The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-19 00:00:00

TUESDAY E iN 1N G, "i‘ IA Y 19, 1

offered them, it would not be felt to be so great a hard-
ship in war. When he commanded the Baltic fleet he
found that, hut for the coast-guard and the rigeers from
the dockc, tbat fleet could not have gone to sea. Now that
the coast-guard was under the Admiralty he truQtael there
would be no Treasury jobbing, and that men would
no longer be appointed because a member of Parlia-
ment asked the appointment; and be hoped the me❑
would be compelled to godo sea and not suffered to rust
their legs off ashore. Ho wished the house to reflect hat
the consequences would have been during the war with
Russia if France had been opposed to us. Russia bad no
screw fleet, bnt France hay, and Russia was now getting
a screw fleet also. But would it be believed that we bad
only 4,000 able seamen left after deducting officers and
marines and boys ? The Admiralty said the able seamen
were unwilling to leave the service. He sincerely hoped
that that was the case; but be must say, after talking
with eailors only the other day, that he found the service
was very unpopular among them. The men thought 10
years too lorg a period ; but he could not approve of
the system of entering them for five years, and then
paying them off at the end of three ; he would keep
them the five years out, and longer if they would remain.
But the present practice was pursued in order to give
the Admiralty more patronage. He would not deny
them patronage —he would have them remove a
captain and a lieutenant now and then ; it was good for
them, and gave them all the opportunity of active life,
and of getting acquainted with their profession. The
gallant officer then complained of the system of reserved
admirals, which had the effect of throwing young men
out of employment, whilst older men were doing the
duty. The Admiralty would do what was right if they
placed the acting admirals on the reserved list, and called
out the present reserved admirals. (Laughter.) He then
attempted to go through the list of acting, retired, re-
served, and pensioned admirals ; but, failing in the at-
tempt, he admitted it was so complicated an affair as to
baffle his comprehension. Instead of reducing the num-
ber of able seamen to 38,000, they ought to vote 50,000
at this moment.

