The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-01 00:00:00

never find out who drew the lines of the vessels, or placed
the engines in them, or how we became possessed of so
many ships perfectly inefficient for the purpose required.
They were told the drawings came out of the surveyor's
office, but if it were said that they came out of the mouth
of Mount Etna he would not be more puzzled. That the
drawings were obtained from the surveyor's office did not
give any clue to the person who was responsible for them.
He heard that the Government intended to grant an in-
quiry into the affairs of the Admiralty, but there was one
witness who ought to be examined before it—Sir B. Walker
—who was now under sailing orders to proceed to the Cape
lof Good Hope on Saturday next. He asked the noble lord
the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could not coun-
termand his orders ? (Hear.) Don't let them be deprived of
the services of Sir B. Walker, because nothing he had done
during his illustrious and useful career would be of greater
service to the public than the revelations he would be able
to make before the committee as to the mismanagement of
his office—a mismanagement totally beyond his control.
Having some little knowledge of seafaring life, he (Sir J.
Elphinstone) could not resist the opportunity now afforded
to him to lay his resolutions on the table for the purpose of
raising a discussion, and showing that there was a plan by
which they might administer the Admiralty with some
chance of securing efficiency in its various departments, but
it was not his intention to press these resolutions to a divi-
sion. (Hear, hear )
Mr. BAILLIE, in seeonding the motion, adverted to
the committee of inquiry about to be appointed, and ob-
served that under most circumstances a committee of in-
quiry was a species of obstruction which frequently brought
any proposal for a reform in any department to a
stand-still. He had no doubt that the committee would be
impartially selected ; they would probably sit during the
whole of the present and next session of Parliament, and
then produce a ponderous blue book, and in the year after
the question would remain where it was, and with as little
chance of reform. If her Majesty's Ministers thought
that advantageous changes might be made in the naval
department, it was their duty to propose such reforms
without delay and carry them out on their own responsi-
bility. (Hear. hear.) In answer to a question put the
other day, as to whether a comptroller of the navy was to
be appointed, it was stated that an officer had been ap-
pointed to that situation for five years. He wished to
point out what should be the duties of surveyor, or
comptroller of the navy. The senior surveyor was to
prepare drawings of ships and vessels to be built, to fix
Lake. to be allowed to workmen, to correspond
with officers of the dockyard on all necessary
matters. The senior surveyor's duty was to super-
intend the dockyards. Some years ago it was pro-
posed to abolish the board, and a single naval officer was
appointed to perform the whole of their duties. Captain
Symonds, a distinguished naval officer and amateur ship-
builder, received the appointment. In a debate in the
House of Commons, the appointment was condemned by
the most distinguished men of all parties in the house.
Sir G. Cockburne and Sir B. Martin condemned the ap-
pointment. Mr. Hume also condemned it, and it was on
that occasion he said he would vote that black was white.
Sir B. Martin then stated that Captain Symonds knew
nothing of the construction of a ship, nor could he make
the calculations of expenditure, &c. Captain Symonds
was an able officer but unacquainted with shipbuilding,
and he thought a master shipbuilder would have been pre-
ferable to fill the situation. Sir G. Cockburn made a similar
statement. Mr. Samuel Pepys, in the time of Charles 11.,
pointed out the evils of not having a practical shipbuilder
filling the office of Surveyor of the Navy; and his
opinions exactly coincided with those of Sir B. Martin.
For fifteen years Captain Symonds went on constructing
106 ships of war on erroneous principles, of which 64 were
actually launched. He quoted from a pamphlet by a naval
officer, published at the time of Capt. Symonds' retirement,
a number of facts bearing upon the subject, showing that
the ships would never swim upon the lines on which they
were laid down. The case of the Retribution of 1,600 tons
was particularly noticed. It cost the country £lOO,OOO, had
engines consuming 80 tons of coal a day, at 15s. per ton,
and yet could only carry six of its guns, owing to erroneous
principles of construction. A ship carrying that number of
guns might havebeen built for £15,000 instead of £lOO,OOO.
In 1844, 1845 and 1846 certain trial experiments were made,
the result of which was that orders were given to arrest the
progress of five first-rate ships in progress on the lines of
the Queen, and of six 90-gun ships on the lines of the Al-
bion, and to build new ships on fresh lines. A committee
on construction was appointed consisting of scientific and
practical shipbuilders. They declared, in an official report,
that a large number of our ships were defective, and in fails
unfit for the public:service. Sir,W. Symonds left the Admis
ralty in 1847. He was not dismissed on account of any of
these blunders, but left of his own account, as he disap-
proved of screw ships. Sir B. Walker was appointed to suc-
ceed him, although for what reason he was selected no one
could ever discover. He openly confessed to the Admiralty
his ignorance of naval architecture, but they appointed him
nevertheless, and told him it did not matter. Now Sir
Baldwin was a man of sense, and instead of copying Capt.
