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

not be my duty to submit to Parliament, but every part of it
which relates to financial matters and the increase of expen-
diture in the navy it is my intention to lay on the table for
the further information of the house. (Hear.) I hope this
statement will convince the house and my noble and gallant
friend that on the part of her Majesty's Government there
is no desire to evade the duty which rests on them to pro-
mote to the utmost judicious economy. (Cheers.) Then
my noble and gallant friend talks of the extravagant ex-
penditure of the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty.
Now, I cannot help saying that, looking to the inevitable
tendency of his speech, it is very much to be regretted that
the noble and gallant officer should make any statements to
this house of such a nature without having gone into those
statements in such a manner as to satisfy himself of their
certain accuracy. These statements were calculated to
shake public confidence. (Hear, hear.) Now, to shake
public confidence unnecessarily is a great misfortune. (A
cry of " No, no 1" and a laugh.) If the noble and gallant
officer would listen to me he would not seriously dispute
that assertion. To shake public confidence unnecessarily
is a misfortune. (Hear.) That is my proposition, and I
think he will be willing to concede it. It is my firm belief
—of course I speak under correction—that my noble and
gallant friend has not taken the pains that he ought to have
done to verify his assertions, and that, perhaps from inabi-
lity to obtain better information, his statements cannot in
substance and in fact be borne out. The noble and gallant
officer took a period of 11 years, and he lumped together a
number of line-of-battle ships, a number of 74's, and a
number of frigates, and then assumed the cost of each.
Lord C. PAGET begged to explain that he had taken
the mean of the two classes of line-of-battle ships as the
cost of a line-of-battle ship, and that he had estimated the
frigates and corvettes in the same way.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—My belief is that, in calculating
in this way the noble lord inevitably arrives at an errone-
ous conclusion. The other day I took three 50-gun frigates,
of which the Shannon is one, built at three different
periods of 10 years. The first cost £51,000, the second
£71,000, and the third between £90,000 and £lOO,OOO. This
shows that in dealing with figures of the cost of ship-
building it is very dangerous to take a mean. I believe
that varying in cost as ships do according to their size and
scantling, it is necessary to ascertain the cost ship by ship,
and not to take so fallacious an estimate as the mean cost.
The noble and gallant officer assumed the mean number of
line-of-battle ships to be 30. That was the number during
the Russian war, but the number at that time was much
greater than at any other, because after the war many were
paid off. In a case where accuracy is essential it cannot be
arrived at by assuming the number in this way. Then, my
noble and gallant friend arrived at the conclusion that the
total cost of building ships during 11 years had been
£6,000,000. The whole cost of building, converting, and
maintaining ships during 11 years my noble and gallant
friend estimated at £13,000,000, or, with excess of stores
and contingencies, £14,000,000. But has my hon. and gal-
lant friend in his calculation excluded machinery ?
Lord C. PAGET—Yes. _ _

Sir J. PAKINGTON—If I rightly understand thenoble
lord, although he may have excluded machinery in his esti-
mate of £14,000,000, he has not deducted the cost of machi-
nery from his estimate of stores.
Lord C. PAGET—I excluded machinery on both sides.
Sir J. PAKIN GT ON—The noble lord then told the house
that the deficiency of £5,000,000 had been spent in reckless
extravagance. If such a statement is not true, or even if it
cannot be substantiated, it ought never to have been made.
I think that it is a very harsh charge, and that it does not
rest on proof. I will not follow the noble lord through the 11
years ; but, as he told me the nature of the observations he
intended to make, I thought it my duty to communicate
with Sir B. Walker, the surveyor-general of the navy.
Lord C. PAGET—I said nothing against individuals.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I hold in my hand some figures
which do not travel over 11 years, but which accu-
rately give the expenditure of the years between 1852-3
and 1857-8. I have here the cost of shipbuilding, convert-
ing ships, steam machinery, repairing, fitting for sea, and
in commission, troop-ships, yachts, tenders, &c., fitting for
steam ordinary, maintaining in ordinary, huks, taking
ships to pieces, and incidental expenses. The greatest items
are shipbuilding, steam machinery, and the third, the
heaviest item of all, to which the noble and gallant officer
never alluded, is the labour devoted to fitting ships for flea,
and the cost incurred upon them in commission. (Hear.)
