The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-12 00:00:00

knowledge that the discipline of the navy was below par,
and the sooner it was brought up to the proper point the
better. He believed the cause of this laxity of discipline

was very much that the Admiralty took on themselves other
duties besides their own. If they left captains of ships to do
their own duty they would very soon bring their ships into
good order. lie was flee to declare that disturbances which
had taken place in some ships were utterly uncalled for ;

the men had nothing to complain of, and the leaders
and participators in those outrages ought to have received
condign punishment. They had been let off a great
deal too easily. The best men in the navy knew that
unless proper discipline were maintained they had to do the
work of the lazy fellow and the skulker, and nothing was so
unpopular in the service as a ship managed on a system of
no punishment. So long as the navy existed, so long as they
had a community of 400 or 500 men inclosed in one ship,
flogging must continue. There were no other means of
keeping the blackguard, the thief, or the skulker, and
punishment must be administered when it was deserved, or
the good men suffered for the bad.
Mr. W. MARTIN contended that the country could not
look with safety to a reduction on votes 1 and 2. Though
there were now pretty nearly the same number of men en

rolled in the navy as at the end of the Russian war, yet we
had to pay half-a-million more for them than then. It was
bad economy and ruinous to the service to be continually
reducing the number of men employed. The falling off in
discipline which had been generally admitted was owing in
some degree to the sense of injustice which had been
created by the manner in which the men were dismissed at
the end of the Russian war. We had to pay more, and we
got a worse quality of men.
Admiral WALCOTT pressed on the Government the ex-
pediency of giving the Surveyor of the Navy an honorary
seat at the Board of Admiralty, so as to insure him greater
independence and to preserve him from improper interfer-

ence. He recommended also the establishment of a com

mittee of officers of high standing, to whom should be re-
ferred all plans which were from time to time submitted to
the Admiralty, so as to secure that all suggestions made
for the improvement of the navy should be properly con-
sidered, and also to prevent idle experimentalising. (Hear,
hear.) He was sorry to see that there were only 2,000 boys
to be taken into the navy this year. He had always recom-

mended that at least 4,000 boys should be taken in and
well trained under good officers, so es to insure a constant
supply of efficient seamen. There ought also to be a
training ship at every port of any importance. He
was sorry to have to concur in much that had been
said of laxity of discipline, and he could not too strongly
reprehend the absence of loyalty and impropriety of con-
duct which was shown by that falling off in discipline.
He could not help thinking that if the Channel fleet had
been sent more to sea, instead of remaining in port till
the ships, in sailors' phrase, " grounded on their own
beef bones," the discipline would have been more satis-
factory. When the men were idle the "sea lawyers"—the
worst description of men ever created—(laughter)—gained
an influence over the men's minds, and led them into
breaches of discipline. (Hear, hear.) Another cause was
the little encouragement which was given to the petty
officers, who were to the navy as essential as good sergeants
and corporals were to the army. (Hear, hear.) With regard
to iron ships and other improvements, the Admiralty must be
deterred neither by expense nor labour from keeping ahead
of the rest of the world. Considering the immense interest
England had in preserving her naval superiority it would
be little other than treason if they did not take good care in
every way to make a descent on her shores or a naval re-
pulse impossibilities. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET, alluding to the marine volunteers, said
that so anxious were the Admiralty to give every possible
effect to the great volunteer movement, that they had sent
down to all the various coastguard st•ttions to ascertain
what facilities they could give with a view to assist the
volunteer practice, and it was possible they might be able to
make some arrangements that would give satisfaction to the
country in this respect. He had been asked whether the
lines of the Warrior were such as he approved of. Now, he
did not construct the Warrior, and although she was a very

