys, or solicitors to practise in
the Court of Admiralty, and the time to consider the ques-
tion would be when it was brought forward. With regard
to the proctors, the question of compensation to them was
referred to commissioners, who fixed their remuneration.
The hon. gentleman seemed to consider that no exaggerated
statement could be made with respect to the amount of
compensation. An estimate was given to him of the amount
shortly after he came into office—a sort of rough sum which
amounted to £250,000. He felt it his duty to refer it to the
commissioners, namely, his right hon. friend the Judge-
Advocate, and his hon. friend now Secretary to the Trea-
sury, but who was not then a member of the house. They
sat in the beginning of April, and at the end of July
his right hon. friend informed the house that the
amount would not exceed £176,000 a-year. It was
now, however, brought nearly to a conclusion, as
very few claims remained, and the aggregate annual
amount may be taken at not more than £130,000 n-year.
It Was but justice to the commissioners to say that the
country was very much indebted to them for the searching
investigation to which every claim was subjected. They
got great aid from the records of the Income-tax Office.
Claims were put for many thousands a-year, and gentle-.
mdeed, on rofesrrio
mguetiol
men were found who reported themselves as having been in
possession of larque in' comes, havin. g very different incomes
tax, that he thought it had
(Laughter). their returns for the income tax.
been said against the income-
reduricett to mention that circumstance.
(A laugh.) They
the
which was £250,000 to 1130
Ita .
diminutiona amount
i With
h of
rego
of
i analfrgdthteofecelsaiamn
stamps, that will be applied
proctors'
claims. It amounted to £5O 000
.1 or £55 000 a year, and the
of the Probate Court
balance that remained would be appeu ?to pay the expenses
MATRONS IN EMIGRANTemiS SHIPS.
emigrants
tea forre placed the
Sselected by
Mr. EWART asked the Sec retary of S
Colonies whether, in eases of emigration by females,
due
uri caredeirs
theor willcharge be taken
a matron duly
that the female greia
appointed
the Government.
Sir E. BULWER LYTTON said he was aware the sub-
j ect, to which the question of the hon. member related, was
one of great interest, and he wouldstatethat, by the regu-
lations, matrons were appointed, who had
e charge of single
females in all emigrant ships sent out by th
rightr hon.
gentleman but not in ordinary sh
ips•
gentleman was understood to add that thThe
matrons had a
free passage home from Australia..
a f
rMe re
passagelN NAh le ImD e t fsr aem hseybelievedwt hhe amt
ha
et r ns h thoughtd o
his
hon. friend (Mr. Ewart) wanted to know was, whether
the
matrons were properly paid, as they sometimes had the
care of from 300 to 400 women.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 12, 1859. '

of the plant in the dockyards, which of course would fairly
enter into the price of a ship, and the cost also of superin-
tendence. In vote 8, for the wages of artificers and labourers
employed in her Majesty's establishments at home, exclu-
sive of those employed in the steam factories, civil police,
medical department, &c., Parliament had voted in the 11
years £6,968,844. That represented the sum actually voted
for shipwright labour in that time at home. In vote 9
£389,752 had been voted in the 11 years for the artificers
in the yards abroad ; and in vote 10 there had been voted
for the purchase of timber, masts, deals and other stores,
exclusive of the purchase of coal and other fuel, and of the
purchase and repair of steam machines, £10,180,194. Be-
sides this, there had been expended—how, of course, they
were not permitted to know—what was called an excess of
£1,861,154. This, however, might not be altogether on ac-
count of ship building, and he should be glad to hear that
it was not so. Thus, in the 11 years, on these heads there
had been voted £19,399,944, against £14,000,000 on the
other side, leaving a deficit of £.5,000,000 to be accounted
for. (Hear.) He wished to state before proceeding fur-
ther that he had no notion there had been any malversa-
tion. Far from it. He was personally acquainted with
most of the officers in the dockyards. He knew them to be
good, honest, and zealous servants, and he had no intention
of attacking any one of them. (Hear, hear.) It was the
system, and the system only, which he assailed—(hear,hear)
—but he was bound to say that the figures he had read
had appalled him, and he hoped the First Lord would be
able to prove them incorrect. Meanwhile, however, they
showed the miserable system which prevailed in naval
affairs and the result was that, while we were left in utter
darkness for a time, all of'a sudden the world was informed
that after spending million upon million in the creation of
a navy we were vastly inferior to the French in the number
and quality of our ships. (Hear, hear.) But he did not
share the alarm of the First Lord of the Admiralty upon
that head. The statement of the right hon. gentleman the
other night, though truth and nothing but truth, was not
the whole truth. He hoped he might say that without
offence. It was a very able statement ; no doubt well calcu-
lated to effect the two main objects which the First Lord
had in view—first, to make an attack upon the right hon.
baronet the member for Halifax; secondly, to induce the
house to grant a large sum of money to increase our line-of-
battle ships—but what he meant to say was, that it tended
to create an alarm which he, for one, did not share. (Hear.)
