The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-12 00:00:00

THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.

Mr. WILLIAMS said thathaiing devoted some time to
the consideration of the estimates he was anxious to offer a
few observations on them. They were above those of any
year of peace Pit. the last 40 years. He would not compare
them with those for 1835 or any year about that time. He
would take as a comparison those of 1852, the year before
we commenced preparations for the Russian war. In 1852
the navy estimates amounted to £5,668,000 ; this year they
were £12,862,000, being an increase of £7,200,000. They
were told that the increase in the navy estimate
was owing to the introduction of a new element
into naval warfare by the invention of the screw.
(Hear.) That was introduced in 1851; in 1852 we had
five screw line-of-battle ships. France had two for that
year. The Government of this country and that of France
had run a race in building ships. What was the result ? It
appeared that this country and France were as regarded
line-of-battle ships at the present time on an equality;
whilst France, as regarded frigates, had eight more. They
were informed by the late First Lord and by the present Se-
cretary to the Admiralty that next year this country would
have 50 line .of-battle ships, and France only 40 ; but as she
would have more cased vessels, there would in reality be
scarcely any difference. The naval expenditure of France
for this year was only £4,920,000 ; that of this country was
X 13,297,000. Last year the expenditure exceeded the amount
voted by £BOO,OOO. The bounty of £lO for able seamen had
been now offered for three or four months, but only 1,400
men had joined, although the hon. member for Sunderland
had informed them that owing to the depression in the
mercantile marine, crowds of these men were wandering
about the streets; why did they not enter the navy? The
cause was to be found in the existence of the degrading
system of flogging.' By the returns which he had moved
for, he found that on board one ship, the Princess Royal,
no less than 53 men were flogged last year, receiving 2,141
lashes. In some ships only one man was flogged, and in a
few none at all. This difference could not be produced by
any difference in the character of the men, it must be owing
to the difference in the character of the captains ; some were
humane beings, others were heartless tyrants. Such a man
as the captain of the Princess Royal would not get his ship
manned in a lifetime, if his character was known; such
were not men of first-rate pluck; humanity and courage
always went together. From the army returns it appeared
that last year 112 men were flogged, receiving 5,200 lashes,
'but in the navy in 1854 the number was 1,214, receiving
35,800 lashes ; of these only 196 were inflicted by sentence
of a court-martial; in 1855 the number of lashes in-
flicted was 42.000, of which only 406 were by order
of court-martial ; in 1856 the number was 44,000, of
which only 619 were by sentence of a court ; in 1857, the
last year for which there was a return, the number was
35,000, of which 334 were ordered by courts-martial. He
was convinced this was the great impediment to the entry
of men ; if it were necessary to maintain the system of
flogging, let the army rule be introduced that the punish-
ment can only be inflicted by the sentence of a court-mar-
tial. (Hear.) It was stated that the crew of the American
frigate Constitution, which took the Java, the first capture
made in the war of 1814, was entirely composed of men who
had been in the British navy, and every one of whom had
been flogged. He had seen Commodore Stewart, the com-
mander of the Constitution, at Philadelphia, and he told
him that to get men for the navy of this country it would
be absolutely necessary to alter the system of punishment.
He was anxious to see the navy in such a state as would
remove the apprehension of even the most nervous person
in this country—(hear)—and therefore would not oppose
any of the proposed votes. (Hear, hear.)

THE BOUNTY TO SEAMEN.

