The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1835.

When that Noble Lord asked for 26,500 sailors and marines,
he had ventured to suggest that the estimates should be so
drawn out as to show the number of all classes of officers,
pursers, surgeons, &c.—why not pursue the same mode as in
the case of the army ? If they had battalions of marines, why
could they not specify the number of colonels, majors, &c. ?
Then again arose the question as to full and half-pay. By
a return laid on the table of the House on the 27th of June,
1834, it appeared that out of 5,300 officers of the navy only
461 P or 470 were on full pay, so that there were nearly 5,000
officers on half-pay ! Surely this was a bad arrangement. The
course taken was entirely wrong. The estimates, instead of
being introduced in the manner they were to that House,
should in the first instance be discussed in a Committee up
stairs, where they could be deliberately and narrowly ex-
amined.—( Hear, hear.) That was the course taken in every
other country. The old system was everywhere else thrown
aside. In the United States, when the President had had the
public estimates laid before the Representatives of the people,
they appointed a committee to ascertain every necessary in-
formation respecting the several items. Why the same sys-
tem was not adopted here he could not surmise. The House
should take the details of the expenditure into its own hands.
Such was the case in Belgium where the public Representa-
tives of the people, after a proper examination, report on
every item. Was it possible that the Commons of England
would irrationally refuse to show equal anxiety for the money
of the people whom they represented ? He referred to items
for the marine service. °There were ten battalions of marines,
to use a sea phrase, all lumped together. The manner of doing
business was by an average guess. Why not do it by a regular
detail of items, distinguishing properly each service, and spe-
cifying each rank ? For his part he was unwilling to go through
the farce of voting away money without data sufficient to as-
sure him that the estimates upon which he voted the money
were essential and economical. The cost of the marine force
was lumped up with that of the general service afloat; it was
included in that of 26,500 men, which was set down at 652,3981.
The expense of the marine force is not specified except
in two lines—(Laughter)—where it is set down at 933,0541.
Why were not the number of generals, of colonels, or captains
mentioned ? If these were specified in the army and engi-
neers, why not in the marines ?—( Hear.) He meant, with
the view of removing all that mystery, to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite, whether he would have any objection to
allow the appointment of a Financial Committee, such as was
appointed in 1828, in order to ascertain what reductions might
be made in those estimates.—( Hear, hear.) In alluding to
that question before, he reminded the Right Hon. Baronet,
that on a former occasion he had himself proposed a similar
Committee. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, denied it.
He forgot that on the 15th Feb. 1828-
Sir ROBERT PE EL thought the Hon. Member spoke of
a Committee to revise the general taxation of the country.
The results to trade, from the appointment of such a Commit-
tee, would render it impossible, on his part, to correct it. But
such a Committee as the Hon. Member then spoke of, was
appointed in 1817, and also in 1828.
Mr. HUME was under a different impression. He thought
the Right Hon. Baronet had understood him clearly. But
even with respect to the general taxation, it was high time
that Parliament should take into consideration a system of
taxation imposed when the people had no power in Parlia-
ment. The present high amount of taxation was not at all
necessary. The efficient service did not require 20.000,000/.
The Right Hon. Bart. said there were 15,000,000/. disposable.
One of the arguments used against the repeal of the Malt Tax
was that the 5,000,0001. of which it consisted was one-third of
the whole disposable revenue. He was prepared to go into the
items, and show that that was not the fact. What he however
wanted was, that the House should go into an inquiry. If
they did so, an immense saving must be the result. Why, on
the stores purchased for ships, since the last war, from
25,000,000/. to 30,000,000/. might have been saved. He was
prepared to prove that they could make their establishments
more efficient with less money. He had it from officers well
conversant with these matters, that the establishments reduced
by the Right Hon. Member for Cumberland were more effec-
tive since the reduction than before.—( Hear, hear.) He should
like to know if the Noble Lord (Ashley) could state the
quantity of timber necessary for the refit of ships in ordinary,
or any other expenditure incidental to their repair ; and if he
could not—if he were unacquainted with those matters, how
could he call on that House to vote 3,000,000/. or 4,000,000/.
for those purposes ? In 1792, no ships were repaired in the
docks without an estimate of the entire cost, which was sub-
mitted to a proper officer. There was no such thing now.
On the works at Sheerness—he had given his opinion before
on these works-3,500,0001. was thrown away. With respect
to provisions, he knew not whether they were supplied by
contract. The article of beer, he understood, was excluded
from the navy—rum was used instead. He appealed to the
Hon. Member for Sheffield if that ought to be in face of the
Temperance Societies ?—( Laughter.) He (Mr. Hume)
would prefer supplying the navy with wine. The fact was,
they could supply wine as cheap as beer. He thought that
was a subject of inquiry, most important as affecting the health
of the service. The Admiralty Office cost 108,844/. That
was the sum paid for directing the affairs of the navy. He
staked his existence it would yet be done for 50,000/. The
Navy Pay-office cost 22,1831. He had a pledge from the late
Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Navy Pay-office would
be abolished. The Army Pay-office cost 25,0001.—the Navy
Pay-office 22,0001.—the Ordnance Pay-office 10,000/. The
cost of the entire ought not to exceed 10,000/. The whole system
might, on a proper plan, be considerably economised. The
half-pay might be reduced if the principle were followed which
was acted on in the marines, that of promoting in regular gra-
dation according to senio?ity. In the marines interest will not
' affect promotion ; but then the connections of the aristocracy
did not enter the marines.—( Laughter, and hear, hear.) He
believed that had the system he once recommended been ge-
nerally adopted of making out no new appointments in this
branch of our service, the charge for the half-pay would not
exceed 500,000/., instead of its amount, in the present esti-
mates, stated at 819,000/. That system had been reduced to
practice in the marines, where not more than one or two ap-
pointments had been made in the year ; whilst in the navy the
appointments had not been on an average less than from 20 to
30 a year. The marines had been always a hard used service,
and nothing had been done to put them on a fair relative foot-
ing with the sea service. He objected to the House going
into Committee, because they were not prepared to do so.
But he thought he had laid down grounds for going into the
whole of this question in a select Committee. He should
therefore move as an amendment that the naval estimates be
referred to a Select Committee above stairs, to report there-
upon to the HOMO.
_ _