Symonds and appointing as assistant a personas ignorant on
the subject as himself,he selected from the School of Naval
Architecture one of the very ablest men, Mr. Isaac Watts.
How far Sir Baldwin interfered with Mr. Watts it was
impossible to say, and therefore it was impossible to de-
termine how far either of them were responsible for the
blunders which hsd been committed under Sir Baldwin
Walker's management. For what he knew Sir Baldwin
might lay the blame on Mr. Watts, but then Mr. Watts
might perhaps retort that Sir Baldwin altered the lines.
Whose fault was it that the iron-cased ships built during
the Crimean war were so ineffective that they could neither
be propelled nor steered ? The French vessels on the con-
trary were successful, and took part in the siege at Kin.
burn. Those of our officers who went on board of them
after the engagement made up their minds that the iron-
cased ship difficulty had met with its solution. The French
went on building them, but Sir Baldwin Walker resigned,
either from disgust with his failure or from some other
cause. At any rate, we were still far behind the French
in this respect; and it was asserted that we should not
complete 10 before they had 20 ready. It was odd that
just as screw-ships were coming in, Captain Symonds should
resign because he disapproved of them ; and that, just
as iron-cased ships were adopted, Sir Baldwin Walker
resigned. (Hear, hear.) Admiral Robinson was ap-
pointed to succeed Sir Baldwin, and for what reason ?
Because of his " intimate knowledge of steam machinery"
—a knowledge, by the way, not required in the posi-
tion, since all the steam machinery was constructed in
private establishments, and there were only workships for
the purpose of repairs in our dockyards. Such was the
system. It was the system he complained of, and not any
member of the present Board of Admiralty, which he con-
sidered the best we had had for many years. If we had
heard of a man being selected at Constantinople to sur er-
intend the dockyards who confessed that he knew nothing
of the business, and of a man being appointed to succeed
him on account of his knowledge of steam machinery,
which was not essential to the position, we should not be
surprised perhaps; but we should feel convinced that the
a sick man's" career was drawing rapidly to a close. Yet
these things were done in England, and England's navy
was thus mismanaged—that navy on which her greatness,
her very existence depended. (Hear.)

Mr. LINDSAY said that the subject introduced by the
hon. gentleman who brought forward this question involved
two others questions, namely, the expense of the navy,
and, next, did the result justify the expenditure. He
wished his noble friend the Secretary of the Admiralty
would lay before the house the total of the naval estimates
for the last ten years. Secondly, the number of ships added
to the navy list during that period, and the number of ships
in commission on the Ist of January in each year. If this
statement were laid before the house they would then un-
derstand the question whether we had value for our money.
The expense of the navy for the four last years was as fol
lows :—For the first of the four the expense was £9,500,000;
the next year, £9,800,000; 1860-01, it was .012,900,000;
and three years it was £12,029,000. For this expence they
ought to have an effective and efficient navy. He con-
tended that much of what they had to complain in re-
spect to the navy arose from the want of fixity of sys-
tem at the Admiralty. They had no responsible person
connected with the Admiralty in that house. It was
true they had a Secretary of the Admiralty in that
house, but they could not make him responsible in respect
to the construction of a ship. There wore therefore changes
required at the Admiralty. The proposition of his hon.
friend was therefore a step in. the right direction.
He was favourable to several of the resolutions proposed,
but he objected to the Minister of Marine being guided by
a council of naval officers. The system would be, in fact,
the same as that now in existence. There were, however,
other causes operating to prevent them from getting proper
value for the money expended by us upon our navy. Under
the existing system a naval captain was a mere machine
on board his ship. Whatever his orders were, there was a
feeling in the ship that " My Lords" would order them to
be altered, and thus discipline was destroyed. With respect
to the plans for manning the navy which had been proposed
by a commission by means of the volunteer system—he
had objected to it. It was, however, tried, and failed. He
did not think that they would be able to get one .half ofthe
men they expected. At present they had not one-tenth of
their number. He now proceeded to consider the question,
whether they had kept pace with the progress of time in
the nature of the vessels built by us. In 1855 it was stated
by competent persons that steam vessels would change the
whole system of warfare, that shells would have a different ,
effect from shat upon wooden vessels ; indeed, that the
action of shells would so injure wooden built vessels that
they would inevitably sink. Since then, France had not
laid down one wooden vessel of war. All her new vessels
of war from that time was constructed of iron. Now, ho
contended that the Admiralty ought to know what France
was doing in this respect, and that at all hazards we ought
to take care that we kept pace with her in the nature and
in the construction of our ships of war. It was the first
duty of the Minister of the day to provide a navy which
should equal that of France, and of any Power combined
with her against us. When ho was in France, a statement
came to his knowledge from this country which certainly
alarmed him. It was stated that last year France had 448
ships of war, of which 327 were steam ships, and 121 were
sailing ships. Altogether she had 75 steam and sailing
effective 'vessels of war, He was still more alarmed vflaen

he found by another statement, that there were now build-
ing 15 iron-plated vessels, independent of the five floating
batteries built during the Russian war. Those 15 vessels
were to mount 318 guns, throwing a total weight of 22,2601b5.
of metal, and to be moved by a total of 3,360 horse-power.
