The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-12 00:00:00

THE SUN,IILONDON,i FRIDAY, tp VENI -.APRIL'. 12, 1861.

French war, of which £80,000,000 had been voted for the
dockyards ; and whilst our navy was double that of France,
we were still terrified by the bugbear of a French invasion.
He trusted that now the extravagant waste of this depart-
ment would be put an end to, and that some lasting check
would be placed on the Board of Admiralty.
Si,: J. PAKINGT ON—My right hon. friend the member
for Stroud has referred a gool deal to the report of the
DockyardCommissioners,and has expressed a strong opinion
that the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had en •
tir ely fulfilled all that he had ever stated to the house, and
more especially what he stated in a speech he made two
years ago, which attracted considerable attention. I have
no wish just now to raise a question of a controversial na-
ture, especially as my noble friend has already addressed
the house, and is unable therefore to answer anything I
might say. It is therefore with pain that.l advert to what
fell :from my right hon. friend, but the clear interests of
truth and justice stand above all reasons of courtesy. I am
sorry to be compelled to say that I cannot concur in the
view which my right hon. friend has taken of that part of
the report of the commission. We have before us that re-
port, we have fresh in our recollection what was the language
of the noble lord in 1859, and I find that the report of the
commission does not uphold that language. I find also a
special memorandum written by Admiral Robinson, the
present Controller of the Navy, who succeeded Sirß.Walker
in the position which the latter filled with so much ability
for many years—l find in that memorandum distinct refe-
rence to the language of the noble lord in that speech, and
a most distinct declaration that the noble lord had failed to
establish the statements he had made. I am sorry to be ob-
liged to advert to this point, and I would not have done so
but for the unqualified language in which the right hon.
member for Stroud expressed himself. Ido not say the re-
port casts any censure upon the noble lord, but it does not
bear out his own statements. At the time the noble lord
made those statements I questioned their accuracy, and
expressed my wish that they should be tested by a com-
mittee. I did not impute anything, for I had no doubt
that my noble friend believed the statements he made were
accurate ; but I entertained an opinion that they were
made upon insufficient grounds. Those statements have
been tested by a Royal Commission, and, as far as I can
gather from the report, they have been found to be erro-
neous. I will not enter further upon that point, except to
subscribe to the approbation that has been expressed of
the manner in which the commissioners performed their duty.
It performed a difficult duty with impartiality and ability,
and the report it presented to the house is a most valuable
document, throwing great light on the former administra-
den of the navy, and likely to prove a guide in those future
reforms of the naval administration which all parties seem to
require. With regard to the motion of the hon. member for
Sunderland, lam very glad it has been made ; it touches a
subject that ought to be brought under the consideration of
the House of Commons. But I think the answer of the
noble lord the Secretary of the Admiralty was not quite so
clear as it should have been. lam not sure that I under-
stood it, and I doubt whether the house understands what
is the exact position of the Admiralty on this question. The
real question raised by the hon. member for Sunderland is,
how far, in the present state of doubt as to the construction
of iron vessels, the Admiralty proposes to proceed in build-
ing wooden line-of-battle ships 2 Ido not understand
what the answer to this question is. The noble lord has
told us we have 67 line-of-battle ships; but it is notorious
that we have net that number. 53 is about the number we
have afloat; 67 would be the number if every ship now on
the stocks should be completed. (Hear, hear.) But how
many of them are to be completed ? To this question, I
think, we ought to have a clearer answer than we have yet
received. It is no new question; the attention of Parlia-
ment has been direeted to it for years past ; and it is not con-
fined to iron ships only. There is another point of great
importance that the noble lord has himself raised to-night;
it is whether the new inventions in artillery will not entirely
set aside the two and three-deckers in which we have hereto-
fore trusted so much—(hear, hear)—and whether it maynot
be expedient to build our most powerful vessels with one