Lord C. PAGET said he thought the statement of the
right hon. gentleman was highly satisfactory ; but yet
he must add that, in his opinion, we ought to deal with
the men differently after inducing them to give up
their other pursuits and join the service ; and, ifieve die-
missed them, it ought not to be without a proper
gratuity. He expected there would have been a much
more detailed statement of the purposes to which the
money was to be applied —the house was entitled to it
—yet there were two votes comprehending 2,000,0001.,
and all that they knew of them was, that the one was
for wages of artificers and the other for the materials of
ship-building. After much had been said of the value
now of ships of the line, he must say he believed that
the relative power of small vessels was greatly increased
over that of large ships. He did not wish to see the line-
of-battle chips burned ; they would always be necessary
as the public officers, so to speak, of the fleet ; the flag-
ship must always be a line-of-battle-ship; hut they might
greatly reduce the number of them. The First Lord
had told them that in 1817 we had 117 line-of battle-
ships, and now only 42; but, according to his (Lord C.
Pagetle) statement, we had 51—for he reckoned the nine
block ships of the number as being the most efficient
line-of-battle-ships. These block ships were able to take
part in the engagement in the Baltic, while the others
lay off looking or. But he believed that if the gallant
admiral the member for Southwark had had a large force
of gun-boats they might have damaged Cronstadt. In
former times the line•of-battle-ship carried the heavier
metal; but in these times the vessels of the class of cor-
vettes and sloops of war all carried these heavy guns ;
and he believed that experience would yet show that no
lisle-of-battle ships would be able to withstand the shoal
of gun-boats and sloops of war which they saw last year
at Spithead, and which did the right hon. gentleman so
much honour. If the First Lord would only issue a
commission to some experienced officers to inquire what
class of vessels was most useful, he believed it would
be attended with the best consequences to the navy and
the country. The right hon. baronet had represented
the number of French line-of•battle-ships as much
greater than it really was. He had received a state-
ment from the French Minister of Marine, from which
it appeared that there were only 31. He maintained
that line-of-battle-ships were inefficient, and he asked
that the opinion of a commission of naval officers should
be taken upon the subject. (Hear, bear.)
Oar Treat strength lay in the gun-boats, and it was im-
possible for a landing to be effected in the presence of the
legion of gun-boats with which this country had been
provided. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK objected to the penny wise and
pound foolish policy. The extravagance which had been
complained of arose from the foolish principles of eco-
nomy advocated by some hon. members. Tee enormous
coat incurred during the late war for the transport ser-
vice might have been obviated if proper means had been
adopted.
Mr. WARRE asked for some explanations with re-
spect to the coast-guard service. He also objected that
great loss was occasioned by not keeping the navy in an
efficient state, as appeared by a letter written by the
Admiralty, in which it was stated that somoof the gun-
boats were constructed in such haste and of such green
wood that they required to be taken out of the water,
and their timbers exposed to a thorough draft of air in
order to get seasoned.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that no one was more
anxious than himself to maintain the efficiency of the
navy ; but at the same time he could not but look to the
great expense which had been incurred, and the present
inefficient state of the navy. The estimates for the year
1852 3 were 2,175,000/. less than for the present year,
after two or three years of peace. There was no necessity
for any such increase. 250,000,0001. had been expended
on the navy since the termination of the French war,
and he asked why, after such an expenditure, the navy
was so inefficient. He found that there were 302 admi-
rals on the half-pay list, while there were only nine in
commission and three in the dockyards. In 1851-2
there were 220 on half-pay ; in 1837 there were 143 or
154 less than in 1857. During the late war only 18 ad-
mirals were required to command our fhetS, and yet there
was this enormous number of admirals on half-pay. The
number of marines, also, was too large. There were
15,000 for 35.000 sailors, while during the war there
were only 16,000 for 60,000 sailors. There were 34 ge-
neral officers of marines, and 73 staff officers, with a
command of 205 each. This was most extravagant. The
expenditure in dockyards was atlogetber unaccount-
able. In the last five years the sum spent in wages and
stores had amounted to 16,036,0001, and if they took
stock as a merchant or tradesman did, they would have
considerable difficulty in discovering what had been done
with so much money. We had built threa times as many
ships as we bad got at present, and yet none had been
destroyed in war, nor damaged, nor lost. There were se-
veral Lords of the Admiralty receiving 1,0001. a-year,
and an allowance of 2001, and 3001. a year for house rent
in addition to their half-pay as admirals. He could no:
understand on what principle they were allowed to re-
ceive their half-pay when they were well paid fur the
performance of civil duties.. It bad been his intention to
move that the estimates be referred to a select commit-
tee,properly inquired into,
been voted by the last Par-
iattn as where
didnly
of
not nog* ohu-palrdd be
propose to adopt that course.
ibue one-third oth
themeny
He ventured, however, to assert that when' these ac-
counts went to the audit-office not one of the sums
would be found to have been expended actually for the
purpose for which it had been voted. .
Sir F. SMITH did not agree with the gallant admiral
who had spoken, that we could not man a fleet to go to
war with France. He had.seen our fleet in the different
ports of the country, and he had come to a very different
conclusion, and he hoped that the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty would be induced to grant the commission sug-
gested by the gallant officer, because he believed the re-
port it would give would confirm what had been adopted
by the Government. He approved of their building line-
ot-battle ships, and thus preparing themselves to cope
with any enemy. The gallant admiral said we were no.,
provided with a sufficunt army wherewith to meet an
enemy, but be ventured to differ with him in that respect.
Before a war could take place we would have some warn-
ing, and ample time would be given to provide a eta-
oient force to assert our rights. With regard to the esti-
mates before the committee, he must say ti at he never
saw any which were more comprehensive, or had been
prepared wihh greater minuteness or clearness.
Sir J. TRELAWNY complained of the absence of a
sufficient audit, and said that although for the last seven
years sums varying from 5,009;000/. to 8,000,0001. a-
year had been voted, we were, at the breaking out of,the
last war, deficient in all those appliances which were
necessary to the proper carrying out of that war, and
were therefore unable to strike that blow in the Baltic
which might have. been struck. He deprecated the un-
wise and wasteful system of paying off and dismantling
ships on their arrival in this country, and suggested that
they should be kept in a state of efficiency. He believed
that by judicious management convict labour might be
made available to a considerable extent in connection
with naval works, and a great saving thereby effected
to the country. He could not justify the high estimates
in consequence of the two wars in which the country
was engaged. With regard to masters in the navy, he
thought that they ought to have the same opportunity
of rising in their profession as privates had in the army,
and not be compelled to remain as masters all their life.
Then, as to the naval yards, he saw no necessity to keep
admirals at the head of them.