Sir R. PEEL—From what he ( Sir R. Peel) had said on
:he occasion alluded to by the Hon. Member, it was pretty
clear that he had never been opposed to ample inquiry being
instituted upon all this class of subjects: But there was one
thing he would never consent to, and that was to adopt the
practice of appointing Committees for the purpose of re-
lieving the Executive Government, from the due and proper
responsibility which it ought never to decline, as the King's
Government.—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
He would not consent to make a Committee above stairs
the judges of a question—such, for instance, as the amount of
our land or naval force, when it was obvious that that
question could only be decided by Government itself, from
representations made to it from our diplomatic agents abroad,
as to the necessity for a large or a small force on the probabi-
lity of maintaining peaceable relations with our neighbours.
To permit this, would be to transfer the power of the monarchy
to a Committee of the House of Commons—( Loud cheering)
—a principle in which he never would concur. He would say
to the House, " Don't part with this power to any 21 gentle-
men above stairs." The general fate of questions submitted
to such Committee was too well known to require explanation.
After being wearied out with the long speeches of some
Member—not the Hon. Member--( A laugh )—the Members
turned a deaf ear, and determined that it was too full, perhaps,
of technicalities for them, and were glad, any how, to get rid
of the trouble of deciding it ; and in this way the body of the
House never became conversant with the subject, which they
might easily have effected, if the subject were debated in the
'House, with the advantage of having a Minister of the Crown
to affurd the information necessary for them to make up their
minds upon it. Yet the Hon. Member went on exclaiming,
" Oh, I wish only the House would but read the reports, and
possess themselves of the valuable information they contained."
But despite of all his wishes, numbers did not read them, nor
never, perhaps, would ; yet the Hon. Member wished to add
another volume to this enormously voluminous body of evidence
and information. A proof had been given by the Right Hon.
Baronet's ( Sir J. Graham) success in enforcing economy in the
navy, that if a Government were bent on economy, the Execu-
tive itself would effect it much more efficaciously than even a
Committee of that House. Without at all meaning to wish
the House should pledge itself not to appoint a Committee,
in the nature of a Finance Committee, to inquire into any of
these subjects, he would suggest to the House that it ought to
endeavour to make itself master of these subjects. Now he
would ask, as to the marine force, what wish could the Ministry
have to decline giving all the information in its power so as to
possess them of the whole question, as well as that of the ex-
tent and grounds of pensions to that corps? If the Hon.
Member was dissatisfied with the modes of preparing the esti-
mates, which were in the same form as they were last year,
when he made no objection to them, why not have suggested
some new and better mode of preparing them ? He did, for
these reasons, hope that the Hon. Member, reserving to him-
self the right of moving hereafter a reduction of any of the
items, would suffer the House to make a further progress in
the estimates now, and not press his amendment.
Mr. HUME thought he was called on to make this amend-
ment, in consequence more particularly of the phrase made use
of by the Noble Lord, that we were come now to the minimum
of the estimates for the navy. That he had not given notice
of the intention to pursue this course was to be attributed to
his never imagining that the Right Hon. Baronet would have
been permitted to go on so far as these estimates with the busi-
ness as Prime Minister.