deck only. (Hear.) The policy of the late Adthiralty was
this—that whatever might be done with regard to single
decked and iron-covered ships, it was the duty of the Go-
vernment of the day, looking to the state of Europe, to keep
England safe, as far as all nautical experience could ensure
its safety. (Hear, hear.) Theintention of the late Admiralty
was not to exceed the number of 69 wooden line-of-battle
ships, and on reaching that number to pause, and see how
far the iron ships would supersede the old system of build-
ing. lam sorry the noble lord has not stated more dis-
tinctly the intention of the present Admiralty on this
point. I wish he had stated where we are to stop in the
construction of wooden line-of-battle ships. As to the
motion of the hon. member for Sunderland, I quite agree
with the principle of his first resolution ; I think there is a
point at which we ought to suspend the construction of
wooden ships. But I hope the hon. member will not press
the motion to a division, for I should be sorry to give a vote
that may be liable to misinterpretation; and I think the
motion tends to take out of the hands of the Executive Go-
vernment a matter that ought to be left to its discretion. As
to the hon. member's last resolutioA, I cannot vote in favour
of it. I believe the Admiralty has done wisely in building
one iron ship in a Government dockyard. The hon. mem-
ber for Finsbury (Sir M. Pete) has referred to the different
classes of iron ships ordered by the late and present Admi-
ralty; he has stated that some of those recently constructed
will not steam more than eight knots per hour. The noble
lord admits that the two smallest of these vessels—the Re-
sistance and the Defence—will have a speed of only 1.1
knots an hour; yet he says that the ship of the greatest
speed will have the greatest advantage over an opponent.
I think this statement is unsatisfactory. The late Board
of Admiralty ordered an iron ship of 6,000 tons : they
were unwilling to order a ship of that size ; the ex-
pense was enormous, and the experiment one of much risk.
But they adopted that size solely because they found it
would be impossible to combine all the elements of a man-
of-war in a vessel of smaller dimensions. The present
Board of Admiralty had built smaller ships, but at the sac-
rifice of speed. lam afraid that building these smaller and
slower ships is a serious mistake. My noble friend says we
have no experience to guide us with regard to these ves-
sels. That is perfectly true. We are proceeding in the
dark. We have not yet had one of these ships at sea.
The Warrior was the first launched, but four months have
since elapsed ; I understand her plates are still not fixed
upon her; and I fear that it will be months before she is fit
for sea. Why not send one of these ships to sea as soon as
possible so . that we may test their seagoing qualities ? I
hear that the reason why the Warrior has not yet got her
armour plates is on account of the tonguing and grooving
plan which has been adopted. The plan is of doubtful ad-
vantage ; but this is the cause of the delay. The hon.
member for Coventry has alluded to the enormous weight
of the wood which is placed upon the Warrior between
what is called the skin of the ship and the outer armour.
I will not venture to contradict the hon. gentleman, but
my information leads me to believe that he has greatly
exaggerated the weight of the wood when he says it
amounts to 1,000 tons. [Sir J. Paxton explained that ho said
the weight of the wood in this position would be 400 tons.]
Even that, as far as I can learn, would be double the actual
weight. I have always understood that the weight of her
whole armour would be 1,200 tons, 1,000 of which would
consist of iron plates, and 200 tons of intervening wood.
The hon. member proceeded to say that, instead of having
wood, the whole thickness of armour should be iron. That
is a question which is not at all decided yet, and which is
still being discussed by the scientific men of the day. One
of the points which has come before the Institution of
Naval Architecture is whether it would not be far better
to construct these ships so as to make one thickness of
iron serve for all purposes of defence. There is
a diversity of opinion- on this subject, and as yet
we are in the infancy of the question. How necessary is it,
therefore, that the Admiralty should proceed with boldness,
I admit, but at the same time with caution; and, above all,
how necessary is it that some of these ships should be prac-
tically tested at sea, so that we may ascertain the best form
of construction. (Hear.) In the censures which have been
passed upon the Admiralty for increasing the stock of tim

