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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
WOODEN VESSELS.
(Continued from The Sun of last night.)
Mr. LINDSAY said he might add that of the
25 screw frigates possessed by France five were of only
200 horse power, while of the 18 paddle-wheel
frigates 16 had been built 21 years ago, and could not
be said to rank on the score of construction with ours.
Taking next into consideration vessels mounting 20 guns
and upwards, we had at the present moment of that
class of ships about 145; France, 75; all the world com-
bined only 139. That being so, he thought hehad adduced
sufficient evidence to justify him in asking the house to as-
sent to the second proposition which he had risen to submit
to its notice. He now came to iron
,ships, and of those
France possessed only one—La Gloire—ready for sea, while
she had two launched and capable of being got ready for
sea in the present year, besides three of a similar class in
progress of being built, making in all six iron vessels,
mounting each from 36 to 52 guns. She had also four
mounting 14 guns, built specially as battery vessels for the
protection of her harbours, and five mounting only two
guns ; and, so far as he was informed, all those vessels could
not be ready for sea before the expiration of a period of two
years, or two years and a half, from the present time. That
being the position of France with respect to iron vessels, he
should briefly inform the house how this country stood in
that particular. We had seven of those ships either built
or in progress of construction. Two of them, the Warrior
and the Black Prince, had been already launched, would be
ready for sea in the course of two or three months, and
were in point of tonnage and power equal to four La Gloires.
The house, moreover, independently of that fact, knew full
well that England possessed the means of producing iron
vessels to a far greater extent and with much more rapidity
than France, so that if it were found that France could have
the vessels to which he had referred ready for sea even with-
in a year and a half, there could still be no doubt we could
outstrip her is the race. ,It was, however, said that the
Emperor of the French was building ten more vessels, all
equal to La Gloire ; but he had failed to find out where they
were being constructed, although he had inquired somewhat
closely into the subject. Ile had also a very good reason
for doubting that those 10 vessels were about to be built,
founded upon the difficulty which must lie in the wade', of
obtaining the money necessary for the purpose. But it
might be argued that in France money voted for one pur-
pose might be expended on an object entirely different
from that for which it had been granted, and that
thus the Emperor would have no difficulty in securing the
amount which he might require for the building of iron ves-
sels. He had, however, examined into the justice of that
argument, and had ascertained that it was untenable. In-
deed, he held in his hand a letter, the writer of which, a
most intelligent Frenchman and a member of the Senate,
stated that it was utterly erroneous to suppose that France
was under the rule cf a Government so absolute and des-
potic that neither the French Chambers nor people exer-
cised any control over the finances of their country, adding
that those finances had never ceased to be under the opera.
tion of a system of control and guarantee ; that they were
regulated still, with the exception of a few alterations, by
the ordinance of 1838 ; that the estimates for each Govern-
ment department were voted by the Legislative Body; that
credits were granted by decrees passed in Council and pub-
lished in the Gazette, and that Ministers never failed to pub-
lish at the close of every year a statement of how the public
money had I.le en laid out under the different heads of expen-
diture. Some hon. members might still believe that somehow
or other money voted for one purpose in Francewas expended
for another. Such was not the case as far as the navy was
concerned. He had read the votes for the French navy for
the last ten years, and also an account of the actual expendi-
ture during the same period. In 1850 the sum voted was
£3,463,000, and the sum expended £3,327,090. In 1851 the
sum expended was, as in the previous year, less than the
sum voted. In 1852 the sum voted was £3,738,000, and the
sum expended £3,412,000; in 1853 the sum voted was
£3,763,000, and the sum expended £3,972,000; in 1854 the
sum voted was £3,800,000,and the sum expended £4,696,000;
in 1855 the sum voted was £4,118,000,and the sum expended
£8,600,000; in 1856 the sum voted was £1,170,000, and the
sum expended £8,309,000. It would be recollected that the
years 1854, 1855, and 1856 were the years of the Russian war,
which accounted for the largely increased expenditure upon
the navy. In 1857, when the sum voted was £4,165,000,
the expenditure fell to £5,076,000 ; and in 1858, when the
sum voted was £4,607,000, the expenditure was £5,400,000.
He had not the expenditure for 1859 and 1860, but the
sums voted in those years were £4,910,000 and £4,940,000.
For the present year the sum of £4,975,000 had been voted.
He was afraid that we could not show so close a connexion
between estimates and expenditure. In 1859 the Navy Esti-
mates amounted to £9,813,000, but the minister asked and
obtained a supplementary vote, which raised the expendi-
ture to nearly £2,000,000 more than Parliament originally
voted. In 1835 the votes for the navy amounted to
£4,204,000 ; in 1852 they amounted to £5,800,000 ; in 1857,
to £8,200,000 ; in 1858, to £8,800,000 ; in 1859, to
£11,775,000; and in 1860 to £12,822,000, or more than
double the votes of France. Notwithstanding the enormous
sums expended last year, the house was now asked to vote
no less than £12,029,000. For what purpose was that vast
amount of money wanted ? In 1859 we had to reconstruct
our navy. Such was not the case now. We had now a fine
fleet—a fleet larger than all the navies of the world com-
bined. Surely upwards of £12,000,000 was not wanted to
build more wooden ships. The Government was said to
have made up its mind not to build any more wooden ships;
and, in that case, it could not want £1,000,000 for timber.