Sir O. WOOD said, in reply to the questions of hon.
members, that a new uniform was being prepared for the
navy. According to the new regulations a school ship
had been stationed at Portmeuth and Davenport for
the reception of the naval cadets who would, for the
future, go to sea with far more knowledge of their pro.
faction than hitherto. The gallant admiral, the boo.
member for Southwark, had stated that during the war
the navy had received only 400 men from the merchant
service. He (Sir C, Wood) was not in a position to say
how many had really been received from the mercantile
marine, but he knew that during the first two years of
the war 16,000 men and 4,000 boys entered the Itoyal
Navy, and ho was at a loss to know where those 16,000
men came from if not from the merchant service. Tho
gallant admiral bad also said that it was wrong in
the Admiralty to pay off and not recommission ships,
but he was happy to tell the gallant member that
the Admiralty had recommissioned the Boseawen,
which bad just returned home. The honourable and
gallant member had attributed unworthy motives to the
Admiralty by stating that it was the wish of the First
Lord to keep down the service of the captains, and so
force them on the retired list, when it must be manifest
that if the Admiralty had any such wish they could best
carry it out by employing a few captains in continuous
service, and thus exclude the majority from the oppor-
tunity of serving. With respect to the principle on
which the retired list was framed, he did not wish to
speak. In France no officer could serve after a certain
age, and in America the United States Government,
acting on the same rule, lately discharged a large num-
ber of officers without balf-pay or any remuneration.
Here the sole was not to keep in active service as an
admiral any officer who had not served a certain nuns.

her of years, and the result of it was that they were
getting down to the appointment of admirals of a rea-
sonable age. With regard to the establishment of coal
depots end the building of transports, the Admiralty
was taking every possible step for the advantage of the
country. The coast-guar3, for only 8,000 of whom he
this year took, a vote, were rated upon the bo'oks of
three ships, in which they were trained for the perform-
ance of their duties. It was desirable to keep a large
supply of timber in the dockyards, that it might be sea-
soned by the time it would bo required, and it was by all
means necessary that an officer of high rank should act
as dockyard superintendent.
The vote was then put and agreed'to, as were also a
vote of 1,349,3331. to complete the sum necessary for
the payment of the wages of sailers and marines to the
31st of March, 1858, and another of 53,9221. to com-
plete the sum necessary for their victualling for the same
period.
On the motion for the vote of 84,2171. to complete the
sum necessary for the payment of salaries and contingent
expenses at the Admiralty.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS complained that there were no
fewer than 13 solicitors employed in the Admiralty.
Admiral BUNCOMBE thought the residences al-
lotted to the Lord of the Admiralty ought to be turned
into public offices. Advertingto the appointment of Mr.
Phima to the office of Secretary to the Admiralty, he
characterised it as an unfortunate one, and inquired what
were the causes which led to his retirement.

Sir C. WOOD, in reply to Mr. Williams, said that
considering the extent of the legal transactions of the
Admiralty. 13 solicitors were not too large a legal staff.

Sir C. 'NAPIER asked if it was the intention of the
Government, in the plan for the proposed new public
offices, to make any provision for removing the civil de-
partment of the Admiralty from Somerset-house to the
new buildings.
Mr. OSBORNE replied that no such removal was con-
templated by the Government. Referring to an observa-
tion which had fallen from the hon. and gallant member
opposite (Admiral Duncombe) respecting the retirement
of Mr. Phinn from the Admiralty, he wished to observe
that few persons had done themselves greater honour
than Mr. Phinn during the short time he held office. He
thought it ungenerous that the gallant admiral did not
put himself in possession of that information on the sub-
ject,which he ought to have had before bringing it for-
ward. The office which Mr. Phinn had relinquished had
been pressed upon him, and he refused it two distinct
times; but while he held it he acquitted himself with
great credit. He left that office for his profession. What
his private reason was for doing no he (Ur. Osborne)
was not able to judge ; but as to his appointment being,
as the gallant admiral said, an " unfortunate choice," no
better choice could be made by the Government. Whe-
ther Mr. Barrow, or any other clerk of the Admiralty,
ought to have been put in the situation, he (Mr. Osborne)
would not pretend to say • but he must protest against
an hon. member taking advantage of his position in that
house to make such a statement as the gallant admiral
had made.
Admiral DUNCOMBE remarked that whenever he
entertained an opinion on any subject, he never should
be ashamed to express it either in the house or out of it.
Mr. W. MA RTIN, as a near relation of Mr. Phinn,
expressed his thanks to the First Lord of the Admiralty,
and the hon. member who had just sat down, for having
come forward so kindly and generously to defend his
relative.