Sir ROBERT PEEL—Exactly so. What the Hon.
Member now confessed, he (Sir Robert Peel) had foreseen all
along. The Hon. Member had pursued the prophetic course
of one who already conceived himself Minister.—(A laugh.)
He had anticipated that he should be in his place, and Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. But even so, if this Committee were
necessary now, the same estimates being before the House,
the Committee would have been equally necessary had the
Hon. Member been Minister.

Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY—It had been said that if that
House was called on to decide what should be the number of
the naval force of the country, it would be a transfer of the
power of the Crown to the House of Commons. Now he would
ask if that power did not rest with the Commons, and they
were not fit to decide it, was it not a mockery to put it to the
vote, in which they reluctantly had acquiesced, that a force
should be kept up to the extent of 26,000 men? He thought
there were advantages resulting from the appointment of a
Committee; one was the facility of examining a multitude of

witnesses. He should, if his Hon. Friend pressed n. to a di-
vision, vote for him.
The Hon. F. BERKELEY though he had no confidence
in Ministers, he had said before, and he should now repeat it,
that he would not offer any factious opposition to his Majesty's
Government. Indeed, in the present instance, he would not
vote for the amendment without, as he conceived, making a
stab at the interests of the profession of which he was a member.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said, the estimates were prepared in
nearly the same manner as they were last year, yet it was sin-
gular there had been no objection then taken to them by the
Hon. Member for Middlesex.
Sir HENRY PARNELL supported the motion of the
Hon. Member for Middlesex, because he thought subjects of
such importance, and which related to such a vast proportion
of the expenditure of the country should he submitted to men
who had some experience in the details. It was quite impos-
sible that new Members could be competent to judge of the
details, and he therefore thought that a rule should be laid
down that all questions relating to estimates and keeping ac-
counts should be referred to a Select Committee. If that
principle were adopted the report might be delivered to the
House in two days, or, at all events, within a week after the
Committee was appointed. That was not a matter of theory,
for it had been practised most beneficially by a neighbouring
nation, he Meant France. All questions of this kind were re-
ferred to Sections or Committees. These Sections sometimes
amounted to 15, and their report filled 140 quarto pages.
They. in fact, entered into all the details of the navy, the num-
ber of ships of the line, the number of frigates, stores, &c.
The report was drawn up in an intelligible shape, and then
submitted to the House. He should be glad to see such a
plan adopted in this country.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was glad that the Hon. Member
had made the motion, though, if he were to speak his senti-
ments, he considered it the worst motion possible. He was at
the same time convinced that the result of the discussion would
be most satisfactory to the House. He was no longer a mem-
ber of his Majesty's Government ; but if he were a member,
he would at the same time candidly state that if this job were
to be concealed, the most effectual mode of concealing it
would be to exclude the public from the discussion, and refer
it to a Select Committee up-stairs.—( Hear.) The vote for
rum, for instance, or, indeed, for almost any article for the
use of the navy, he would ask any two Admirals, or any two
Post Captains present was not that a question which it would
be most difficult for a Committee up stairs to discuss ? The
Right Hon. Baronet, the member for Dundee, had alluded to
the practice adopted by the French Chamber, and had eulo-
gised it. He must be allowed, however, to differ from that
Right Hon. Gentleman on that head, and he did so with
the more confidence, because he remembered perfectly well
that when he brought forward the navy estimates last year,
they met with the concurrence of the Hon. Member for
