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

ships should be built in the Thames, in the Mersey, and
in the Clyde. The engines should be constructed by firms
of standing, and our dockyards should be kept simply for
repairs, and for nothing else. There would then be no diffi-
culty in ascertaining in future what our expenditure was,
and the expenditure would be immeasurably less than it
was now. With regard to troop-ships, there was no necessity
for any outlay on that account, but France was in a diffe-
rent position, for she could not fall back on a large com-
mercial navy. (Hear.) In the report of the Commis-
sioners, Sir B. Walker, who gave his evidence with the
utmost straightforwardness and candour, declared that he
was placed in a position where he could not with credit
to himself undertake the responsibility which devolved upon
him. Yet when Sir Baldwin was appointed the Admiralty
were perfectly well aware he knew nothing about the con-
struction of vessels, except as being a good sailor. The same
thing occurred over again in the appointment of Admiral
Robinson. Now, in the selection of an architect or an engi-
neer the first requisite was that he should have a practical
knowledge of his profession; and the results which had
made themselves felt in building our navy could not be
wondered at when the incapacity of those who ruled over
this department was so complete. (Hear.) The improve-
ments which science and skill were every day effecting in
the construction of ships ought to be to England a source
of increased power, and not of weakness. (Hear, hear.)
No country had advantages comparable with those enjoyed
by England. Here were unlimited supplies of iron and coal;
here were practical engineers equal to any in the world ;
skilled labour was to be had in abundance, and capital to
render all these advantages available. Remembering this he
could not understand the statement made by Sir B. Walker
to the Commissioners, that when the Admiralty invited
tenders for the construction of iron frigates certain contrac-
tors offered the clerks large sums of money to furnish them
with the necessary plans and calculations. Surely in a (lona-
try which had taught the world, which was the birthplace
of the steam engine and the parent of the locomotive, there
was plenty of practical skill to which the Admiralty might
have recourse. It seemed to him that nothing would be
easier than for the Admiralty to say to six or seven of our
leading firms, Here are certain conditions, with whiah you
must comply, with regard to speed, armament, stowage of
coals, and accommodation for men; and you shall supply us
with a vessel which, unless it fulfils all these conditions,
we won't take; but if it does fulfil them we will pay you
for ; and, moreover, the firm which produces the most
economical and most efficient ship shall, over and above
the stipulated sum, receive a large reward and orders
for the future." (Hear, hear.) Such an invitation
would bring out shipbuilding talent in plenty. Did any-
body suppose that the talent was concentrated only at the
Admiralty ? (A laugh.) The ships of the Cunard line, and
of the Peninsular and Oriental and the Royal Mail Steam
Packet Companies, showed that private yards could turn
out splendid specimens of naval architecture. (Near, hear.) I
All that was required was that this talent should be made
available for the service of the country. (Hear, hear.) At
the same time, in speaking of Admiralty mismanagement,
he wished it to be understood that in his opinion the mis-
management was the fault of the system rather than of in-
dividuals. He had been sorry to hear the remarks made
upon the Secretary to the Admiralty, because his belief was
that no one could have done more than the noble lord had
done in the position which he occupied, and the fact that he
had done so little afforded the strongest possible proof of the
defects of the system. (Hear, hear.) The Admiralty, how-
ever, must now act, and act vigorously. The country ex-
pected this of them, and had made up its mind, on evidence
quite irresistible, that the House of Commons would be
wanting in courage if it did not, without finding fault with
individuals, declare the existing system ought to be at once
reformed. (Hear, hear.) The house would be justified in
saying to the Admiralty,—" We will intrust to you no more
money than is absolutely necessary for the honour and safety
of the country. We will refuse our assent to all expenditure
which has its origin in incapacity and mismanagement, and
we will not perpetuate a system which is so conceived, and
which at every point works so prejudicially to the public in..
terests." tHear, hear.) He hoped that his hon. friend would
persevere in the motion he had made, and that the house
would by an almost unanimous vote affirm the propriety of
the course which he had suggested. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET—The house has listened with great, I
may say with surpassing interest to the statements made
by my hon. friend and by the hon. baronet. (Hear, hear.)
If I abstain from following them and from defending the
department to which I have the honour to belong from the
various charges which have been made as to its incapacity
and want of ability, and as to almost every detail connected
with Admiralty management, it is not because I am unpre-
pared to show that the Board of Admiralty has done its
best under the circumstances in which it has been placed to
rectify such errors as appear to have crept into its constitu-
tion, and into the various departments which it comprises.
I abstain from attempting any such defence, because we
have now to deal with certain resolutions connected with
the building of line-of-battle ships. It will, therefore, be
my business to show the house that it will be highly inex-
pedient to agree to those resolutions as they stand, because,
if we do agree to them, it is impossible that the Admiralty
can be responsible for the maintenance of your fleet ; it is
quite impossible that the Admiralty can say, " We have
done what we consider right for the safety and honour of
the country," if an abstract resolution of this nature is I
sanctioned by the 11011130 of Commons. With regard to the./
details of this motion, my hon. friend says; in the first place,
that it is expedient to defer any further expenditure on the
construction or conversion of wooden line-of-battle ships.
Now, if my hon. friend had followed me three years ago,
in the days when it became obvious to practical men that
our line-of-battle ships were not likely to maintain the po-
sition which they had held in former wars, he would have
conferred a much greater boon upon the country than by
coming forward at this moment.
Mr. LINDSAY.—The noble lord must surely have for-
gotten that I seconded his motion on the occasion he refers to.
Lord C. PACKET.-1 am alluding not to that speech, but
to a speech which I made in 18.57 and 1858, calling attention
to the building of line-of 'battle ships. My hon. friend now
comes and asks us to abstain from building line-of-battle
ships, but he couples this request with another resolution,
or part of a resolution, which I think the house will see it
is quite impossible that we can carry out consistently with
our duty to the public, and with a due regard to the main-
tenance of the nary. He says it is not expedient that we
should either build or convert any screw line-of-battle
ships. Well, I have expressed my opinion very often in
this house with regard to the conversion of these line-of-
battle ships ; but my views have not been always followed
out, and we have gone on converting as before. These
ships are now in process of conversion. They are occupy-
ing your docks, and so long as that is the case the dockyards
are not available for the repair of your ships now at sea.
That is at once a reason why we should not agree to the
motion to give up the conversion of these line-of-battle
ships. There are four at present undergoing conversion.
They will be probably out of their decks in the course of the
present year, and after they are out I sincerely hope that
there will be no more of these line-of-battle ships converted.
(Hear, hear.) My hon. friend then calls on the House to
declare " that it is inexpedient to incur during the present
year the expenditure requisite for the completion of the
line-of-battle ships now on the stocks; and that during the
present year it is not expedient to commence the construc-
tion of any wooden vessels which carry guns on more than
one deck." Now, I have heard various arguments upon