The aggregate is £12,286,517. The item for shipbuilding is
£2,821,406. The cost of steam machinery is £3,423,023.
The expenditure under the head "fitting for sea and com-
mission," during these six years, was £3,825,922. So that
the heaviest item of the whole my noble and gallant friend
took no account of, and this runs away with the greatest
portion of the labour of our dockyards—the theory of our
dockyard expenditure, that you can launch every year three
line-of-battle ships, three frigates, six sloops, and smaller
vessels. The rest of dockyard labour is devoted to fitting
ships and incidental expenditure. The right hon. gentleman
the member for Halifax knows that during the time he held
office at the Admiralty immense sums were spent upon
these incidental expenses to which the noble lord hardly ad-
verted at all. The noble lord said, in my speech on bringing
forward the navy estimates, I attacked my predecessor, and
omitted all reference to the smaller vessels which he had
constructed. I know that my noble and gallant friend was
prevented from being in his place on that occasion, but if
he had read what I said, he would have found that both
accusations are unjust. I said—
" It will be seen that during the time that that right hon.
gentleman was at the Board of Admiralty considerable ad-
ditions to the smaller vessels were made, such as corvettes,
sloops, and, above all, gunboats. I am not sure whether the
addition of gunboats had not commenced in the time of the
right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle; but our present
gunboats were chiefly added by the right hon. baronet the
member for Halifax, and I do not think a more valuable ad-
dition has ever been made to the navy than those gun-
boats."
I hope that, after reading that passage, the noble lord will
acknowledge that he was not justified in saying that I had not
done justice to my predecessor, and that I had not made re-
ference to the small vessels. On the contrary, I fully ad-
mitted, whatever might be our position with regard to large
vessels, our position with regard to small vessels was very
satisfactory. I have endeavoured to follow the noble lord
through his statement, and the paper to which I have re-
ferred, and which I shall be happy to hand the noble lord,
shows that, instead of there being a balance of £5,000,000
on account, there is no balance whatever on account. (Hear.)
Then, the noble lord spoke of reckless expenditure. With
respect to the San Fiorenzo frigate, I can make no answer,
for I never heard of her before, and the noble lord s tys she
has gone to some better place. I really know nothing about
her. However, of the Immortalite I have heard. She was
lengthened in the bows. lam not bound to defend every.
thing done by the Admiralty during the last 11 years, or
te explain any mistake in shipbuilding which the depart-
ment has at any time made ; but this I may say, that the
change in naval architecture in consequence of the intro-
duction of steam power has been very apparent of late years.
It takes several years to complete a ship, and if the Surveyor
of the Navy finds, in consequence of the more advanced
state of science, that he can, before it is too late, improve
the s ailing power of a vessel, alter its lines for the better,
and give it higher bows, it is his duty to do so, and the
duty of the Board of Admiralty to sanction the alteration.
(Hear.) How is it that we have acquired our great naval
superiority and reputation ? Has it not been from the spirit
and liberality with which at all times Parliament has voted
whatever money has been necessary to effect and carry
out these improvements? (Hear.) The noble lord has
made charges of a grave and painful application to those
who have to bear them. lam not the man who has to
bear them' and therefore I can speak impartially. The
noble lord has spoken of reckless extravagance. I believe
that such a charge is not just, and that the noble lord will
regret the language he has used. Those who are re-
sponsible for the efficiency of the British navy ought not
. to be blamed for making changes rendered necessary by cir-
cumstances and groundless fears, if excited, have only a
tendency to paralyse the hands of those who are endeavour-
ing to make our ships efficient, and to prevent them from
carrying out improvements. (Hear, hear.) Then comes the
question whether the motion of the noble lord will readily
cure the evil of which he complains. My deliberate opinion
is that it will not. The noble lord says that if the form he
prescribes were once adopted, there would no loner exist
the power to indulge in all this expense. Ido not believe
that it would have the slightest effect whatever in prevent-
ing any such expenditure as the noble lord has adverted to,
if it were desirable that that expenditure should be made.