In 1850 the votes for timber amounted to £325,000; in
1852 they amounted to £322,000 ; in 1858, to £363,000 ; and
in 1859, when we were reconstructing our fleet, to £453,000.
Now that we had a reconstructed fleet, why should Par-
liament be called upon to vote £1,000,000 for timber? If
the Admiralty were not going to build any more wooden
ships, vote No. 10 ought to be reduced. That vote
amounted to £3,489,000, or £300,000 more than was asked
last year. In his opinion the vote for timber might with.
perfect safety be reduced from £1,000,000 to £700,000, the
metal vote from £270,000 to £170,000, and the hemp vote
from £400,000 to £320,000. In the same way—always
supposing that the Government, as reported, did not deem
it advisable to go on with the building of line-of-battle
ships—£lBs,ooo might be struck off the vote for machi-
nery, reducing it to £500,000; while, with respect to trans-
ports, he thought it would be wrong to spend money upon
the purchase of more of that class of vessels until the
Transport Committee had presented its report, which would
probably be ready in a couple of months. Altogether he
thought vote No. 10 might be reduced by the sum of
£876,000 without in the slightest degree impairing the effi-
ciency of the navy. Then, if they were not going to build
any more large timber ships the vote for carpenters, black..
smiths, &c., £1,112,000, might be considerably reduced.
Yet they were asked to vote 2,938 men extra. On that vote
there might be a saving of from £150,000 to £200,000.
On vote No. 6 there should be a reduction of about £23,000.
With regard to the number of clerks there were no fewer
than 426 at the Admiralty; and in the Accountant-Gene-
ral's Department, with 154 clerks, there was a demand this
year for £6,000 additional under that head. On these
votes taken together there might be a reduction of
£1,150,000. His third resolution was, "That it is inexpe-
dient, without farther experience, to sanction the expendi-
ture of any money for the purpose of adapting her Majes-
ty's dockyard for the construction of iron vessels." No
portion of the votes he desired to reduce would take away
one penny of the money wanted for the construction of iron
ships ; but the question he had to put was,—could they go
on constructing iron vessels in her Majesty's dockyards ?
He said it was not advisable to spend money in adapting
the dockyards for that purpose. This led him to refer to the
report of the Royal Commission on the dockyards, which
had recently been laid on the table. That report, he must
say, was a most impartial and able production ; and it was
manifest that those who drew it up not only felt that they
had great and important duties to discharge, but that they
deeply regretted the nature of the report they had to make.
(Hear.) They said, " We are of opinion that iron shipbuild-
ing should not be carried on in her Majesty's dockyards
under the existing system of accounts. It has been stated to
us as a reason for continuing the practice that it is necessary
tho Government should have it in their power to test the cost
of that description of work, so that they mayhave some check
on contract prices." But the Commissioners went on to state
that under the present system of accounts no such test can
be obtained. "The system of accounts," they said, "is
elaborately minute, but so far as we can judge its
results
are not to be relied upon for any practical purpose." (Hear.)
No sentence could be more severe than that, although it was
obviously written with great delicacy. If the accounts were o
no value for practical purposes, they were not only worthless
but positively deceptive. (Hear, hear-) It would be in-
finitely better to have no accounts at all. As a proof of the
inaccuracy of the detailed accounts the Commissioners stated
that in the accounts of Woolwich Dockyard no fewer than
7,906 errors had been discovered—(hear, hear) —within a
of timber, and extended, indeed, to
taiemwosatgeesv, the
edrysub
mrsats: r icohnf.g4
1A t
, ot 0
oh, at rate, in all the dockyard
accounts, there must be some
only eight months. These errors related
period embracing
£1,200,8 and 4450. In one
80,000 errors. These errors
210 was omitted to be charged. Such a state of
tr instance pi
nr ge ss
e nwt 15ea
; most lamentable, and no language was toe
strong to characterise it. The house will remember the evi-
dence
in this case was not that of interested witnesses ;
every person examined before the commission was a servant
of her Majesty Employed
in the dockyards. With the ac-
counts in this state, how did the house suppose were the
balances made up? Why, by the assistance of an item
called general expenditure. (Hear, hear.) He hoped for
the credit of the public service that the Commissioners were
under some misapprehension in this matter ; but explana-
tion must come either from them or from the noble lord the
Secretary for the Admiralty. These accounts, then, could
be of no use in estimating the cost of building ships. (Hear.)
The iron ships built in the Royal dock-yards since 1848, ex-
clusive of the charge for plant and the interest on capttal,
haul cost nearly double the amount per ton for the bare hulls .
which anybody at all conversant with ships wouldll them
they ought to have cost. They might have been built for
£l7 or £lB per ton, but they had actually cost £l3 3s. sde
beyond that sum. In the face of these facts, he was asto..
nished that the Government should now ask the house to
vote £198,000 partly for new plant and partly for iron to be
used in her Majesty's dockyards, where such bad accounts
were kept, in the construction of ships at the enormous cos