fine ship, he did not entirely approve of her lines, and
could not say that she was perfection. In hieopinion, a
very flat midship section was the best form for all vessels
which carried heavy weights. With regard to the shipping
masters, who were said to be inadequately paid, the Admi-
ralty were in communication with the Board of Trade on
this subject with a view to increase their pay where it was
obviously just to do so. As there would be several oppor-
tunities for discussing these iron-clad ships, he should not
now enter further into this subject.
Mr. BRIGHT—The discussion has been a very interest-
ing one as far as it has gone. I am not sufficiently
acquainted with the details of the question to enable me to
enter into it at any length, but I wish to call the noble
lord's attention to one or two omissions in his speech in
reply to the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Lindsay).
The noble lord told us a great many things, but he did
not answer that part of my hon. friend's speech which
referred to the 18 vessels built more than 20 years ago for
conveying mails across the Atlantic—a commercial under-
taking which did not succeed, and which ended in the ab-
sorption of those vessels into the French navy. In the list
which he gave us he reckoned those vessels as if they had
been first-class frigates, and made no allowance for my hon.
friend's statement. Then, with regard to these screw-fri-
gates, which were stated to be many of them of only 200-
horse power, the noble lord made no reply whatever on that
subject. These are points of considerable importance, if we
are to discuss this question with any regard to the figures
nffpred ua nn both aides nf the Channel. Rnt-T haves r_nrna
to the conclusion that the Secretary to the Admiralty, and
First Lords, and all the rest of them, are themselves in a great
quagmire and puzzle respecting this question. (A laugh.)
I find a classified summary of the Royal Navy in April,
1859, published in a book which is an authority with many
people, and this gives the whole number of vessels as 751.
We know that an enormous sum of money has been voted
within the last two years, and that shipbuilding has been
carried on faster perhaps than it has ever been carried on
before; yet we come to a return now laid on the table, and
find the whole number of vessels set down as 688. There-
fore, according to the Admiralty returns, the more you
build and the more you spend, the fewer ships you have.
(A laugh.) Ido not think you are a bit the worse for it,
because either of the numbers I have given is far beyond
what any rational Minister would ask for or any rational
Parliament would permit to exist. (Hear.) Again, in a
report of this very session it appears that there have been
as many ships under repair during the last year, within one,
as the number given us as constituting the whole navy;
that is, of the whole navy, consisting of 688 ships, 687 are
put down as under repair. (Hear.) I have come to the
conclusion that the house can place extremely little reliance
upon those statistics, and I suspect there are many ships of
which the house knows nothing, and probably the Admi •
ralty itself knows very little. There is another point in
the noble lord's speech which I think is worth notice—
where he referred to the Lumber of men which the French
Government could in a certain time put on board its
navy. If I recollect right, he said that there were 25,600,
that other 25,000 might be added, and after that about
25,000 or 30,000 more—the second 25,000 in the course
of a month, and the last 25,000 or 30,000 in the course
of three or four months. What was his object in making
"that statement ? Was it to convey a true or a false impres-
sion to the country ? I should be the last man to charge the
noble lord with endeavouring to create a false impression,
because I have always regarded him as one of those mem-
bers—and there are many such in this house—in whom you
see at once, or imagine you see, entire frankness and honour
and honesty. (Hear.) But such is the effect of official life
that a man getting upon that bench somehow or other takes
another colour, as it were, from the very atmosphere he
lives in, and the food he exists upon. (Laughter, and hear,
hear.) The Treasury Bench seems to be not " the bourne
from which no traveller returns," but the bourne from
which no honest man returns. (A laugh.) In making this
statement the noble lord has done that which, read by per-
sons in the country, must give them an incorrect impres-
sion of the facts. It was no use his telling us about 75,000
or 80,000 men unless for the sake of showing that,
under certain circumstances, in one, or three or four
months, the French Government would have this number
of men on board their ships. But the noble lord was obliged
to admit that when this happens every man now in the Im-
perial navy will be there, and every man engaged upon the
coasts of France in maritime affairs or in fishing boats,
every man from the French fisheries on the other side of the
Atlantic, and every man in French merchant ships all over
the globe. What does this suppose? Why, that the 1,000,000
tons of which the French mercantile navy is composed
would be all in port. Not a single ship bearing the produce
of France would leave her ports, or bearing the produce of
other countries to France would be upon the ocean. But
this is an absolute impossibility. Everybody knows it to
be so. Even the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentiack)
knows it. (A laugh.) It would be just as practicable for
the First Lord of the Admiralty and his confederates in
this vast extravagance to call home from all parts of the
world 300,000 or 400,000 English sailors, or whatever is
the number which might be obtained if all the English
mercantile marine was denuded of its crews. I protest
against that kind of argument. (Hear, hear.) When the
noble lord says that in the French navy the number of
men does not exceed 31,000, and that it varies from
30,000 to 34,000 (I believe the number voted this year is
smaller than either of these figures), the proper course is
to compare that number with the figures voted by this
house. I have heard not from the noble lord, but from his
predecessors in 'office, and from every First Lord for the
last 18 years, that the number of men is the proper gauge
by which to estimate the naval power of a country and the
expense which is incurred for the navy for the service of
the year. Now, we have 78,000 men this year, and last
year had 84,000. The utmost that the Government naval
officer who is kept at Paris to report upon these matters—
the utmost that he can make of the number of men in the
French navy is 34,000. If it be true, then, that we have
had 81,000 and they but 31,000 sailors, and that in order to
bring them up to our number every French fisherman and
every sailor in every part of the world must be included in
the calculation, I want to know \ why it is that this alarm
has been created during the last two years—an alarm which
I do not hesitate to say is founded on a falsehood the most
monstrous and the most criminal which any Government
ever attempted to impose on a people. I say that Govern-
ment themselves are guilty of thus imposing on the people,