The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-24 00:00:00

~ `_~,~

ciency as he had described it. To his mind the explanation
of the noble lord the Secretary of the Admiralty with regard
to this vcte, either in its constitutional aspect or as to the

application of the money, was by no means satisfactory.
Sir JOHN PAKTNGTON regretted that a subject of
such importance should be discussed in so thin a house.
He must do hon. gentlemen opposite below the gangway
the justice to say that that was the only part of the house

which presented anything like a full appearance. (Hear,

_
hear.) As to the benches behind the Government and the
Opposition benches he regretted there were but few mem-

bet; on them. He believed that if the hon. member for
Sunderland had been made a member of the Board of Ad-

miralty by the noble lord at the head of the Government
they would have been saved from several of these discus-

sions on naval affairs. The hon. member had rather un-

generously attacked him for the cost of these iron shipS.
He had never concealed from the house that these ships

would be most costly.
Mr. LINDSAY assured the right hon. gentleman that he
had never attacked him.

Sir J. PAK INGTON said he had always informed the
house that the cost of the iron ships would be large. With
regard to the immediate question before the house, it did
not seem to be so much one of the amount of money as
whether England was to remain the first maritime Power
of the world. If she were, they must not indulge in those
hot and cold fits about expenditure. A large supply of
timber was an indispensable condition of that supremacy.
The hon. member for Montrose said that he (Sir John
Pakington) had asked for a vote of only £672,000 for
timber. That was true, but he must, in justice, say that

that vote was limited not with any reference to its amount,
but from considerations connected with the state of the
timber market. The supply of timber in the dockyards in
1859 was one of the largest stocks they had had for some
time ; but when it came to be applied to the requirements
of the navy it was found to be quite insufficient, owing to
the increase of the navy. One of the evils complained of
was that they were obliged to use unseasoned timber on
account of the insufficiency of the stock of seasoned timber.
Their motive for increasing the naval force of the country
at that time was their comparative feebleness in regard to
the French navy. On inquiry they found that not only
was France going ahead of England in the building of ships
of war, but that the dockyards of France were well supplied
with an immense stock of timber. He thanked the Admi-
ralty for the efforts they were making to increase our
supply of timber, and he expressed a hope that the hon.
member for Montrose would not persevere in his amend-
ment for reducing the vote.
Lord PALMERSTON said that if the thinness of the
house and the small interest manifested in the question
under consideration were matter of regret he wished to ex-
press his regret at another circumstance, and that was that
two hon. gentlemen, anxious as he well knew for every-