Indeed, I should be sorry if the effect of the present motion
were to prevent any expenditure for the improvement of our
ships ' • but my first objection to the motion is, that it would
tend to delude the house. The noble lord requires that on
the commencement of the building of any ships we should
give the names of the:ships, the tonnage, and a great many
other particulars, and the noble lord says that thereby the
house would know what at the end of each year would be
accomplished. Now, I gave proof to the house, in my state-
ment the other evening, that for 10 years previously the
plans of the Admiralty had never been earned out. And
why ? Not because there had not been a bona fide intention
to carry them out, but because, on account of the exigen-
cies of the public service, the labour had been diverted to
other objects. The right hon. baronet the member for
Halifax will correct me if I am wrong, but I refer to the year
1855 or 1836, as affording a remarkable instance of this
fact. At that period, in consequence of the pressure of the
Russian war, the labour of the dockyards, instead of being
devoted to the construction and preparation of line-of-
battle ships and frigates, was devoted to the preparation of
smaller vessels adapted to the peculiar nature of that war.
The current year affords another remarkable instance
of the same kind. Supposing that such a rule as the
noble lord suggests had been laid down last year, what
would have been the result ? There would have been a
complete delusion in the house, for no such programme
could have been carried out, because, when August
arrived, what we discovered wifh respect to the navy of
foreign Powers induced us to divert all the men in the
dockyards from that labour which, under the form of the
noble lord, would have been going on, and to employ them
in the conversion of line-of-battle ships into steamships.
(Hear, hear.) The proper course of proceeding is for the
house to look to the Navy Minister of the day. When the
naval statement is made he should frankly state what
money he wants, and how he proposes to spend it. That is
a safer way than tying down the hands of the Admiralty by
a form like the one proposed, which I do not think could be
adhered to, and which should be retrospective rather than
prospective. I trnst, therefore, that the noble lord will not
press his motion. If he intended to make a charge of reck-
less extravagance, he should have done so by a direct
motion ; but I think the noble lord has failed in proving his
charge. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER did not think the house was at all satis-
fied by the statement of the right hon. baronet that there
had been no reckless expenditure. The noble lord had no
intention of treating Sir Baldwin Walker with disrespect.
That gentleman had no power whatever. He must do what-
ever the Admiralty pleased. If the noble lord should have
changed his motion at all, he should have moved to dismiss
the Board of Admiralty, who were the cause of all the
evil. Whenever a Ministry was changed the Board of
Admiralty changed also, and a new set of men came in,
with new ideas about ship building. This led to alte-
rations which involved unnecessary expenditure in
the construction of vessels. When a ship was laid down,
and run up to a certain extent, there were alterations made.
They lengthened her either at midships, bow, or stern. He
knew one ship that had her magazine changed nine times
while she was in course of construction. This led to enor-
mous expense. Lord Auckland was of opinion that when
you commenced building a ship you should finish her, and
then, if you did not approve of her, build another. The
noble lord said, " Let bygones be bygones ; let us begin
afrosh, and curtail, as far as we can, the expenses of the
country." (Hear.) He only asked that, before new esti-
mates were brought in, an account should be rendered by
the First Lord of the Admiralty of what had been done
with the money voted. The First Lord of the Admiralty
did give such an account, but it was the first ever given.
But he might be soon leaving office. (Laughter.) He (Sir
C. Napier) did not wish him to remain, nor would he say
he wished him to leave. (Laughter.) He thought the
right hon. gentleman was going on tolerably well, indeed
much better than could be expected, considering that he
knew nothing whatever about the business. (Laughter.)
He (Sir C. Napier) thought the First Lord of the Admi
ralty should be a naval officer who would have the power
of appointing all his subordinates, subject to the veto of the
Secretary of State, and that the business of the department
'should be transacted iA cue place, igateacl of being, as at