. _
this question of woeden ships. Hon. members tell us on a

sudden that wooden vessels are to be no longer component
parts of the navy, that they are to be thrown on one side,
and that all our war vessels must henceforth be built of

iron. Sir, lam not prepared, and Ido not think that any
practical naval man is prepared, to subscribe to such a doc-
trine. (Hear, hear.) I quite admit that these very large
iron-cased ships should obviously be built of iron, because
you cannot build wooden ships of very great tonnage—at
least, I do not believe you can—consistently with the
strength which is required for such vessels. That is a rea •
son in itself, but there are various other reasons why it is
very advisable to constiuct these ships of wood. We have
no experience to guide us as to the inadvisability of building
small wooden vessels. One of the most serious defects of
iron vessels is their liability to foul. In any future war
speed will be the quality which will determine the su-
periority. (Hear, hear.) The -vessel which has the greatest
speed, and cam carry, not the largest number of guns, but
a small number of the heaviest guns, in all probability will
have the advantage over other vessels. But iron vessels
in warm climates are so liable to foul that unless they are
continually docked they cannot maintain their speed.
I am not prepared to say that we may not discover some
scientific method of keeping the bottoms of these vessels
clean, but according to our present lights it would be highly
inadvisable to give up building wooden vessels. The term
employed by the hon. gentleman, carrying " guns on more
than one deck," is so exceedingly vague that I don't under-
.