ber I cannot concur, for fthink they have done wisely in
making such a proposal. I see no prospect of the abandon-
ment of the construction of wooden ships. (Hear.) I see no
prospect of adopting iron exclusively in shipbuilding, for
the smaller class of vessels and frigates will, I believe, be
built, as heretofore, of wood. Let the house bear in mind

that we have suffered and are suffering from a deficient stock
of timber, and from having been compelled to use unsea-
soned timber in building some of ships. (Hear, hear.) In
the French dockyards an abundant stock is kept in hand,
and this vote is ono which I hope the house will willingly

assent to. (Hear, hear.)
Admiral WALCOTT thought that timely consideration
should be given to the plan of construction before our ships
were commenced. Economy ought to be studied, no doubt,

) but only so far as was compatible with the efficiency of the
, navy and the integrity of the empire. (Hear.) The noble lord
had enumerated thenaval strength of certain foreign nations,
• which provided, he said, altogether 50 line-of-battle ships,
while we had 67. The right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington)
had put our ships down at 53 only, though he admitted that,
including those on the stocks, we might have 67. But, if we
possessed 67, the number was not more than was demanded
by the exigencies and necessities of the country. (Hear,
hear.) Consider the number of our colonies and depen-
dencies. They numbered, ho believed, about 50. Then look
likewise at the vast extent of our commerce. Wherever a
ship could swim there was to be found a British flag, and
under these circumstances we were called on to maintain a
navy double that of all other countries combined. (Hear,
hear.) He was at a loss to understand what could be the
object of France in getting together so large a naval force.
She had few colonies to defend, and he could not under •
stand why she should want 37 line-of-battle ships and 45
large frigates, except to intimidate other countries. She
would have to go a long way before she intimidated Eng-
land. He gave every credit to the right bon. baronet below
for having placed the Warrior and the Black Prince on the
stocks. He had visited the Warrior and thoaght her the
finest model of a vessel possible, but he found that she could
only carry six and a half days' coal ; that a great part of
her hulk and her stern was unprotected, and that she drew
a large draught of water, which last was a great disadvan-
tage For the complete prote4tion of our shores, and to
meet all exigencies, we required, in additiori, a class of
smaller vessels. In a great measure he agreed with the
hon. member for Sunderlapd as t 9 stopping the building of

wooden line-of-battle ships ; but if those already under con'
struction were far advanced they ought to be finished. Be
disagreed entirely with him as to the expediency of adapt-
ing the dockyards for the reception of iron vessels. In case
of a war we must have plant and appliances for refitting
these ships after an action. Much valuable time would be
lost in sending them round to the private yards on the
Thames, the Mersey, or the Clyde to refit. He looked ee
carefully and anxiously to the taxation of the country
as
any man, but he held an efficient navy in the light of an
insurance, and never would he consent to put any question
of money in comparison with the risk of losing the corn'
mand of the sea. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY having intimated his intention to with'
draw his amendment,
Lord J. RUSSELL explained that the noble lord the
Secretary to the Admiralty had been misunderstood what
right bon. gentleman the member for Droitwich.
his noble friend had said with regard to what was to be done
this year was that no progress would be made with those
line-of•battle ships which were being built; but with re'
spect to those which were being converted their conversion
would be completed.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
NEW ZEALAND.

Sir J. TRELAWNY rose to call attention to the state
of affairs in the North Island of New Zealand. Having
referred to the circumstances of the dispute between the
Ngatiawa and the Waikato tribes as to the ownership f
the land on the Waitara river, and the offer by Tehtl,t.,°
sell a portion of the land to the Government, though 11
the law of the tribe he had no right to sell, the hc°l'
baronet said that the papers laid before the House 01'
tained evidence to show that great injustice had been d_
~°llB
to the aborigines. They complained bitterly that, ichuiez
we professed' to have given them the rights of Bride
citizens, we had failed to discharge towards them reanr,o
the duties of Government, but allowed murderous conlue"
to be carried on among them without check. The COle:
nists were anxious to get more land, though they ile°
already what seemed to be quite enough for their pillrel
and, from the papers, it would appear that the Governeou
out there were acting under pressure ; but when William
King refused to allow the land to be sold the proper COT,
would have been to refer the matter home to the Colonlll
Seoretary to see whether or not he approved of land being
taken under such circumstances. Some years ago he An
protested against guaranteeing a loan, and now he found
they were also required to pay a heavy bill for a war whir'.
had arisen out of a gross blunder and a gross injustice'
There could be no better opportunity than, on going into
committee of supply, for asking the House to hesitate
before endorsing the conduct of the Governmont, and h°
should therefore move, " That while this House is pre'
pared to contribute all the aid in its power to the Exeer,
tive in putting down rebellion in her Majesty's colony e'
New Zealand, they rejoice to hear that the difficult 50
complicated questions arising out of the Treaty of
tangi are to be referred to a special court for inquiry frame'
diately on the reassertion of the Queen's authority."
who
would C. FORTESCUE observed that any person V°
would take the pains to study the Blue Book on Neal
Zealand affairs, in a candid spirit, would come to a veT9
different conclusion from Sir J. Trelawny, who reprr
sented a small party in the island. It was, he said, ie
mistake to suppose that there had been any violation °f
the Treaty of Waitangi, or that there was any such invit't
able, definitive, and universal tribal right as that claimed
by the Ngatiawa tribe and Wirimu Kingi. He gave a cif
tailed narrative of the transactions in which the war orir
nated, the real object being, he observed, to dispute the
Queen's supremacy, at the instance of a powerful native
organisation, which it was the duty of Governor Browne t°
resist, in the interest of the colonists and of the native°
themselves.

