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

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

they were now issuing such as would be enforced without
delay by the Poor-law Board, and in that way would have
the assistance of the Medical Registration. One cause
for the delay that had occurred was, that the Privy
Council thought they could carry out the •regulations
through the Medical Council, but they found they could
not do so. He had only, in conclusion, to say that all that
would be done would be reported to Parliament, and he
hoped it would give satisfaction.
The motion for the adjournment of the house, at its
rising, till Monday., was then agreed to,
-RIFLED CANNON. _

The order of the day for going into committee of supply
having been read,
Sir DE LACY EVANS asked the Secretary for War
whether it was the fact that only 250 of the approved new
rifled cannon were at present ordered or expected to be con-
structed within the current year; and if so, whether this
arrangement was adequate to the 'Present wants of the army
and navy ; and whether it would be practicabie to afford
Sir William Armstrong greater proportional means of con-
struction.
General PEEL said he did not think it would be quite
prudent to state how many of Armstrong's guns were ex-
pected to be constructed during the present year. (Hear,
hear.) He had upon a previous occasion informed the house
that the Government would have those guns made as
quickly as possible, and that it was their intention to esta-
blish a manufactory for them at Woolwich.

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—firsts 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 FirsilLord, 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—he 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. The
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.
She was a great favourite with the London folks, who used
to visit her in large numbers, and a beautiful model she was.
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 gradually 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 reckless and 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.) I am 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. PAKINGTON—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 cause 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 L 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 value
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 mtention 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,
i hear.) Impressed with a deep sense of our responsi-
bility n 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 efficient y,
was the present Accountant-General of the Navy Sir
Bromley. The other two members were Mr. W. G. Ander-
son, and Mr. George Hamilton, of the Treasury. Those four
egaeusnteleemfanthewineenrteetsheoerofuegxhleynEttet,haendqutehsteioenth
aser to t
causesthe
which made it the duty ofd the Government to propose to
Parliament a large increase of ,the navy. The house will
understand there are portions of that report which it will

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 speeeh, 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 continencies, £14,000,000. But has my hon. and gal-
-1 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. PAKINGT ON—The noble lordthen 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 sea,
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 thenavy 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 114 e 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 says 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
to 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 sailing power of a vessel, alter its lines for the bettor,
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 P 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 longer 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 trust, 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 iu
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 ener-
•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
afresh, 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 by trauncied iu ono place, iwitewl of beilig,
.08 at