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

expectod 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 the French newspapers.
The first was the Provanco, which was laid down at Toulon

in May, IS6I. 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 Gloire, 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 he 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 amendment 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 PALMEItSTON 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 though he could not
support the motion now made, he had been very much
struck with the unusual langnage 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. PAGET 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 tolthe 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
sum 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
Slat,' al. piLaca.
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 st )ck 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, &e.,
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, such 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. PAGEI 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. Adm-
iralty 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 fell
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
..... 76
Maj0rity............
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, hut 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 Majesty'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. CONINGHAM was of opinion it was totally un-
necessary to go to the enormous expense of building these
iron-cased 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 opinion was that it was an enormous jobs