Mr. SELWYN observed that, under the Treaty of Wai..
tangi, certain rights of property were reserved to the native*
and the question was what these rights were. It was the
opinion of well-informed Europeans in the colony that 11"
individual of a tribe could alienate land to a stranger with;
out the assent of the tribe collectively, and the block t/i
land which was the cause of the dispute, and the Sale of
which by the Chief Teira the Governor enforced, was sub'
ject to this native law. He admitted that Governor Broil/Ile
was a friend of the natives ; but he had yielded to pressure'
in direct contravention, as he (Mr. Selwyn) contended, °`
the collective rights guaranteed by the treaty. The Plea
put forward in justification of the purchase, that the Vs'
sessors of the land had been conquered by the Waikatel
and had therefore lost their collective rights, was overruled
by a decision of Governor Fitzroy, who had restored the,
rights. He disputed the statement of Mr. Fortescne, that
former Governors of the colony had conducted sales in the
same manner.

Lord C. HAMILTON had arrived at a very different
conclusion from Mr. Selwyn, to some of whose statement°
he had listened, he said, with astonishment. He main'
tamed that Governor Browne had been perfectly justified ill
his conduct, and he explained the position of the Teiril
tribe, who were subject to the Waikatos, and had no other
right to the block of land, he said, than that of occupation:
Mr. HOPE could not support the motion, but he agreed
with Sir T. Trelawny, that there should ba some tribunal
that could investigate these questions.

On the motion of Sir S. M. PETO, the debate was ad'
Fourned.

MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND).
On the order of the day for going into committee on this
bill,
Mr. BUTT moved that it be referred to a select commit-
tee, which was assented to by Mr. CARDWELL, after a few'
words from one or two hon. members.
The County Surveyors (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time.

The Admiralty Court Jurisdiction Bill passed through
committee. •
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the
house adjourned.

PAIRS ON MR. BAINES' £6 Boßouaii
FRANCHISE BILL.

FOR. AGAINST.
Mr. Baxter with Lord Naas.
Mr. Fenwick
Mr Shaito
Mr. A. Matheson .....
Mr. Osborne — Mr Comolly.
Sir w. Somerville — Mr. O'Hara.
Mr. Maguire
Sir A. Agnew
... Sir G. For.,ter.
Mr. 4 obbett Mr. .slitford. • Colonel Biddulph
The Lord Advocate — Mr. Mure.
Mr. Wyld • — Mr. Kendall. .
Mr. Dodson ... Mr. Deedes.
Lord Raynham .......... Lord Valletort.
Mr. Staniland — Mr. Gathorne Hardy.
S,r H. Davie — Sir William Miles.
Mr. Evans — Mr. Mundy.
Mr. Lanigan —
Captain Stacpoole _...
Lord.
dJ
n. Philami ilips..Hamilton.
Mr. Greene — Mr Blackburn.
Mr., M`Mahon — Major Sibthorp.
Bare, L. de Rothschild
--- ilro.n 1V
Mr. P. Urquhart ._ m
Mr. E. Etlice, juu — Hon. Colonel Bernard.
jiollhianmCileight.
n
Mr. Vyner. -Hon. W. E. Duncombe.
Sergeant Kinglake
Mr. Collier . — Mr. Rogers.
Colonel Tynte — Sir F. Kelly.
Mr. Steel . ~ ..
Mr. P. O'Brien.... .......
—1 LCMaorpr. cltiaGi enra
Lowther.lBweaYyn
Mr. Talbot l.
er.
Mr. J. Brown
Mr. C. Clifford General Arbuthnot.
Sir i'. Winnington .....
Lord Dunkellin
Sir J. og,ilvy
Alderman Salomons
Alderman Copeland — Hon. C. B. Hanbury.
Mr. Hussey Vivian Mr. Whiteside.
Mr. G. C. Crlyn — Captain Gray,

GAS EXPLOSION.— On Wednesday, after the
closing of the shop of Leighton and Co., hatters, in Lower
Marsh, Lambeth, one of the imperfect shop pipes caused A
most fearful explosion, forcing out the door panels, and
partly consuming the shop contents. The family were at
supper in an ante-room, but, although greatly alarmed, re-
ceived no injury. The firm is insured in the County and
West of England Fire Offices.
[ADVERTISEMENT.] - Pills and medicine invariably sg-
gt avate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, dis-
appointment, and expense may be avoided by parsons'
in indifferent health sending only their address to E.
S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and they
will receive gratis and free by post the "INVALIDS' Owl(
iiIIIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex
rpnse, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and
refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the remove
of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver Complaints,
nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitation;
cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diarrllo3s'
dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, °statute, col"
noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruption~hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, Palit'
tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, spagin;
ki sinng, fits, bronchitis,— "Uncuestionably the safest Gull'
to health."