Dundee, and what was still more, they gave some slight
satisfaction to the Honourable Member for Middlesex.--
(A laugh.) That Honourable Member again and again bad
pressed on the House the necessity of reducing the navy to
what it was in 1792. Now he could tell that Honourable
Member that the number of ships was fewer for the present
year than it was in 1792, or had ever been since. Hon. Mem-
bers ought to bear that in mind, and consider what the conse-
quence would be if we should be involved in a naval war with-
out a sufficient navy. While on the subject, he begged to be
allowed to say a few words on the great change which had
been made in the naval department while he was at the head
of the Admiralty, and, though strenuously opposed by some at
the time, it was opposed by the Gentlemen now on the Trea-
sury bench. He would, however, do injustice if he did not
mention that he had received from Lord Melville the most de-
tailed information relative to the establishment, and the reme-
dies which that Noble Lord proposed, and that be it remem-
bered, when party spirit ran high. His measures were opposed
both in that House and in the House of Lords, but never by
Lord Melville ; and if they had any merit, Lord Melville was
entitled to a fair share.—( Hear, hear.) Both the Honourable
Member for the County of Edinburgh, and Mr. Croker op-
posed the consolidation of the Boards ; but, notwithstanding
the outcry raised, he was confident that the system would work
easily, and, upon the whole, be conducive to the public good.
The reduction was proposed in 1832, and was strongly opposed
by some members in the House of Commons, and also by the
Duke of Wellington :n the House of Peers, who made the fol-
lowing remark with regard to the saving of 400,0001. made in
the dock-yards:—
" Then came the saving of 400,0001. on the purchases of timber
for the navy. Now, the magazines for the supply of the navy must
be kept up by an annual expenditure. If they curtailed this annual
expenditure one year, they would be compelled to spend more at a
future period, and not so advantageously for the country, for it was
indispensably necessary that the timber for the navy should be well
seasoned, arid to purchase when required would cost at least double
what it would do to keep a regular and constant supply. At all
events, it was impossible to calculate this saving as being more than
temporary.
That remark hurt him much at the time, but it was some satis-
faction to find that, within three months after the present Mi-
nistry had taken office, they declared that they found not only a
sufficient supply, but had been able to make a further reduction
of 60,000/.—( Hear. )
Sir HENRY PARNELL explained.
Sir IL PEEL, in reply to the allusion made by the Right
Hon. Baronet, that the changes had been opposed by those
now on the Treasury Benches, could only say that he had not
opposed them in any way whatever.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the allusion he made applied
to Sir George Clerk, Sir George Cockburn, and Mr. Croker.
Dr. BOWRING supported the amendment, and said the
same principle was adopted in France, and had been found
most effective in diminishing expense.
The House then divided, when there were—
For the original motion
For the amendment
Majority
The House then went into the Committee.
The first vote moved was a sum not exceeding 933,0541. for
the wages of the crews of navy transports, yard craft, tank
vessels, &c.
Mr. HUME wished to know how many officers and seamen
were employed on board the yachts ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the number was the same as las
year.

146
66
-80

Mr. HUME wished to know the precise number, but it now
seemed to be decided that no information was to be given.—
(Cries of "Nolno !" from the Ministerial benches.) What
he meant was that no information was to be given in a Com-
mittee up stairs.
An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, said
that the number of men distributed on board the yachts was
15, 16, and 14.
Mr. H LIME took it for granted that these 15 were officers
of various ranks, from the Captain downwards.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that four yachts were kept up, but
only two were employed, and these were generally engaged in
making communications between the dock yards.

