The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-26 00:00:00

estimates which it- will be my duty to submit, I hope the
committee will not think I am unduly or improperly occu-
pying their time if I venture to enter into some explanation
of the gradual increase of the amount of the navy estimates,
and of the great sum which those estimates have now at-
tained. The hon. gentleman who has been prevented
addressing the house had given notice that he would move
to refer these estimates to a committee. I am bound
to say that the hon. gentleman intimated to me, a short
time before the Speaker left the chair, that it was not his
intention to proceed with that motion, and I believe his
only motive in rising was to announce that intention. [Mr.
W. Williams—Not exactly.] (Laughter.) I feel no sur-
prise that it should be the desire of the hon. gentleman to
refer those estimates to a select committee. The amount
of the estimates for the present year, 1&58-9, is no less than
£8,851,371. The estimates which it will be my duty to
move for the ensuing year, 1859-60, are considerably in-
creased, being no less than £9,813,181. There is in round
numbers an increase on the estimates of about £1,000,000.
It will be my duty, before I sit down, to offer to the house
an explanation of that additional million, but there remains
the very large sum of nearly £9,000,000 for the current
year, with regard to which T think it natural the public
should feel a great desire for further information. When
these very large sums are required from year to year, it is
very natural that the public should desire to be informed,
and they have a right to expect that they will be informed,
on these points—namely, that they derive
,the full advan-
tages of these immense sums being expended, and that
Ministers are not asking for more than the public service
requires. (Hear, hear.) It will be in the recollection of
those members who are apt to refer to the favourite year
183.5, that in that year the navy estimates had fallen to little
more than £4,000,000, while the number of men voted was
26,500 seaman and marines. At that time, it must be re-
membered, there were none of the expenses of a steam navy.
I am very much disposed to think that it would have been
better for the country if the navy estimates had never been
allowed to fall to that low amount. (Hear, hear.) They
were lower then than was consistent with the interests of
the public service. (Hear, hear.) By 1845, however, they
had risen to £7,000,000, and the number of men voted had
risen to 40,000 seamen and marines. This gradual in-
crease went on from year to year, and in it led to the
appointment of a select committee, presided over by Lord
Seymour, which investigated the whole of our expenditure
under the heads of army, navy, and ordnance in. the closest
possible manner. The hon. member for Lambeth himself
must allow that if he had succeeded in persuading the house
to refer these estimates to a committee he could not have
hoped for a more searching inquiry into our expenditure
under these heads than was entered into by this committee.
The result of that inquiry was that the navy estimates were
reduced, and in the following year did not exceed the amount
of £6,000,000. They went on slightly increasing, but they
did not rise above £6,000,000 until 18.52. Between that
year, however, and the present year there is a great differ-
ence, and I desire to enter into a comparison of the expendi-
ture of the two years, which I trust will satisfy the house
and the public that the great increase is owing to causes
over which we have no control. I name the year 1852-3,
first because I was in office then, and consequently am more
familiar with the expenditure of that year, and also because
it was the year immediately preceding the great increase
caused in our expenditure by the cost of the Russian war.
The year 1858-9 is again a year of peace—if not of entire
peace, at least nndistarbed by any such great war as that.
In the year 1852-3, the navy estimates were £5,835,588;
in the present year they have risen to £8,851,371, being an
increase of no less than 51 per cent. Both being years of
peace, it is natural that the house should desire some ex-
planation of the great difference between them, and I hope
to be able to show that the increase has been forced upon
us, and has not been caused by the extravagance of any
Government, or of any particular Minister. I will take the
first item of wages of seamen and marines. In 1858-9 this
item is £2,401,599; in 1852-3, it was £1,543,025, being an
increase of 55f per cent. This is an item with regard to
which there can be no objection, unless you object to the
policy of raising the number of men. The number of men
being increased, the amount of wages is necessarily in-
creased. The next item is the cost of provisions, 'and by
an accidental rise in the price of provisions the increase of
this item is in a greater ratio than was to be expected from
the increase in the number of men. It has risen from
£644,507 to £1,027,357, the increase being 88} per
cent. I ought to have added, with regard to the increase of
the number of men, that since 1852-3 the cost of the Coast-
guard has been added to the Navy Estimates, being nearly
8,000 additional men to be provided for—to say nothing of
additional pay and allowances. The cost of the Coastguard
and the Royal Naval Coast Volunteers is £178,592, and it
applies entirely to this year, there being no such item in the
year 1862-3. The next item is the vote for the wages of arti-
ficers. It is now £966,921; in 1852-3 it was £666,929, being
an increase of 45 per cent. A large increase has been caused,
by the increase of steam factories to ourdockyards, which has
arisen entirely from the increased adoption of steam powerin
our navy during the last few years. This is a cause of course
entirely beyond the control of any Government. (Hear, hear.)
On the item of naval stores there is an increase of 57} per
cent. In 1852-3 it was £882,495, this year it is £1,389,742.
This increase is clearly owing to the great additions which
have been made to our navy. In illustration of this aug-
mentation in the cost of our navy the house will perhaps
allow me to compare the cost of manning sailing and steam
vessels in the years 18.52-3 and 18.58-9. In 1852 the average
pay of all ranks of men was £39 14s. Bd. ; in 1858-9 the ave-
rage has risen to £43 25., being an increase of £3 Bs. 4d. per
man. In 1852-3 it required °970 men to man the Britannia,
a Stet rata Availing ship, ...a the east of ate* allay era..