stand what it is that he means; but I must ask the house

not to agree to any abstract resolution which would bind
the Government to cease from building any more of that

very useful class of vessels, corvettes and gunboats. The
third resolution of the hon. gentleman lays down that "it

is inexpedient without further experience to sanction the
expenditure of any money for adapting her Majesty's dock-
yards for the construction of iroi vessels." There is not

the slightest intention on the part of the Government to
adapt the dockyards for the construction of iron vessels. I
am not prepared to say that the iron ship which is about to
be built at Chatham will be built cheaper than a vessel

built by contract. It is very doubtful whether she will be,
but there are strong reasons under the circumstances why

one ship should be built at Chatham. We have no experi-
ence with regard to building these vessels. It was quite
impossible for any Board of Admiralty or any scientific man
to foresee what improvements might suggest themselves in
the course of the building of these vessels. (Hear, hear.)
In building the Warrior we found that it would be advis-

able, as the Armstrong 100-pounder admits of a narrow
port, that her ports should be reduced in size. But the
Warrior was ordered by contract ; the consequence of which

is that we were tied to a certain form of vessel and a certain

size of port, and to various other details which we have
been otliged to alter, and the contractors necessarily come
down upon us for additional sums in payment for these
alterations. It may be said that these points ought to have
.beene considered beforehand, and no doubt it would have
:11l atdviaable if possible ; but I have always believed and
towed iy' greatest care and consideration was be-
y rißllt hen, friend on the commencement of