Mr. HUME wished to know if the two that were employed
had their full complement of men? He would ask why the
two others which were not employed at all should still be
kept up?
Mr. G. F. YOUNG objected to the keeping up of the two
yachts, which were not employed, and maintained that four
were not necessary for his Majesty's accommodation.
An Hon. MEMBER, whose name did not reach us, desired to
know if, while the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham)
was in office, the two yachts to which he had alluded were
always employed, and whether the other two were always in
attendance?

Sir J. GRAHAM replied in the affirmative, and said that
one of the yachts formed part of the Royal squadron last year,
when her Majesty went abroad.
Mr. HUME said that the information he required was as to
how many seamen were kept on board the yachts which were
not employed, and how much they were paid ?

Lord ASHLEY said that the number of officers and men
employed in the navy varied at different times, according to
circumstances. At some periods the number might be three
or even five times greater than as others. The number of offi-
cers at present employed was nine Admirals, 44 Captains, 54
Commanders, and 333 Lieutenants.

Mr. HUME must repeat his question, as the Noble Lord
had given 130 answer to it.
Lord ASHLEY said that only two boats's crews and two
Captains were employed, but he could not state the precise
amount of their pay.
Sir S. WHALLEY should propose a reduction of two of
the yachts, but he could not do so without the necessary in-
formation as to the amount of the expense incurred in keeping
thein up.

Sir G. CLERK contended it would be inexpedient to di-
minish the number, and injurious to the interest of the public

service.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG gave notice that he would move for
an account of the total expense of the unemployed yachts for
the last three years, and upon the bringing up of the report
move that the amount of such expense be deducted from the
estimates.

VV
.....
Admiral ADAM insisted, that, in a maritime country like
this, it would be unjust to the Royal dignity to make the con-
templated reduction.
Mr. A. CHAPMA N said it would be a disgrace to the
country, as well as to the House of Commons, to put down an
establishment expressly intended for his Majesty's recreation
and convenience.
Sir E. UODRINGTON and Sir T..TROWBRIDGE said a few
words to the same effect, deprecating the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Middlesex as totally unworthy the conside-
ration of the House.

Captain PECHELL defended the system of Captain Sy-
monds, and denied that it had failed on its application in
steam-vessels.
Mr. HUME if he were to judge of the estimates by this
vote should be justified in saying that one-half of the expense
of the navy was useless.
Sir JOHN BERE SFORD said that these vessels were
kept up at much less expense than if they had been laid up in
ordinary, and at the same time they were in readiness for his
Majesty.
Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON would rather see tho
Lord Chamberlain and other high officers dismissed than that
the system of economy advocated by the Hon. Member for
Middlesex should be introduced.
Admiral DURHAM approved of the maintenance of the
Royal yachts. He thought that for the honour of the Crown
and the dignity of the nation these vessels should be kept in
commission.
Mr. GILL ON held it to be disgraceful to extract one six-
pence from the public pockets that was not absolutely ne-
cessary.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER contended that this item bad
every mark and characteristic of a job.'
Captain BERKELEY said that these yachts were deci-
dedly useful and economical. If the officers who were em-
ployed in commanding them came and asked for remuneration

de;),.