The next vote, for a sum of 118,1501., to defray the
expenses of the coast-gard service, and the Royal Naval
College, was agreed to without remark.
On the next vote, for a sum of 33,0011., to defray the
expenses of the scientific department of the navy,
_ _.

Admiral WALCOTF asked what, was the full amount
of the expenditure for that purpose ?
Sir C.'WOOD said a considerable portion of the sum
named was expended in the purchase of chronometers for
the royal navy.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the statement of his right hon.
friend at tae head of the Admiralty appeared to him very
clear and satisfactory, and he only rose to a-k for some
details as to the scientific expedition lately fitted out to
the south coast of Africa.

Ssr C. WOOD said, so far as he knew, that expedition
was not fitted out by desire of the Admiralty, although
the Admiralty had git.ea leave to officers to embark in it.
The expedition in question was sent out with a view to
further wlorations of the Africin rivers.

Sir J. GRAHAM said perhaps his right hon. friend
could explain what progress had been made in a survey
of the River Thames, for which money had been voted
for so many years by Parliament ?
Sir C. WOOD said it was quite true money bad been
voted on many occasion for the survey of the Thames,
but it was found that every year the sands shifted, so
that a survey made five years ago would be of no use at
the present time.
In reply to observations by Mr. WARM and Mr. A.
STAFFORD,
Str O. WOOD said that estimates respecting the expc-
dition in question would in due time be laid before the
litiu

In reply to remarks by Mr. CAIRD,
Sir C. WOJD said that the fullest instructions had
been given on several occasions to officers of the royal
navy to obtain information relative to the most prolific
guano deposits in various quarters of the globe.
On the vote of 92,2241. for her Majesty's naval estab•
lishments at home,

Sir J. TRELAWNY, referring to the observations be
had already made upon the want of proper encourage-
ment to masters in the naval service, said that he had not
yet received any reply from the right hon. baronet. In the
present vote there was included a sum of 8001. for the
salary of the captain-superintendent Of Deptford dock-
yard. Why were not such appointments as those given
to deserving masters in the navy ? Such appointments
were often filled by persms who had little acquaintance
with naval matters. He would move, as an amendment,
that the vote be reduced by the sum of 800/. in question.
An HON. MEMBER seconded the moti.n.
Sir C. WOOD defended the vote, and said masters

were not barred from pro motion ar3_ the hon. member a p

peared to suppose. He trusted the house would not sanc-
tion the principle of leaving establishments without pro-
per responsible heads.
Sir J. TRELAWNY said that in the army a private
could, by goad conduct, attai❑ a commission, and might
rise to a field-marshal. Would the right hon. baronet
the First Lord of the Admiralty give him a distinceas-
surance that the same principle would be applied to the
navy I If not his vague assurance that ho was mistaken
was of ne weight. He would divide the house upon hi 3
amendment.
_ _