The Firsts Lord, for example, did not tell the house of an ad-
mirable class of vessels which we possessed in immense
superiority over the French—a superiority measured, ac-
cording to the right hon. member for Halifax, by 200 excel-
lent small ships. He was not going to enter into a discus-
sion upon the comparative merits of line-of-battle ships and.
gunboats. If he had the choice he would prefer, not gun-
boats exclusively, but certainly small vessels. However,
without stopping to discuss that point, he would proceed to
state how the enormous sum which he had mentioned had
been spent, how it was we had so little to show for it, and
how it happened that after an expenditure of £19,500,000 we
had a fleet which, according to the First Lord, required
"reconstruction." The money had been spent in reckless
and extravagant alterations. (Hear.) He did not think the
house had the smallest notion of what had been going on in
our dockyards in the way of tinkering vessels, amputating
them, performing all sorts of surgical operations upon them.
(Hear.) Their heads and tails were cut off—(a laugh)—
they were sawn asunder, they were maltreated in every pos-
sible way. (Laughter.) Ships built 10 years ago by Sir
William Symonds were not in fashion at the present day,
and nobody coull blame the Admiralty for -lengthening
and altering them, because as originally constructed they
were not fit to go to sea ; but he wished to speak of the
reckless alteration of new snips. Their name was legion,
almost every ship was altered. (Hear, hear.) Take the
case of a three-decker, the Howe, 121 guns. She was laid
down only last year or the winter before, but the dockyard
people were now pulling her down to put a new bow upon
her. Had any great improvement been made in the bows
of ships within the last two years ? (Hear, hear.) Nothing
of the kind had taken place. Another case was that of the
Immortalite, a 51-gun frigate, now being built at Pembroke.
That unfortunate ship had gone through a great deal of
trouble. (A laugh.) She was first of all lengthened amid-
ships. Last year orders went down from the Admiralty to
lengthen her five feet by the bow. Certain parties—ha did
not know who, but he had no doubt persons at Pembroke—
thought that to lengthen a frigate five feet by the bow
would be to make an imperceptible alteration, and would
have no effect whatever. (Hear, hear.) We lengthened
yachts 14 or 20 feet by the bow. (Hear, hear.) But the
authorities were inexorable, their orders were reiterated,
and the poor ship was lengthened five feet by the bow. Th•
result was, as might be naturally supposed, that either the
First Lord himself, with his fine nautical eye—(a laugh)—
or some other member of the Admiralty Board, saw upon
visiting her that she was not fit to go to sea, and ordered
her to be pulled down again and lengthened 15 feet. (Hear.)
Such instances of official blundering would be amusing if
they were not so costly. (Hear, hear.) The Orlando, the
Mersey, and indeed almost all that class of ships, had been
treated in a similar manner ; but, not to detain the house,
he would now ask their attention to a case which was
almost incredible. Some time ago a frigate, the San Fio-
renzo, was being built either at Deptford or Woolwich.
Sh,?isit herwasa in largegreatfa nvottbeers, and abeautiful model with the London folks, who
she whoused
towas.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—Where is she now?
Lord C. PAGET—The First Lord asked where she was
now. Why, she had vanished into thin air—gone, he
hoped, to another and a better world. (Great laughter.)
He would not trouble the house with any more of these
cases. (Cries of "Go on," and cheers.) The Lyra, the
Racer, and other noble vessels began life at 450 tons, but
they gradtally grew in size until they arrived at 750
tons, when they were launched. (Hear, hear.) Was not
that a reckless expenditure of money ? (Cheers.) The fact
was that scarcely a ship went to sea without costing far
more than the sum fixed by the original estimates. (Hear,
hear.) His object on the present occasion was to put an
end to so recklessand extravagant a system. If his motion
were carried, the Admiralty would no longerhave the power
to pull a ship down without their intention becoming known
to that house. Nothing could have induced him to sub-
mit such a resolution if he had thought or suspected that
it would impair the efficiency of the service, but he had no
such fear. (Hear, hear.) Let the house recollect that the
£5,000,000 which had been thrown away as he had de-
scribed would have sufficed to turn out no fewer than 22
line-of-battle ships, armaments included. (Hear, hear.)
The Royal Commission on Manning the Navy proposed
that they should have a large reserve at a cost of something
like £500,000 a-year, and they had the money for that
reserve if something like economy were introduced. (Hear,
hear.) They had heard a great deal lately about recon-`
struction, and he was fast coming round to the opinion of
the hon. member for Norfolk, that they wanted a little re-
construction at the Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord concluded by moving his resolution.
Mr. LINDSAY seconded the motion.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said—l am sure that every one
who has listened to the speech of the noble and gallant lord
must appreciate the difficult task which I have to perform
in answering it, inasmuch as it consisted throughout of
details of the most minute character. Let me do the noble
lord at the outset the justice to say that he has addressed
the house both with that ability and in that tone of mode-
ration which he has shown on many former occasions.