thing which concerned the honour, welfare, dignity, and
happiness of this country—who were themselves perfectly
conversant with the great importance of the maritime trade
of the country to our political existence—should come
down with a motion in the shape of an amendment to the
vote which would have the effect of crippling the navy, on
the power of which the existence not only of their pro-
sperity but of their national existence depended. (Hear,
hear.) The question was, not whether £600,000 or
£900,000 should be expended on timber. The pith, mar-
row, tendency, and effect of the motion was whether they
should have a navy or not—(oh, oh)—because if they de-
prived the Admiralty of the means of having a sufficient
supply of timber they could not have a sufficient navy.
(Hear,) His noble friend the Secretary of the Admiralty
had informed the house that the vote asked for would only
obtain a two years' supply of stock; but last year it was
maintained that they ought to have a three years' supply in
stock. All that was now required was a two years' stock.
His hon. friend said they were now building iron ships, and
therefore that they did not want timber. Many hon. gen-
tlemen seemed to think that iron ships were built entirely
of iron, but the fact was that even in the construction of iron
ships an immense quantity of timber was requisite. It was
said that we should take example from France, and that as
there was a total abstinence on the part of the French Go-
vernment of anything like naval preparations, it was ab-
surd on their part to have so large a stock of timber in store
as that vote would supply. Did his hon. friend know the
amount of timbe' in store in France ? We had 80,000 loads
in our dockyards, France had 160,000 loads in her's. (Hear.)
With a smaller navy, with a less demand for timber, France
had actually double the amount of timber which it was the
object of the present vote to supply our arsenals with. The
argument for making the contract was in his opinion un-
answerable. Timber such as was required for the building
of ships grew only in certain positions, and if they did not
avail themselves of the occasions which offered of obtaining
large supplies, other people would step in and we should re-
main without that which was essential to the maintenance
of the navy. (Hear.) Under these circumstances he saw no
reason for assenting to the motion of his hon. friend, even if
the contracts had not been made. But there was no reason
for blaming the Admiralty for making contracts for supply-
ing that material, which was absolutely necessary for the
maintenance of the navy, without which this country would
be utterl3 ruined. (Hear.) Imagine if any foreign Power, or
combination of foreign Powers, had complete command of
the sea; what would become of the imports onwhich the in-
dustry of this country depended? What would become of
those expos is without which their industrywould be employed
without fruit; what would become of all those elements of
their national independence for the maintenance of which
the command of the great highway of nations was indispen-
sable ? (Hear.) independent of the consideration of na-
tional defence, of menacing any enemy that attacked our
shores, he was sure his hon. friend, .who knew the commer-
cial interests of the country, could• not seriously wish that
our navy should be deprived of those materials which were
so essential to its existence. (Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said that if the vote had been five times
its present amount the speech of the noble lord would have
been just as applicable to the proposition before the house.
The noble lord had not condescended to go into figures, and
he (Mr. Bright) did not place the slightest reliance on his
opinion with regard to the stock of timber in the French
dockyards. Once before the noble lord had misled the house
by exaggerated statements with regard to the particulars of
the French fleet, and unless he had something more specific
he should not be disposed to vote the extravagant sum now
proposed on account of his statement of the amount of tim-
ber in the French dockyards. Members of that house who
recently visited the principal French dockyards, had not
found there the large stock of timber indicated by the noble
lord. When fairly examined he had no doubt that, like the
phantom fleet of France, this would be found a phantom stock
of timber. (Hear.) The noble lord's speech entirely evaded
the question. That question was a simple one. It was quite
evident that their expenditure for naval purposes had ex-
ceeded during the last two years that of former years. They
had more ships of war than all the rest of the world put to-
gether, and it could not be necessary that they should go on
increasing their navy for the next two, four, or six years at
the same rate as they had been doing during the last two
years. Mr. Dundas, a gentleman of great authority, con-
cluded that the consumption of timber this year would be re-
duced one half, owing to the excess of timber remaining from
last year. • Theirs was no reason to suppose from anything
the noble lord.(Ziho was in a very "Rule Britannia" mood
that night) hatfsaid, that there would be any diminution
in the stock of timber next year. This Admiralty business
was the most`dtravag,ant and reckless that any legislative
chamber ever had to consider. The £12,000,000 demanded
by the Admiralty was to be expended by persons who knew
nothing whatever about book-keeping, or the business for
which the money was required. Even the noble lord the
Secretary for the Admiralty was often driven to defend
what he could not approve of, with regard to many items
of expenditure in connection with the Admiralty. The
noble lord (Palmerston) whenever those sentiments were
criticised, said hon. members were not patriotic ; but
£71,000,060 a-year was an expenditure that would test
patriotism. Every £lOO unnecessarily expended was the
purchase money of the sufferings and labour of the people.
The time was come when there should be a reduction in the
public expenditure, or a contest would arise between the
Government and the people, which the noble lord himself
would be the first to deplore. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY thought the Board of Admiralty were
bound to keep up a sufficient stock of timber. (Hear, hear.)
Every man acquainted with the subject must admit that for
the last 12 years the supply of timber had been inadequate.
Timber required to be kept in store for three years before it
was used, in order that it might be properly seasoned. The
supply, therefore, should bo obtained before the timber was
actually wanted. (Hear, hear.) He regretted that in con -
squence of a want of precaution in this respect some of our
recently constructed ships had been built with unseasoned
timber. The stock of timber in our dockyards at present
was very deficient, and that deficiency should be made up
without delay. The hon. member for Birmingham said
that those opposed to the vote had much property at sea.
That property might be inEured, but the honour of the
country could not. (Hear, hear.) It was, therefore, im-
portant that the defences of the country should be in a pro-
per condition. (Hear, hear.) He believed the proposed
vote was perfectly consistent with economy, and would
therefore support it. (Hear, hear.)
Col. SYKES said our navy was at present equal to the
combined navies of the whole world. Did our maritime
supremacy then depend on the difference between 51,000
and 80,000 loads of timber? Certainly not. He thought
the reduction proposed by the hon. member for Sunderland
a very proper one, and would give it his support. The prac-
tice had long existed in India by which the quantity of
timber and the price could be ascertained.
Mr. CONINGHAM expressed a hope that his hon. friend
(Mr. Lindsay) would press his amendment to a division.
The value of iron over wood in ships had been established
at Sinope, and he hoped that this fact would press itself on
the attention of the Government. He did not think a case
had been made out for this Tate expenditure for timber for
ships.
Mr. CHILDERS wished to know whether the 160,000
loads of timber in the French yards were French loads or
English loads? " •
Lord C. PAGET wished in the first instance to state
that a French load of timber was 40 cubic feet, and he then
enumerated the items which made up the 160,000 loads in
the different French yards. There were 40,000 loads at
Cherbourg, 30,000 at Brest, 37,000 at Boulogne, and at
Rochfort 26,000 ; and at two other yards there were 25,000
auci 7,500 leads respectively, As to the English supply, he