--T6;liCiie then divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority --212
The announcement was received with much laughter.
The original vote was then agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAMS expressed his surprise that the rum
asked for the present year in the case of seven particular
dockyards exceeded that of the last year of war. It
struck him that it was a very eetraordinary way of mak-
ing peace reductions upon war estimates.
A vote of 15,4231. for naval establishments abroad was
next agreed to.
Upon a vote of 584,3901. for payment of artificers,
navvies, &c., in the naval establishments at home,
Sir J. GRAHAM was aexioue to draw the attention
of Government and the committee to the object of this
vote, although he could not say he was at present prepared
to propose any reduction in respect of it. The state-
ment which the right bon. hart, at the head of the Ad-
miralty made in the early part of the diFcsssion upon the
estimates, to the effect that her Majesey's Government
had no intention of discharging any of the naval service
men without strictly fulfilling the engagements made
during the war, was, he felt sure, hailed with considera-
ble satisfaction by every member of that house. The dis-
cussion with reference to the number of ships was very
important, but he stiil thought that every con-ideration
with regard to the efficiency of the navy was secondary
when compared with our having at all times a sufficient
number of able eoamen at oar command. There was no-
thing which had been done that he more approved of
than the introduction of continuous service, If there
were any difficulty in. reducing the number of trained
men, then he thought the country ought to consent to
give them small pension& As to economy, there was a
difference between the sailors and marines and those eels
ployed in the dockyards. The number of artificers and
labourers employed in the dockyards was between 10,000
and 11,000. The average number was the same as last
year. Was it fitting that, as a peace establishment, they
should keep 4,000 shipwrights—being exactly the same
number as was employed in the last wars After compli-
menting Lord C. Paget for his services in the late war,
the right hon. gentleman proceeded to say that he agreed
with his right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty
that it was not expedient to stop the building of the line-
d-battle ships of the largest size. Whilst the great mari-
time powers of Europe and also America continued to
build ships of the largest class, it was not possible for
England, with a due regard to her maritime superiority,
to discontinue building them. It was a queston of pro-
portion in degree, and he agreed entirely with his sight
hon. friend (Sir C. Wood) that this country ought to have
an ample supply of vessels of the largest class. The great
ex.rtion at the beginning of the late war was to have a
sufficient force of line-of-battle ships, for the Russians
had 30 sail of the line. Soon after the want of gunboats
and smaller vessels west's% but note ft e possessei a compa-
ratively strong force of both line-of-battle ships and gun
boats. Ho believed for channel service, and the perposee
of defence on our own shores, that those small vessels
would be found of inestimable value; but, if they were
to struggle for naval superiority in the Atlantic or the
Mediterranean, that must be done by ships of the largest
size. (Hear.) It was his opinion that, if economy was
to be enforced, it ought to be in our dockyards, The
number now employed there was 10,800, of whom 4,000
were shipwrights and 750 boiler=makers. This vote had
undergone no reduction, He (Sir J. Graham) thought
upon this head there ought to be reduction. It was of
the greatest importance to keep up the number of effec-
tive seamen, but he thought that expense ought to be
counterbalanced by reductions in other departments Of
the service.

Sir E.. PERRY spoke on hebalt off' the unskilled
labourers in dockyards, whose case deserved the kind
and attentive consideration of the Government. The
Admiralty order of 1844 was founded upon the necessity
of raising the wages of the men, arising from the high
price of provisions ; and what he wished to press upon
the Government was that a simillar state of things ex-
isted now. In the article of leather, of coals, and of
butter, a large increase of price had taken place. The
Admiralty had already given way in abe case of skilled
labourers, and he thought that unskilled labour had the
same claims. This latter class were in fact worse
off than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Ile also wished
that the clerks of the Admiralty, in making the proper
returns, would so far abandon their old forms as to
designate the dockyard cf the town be had the honour
to represent (Devonport) by its proper name, and not
by that of Plymouth, a place two miles off.
Mr. MARTIN said he had ascertained t'iat in the

county of Warwick the average rate of wages for la-
bourers was 125., which was just what unskilled
labourers had in her Majesty's dockyards; but there
was this 'difference that, in Warwickrhire, a labourer's
cottage could be bad for 41. or under 51. a-year, whereas
it was imposelble' to get a decent lodging in Woolwich,
Chatham, or Rocbeiter, under 71, W., or 101. a-year.
He had been told that the smiths in the dockyards had
had their wages raised to 15s. because they could not
leave the yard in the day time, but were obliged to stay
to keep the forges in ; but the ropemakers, who were
equally compelled to stay to keep up the fires of the
steam engines, were allowed only 12s. Hon. members
could form no idea of the distress that now prevailed at
Woolwich.

Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE had a word to say for the
artisans and mechanics employed at Rochester. He re-
ferred to the ropemakers, sailmakers, and others. They
were receiving 3s. 6d. a day, or 1/. is, a week, whilst in
other places the same class of labourers were certainly
paid at the rate of 54. a day. If the work were not well'
done the consequences might be very fearful. The Go-
vernment could not get their work well done unless they
paid a good day's wage for a good day's work.
Sir F. SMITH quite concurred in the statements made
with regard to the workmen's wages, and he believed the
smiths were the worst paid men in the dockyards, and
paid less than in any private establishment.
Sir G. PECHELL could not help expressing his great
regret at the absence of his right hon. friend, late the
member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley), With re-
gard to his popularity in the service, it was due to his
having given the men good clothing, good pay, and
good living, and no doubt it would be great disappoint-
ment to him not to be present so witness the effect
which his excellent management had produced.
Gen. CODRINGTON said the complaints lately made
with regard to the pay of the labourers at Woolwich had
been great, and although be could not agree that the ,
wages inside ought to be equal to those paid outside the '
yard, still the proportion ought not to be so great as to
put the Government men in a disadvantageous position.
In some cases the labourers in the yard had been re-
duced to 12s. a week, and that was really a low rate of
wages ; but the main point was, that the Government
were entitled, if they paid the best wages, to the hest
workmen which the labour required.
Mr. TOWNSEND also complained that 12s. was a
very small sum to enable the men to provide for their
wives and families. He should be glad to hear of their
being paid 15e. or IL a week for their services.
Sir C. WOOD was obliged to his right hon. friend
(Sir J. Graham) for his observations with regard to the
system of victualling, and they should be adopted. As
to the number of artificers not having been reduced, he
must remind his right hone friend that the number was
not increased during the, war. The number this year
would not be greater than existed in 1845. The late ad-
dition was made by hiring extra men. The number in
1845 was 10,872 ' • in 1848, 12,500 ; in 1849, 10,953 ;
and in this year, 10,850, being nearly the same number
as in 1845. The increased number of the steam ships
of the navy required a much larger number of smiths to
be employed in the yards than formerly. Extra labourers
had to be employed during the war to assist the arti-
ficers in carrying materials and otherwise, but these men
had since, after three months' notice, been discharged.
The hon. members for the dockyard towns had pressed
hard upon him the question of the wages of the dock-
yard labourers, and he found it very diffioult to yield to
that kind of pressure on the one hand, and to the call
for economy on the other. (Hear, hear.) Before the
war all these labourers worked for day wages, but when
the war brokd out a system of taskwork was introduced,
and the pay of the artificers increased. When peace
came they had to make reductions, and their first step
was to discharge the extra men as he had before stated,
and gradually to bring the establishment to what it was
before the war, and, as far as possible, to the same
scale of remuneration. They had found it necessary,
however, in order to retain certain classes of efficient
artificers, to increase their pay. The Board of Ad-
miralty had made inquiry as to the wages paid in
private yards, but he would remark that no
rule could be founded on that, as they varied
very much in the several ports of the kingdom.
The dockyard labourer, however, was in a far better
state than the agricultural labourer, or the labourer
in private yards, because the former was perma-
nently employed, and when disabled from work he was
pensioned fur the remainder of his lite. They ought,
therefore, to be able to get efficient artificers and la-
bourers at the wages they were now giving in the
yards. All these, matters were, however, under the
consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and all they
were anxious to do was, to do justice to the artificers
and, at the same time, not unnecessarily increase the
expenditure. (Hear, hear.)
After some further conversation, the vote was
agreed to.
A vbte for 33,383/. for the wages of artificers and
labourers in naval establishments abroad was agreed to.
On the vote of 895,4501. for naval stores and steam
machinery,
Sir G. PECHELL trusted that the right hon. gentle-
man had taken into consideration the large consumption
of coal that had taken place.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that this was a very
imp ,rtant vote. He wished to ask upon what ground
they were going to vote this large sum for'naval stores ?
Up to the
,present time there had been already voted
7,000,0001. for stores ; and the house really knew noth-
ing of the stock in hand. He thought they were voting
in a year of peace a earn totally unknown to their naval
estimates. Another question, well worthy the attention
of the committee, was, what became of the stores that
were of no nee What were called old stores were very
often new stores. The country very frequently lost by
this buying and selling, for they bought dear and sold
cheap. (Hear, hear.) He believed that if this expen-
diture was carried out they would have to vote'new
taxes next year, He wished also to ask whether all
these stores were used for naval war purposes? if any
were wanted for miscellaneous purposes, they ought to
be separated from the naval war expenditure.
After a few words from Mr. KINNAIRD,
Sir C. WOOD said that be hoped to give theright hon.
baronet some satisfactory explanation on the subject of
stores. He had stated the other evening that there had
necessarily been a great expenditure this year, and there
would be during subsequent years; because the expen-
diture during the war on certain articles was necessarily
heavy. The largest item of expenditure was for the pur-
chase of timber. The expenditure of shipbuilding timber
in 1852 was 18,700 loads. In 1853 it was 20,000 loads;
and in 1856 it was 40,0p0 loads. The amount of, ship-
building timber in store on the 31st December, 1855,
was 63,000 loads, which was reckoned to be three year's
consumption ; and on the 31st December last year there
were 56,000 loads, being 7,000 loads below the esta-
blishment. When war was being carried on, they had
to enter into contracts for the supply of timber which
generally ran over two.or three years, and in point of
fact there were contracts running now for a greater
amount of timber than would be deliOered during the
nex,
I. year, However, they would be leaving the yards
in an improper state if they did not, at an early a period
as possible, get the timber up to the establishment. Sup•
pose a sudden demand came, what would be said if'
they left the yards below the establishment of 'seasoned
timtier ? The name reasoning applied to most of the
items of heovy stores—hemp, canvass, and copper. Tne
expenditure of last year was far beyond the ordinary
course, but it was absolutely necessary under the cir-
cumstances. He assured the committee, on the autho-
rity of the superintendent of stores, that none of the
army stores had been sold which were available for the
navy.
Mr. BLAKEMORE regretted BO great a reduction as
was proposed in the vote for our iron steam navy from
600,0001. to 345,0001., for he was satisfied it was one of
the most important departments in which this country
contended with the rivalry of other nations.