Sir C. NAPIER said he had read with great satisfac-
tion the speeches of Lords Lyndhurst, Hardwicke, and
Elienborough in another place, and he could wish that
more speeches of the same kind were delivered in the
House of Commons. They all knew what extraordinary
victories had been gained by the Emperor of France;
and they also knew that his army arrived in Italy
chiefly by sea, with such celerity that the Emperor of Aus-
tria could. not collect troops as fast in his own territory.
An armistice had been signed, but he didnot think it would
be advantageous to this country for peace to be esta-
blished between Austria and France. It would release the
troops of France from their present employment, and, con-
sidering the feelings of the French people towards this
country, it was impossible to say what might take place
hereafter amidst all the joy of victory. He did not want to
say a single word which might tend to foster bad feelings
between France and this country; but he had a duty to
perform which was paramount. He knew very well that
British sailors would fight to the last for their liberties.
(Hear.) He had no doubt whatever that if British ships
were well manned—if the men were well disciplined and
properly drilled,. the ships would be like those of former
days ; but that required time, and he had seen with grief
that sailors had not come forward in sufficient numbers to
enable the British navy to defy the whole world. The Sec-
retary of the Admiralty had told them what was the force
of their own fleet, but he wanted him to tell them distinctly
what was the force of the French and of the Russian fleet
ready for service. It was no use concealing the truth ; if
there was danger the country ought to be made aware of it.
He did hope that the nation would never again insist on a
reduction of the fleet, but always have it kept up to a suffi-
cient point for defence, whether the country was at peace or
at war. (Hear.) As regarded flogging in the army, he had
deeply regretted to find from the returns read by the hon.
member for Lambeth, that so much flogging had lately
taken place. There was nothink like it when he com-
manded in the Baltic, and he had no idea that flogging had
been carried on to so great an extent. He did no believe cor-
poreal punishment could be entirely done away with in the.,
navy; but he thought a great change should tare place in
the form of proceeding. He was in favour of introducing
courts-martial in the navy, and he believed that such an
alteration, instead of weakening discipline would strengthen
it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY was sorry that the hon. and gallant ad-
miral should have made a speech which was so calculated to
alarm the country. He could not see what advantage the
Emperor Napoleon could gain by invading this country.
As regarded the bounty, while lie considered the giving
of a. bounty ofllo in time of peace a grave error, he thought
it was no less grave an error to give half the amount to the
men already in the navy, who would not, he feared, be
satisfied without the full amount.

In reply to a question from Mr. LYGON,
Lord PALINIE RSTON said the Government would pro-
pose to go into Committee of Supply on Thursday.
• The house then went into committee of supply.
On the vote of £3,000 for additional expenses for clerks
in the Admiralty,
Lord C. PAGET was proceeding to make some ,remarks
in reply on the subject of the bounty, when
Sir J. PAKINGTON rose to order, observing that he
had himself been called to order.by the Speaker for being
irregular, and that the noble lord was still more so in speak-
ing in reference to the bounty when the vote before the
committee had reference to the clerks.

Sir C. NAPIER said a far less number of clerks would
suffice if So many unneccessary letters were not written.
His appointment to the command of the Baltic fleet was
announced to him in eight or ten letters.
Sir J. PAKINGNON defended the vote.
Mr. LINDSAY thought that instead of an increase there
ought to be a reduction of the number of clerks. There
were no less than 440 clerks and messengers. It would be
well to get rid of inefficient clerks and pay the heads of de-
partments better.

The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of XlOO,OOO for volunteer seamen,
Mr. LINDSAY wished to know when the promised bill
for providing for manning the navy would be brought in.
When it was introduced he should wish to discuss the
whole question.
Lord C. PAGET could not at that moment answer the
question. The matter was of such great importance that,
although it was now under discussion at the Admiralty,
sonic-time must elapse before the measure could be brought
before „the house.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said that the bounty to new sea•
men had been already voted by the house on Friday last.
It was a portion of the vote of £38,000 then taken.
Mr. HENLEY thought that bounty might have a mate-
rial operation on the navy, either for good or evil, and he
therefore considered that when the bill to which reference
had been made was brought in the whole question should
be considered:
•
The:vote was agreed to.
TII E IVAR MONEY.