When he saw further that those 15 iron plated frigates were to
be ready by Midsummer, and that we had not as yet a single
iron-plated vessel ready for sea, he owned he did feel some-
what uncomfortable at the prospect of a possible hostile
encounter with France upon the ocean. Full of that thought,
having occasion to see M. Michel Chevallier on other busi-
ness, he mentioned the subject to him, and he said at once
the figures must be wrong, that the votes would not admit
of it, and he referred him straight to the Minister of Marine.
The Minister received him in the most frank and courteous
manner possible, and he then directed his attention to the
statement in question, begging to know how it could be
that France could enter with us into a treaty of commerce,
and yet engage in such vast naval preparations as could
only betoken warlike designs. He told him, too, that if
France built 15 iron-cased frigates it would oblige England
to have 30, or 100 if necessary, and asked what in the
meanwhile was being done by both Powers except saddling
the two countries with a vast and oppressive expenditure.
(Hear, hear.) In answer to him the Minister gave him a
statement of the strength of the French navy. It was
written on the piece of paper he held in his hand, and he
had his permission to communicate it to the house. That
statement showed that of that fleet of 15 iron-cased fri-
gates but one was ready, the La Gloire, and that another
would be ready- this year. The Magenta and Solferino
would not be ready for another year, and the whole could
not possibly be ready for two years. The Emperor
of the French was, it could not be disputed, entitled
to have a navy of sufficient strength to protect
the empire, and he was only right in directing the con-
struction of such vessels as his men of science recom-
mended. The Minister; told him, accordingly, that he did
not mean to say that iu time they would not have the ten
more, but that it was the intention of his Government to
adhere to the policy of the reign of Louis Philippe, build-
ing every year, and keeping up to the improvements of
the age. The Minister then gave him the number of
French ships of war, and it was a very different ono to
that which he had referred to, and which in this country
was generally supposed to be true. The only men-of-war
worthy of the name were the new steamers, and with that
limitation the French navy was re luced to 88 ships. There
were 12 new ships of the line and 23 mixed, 1 iron-plated
frigate, 11 ordinary frigates, and 6 mixed frigates, with 7
corvettes and 8 despatch-boats. (Hear.) The total number
of ships afloat and equipped was 88. The Minister then
put into his hands a small book, containing the names,
rank, qualities, and present condition of every vessel in the
French navy. He (Mr. Lindsay) had carefully analysed
that book, and he found from it that France had 35 steam-
ships afloat, with 2 building, making a total of 37. Now by
a return laid on the table the other day, he found that we
had 53 screw steamers afloat, and 14 building or converting,
making a total of 67, besides 9 block-ships. Thus we had
76 steamships of the line as against 37 of France. In ships
of the line, therefore, we need be under no apprehension
from France, nor need we any more in frigates. France
had 17 screw frigates, and 8 building or converting,
making a total of 25, of which only 11 were effective. We
had 31 effective screw frigates, with 12 building, making a
total of 43, as against 25 of France. In paddle-wheel frigates
France was certainly ahead of us, having 17 to 8 of ours ;
but that was a useless superiority, as the machinery of pad-
dle frigates was peculiarly liable to injury from shot. The
iron-plated ship Warrior was to be ready for sea in August,
and he thought the right hon. baronet the member for
Droitwich was especially entitled to the gratitude of the
country for having taken an initiative which his predecessors
in office ought to have assumed long ago. IA reference to
his interview with the French Minister of Marine, he must
say that he most courteously offered to send an officer round
with him to the several dockyards, who would show him
everything, and convince him that there was no ground for
apprehension on the score of dockyard activity in France.