f,Jl**Ot er:it.e.s, Zhapc:,4
money would be expended than was now paid to them.
Mr. YOUNG wished to know if there was any objection
to a return of the total expense of maintaining the Royal
and Admiralty yachts during the last .four years, the amount
paid in wages and emoluments, and the amount expended
in repairs and equipments ; also, a return of the duty on which
each of the Royal yachts had been employed?
Mr. HUME asked whether his Majesty's Government had
adopted the rule of their predecessors—viz., that there should
be one promotion on every three deaths ?
Lord ASHLEY was understood to answer the questions of
both Hon. Members in the affirmative.
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote asked for was 339,8251. to defray the charge
of victuals for seamen and marines in ordinary.
Mr. H Ul\l E objected to keeping up a large store of provi-
sions, on account of the loss that was incurred by a consi-
derable portion of the biscuit becoming maggotty, and the
beef putrid.
Sir G. CLERK said that it was necessary to have some
provisions in store, as in the Spring months it was impossible
to procure victuals.
After a few words from Admiral CODRINGTON,
Dr. A. BOWRING objected to the practice of the Board of
Admiralty selling old stores, and carrying the money to the
account of the Admiralty, instead of paying it into the Exche-
quer. The practice he knew was sanctioned by old usage and
precedent. and the House had submitted to it ; but he thought
it was an infringement on the power of the House with respect
to money grants.
Lord ASHLEY offered some explanation, which was not
audible in the gallery.
Mr. HUME should insist upon having a return furnished of
the number of ships laid up in ordinary, compared with those
in commission, for he believed himself that for every ship in
commission there were three laid up in ordinary.
A long desultory discussion here ensued, the major part of
which was inaudible, after which the motion was agreed to.
The next vote was 108,8441. to defray the salaries of the
officers and contingent expenses of the Admiralty. office.
Dr. BO WRING said that this vote demanded some revi-
sion. He knew for a fact that a larger number of individuals
were employed in the same service and at a much less expense
than here : the proportion was 385 clerks in France, where
there were 197 in England.
Mr. LAB OUC HE RE said that, in justice to the conveni-
ence of the service, the establishment at Somerset-house ought
to be increased instead of diminished.
Mr. HUME did not see why the Secretary of the Admi-
ralty should be paid so much more than any of the Lords of
the Board.
Lord ASHLEY said that if the Hon. Member knew any-
thing of the duties of the Secretary to the Admiralty he would
not have made that remark.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that two Sessions ago he had
called the attention of the House to the appointment made by
the then Government of the Surveyor of the Navy. It was
an office of the highest importance, as on the efficient perform-
ance of its duties depended the condition of the navy. The
appointment to which he then and now objected was that of
Captain Symonds, who was placed in that situation in order to
carry into operation, in building the new ships, a plan which is
was alleged was a new one, but which was known 50 years
ago. He now impugned that plan, and was prepared to show
that it was (not only in his but in other practical men's opinion)
altogether founded in wrong principles. Yet ships which had
been laid down for years, and whose timbers were well seasoned,
had been taken up at an immense expense, to be laid down
upon this new old-fashioned plan. He could instance the Boa-
cawen, which was laid down on the plan of the Courageux, the
St. Domingo, and others, and which had been taken up to be
relaid at an expense of 10,000/. The Royal Frederick was
the same, and others. He begged to ask if the Noble Lord
had read Sir G. Cockburn's report (amongst many others on
this subject), for if he had he must be aware that that expe-
rienced and distinguished officer had expressed an opinion not
at all in favour of this plan. The system of building new
ships upon the principle of Captain Symonds, while we had
already excellent vessels laid up in the Docks, and of taking
the control of the money expended for the navy out of the
hands of those who ought to have the supervision and direction
of it was unwise and impolitic. He felt it necessary to make
these observations, but he did so in the utter absence of any
but the most respectful feelings towards the individual to whom
they related.
Captain PEC HELL said the remarks made by the Hon.
Member for Tynemouth would, he was sure, be as satisfactory
to the surveyors of the navy as they were to many gentlemen
in that House. He did not stand up to defend the expense of
building ships on the principle of Captain Symonds, or the
appointment of that gentleman. At the same time he should
deplore the necessity of altering an appointment made by the
late Board of Admiralty, who had disregarded old-established
prejudices, and shown a determination to restore the credit of
the British navy by building ships not like so many tea boxes.
If the late Government had done nothing else than persevered
in their determination to resist and overcome the prejudices
which existed on this subject, they would have deserved well
of their country.
Lord ASHLEY had made inquiry, and found that Captain
Symonds's ships were highly approved of by competent autho-
rities. To show the comparative cost of the two systems, the
Noble Lord (who was but indistinctly heard in the gallery)
referred to some ships built upon the new principle, which
contained 1,013 tons more, and yet cost 14,5171. less than an
equal number of vessels built upon the old plan.
Mr. YOUNG said that this was no proof that Captain Sy-
monds's plan was cheaper. The Noble Lord put the case
wholly upon tonnage, whereas the alteration of Captain
Symonds consisted in a prodigious increase of breadth. He,
therefore, only wondered that the difference of expense was
not greater.
Sir J. GRAHAM willingly held himself responsible for
recommending the appointment of Captain Symonds. His
works were in progress, and the result of the experiments to
be made with them would prove their value. In size the ves-
sels built by Captain Symonds were, with three or four excep-
tions, of the lowest class. He had only built one frigate,
which was a fourth rate. He believed he was now building
two seventy-fours, and one first-rate. All the others were of
a smaller class, and in all it was found that the entire consump-
tion of materials upon Captain Symonds's principle was
smaller than upon any other. The Gallant Admiral who Lad
commanded the Vernon, and was practically acquainted with
the principle, was expected home shortly, and would be able
to give his opinion upon it to the Admiralty. He was satis-
fied that if he found the principle a good cne, and Captain
Symonds deserving of encouragement, he would advise Lord
de Grey to continue him, notwithstanding any prejudices
which might prevail against him, He was perfectly willing
to let the matter rest in that gallant officer'i hands. Of this,
at least, he was certain, that Captain Symonds had occasioned
no needless expense, for while he (Sir J. Graham) was at the
Admiralty, no new ships were built for the purpose of trying
experiments which were not wanted. Whatever experiments
were made were conducted upon the most economical scale
possible, and with the strictest view to spare the public money.
As a proof of this he could mention that in the last year that
Sir Robert Seppings held the appointment, a vote of 800,000/.
was called for, whereas at present the amount was only
358,000/. and yet the naval arsenals never abounded in better
materials than at present.
Sir E. CODRINGTON bore testimony to the superiority
of Captain Symond's principle, and referred to some experi-
ments, of which he had himself been a witness, in confirma-
tion of it. One advantage of Captain Symonds's alteration
was, that it in a groat measure corrected rolling, which was
attended with so much danger.