The vete was then agreed to.
On the vote of 278,415/. for new' works, improve-
ments, and repairs in the naval establishments,
Sir J. GRAHAM wished the right hon. gentleman
to give some explanation of the large outlay for repair of
machinery at Chatham, amounting to 160,0001., and
55,0001. for the same purposes for Pembroke dockyard.
He also complained that there was 26,0001. for the break-
water at Plymouth ; but he was at a loss to know how
the money was to be employed.
Mr. MAGUIRE wished to draw attention to a sub-
ject which Wa3 not only unfair to Ireland, but dangerous
tothe empire. Ile found that there were sites fel-600,000/.
for works in England, and oily 1,500/ for works in Ire-
land. Queenstown, which was one of the finest natural
baritones in the ;world, was altogether neglected, and in
case of vessels being driven by ni,:tress into this harbour
there were no mews o cf assisting the;:w at the command
of the Government ; the st?am tugs beie'oging to the
merchant service wel) employed, and it een:3 often a
mercy that the vessels were not lost.
Mr. BLAKEMORE asked what steps the Govern-
meet had taken f®r the protection of commerce in the
Bristol channel?
Sir C. WOOD said--At Chatham, where vessels were
admitted for repair, and finally fitted ont, it had been
properly determined to take additional land for the con-
struction of a basin and other works, which it was hoped
might be executed entirely by convict labour. Convict
prisons had been buelt on the adjacent ground, end cen-
victs had been placed in them in considerable numbers.
The works at Sheerness were on a comparatively small
scale, and the position of the place was so inconvenient
that he almost grudged the money, but it became neces-
sary to make some preparations for vessels coming in
there for repair. With regard to Queenstown he could
not hold out any hope that any large works would be un-
dertaken in Cork harbour. In reerence to the Bristol
Channel he bad to state that a coast-guard vessel had
been stationed at a certain distance up the channel, but
as the position was found to leie
very dangerous, it had
Leen rettloved td a place of greater seco:ltY*
Sir .14 GRAIIAM: expressed hie cue forceregret ,t
im-
of marines was to 1?e rednced. It was of the
iHo-
I:iartauoe to maintain that face With d ltirgo establish-
went; even in a time of peace: This was a qii6stlon
which could tinlk be regarded in Conjunction with the
"ekes /or the army. lie was decidedly of opinion with
the gallant admiral, that the larger portion of the garri-
sons of the outports should consist of marines, particu-
larly i)evettporti rortertiottbi Chatham, and Woolwich,
and it was quite possible by some arrangement with the
Minister for War to have occupied by marines in a time
of peace some of the barracks at those places which had
heretofore been tenanted by the army.
Sir C. WOOD said that at Woolwich there were good
and extensive barracks for the marines, and it would,
therefore, be unnecessary to make any additions at that
place. The barrack accommodation at Portsmouth and
at Plymouth was insufficient for the accommodation of
the soldiers, and it would therefore at present be impos-
sible to station the marines in barracks at those places.
The vote was then agreed to.
A vote of 20,0001. for medicines and medical stores
was next agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again.