the formation of that vessel. We have found out since
that we can get a greater flotation by giving a flatter mid-
Ship section to the sister ship which is going to be built;
but if wo had entered into a contract for that vessel we
should be tied down to the exact form of the Warrior.
There are various other details with which I will not trouble
the house which make it quite reasonable that we should
try one vessel in our own yard with a view of carrying out
any improvements which may suggest themselves in the
course of construction. (Hear.) The hon. baronet the
member for Finsbury spoke somewhat loosely on this matter.
He is for having us confine the building of these vessels to
the three rivers—the Mersey, the Clyde, and the Thames,
and with singular favouritism he would exclude all other
manufacturing ports. I don't know ;where he got his in-
formation, but he would have the house believe that the
Warrior built by the right hon. gentleman opposite is a
great success and will have great speed, while the present
Board of Admiralty are building vessels which will have no
speed, no stowage, which will be left behind to be captured
by the enemy, and, in fact, will be totally useless. But
when hon. gentlemen come down here to make powerful
speeches and give the house all this information they are
bound to give us something like truth. (Hear.) Let us see
what is really the estimated speed of the different classes.
The Warrior and the Black Prince, and vessels of that
class, it is hoped, will have a speed of 14 knots ; the Defence
and the Resistance will have a speed of 111 knots ; and the
smaller class of 4,000 tons it is hoped will have a speed of
12 1-3 knots. These are not vessels that can be said to be
destitute of speed, or which cannot be expected to keep pace
with the fleets of this country. In fact, Ido not believe
there is a single line-of-battle ship in the navy which has
the speed of the slowest class of these vessels. I trust,
then, that with regard to these three resolutions the house
will not agree to them, that it will put some confidence in
the department which is responsible for building and
maintaining your fleets, and that it will not tie us down to
building nothing but one description of vessels. The hon.
gentleman who moved these resolutions made some observa-
tions which I think he had not duly considered. He has
come home printed with information from France. (Hear,
hear.) I have no doubt that the Minister and the authori-
ties there have relied on him for setting right the English
people, who were altogether in a mist and seemed possessed
with an idea that the French had a large fleet, when in fact
they had nothing at all. (Hear, hear.) But I don't
think my hon. friend is consistent with himself in the
figures he has given us. The last time he spoke he told
us that the French had only 88 ships.
Mr. LINDSAY—I referred entirely to efficient ships.
Lord C. PAGET—In our calculations we only speak of
efficient ships ; we only include steamships, and leave sail-
ing ships out altogether. My hon. friend says that Eng-
land has 22 line-of-battle ships more than all the world
combined. But this is a statement really not founded on
fact. We have 67 steam line-of-battle-ships built or
building. France has 37, Spain 3, Russia 9, and Italy 1,
making 50. I admit that that is a very great superiority.
(Hear, hear.) But it does not amount in figures to what
the hon. gentleman stated, because he stated that we had
22 more line-of-battle ships than all the rest of the world
put together. Again, he says that we have nine more
frigates than France. Now, England has 52 frigates and
France 47, and net, as my hon. friend states, 43. When
he comes to tell the House these things it makes it appear
that we are going to an enormous and unnecessary ex-
pense in building ships when France has no force at all
commensurate with ours. He tells us that the French iron
ships will not be ready in 2i years. I say that is entirely
erroneous. (Hear, hear.) I do not say that all the
French iron ships will be ready in 21 or in 5/ years, but I
say that every one of the French iron-cased ships, big and
little, may be ready in the course of the present summer,
(Cheers.) I state that to my hon. friend on the best
authority. I am not prepared to say:that they will be
ready, but I say that every one may be ready in the course
of the present summer. (Cheers.) With regard to the
Magenta, one of the very largest of the French iron-cased
ships, carrying 52 guns, it is only within the last two
days I have been told that the Magenta is very nearly
ready for launching. It is true that the plates have then to be
put on. But it is unfair for my hon. friend to state that
we are making these vast preparations, and that other nations
are not making due preparations. (Hear, hear.) Ido not
blame them. But I say that the French and every nation on
the continent are making great naval preparations, and
therefore that it is the bounden duty of Ministers to see that
we have a fleet sufficient to maintain the safety, honour,
and dignity of this country. (Cheers.) The hon. gentle-
man has quoted the Navy Estimates of France. He com-
pared the Estimates of past years, and he made out that th•
French are less than half the Estimates of this country.
But will the house remember that we have to maintain a
vast force upon the seas to protect our colonies and com-
merce, and that we cannot do that without paying for it ?
(Hear, hear.) Our navy is spread all over the globe. Our
navy is frittered away (hear, hear, from Mr. Bright)—and
large expenditure is the consequence. The hon. member
for Birmingham says " Hear, hear." I should like to ask
him what his Manchester friends would say if in some out-
landish country British ships were plundered and their
crews muraerea tor want of a British man-of- war to protect
them. (Cheers.) There are constant demands from abroad
for the presence of British men-of-war, and if you will
maintain this great fleet you must pay the pipe.r. (Hear,
hear.) I wish to make allusion to the statement of the hon.
member for Sunderland with regard to timber. I think, if
there is one thing for which the Admiralty has been blamed
more than another, it is for not maintaining a proper stock
of timber. (Hear, hear.) It has been said, "You are build-
ing your ships of green wood. You are living from hand
to mouth, and no one could tell what would happen to the
country if a war broke out when your dockyards are
denuded of timber." (Hear.) What has the present
Admiralty done ? They have listened to the wise advice
which was given to them by many hon. gentlemen—viz., to
get together a good stock of timber. If the house agree to
the vote, large as I admit it is this year, we shall then be in
a position in which we have not been for a considerable
number of years with regard to the stock of timber ; and I
believe that, come what may—whatever emergency may
arise, we shall have a stock of timber which will enable
us to repair and, if necessary, to build the ships which
are requisite for the navy. (Hear, hear.) I will not advert
to certain peddling reforms which the hon. member asked
for with regard to the Admiralty Department. I have
a comparative statement of the expense of the Staff of the
Admiralty now and in former times, when the Estimates
used to be only £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 per annum. It is
not worth reading to the house, but if the hon. member
would look at it, he would be satisfied, that every possible
economy has been introduced in the personnel of the Ad-
miralty. In 1829, in the old days of the Navy Board, when
30,000 was the vote for the seamen, and the Estimates were
£6,000,000 a year, the Admiralty consisted of five Lords, 16
Commissioners, four secretaries, 26 clerks at Whitehall and
93 clerks at Somerset-house, making together 244 indivi-
duals, and the amount of their cost was £162,800 a year. In
1861—I will spare the house the intermediate years—when
4'8,200 is the vote for the seamen and the Estimates are
£12,000,000, the Staff at the Admiralty consists of six
Lords, two secretaries, five principal officers, 47 clerks at
Whitehall and 223 clerks at Somerset-house, making toge-
ther 283 individuals, and their cost is £96,780. (Hear.)
There is also a considerable number of temporary clerks,
but in those days there was the same proportion. I cannot
help thinking that with the great reform which the hon.
member wishes to introduce he might have spared the
personnel of the Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) The hon. mem-
ber reverts to the report of the Commission on Dockyard
Expenditure, and quotes very strong language used by that
Commission in their report. I cannot but admit that the
Commission have given, upon the whole, a very fair report,
but I wish they had not rather left it to be inferred that de-
fects in the accounts of the navy beget suspicions of mal-
versation. lam quite sure that it was not the intention of
any member of the Commission to leave such inference. I
know of nobody who has ever accused any individual of
malpractices with regard to the accounts, but the impres-
sion has got abroad. It has created great pain in the
department, and one of the most intelligent and dis-
tinguished superintendents of dockyards has earnestly re-
quested me to remove it. (Hear.) I should state to the