expect.td to have at the end of the year 82,000 loads, which
would be only equal to two years' ordinary consumption.
It had been said that all the world together could not pro-

duce as large a fleet as England. That was not true. By
the last statement received from France, amd since he made

his statement to the house, it appeared that France was
building ships to such an extent as to justify the English
Government in not only proposing this vote for timber,
but to render it necessary also to consider what additional
exertions they ought to use with regard to their increasing
their supply of iron-cased ships. The honourable member
for Sunderland would doubtless question the accuracy of
his figures, but he (Lord C. Paget) had the names of the
French iron ships which had just been laid down and the
date they had been put on the stocks. There were nine of

them, and he took the account from tho French newspapers

The first was the Provanco, which was laid down at Toulon
in May, 1861. This was a great improvement on the La

Droit. There were two others laid down at Toulon, three
at Brest, and three at L'Orient, while a tenth was about to
be commenced at Cherbourg. The noble lord gave the
names of the vessele—La Moire, La Valarouse, La Heroine,
Surveillance, and some others. The hon. member for
Sunderland laughed. Was this a laughing matter? If the

hon. member had the responsibility of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, and possessed the knowledge of what was now
taking place in France, would he venture to cease building
iron-cased ships ? Nay, he believed the hon. member for
Birmingham, if he knew all, would be ready to join in the

- -
chorus of " Rule Britannia." (Hear, hear.) The statements
which he had made of the ship building which was going
on in France was upon the best authority, and he believed
that the English Government would be neglecting its duty
to the country if they omitted to make corresponding pre-
parations. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY wished to recal the attention of the com-
mittee to the question before it, which was simply this,
whether we could do with £700,000 instead of £1,000,000
for timber. Now, he had not proposed to reduce the vote
for iron ships, but he did say we had more wooden ships
than all the navies of the world put together. They were
told that £1,000,000 would purchase 73,000 loads of timber,
but he thought it ought to purchase a greater quantity at
ordinary prices. He should therefore like to see those con-
tracts laid on the table of the house which the noble lord
said they were bound by, and having a strong opinion upon
the desirability of such an inspection, it was his intention
to move that the chairman report progress in the event of
the amendment being rejected. If they were not to sit
there as mere dummies, the noble lord could have no diffi-
culty in acceding to a proposition so reasonable. It ap-
peared, according to the noble lord's own statement, that
we had now 53,000 loads of timber in store, which was
20,000 loads more than in 1858. Our stock of timber had
fluctuated for a long course of years, between 40,000 loads
the highest, and 18,000 loads the lowest, and during all that
_ _

time we were building only wooden ships. If the vote were
passed, our stock of timber would be made to amount to
124,000 loads, less what would be consumed in the year.
He would not refer to the quantity of timber stored up in
the French dockyards, except to say that ho thought the
statement extremely improbable, inasmuch, during the last
five years the French had not laid down-a single wooden
line-of-battle ship. Even if his amendmOt were accepted,
the Government would still be enabled to-procure a supply
of timber double the average of the last ten years.

The committee then divided, and there appeared—
For the amendment 3O
Against
Majority against
Mr. LINDSAY then moved to report progress. He
thought there ought to be a fuller house to discuss those
questions, and it was a sheer waste of time to come down
there night after night to offer opposition to unnecessary
votes on behalf of heavily-taxed constituencies, and then be
told it was useless to do so, inasmuch as the Government
had entered into contracts by which Parliament was bound.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON appealed to the hon. member not
to press his motion, reminding him that the committee were
perfectly ready to consider any argument he had to urge in
support of his views.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that thcugh he could not
support the motion now made, he had been very much
struck with the unusual language of the noble lord. He was
well aware that contracts like those were occasionally ne-
cessary, but the fact ought not to be used as an argument
to influence the decision of the committee.
Lord C. I'AGET hoped the hon. member would not
persist in his motion. It would be quite impossible to ob-
tain timber unless Parliament would sanction those con-
tracts ; and the suggestion that they should be entered into
subject to:the sanction of Parliament was quite impractic-
able. No timber merchant would enter into such a con-
tract.

Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask the noble lord whether there
would be any objection to laying the particulars of the con-
tract on the table. He did not like to say that he disbelieved
anything that came from the Treasury bench—(laughter)—
and he had no doubt the contracts had been entered into as
alleged. Perhaps, however, they did not include thewhole
BUM asked for and the Government would do well to re-
flect, that, after all, £1,000,000 was a large sum to be ex-
pended in timber in one year. (Hear.)
Mr. M. T. BASS said he rose to put a question of much
the same character. It had come to his knowledge that
these contracts had been entered into on terms which were
not the usual ones, and he should therefore ask the noble
lord to state the contract prices.
Lord C. PAGET said it was not usual to state the names
of the contractors, or the contract prices ; but he held in his
hand a statement of the quantities and prices of each article,
which any member could see. They were in great variety,
including English, Italian, and Sardinian oak, and their
aggregate value was £949,371. That statement also con-
tained the sums to be paid in the course of the year. He
would remind the committee, however, that the sum asked
for depended upon all the quantities of timber named being
received into at ick in the course of the year, which was not
probable.
Mr. BRIGHT observed that that was scarcely what he
had asked the noble lord to produce. He wished to be in-
formed what the contracts were by which the house was
told it was bound.
Lord C. PAGET said the contracts had been entered into
at different periods, ranging from the 25th January, 1859,
to the 17th January, 1861.
After a few words from Mr. CONINGHAM the motion
for reporting progress was withdrawn, and the vote was
agreed to.
On the next item, £271,757 for metals, &c.,
Mr. LINDSAY moved that it be reduced by the sum of
£71,757. Some years ago a commission of six mercantile
gentlemen had been appointed to examine and report upon
the anchors used in the navy, and others which were offered
for its use. Of the five anchors which were submitted to them
they reported that Trotman's was the best and the Admi-
ralty anchor the worst. Yet for ten years since the Govern-
ment had given the firm which made these anchors a close
monopoly. The anchors were never offered for competition
at all. For 20 years they had supplied the navy, though in
that time improvements, sueh as Nasmyth's hammer, had
been introduced, by which the cost of anchors had been
greatly reduced, and they could now be made for one-half
of what they formerly cost. The Admiralty were in fact
paying three times the amount they could get better
anchors for, and he therefore hoped the committee would
agree to the reduction.
Sir J. TRELAWNY complained of the last uncourteous
treatment which Mr. Trotman had experienced from the
Admiralty. His anchor of 100 cwt. cost £9O, while that of
the Admiralty the same weight cost £365.
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not agree to the reduction,
because the hon. member had not told them on what
grounds he made that particular reduction, and in the next
place he had not told them on what grounds the commis-
sion of which he was a member came to the conclusion that
the Admiralty anchor was the worst. That was a point on
which the opinions of civilians were not to be taken, and all
the naval officers whom he had consulted gave the prefer-
ence to the Admiralty anchor, because it was certain to bite,
a point on which Trotman's could not be depended upon.
Mr. CONINGHAM asked why the anchors were not put
up to public competition?
Lord C. PAGE). was a great advocate for public compe-
tition, but anchors were the last thing he should think of
asking contracts for. They were what the ships rode by.
With respect to Trotman's anchor as compared with others,
as to price it was the highest of any, and it was uncertain
as to biting or taking the ground. Now, in the navy that
was a serious defect, because in going into line of battle each
ship had to take up a particular position, and if the anchor
did not bite at once a ship might take up the position of
some other vessel. It was intended, however, to combine
Porter's anchor with Trotman's by widening the flukes, so
as to insure its taking the ground at once, and the Admi-
ralty were ordering anchors of that construction.
Mr. LINDSAY contended that the commission which
made inquiry 10 years ago came to the conclusion that at
that time the Admiralty anchor was the worst anchor in
use. But why, he asked, were not the great manufacturing
establishments over the kingdom, which supplied anchors
to the commercial marine throughout the world, permitted
to compete for the contracts with the Admiralty? He felt
so strongly upon the subject of this vote that he felt bound
to persist in his amendment.
The committee then divided.
For the amendment 32
Against it
Majority —44
The vote was then agreed to.
Mr. LINDSAY next moved that the sum of £lOO,OOO for
iron, for an iron-cased ship to be built at Chatham, be
omitted. He did so, not because he objected to iron-cased
ships being built, but to their being built in their dockyards.
If that were once encouraged there was no knowing where
the expense would stop. Those ships ought to be built by
contract in the concerns of great iron manufacturers, who
understood the working of iron much better than those em-
ployed in her Majes, y's dockyards. He believed they could
be produced in private yards much cheaper and better than
in such a place at Chatham, and he should move that it be
omitted altogether.
Mr. CONING-HAM was of opinion it was totally un-
necessary to go to the enormous expense of building these
iron-cant' ships. A scheme for making a gigantic iron
ship-building place in the Chatham Dockyard had been
propounded, which would lead them into an enormous ex-
penditure, his opitlitai was tliaA it wee an euvrtgotio jib;