£41,358, salariesoTofficers, &c., navy.—Agreed to.
£103,059, salaries and contingencies at home.—Agreed
to.
£20,083, naval establishments abroad.—Agreed to.
£1,077,782, artificers, labourers, &c., in the various dock •
yards at home.
In answer to a question from Mr. LINDSAY,
Lord C. PAGET was understood to say that the report
of the. dockyard commission would shortly be presented to
the heuse. -
Sir J. PAKINGTON, said that this was a vote which tho
present Government had increased. The late Government
had engaged 1,300 extra shipwrights, taking them on for six
months, which they thought would he quite sufficient to set
uP•all the repairs, and to convert the sailing ships. The
Government' had acted on the advice of the Surveyor of the
Navy, and he trusted that the present Government had also
consulted that officer as a preliminary to asking an addition
of ;C,100;000 to the vote.
Lord C. PAGET thought that there must have been a
misunderstanding between the right hon. baronet and the
Surveyor of the Navy on the subject. He (Lord C. Paget)
had consulted that gentleman, and his explanation was that
in the beginning of May he was asked what number of men
should be taken on to accomplish certain works. The sur-
veyor
•
the end of six months, and he recommended that they-should
be kept on for the whole of the financial year.
The vote was agreed to.
,c39,3* wages to artificers, &c.', in establishments abroad,
was also agreed to.
£2,117,131 for naval stores, building and repair of ships,
and steam machinery.
mr. LINDSAY had heard that the supply of anchors to
the navy was, and had been since 1841, confined to one per-
son, and that while the market price as charged by the
most eminent makers was £5O 10s. a ton for 50 cwt. anchors
and £3O a ton for 5 ton anchors the Admiralty were paying
£73 and £l4 'los. a ton respectively. He also wished to
know why the report of the committee which sat seven years
ago to inquire into the best description of anchors for the
use of the navy, and which declared that the anchor now in
use, and . for which the Admiralty were paying so much,
was the worst that could be adopted, had not been acted
anon. He had a communication from the patentees of Trot-
man's patent anchor, offering to test one of his 50 cwt. an-
clo ;rs, the cost of which was £OO, against any 5 ton anchors
in any of the dockyards, the cost of which was £305. Again,
he believetLfhat the manufacture of steam &wines for the
navy was confined to two or ilree firms, who were charg-
ing to the Admiralty considerably more. for horse power
'than other eminent firms were willing to supply them for.
Mr. ItIDLEY inquired' whether the investigation corn-
!flowed time ago as to the relative value of north
country and Welsh coals for the use of the navy had been
eontin tied ? The question of smoke-consuming furnaces
was now ne longer a difficulty, consequently smoke emitting.
coals might "be used if in other respects found to be equally
sippficable. Il'e believed there was one steam-vessel now.
being built without any funnel at all.
Lord LOVAINE urged that attention should be paid -to
this subject, being as he thought of most vital importance.
He thought some change should be made in the manner of
coaling her Majesty's steam-vessels.
Mr. 11 2NTINCK said that the question raised with re-
gard to anchors was one of great importance. It was not a
question of one person's anchor over another's ; but as re-
garded the hest description being obtained for the navy. A
committee' had' reported in 1852 in favour of six different

kinds of anchors, all superior to those used by the Admiralty
—why had no notice been taken of the report of that commit-
tee ? why had it not been acted on ? There was a person
who offered to produce anchors of half the weight and half
the price of those used by the Admiralty; why had he not
been allowed a trial in order to prove whether his assertions
were correct or not ? Still he thought it was not right to
press the noble lord on a point which concerned all the
Boards of Adrhiralty for the last seven years. He would
invite the right hon. gentlemen the members for Droitwich,
Carlisle, Halifax, and Portsmouth, who had held office in
that time, to give a distinct answer to the question why the
report of the committee had been disregarded, and why Mr.
Trotman's anchors had not been at least tried in the navy.