Mr. HUME begged leave to ask whether the Right Hon.
Baronet had received reports of the comparative expense of
the two plans ? If the allegations of the Hon. Member for
Tynemouth were correct, the House ought not to leave the
matter without further inquiry. It was notorious that Eng-
land was behind almost every country in Europe in the appli-
cation of science to ship-building. It was too much, there-
fore, of the Right Hon. Baronet to have selected for so im-
portant a post a naval man who, however great his talent, had
no professional science, or knowledge of ship-building to
qualify him. He protested against the monopoly established
in favour of that gentleman. Last year there were six packets
to be built, and instead of two being built upon Captain
Symonds's plan, two upon some other, and two more upon a
third, as ought to have been done when there was so much
difference of opinion, they were all built upon his principle,
thus precluding all competition. Let there be a Committee
appointed, and let the performance of the ships be examined
by scientific men, and the House decide upon their respective
merits.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that Sir Thomas Hardy,
Sir Wm. Parker, and Sir Josiah Rowley, had already de-
clared their approbation of Captain Symonds's principle, as
well as the Gallant Admiral opposite. As to the Hon. Gen-
tleman's proposal that a Committee should be formed, and a
technical question of this nature judged of by Members of
that House, it was so preposterous that he could not accede
to it. He conceived that the subject at present rested upon
the fairest possible grounds. One of the largest frigates of
Captain Symonda's construction was now in the Mediterra-
mean, and would speedily sail not only with the British squa-
dron but with foreign vessels. There was scarcely a situation
upon which there was not one of Captain Symonds's ships,
and in the course of the next year the Admiralty would be in
possession of ample means of judging of their performance.
He repeated that Sir George Cockburn was about to become
the naval adviser of the Admiralty, and he had so much con-
fidence in his knowledge, integrity, and judgment, that he
would rely upon his decision, and was sure he would not let
any prejudice be excited in the minds of the Board by partial
statements. Let the experiment be fairly tried. In the mean
time he did not shrink from the responsibility of having recom-
mended the appointment.