house, and I am sure the hon. gentleman who proposed the
Commission will corroborate me when I say that from the
first the Admiralty has been most anxious to give every in-
formation. To whom is it due that these errors, upon which

such great stress is laid, have been discovered but to the
Board of Admiralty ? The Commissioners would never

have discovered the errors, but the Board of Admiralty

took pains to go into the accounts, and through that ea•
cellent officer, Commodore Drummond, to check them; and

the moment any error was discovered, his instructions were
to lay it before the Commission. It was the earnest desire

of the Admiralty that every error should be laid before the
Commission, with a view to rectification. When, therefore,
the hon. gentleman says, "Look at the accounts—how
worthless they are," he should at least do the Admiralty
the credit of adding that the Admiralty have used their ut-
most endeavours to have the errors discovered. (Hear.) I
confess that I greatly regret the report should be so meagre.
I wish the Commissioners bad shown, by proper marginal
notes, the-evidence upon which each of their opinions is
founded. (Hear.) It has been always usual to do so, and I
must say that in that respect I think the Commissioners
have not given the information which it is desirable they
should have (given us. I believe the Admiralty have
already taken steps to rectify these grave errors in the ac-
counts, and in August last, long before the Commission re-
ported, they instructed their Accountant-General to go into
the dockyards and prepare a proper system of account's, on
the double-entry system, with a view to bring these great
shipbuilding accounts under proper regulations and ma-
nagement. I think, therefore, that the observations of my
hon. friend on the conduct of the Admiralty in that respect
are scarcely justifiable. My hon. friend also stated that
the average eost of ships in our navy was £33 per ton. The ,

return furnished to the commissioners of the cost of ships
built at Pembroke gave that average per ton, but then about
a fifth of those ships were line-of-battle ships. As the pro-
portion of line •of-battle ships constructed in the other dock-
yards is only a tenth, it is clear that the average cost per
ton throughout the navy is much less than the amount
stated. The Admiralty do not deserve the condemnation
which my hon, friend would pass upon them. They have
earnestly endeavoured to rectify any defects in the adminis-
tration which came under their notice. I -believe I have
I furnished the house with mere informatioh as to the Ws'