and for his part he protested against it, and he hoped the
committee would oppose the Government in the vote.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir F. SMITH could not see any connection whatever
between the enlargement of Chatham Dockyard and the
building of iron ships. He knew not why they should not
build an iron ship in Chatham Dockyard as well as in any
other yard. They had, in his opinion, two as eligible yards
for iron ship-building in Chatham and Portsmouth as could
be found anywhere ; and, with regard to Chatham, the
experiment should be tried, were it for no other purpose
than that of testing the comparative cost of building such
vessels. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not
press his amendment for the reduction of the vote.
Mr. BRIGHT was of opinion that if his hon. friend who
spoke last were member for any other place than Chatham
he would think and speak differently upon this matter.
The hon. and gallant member said, build this one ship at
Chatham as a test of the cost; but the fact was that the
cost of one ship was no test whatever. The arguments of
his hon. and gallant friend were the most flimsy that could.
be, and he hoped the committee would not be influenced by
it to give assent to the vote. It was like the Keyham Dock,
which, after they had expended about a million of money
upon, was discovered to be a mistake; and the house, on
making that discovery, came to the resolution not to expend
one shilling more upon it. (Hear.) Of this Chatham
Dockyard matter, the committee knew nothing, and could
not say whether it had been projected by the hon. and gal-
lant member, by the right hon. baronet the member for
Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), or by her Majesty's Go-
vernment. What the house ought to do was to appoint a
committee of its own members to inquire into the matter,
and on that committee he should like to see his hon. and
gallant friend the member for Chatham. He (Mr. Bright)
protested against the proposed plan, and he should like very
much to move that the chairman report progress.
Lord C. PAGET said the fact was that this vote had
no reference whatever to the proposed enlargement of
the dockyard at Chatham. He was bound to say that
this matter had been regarded by her Majesty's Go-
vernment as one of great interest, and Chatham Dockyard
had been chosen with a view of seeing whether the experi-
ment could be carried out.
In reply to Mr. Alderman SALOMONS,
Lord C. PAGET said that the keel of the Achilles had
not been laid, but considerable expense had been gone to in
preparing iron work.
Admiral SEYMOUR approved of iron ships being built
in the Chatham dockyard, and expressed a hope that it
would be used for the purpose of repairing these ships of
war.

After a few words from Sir F. SMITH the committee
divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 3l
Against it
Majority —3s
Mr. LINDSAY wished to make an appeal to the noble
lord, and it was this, that the noble lord would agree to
delay the votes of £140,000 for two troop ships, and £60,000
for machinery, for a fortnight.
Lord PALMERSTON said he would agree to postpone
the votes until Monday next.
Mr. CONINGHAM could not agree to this arrange-
ment, and would move that the Chairman report progress.
Lord PALMERSTON assented to the 'notion.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the house re-
sumed.
BOUNDARIES OF BURGHS EXTENSION (SCOT-
LAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted.

HOLYHEAD ROAD BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
LANDED PPOPERTY IMPROVEMENT, &c,

(IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
The house then adjourned at 25 minutes before one

o'clock.

COUNTRY MARILETS.

BIRMINGHAM-MAy 23.

At to-day's market there was a short supply of wheat
from the farmers, and the few sales made of both English
and fine foreign were at prices fully as dear. Other sorts
quite unsaleable. Barley more inquired for. Oats, beans,
and peas onl, taken: in retail, at late rates.

MANCHESTER—MAY 23.
English wheat in small supply, at about late rates, with
a meagre attendance and business most trifling.

PLYMOUTH—May 21.

The market again dull, with a small attendance, and no
advance upon the currencies of last week—English white
wheat, 60s to 66s ; red, 48s to 56s per qr ; French do., 63°
to 645; American, 61s to 635; Spanish, 69s to 71s; Rae
sian, 60s to 625. Barley in good supply, at 36s to 43s per
qr for malting ; grinding, 32s to 36s ; oats, 24s to 286 ; Nld
beans, —s to —s; flour, 47s to 60s.