Mr. AARON CHAPMAN had no hesitation in saying
that so far as the experiments went, he considered the excel-
lence of Captain Symonds's principle pre-eminent, and he
trusted that no personal consideration would prevent the adop-
tion of the best principle, but that the interests of the coun-
try would be studied, and the British navy maintain its supe-
riority in the world.
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote proposed was a sum of 22,1831. for the salaries
of officers, and contingent expenses of the Navy Pay-office.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG called the attention of the Committee
to the item for the expense of sending money to the ports.
This antediluvian method of transmitting money, which had
cost 1,500/. a year, was now raised to 2,0007. He did not see
why a less expensive mode might not be adopted. He be-
lieved this money was only for the payment of artificers, and
did not include the wages of seamen.
Lord A S FILE Y observed, that though there was an increase
of 5001. in one item, there was an decrease of 4001. in another.
The money was sent for the purpose of paying off ships.
Mr. WARBURTON begged to know why clerks were

••••••.-- „
.:.c'i" 4i""" ceuiti be 01.).e:1..at •
that expense froa, the Branch Bank of England?
Lord ASHLEY said it was done by an arrangement with
Bank. No money was sent down but the Bank charged so
much per cent for the payment.
Mr. YOUNG thought it ought to be done at a cheaper
Mr. HUME begged to ask the Right Hon. Bar'enet opr;
site if he could give any reason why the late Government 0a"
altered their opinion as to the expediency of abolishing the
Navy Pay-office.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that, on the best reflection be
could give the subject, it appeared to hie, that, considering
the vast extent of the transactions belonging to that dep!irt-
ment—and also recollecting that he had abolished some mieer,
offices which constituted cheeks upon the management,
to
would not be safe to
another.
After some further conversation, in which Dr. Bowring,
Low-
ther Warburton, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Ewart, and Lord L
rate,
ther took part, the vote was agreed to.
The next vote was for 24,5901. to defray the salaries of 016"
cers, &c., of the scientific dep 11of
In reply to a question from Mr. S. RICE, which was
heard in the gallery,
Sir R. PEEL said that he had not the honour of a pet-
sonal acquaintance with Professor Airey, but he had the big
hesd
opinion of his abilities in common with not only the learned
of this country, but of Europe.--(Hear, hear.) He had written
t
to Professor Airey, stating that it would afford him the greates
gratification if he would permit him to place his name before.
his Majesty, with a view to placing him on the civil list asas'
pensioner. He stated to him, also, that he thought this wto
only an act of justice, for if he had turned his great talents
la
more lucrative pursuits, there could be no doubt but he wet'
have made them more advantageous to himself, and therefore
his receiving a pension would be advantageous to the
stte°o4°'
by holding out encouragement to others to devote their
e:
tion to the interests of science.—( Hear, hear.) He bad 1.0
ceivecl in reply the permission of Professor Airey to place l
name on the Civil List, with a pension of 3001. per annum. a
Mr. S. RICE said that every Hon. Member of that He%
must feel gratified at the communication which had just bee,
made by the Right Hon. Baronet. He felt certain that 14.4
Professor Airey been passed over without notice, it must 'Wet
all wishing to detract from the merit due to the
been a source of regret to every lover of science. NVithautst
Right blo
Baronet for this step, lie felt bound to state that his I%l°
Friend who had been recently at the head of the Treasury
Board, intended to have made some such provision for Frei;
w
fessor Airey. He held in his hand the copy of a letter hic
he had addressed at the desire of Lord Melboue to the Pra-
rn
Pro-
fessor, offering him the situation of Keeper of the Observat
at Greenwich. He was rejoiced that the pension bad beenhe
granted, although the Professor would be a serious loss to t
University of Cambridge.
The vote was then agreed to. rteti
The House then resumed, and the CHAIRMAN repo

progress.
The MASTER of the ROLLS obtained leave to brillgi.
in a Bill for investing in Government Securities a Prti°ll o
the cash lying unemployed in the Bank of England s
beloare r.
ing to bankrupts' estates, and applying the interest the and
in discharge of the expenses of the Court of Bankruptcy, 11,
for the relief of the suitors in the said Court. The 13'11 We-
brought in and read a first time, and ordered to bo reads
cond tie on Frida.
On the motion of Mr.next E WART, the House adjourned
at
one o'clock.