(Hear, hear.) lam also perfectly confident that the object
of my noble and gallant friend is most patriotic. I entirely
accept his statement that his object is solely the benefit of
the service. (Hear, hear.) But recognizing the spirit of
the noble and gallant officer to this extent, I must add that
I have heard this speech with the deepest regret, and that
my belief is, that had he wished to do injury to the public
service, he could not have taken a surer mode than by the,
speech which he has just addressed to us. (" Oh I oh I") I
assure hon. gentlemen that I intend to meet the speech of
the noble lord as fairly as I can, and I will presently give
reasons for the opinions which I have just stated. (Hear.)
This is no ordinary moment with regard to the affairs of our
navy. I stated the other night, with a fairness and can-
dour, which has been recognized by the noble lord, as I felt
it my bounden duty to state openly, the exact position in
which we stand. I told the house in what respects our
navy had became inferior to other navies. I pointed out
the duty of her Majesty's Government to ask Parliament
to grant an unusual sum of mony to efface that inferiority
and to restore our supremacy. My noble and gallant friend
comes and makes a speech which, if it has any effect at all
with the world, can only have the effect of shaking all con-
fidence in the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty—
(hear, hear)—and making the public believe that at a mo-
ment of great importance, when we are bound to make a
great effort, those by whom alone this effort can be made
are not to be trusted with the expenditure of the money
which Parliament grants. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET—I did not say that.
Sir J. PAK INGT ON—I do not say that the noble and
gallant lord said it, but :that is the inevitable result of
the speech which he has made. (Hear, hear.) He told us
that he was not making any attack, but from the beginning
to the end his speech was one of the severest attacks on the
shipbuilding department which any man could possibly
deliver against any public department. (Hear, hear.) The
obvious tendency of the speech was such that, instead of
moving the future adoption of a particular form of the
estimates, he ought to have concluded with a resolution
that Sir B. Walker and the shipbuilding department
of the navy are unworthy of public confidence. (Cheers.)
I am not called upon, except from a sense of justice, to be
the champion either of Sir B. Walker or of the right hon.
gentleman who preceded me at the Admiralty, or of the
right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle, who preceded
him, and during whose administration, if there be eause for
blame, it must have arisen. For everything which I have
done during the last 12 months, I have given the best
explanation which I can ; and it is clear the censure
of my noble and gallant friend applies to a state
of things which existed long before I had anything
to do with the Admiralty. (Cheers.) My noble and
gallant friend says he wants to see something like decent
economy. (Hear, hear.) Will the house allow me to
state how far I have endeavoured to promote decent
economy, and bear this statement in mind, when another
motion comes before them to-night, for referring the Navy
Estimates to a select committee. I stated to the house
last year that I intended to appoint a committee to investi-
gate the state of the steamships. I stated the other night
that I had appointed such a committee, and that they had
reported. I also stated that I had appointed a committee
to inquire into the dockyard expenditure with the view of
seeing that the public money was spent with the
greatest advantage, and that the public had full valSe
for their money. I told the house at that time that the
Dockyard Committee had not yet presented their report,
nor have I received that report, but I am daily
expecting it ; and what I wish to state to the house
now is, that as soon as that report is in my possession, it
is my intention to lay it and the report of the Steamships
Committee on the table of the house for their information.
(Hear.) I am bound to add that Sir B. Walker has sub-
mitted a reply to the Steamships Committee, and it is only
an act of justice also to give that answer with the report.
(Hear, hear.) Impressed with a deep sense of our responsi-
bility in the proposals which it became my duty to submit
for the increase of the navy, and impressed also with the
conviction that the house had a right to expect the fullest
possible explanation of the rapid increase during late years
of the expenditure for the navy, her Majesty's Govern-
ment thought it desirable in the early part of the winter to
appoint a confidential committee, consisting of certain
members of the Government, in order to investigate what
were the causes of that great increase. The years selected
for examination were the financial year, 1852-53, and the
now current financial year, 1858-59. The inquiry was in-
trusted to four most competent persons. The first was my
right hon. friend Secretary for the Admiralty (Mr. Barry),
and I cannot revert to the part which he took without re-
cording my gratitude and my sense of the great zeal and
extraordinary ability with which he has assisted me in my
arduous duties at the Admiralty. Another member of that
committee, whose name is enough to prove his efficiency,
was the present Accountant-General of the Navy—Sir R.
Bromley. The other two members were Mr. W. G. Ander-
son, and Mr. George Hamilton, of the Treasury. Those four
which cause o f
made the
gentleman went thoroughly into the question as to the
i it ncrease
B(4l3uotyf eoxfPenththe
Parliament a large increase of :the navy. The house v 91.1
iiiiderf3tand there are porde= of that report which it will
tuGroev annadenthteto other
propose
causesose