£26,693 yearly. It requires 1,100 men to man the Marl-
borough, a first-rate of the present diy, and her cost annually
is £35,248. The Arethusa, a 50-gun frigate of 1852-3, re-
quired 500 men, and cost annually £14,585. The Shannon, in
1858-9, requires 560 men, and costs £19,341. The cost of
building the hull of the Indefatigable, a 50-gun frigate in
18.52-3 was £51,836; but the Shannon, also a 50-gun frigate,
cost £71,112 ; and the Orlando, a new steam frigate launched
last summer, cost £99,375. These figures go far to explain
the great difference of expense in one part of the estimates at
least. I can give another proof of the same thing in a differ-
ent way. The construction of the Britannia, 120 guns, re-
quired 4,550 loads of rough timber and 218 shipwrights,
while the Marlborough, the same class of vessel recently built,
required 6,068 loads of timber and 334 shipwrights. So that
here again yea have a proof of how much more costly it is
to build ships in these days than it was a few years ago.
The Rodney, again, required 3,610 loads of timber and 219
shipwrights, while the Renown, a vessel of the same class,
but lately built, required 4,680 loads of timber and 277
shipwrights. (Hear, hear.) The immense increase in
the size of our ships has led also to a great augmenta-
tion in another item in our Navy Estimates, which has
been the subject of remark on several occasions—l mean
the vote for new works. Between 1852 and 1858 the in-
crease in new works has been from £26.5,140 in 1852 to
£585,862 in 1858, or 120 per cent. The cause of this must,
upon consideration, be obvious. As your ships increase in
size you find that the slips and docks, which were perfectly
sufficient a few years ago, have now become insufficient,
and that you must therefore go to the great expense of re-
construction. We have in the whcle of her Majesty's
yards 42 building slips, and at this moment only nine of
them are large:enough for the construction of first-rate
ships. We are increasing the size of those slips, and, of
course. a large amount of money is required for this
purpose. Then, again, we have 33 docks, of which four
only, in her Majesty's yards, will hold our largest ships.
We are obliged to alter those docks, and five of them are
now being increased in size ; but we cannot accomplish
that without expending an immense amount of money',
and if you look at the estimate for " new works" you will
find that the large sums there given are devoted to these
purposes. Having entered into this comparative state-
ment of the expenses of 1852 and 1858, I wish now to
refer to some observations which fell from me when mov-
ing the estimates last year. You may remember that I
then
drew attention to the enormous amount of money
that was expended in this country in the purchase of
steam machinery, and that we had expended ;to less
steam
than £4,000,000 in providingengines Royal Navy. I stated then that
thoughtit desirableethe
to ascertain how that money had been expended, and
that the mode of supplying engines to our vessels was
conducted on the best, most approved, and most scientific
principles. I have redeemed the lge which I then gave
to the house, that there should Pb
subjects, and in the course of last: anu
iner_cPury mpotainttedes:
committee consisting of Admiral Rams dine summer
John Ward,
and Mr. Nasmyth, and I entrusted tog themni' the duty of in-
vestigating the state of the steam machinery of the navy.
The result of that inquiry is that the steam machinery of
the Royal Navy is in a very creditable stated tliat
in
this respect the money has been well expended,
public have been faithfully served. (Hear, her.) and
the
committee has issued a most able report containing several
iThrat
recommendations which it is the intention of the Admiralty
to adopt, as we believe that they will tend to the advantageat
of, the public service. One of those reconamendations is
that we should apply for tenders for the supply of engines
much more largely than has hitherto been the case, and in
pursuance of this recommendation we have thought it our
duty to invite tenders from Liverpool, Scotland, and most
of the eminent houses engaged in this particular business.
(Hear, hear.) I also thought it my duty to appoint another
to inquire into the labour in our
_dockyards. The
sum expended in our dockyards is enormously large, and it
is most important that in expending those sums economy
should be practised, and that we get 20s. for our
pound.
(Hear.) Iby no means state that I have any suspicion that a
wrong practice has existed in the dockyards ; but the com-
mitteep of 1848 recommended an inquiry into this subject,
and I wish particularly to ask the attention of the hon.
member for Lambeth to this. They state in their report
that it is idle to suppose that a Parliamentary committee
could really investigate the details of dockyard expendi-
ture—(hear, hear)—that it is altogether out of the question,
and that any efficient inquiry must be conducted by some
body of men appointed specially for the purpose. In con-
sequence of that report a committee was appointed soon
after ; they closely investigated the expenditure in the
dockyards, and as a result great economy and many im-
Provernents were introduced. But that took place ten
ZneolLTKo, and I thought it de *sable that we should have
order toi nquiry into the ex - ure of the dockyards, in
ftertain whether t ru ney was laid out in the
most judicious and economical manner, or whether there
was any room for improvement. That committee was
headed by Admiral
tosmttrt, and it has been engaged in the
investigation do
underemparesent time. The report is not
yet finished, but I
from the chairman that the
result of the inquiry will b-u
considerable changes, which the
his
of very
opinion will lead to a
much more economical and judicious18
dockyards in future. (Hear, hear.) expenditure in the
!f mention this to show
the desire that there is on the part. thee Government to
secure the most advantageous expenditure the large sums
intrusted to their care—(hear)—and I that the com-
parison which I have instituted between isL
and 1852 will
these sums
lead to the impression that in the expenditure,
we have been influenced solely by a sense of duty and by a
desire to exercise the utmost practicable economy. (gear.)
I will now turn to the estimates which I the
en-
ran year, and to the fiat vow, oil', WlllOl I shall Place in