Sir J. PAKINGTON admitted that it was not fair to
require an answer from the present Secretary of the Admi-
ralty on matters which had been going on for seven years.
He (Sir J. Pakington) could only answer as far as his own
term of office. He was informed that the opinion of
experienced naval officers was opposed to the report of
the committee on anchors. It was said that Trotman's
anchor, when it held, was admirable, but you could not
rely en its biting, and so the valuable and critical quality
of an anchor was wanting. As to giving Mr. Trotman a
further trial, one of his first acti at the Admiralty was
to offer Mr. Trotinan a further trial. As to the gunboats,
complaint had been made of the supplemental estimate of
£1,800,000. It had two parts ; one related to the increase in
the number of men, and the other related to the building of
18 gun-vessels, of a large and powerful description, and
which differed from other gun-boats, inasmuch as they were
of sufficient size to enable them to carry their guns all over
the world, as well as on the coast.
Lord C. PAGET said the question of anchors was a very
difficult one. He professed to be a naval reformer, and was
all for reform where there was a question about efficiency.
But if there was anything on which they should not be par-
ticular it was the cost of anchors. It was a curious thing
that among professional men, if there was one thing which
they differed about it was an anchor ; and if they saw five or
six line-of-battleships together they would almost all be sure
to llave different anchors. He admittedthat many approved
of Trotman's anchor. He could not say that he did, but still
he thought Mr. Trotman should have fair play. With re-
gard to the question as to coals, an important inquiry and
experiments were going on at Woolwich. The cost was not
the only point to be considered, but the effect of different
kinds of coal on the funnel, and the experiments were di-
rected to that point, as to burning the smoke, and as to
super-heating the steam. With regard to the cost of machi-
nery, he might mention that a committee had sat upon en-
gines and boilers—(a laugh)—and the committee reported
that they had no reason to believe that Government paid a
higher price for engines and boilers than private parties.
The vote was agreed to.
£167,420, new works, improvements, &c., at various na-
val stations was agreed to.
The following votes were also agreed to :
£45,000 for medicines, medical stores, &c.
£52,221 for divers miscellaneous services.
£368,311 for half-pay and retirements to officers of the
navy and Royal Marines.
Upon this vote,
Mr. LINDSAY moved that the chairman should report
progress.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that this vote involved seve-
ral most important questions.
After a conversation between Sir C. NAPIER and Sir J.
PAKINGTON as to a supposed plan of retirement, in which
the latter accused the former of divulging confidential com-
munications,
The motion for reporting progress was agreed to, and the
house resumed.

POOR LAW BOARDS (PAYMENT OF DEBTS)
BILL.
Mr. GILPIN moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. WALTER moved that the bill be read a second
time that day three months.
Mr. ESTCOURT said that equity and justice required
that the house should pass this bill.
Mr.iIENLEY moved the adjournment of the debate,
remarking that this was a question which required full
discussion.

Mr. AYRTON supported the amendment. •
Sir G. C. LEWIS did not oppose the adjournment,
though having made such progress with the debate on the
second reading it might have been more convenient to con-
clude it now, and discuss the clauses in committee.

The house then divided :
For the adjournment
Against it
Mr. HENLEY would not again move the adjournment
if the right hon. gentleman would undertake to bring on
the discussion on going into committee at a reasonable
hour.

Sir G. C. LEWIS would do his best, but he must re-
mind the house that as every Government night would be
devoted to supply, he would have some difficulty unless a
morning sitting were appointed.
The house then divided on the bill—
For the second reading
Against it. 43
Majority —l7
COURT OF PROBATE, &c., (ACQUISITION OF
SITE), BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CLERK OF THE COUCIL BILL.
The hill was road a third time and passed.
CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill was read a second time:
LAW OF PROPERTY AND TRUSTEES' RELIEF

AMENDMENT BILL,

The house went into committee on this bill ; clauses 1
and 2 were agreed to, and. the house resumed.
WESTMINSTER NEW BRIDGE.

Mr. FITZROY obtained leave to bring in a bill to em-
power the Commissioners of her Majesty's Works and Pub-
lic Buildings to acquire additional space for the western
approach to Westminster New Bridge.
PAWNBROKERS' ACT.

On the motion of Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, the house
went into committee on the act passed in the 39th and 40th
years of the reign of King George 111., intituled " An Act
for better regulating the business of Pawnbrokers."
A resolution on which to frame a bill to amend the act
was agreed to.
The house then adjourned.