He accordingly, when at Toulon, went to the dockyard,
and he certainly saw very little doing there. He had com-
municated those circumstances to the Secretary of the Ad-
miralty, urging him to come and see things for himself, but
he regretted to say that he merely expressed his doubts of
the accuracy of the figures, pleading previous engagements
for not acceding to a suggestion which might have been at-
tended with much good. The French Government made
professions of friendship, but it was of no avail. The hon.
gentleman here read a letter from M. Chevallier, showing
what great expenditure the English people were incurring
to avert that which the French did not contemplate—viz.,
French invasion. He (Mr. Lindsay) had often warned the
house on this subject. Why, who would think of invading
30,000,000 of free people ? (Hear, hear.) But he must at
the same time say if tie French went on building ships the
English must also continue to incur the expense of building
them, for he would never consent, upon the ground of eco-
nomy or otherwise, that the English navy should lose the
supremacy of the sea. He found, on looking over the ex-
penditure of the French navy in the year 1858-1859—he
would take 1858, because it was a year of peace, and he
would take it also in justice to themselves. He found, then,
that the whole vote for 1858 was, in round numbers, for the
French navy, only £40,000, while at the same time he found
the expenditure by the Government of England for the
British navy was £141,600. He also found that while the
scientific branch of the French navy cost France only
£lB,OOO, that of the English navy cost the country £150,000
and he found, looking at the 17 votes which were taken in
1858 for the navy of England, that while the votes for the
French navy amounted altogether to £5,500,000, those
for the British navy amounted to £9,000,000, and is the
last year to £12,000,000. Thus, there was a great differ-
ence between five millions and a half on the one hand,
and nine millions on the other—between five millions and.
a half and twelve millions. (Hear, hear.) They were,
he found, to have an inquiry to-morrow night into the
state of the Admiralty. Now, they had already had
evidence sufficient on that subject. They had books upon
books ; but depend upon it, if this question was referred
to a committee up stairs, they would never have
an end of it. (Hear, hear.) They would, on the contrary,
have as the result nothing but large blue books which no
one would go through. He thought the house ought to
deal with this question itself; and, considering that a com-
mission of inquiry had already been appointed on the ques-
tion of the navy estimates, he thought they ought to wait
for the report of that commission before they took any step,
and certainly that they ought not to refer the matter to a
committee in the absence of that report. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member concluded by thanking the house for the
kindness with which they had listened to him.

Sir J. PAKINGTON—I think the debate has afforded
ample proof how very extensive and complicated this ques-
tion of naval administration is, and how desirable it is, if
we wish to effect any practical good, that we should endea-
vour as far as possible to confine our attention to ore part
of it at a time. The motion of my hon. friend the member
for Portsmouth proposes certain very great reforms ; but
his speech consisted almost entirely of remarks, I am afraid
only too well founded, on the present defective state of the
crews and discipline of our men-of-war. In seconding the
motion my hon. friend the member for Inverness-shire ad-
verted chiefly to the question whether the building depart-
ment of the Admiralty should be presided over by a naval
officer or a professional builder. Again, the speech of my
hon. friend the member for Sunderland was not addressed
to the question immediately before us, but to naval affairs
in general, and the superiority of armour-plated over
wooden ships in particular. These are subjects pressing for
a decision, and upon which we have a right to receive a
full explanation of the views of the Government. I doubt,
indeed, whether we ought not to defer the discussion of
these matters until after we have heard the noble lord's ex-
planation of the intentions of the Government. We could
then consider what policy we ought to adopt. I dissent
from the honourable gentleman the member for Sunder-
land in thinking that it would be wise to affirm these
resolutions which my honourable friend (Sir J. Elphin-
stone) said lie would not to-night press to a division,
and that the House of Commons could thereafter de•
cido what should be the constitution of the Board of
Admiralty. Such a course would be without precedent, and
I think it would be most inconvenient to settle these de-
tails of a great department of the State by a debate in the
House of Commons. We have, however, to thank my hon.
friend for having drawn up a series of resolutions embody:
in; his views on this important and interesting question.
Without approving all the details contained in the resolu-
tions of my lion. friend, I agree with the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Lindsay) in thinking that they are a step in the right
direction, and will commend themselves to almost everyone
who has given his serious consideration to the subject. I
will go further, and say that one main object at which
we ought to aim is expressed in the second resolution,—
namely, the necessity that exists for increased responsi-
bility in every part of the government and management of
the Royal Navy. (Cheers.) I concur with my hon. friend
(Mr. Baillie) in his doubts whether a committee of the
House of Commons is a good machine for investigating
this subject. I certainly gave notice of a motion for a
select committee, which I waived in favour of my hon.
and gallant friend, for reasons that I have already stated
to the house. To-morrow I intend to give my support
to the motion of my hon. and gallant friend, for this
reason, that the Government leave us no alternative. I
still think that the right mode of dealing with this subject
is for the Government to undertake it. I think that the
interests of the public require that the present constitution
of the Board of Admiralty should be investigated and
improved, but I have much more confidence in an inves-
tigation by the Government than in one conducted by a
committee upstairs, which must of necessity be a laborious
and prolonged inquiry, occupying more than one session,
and thus making it a long time before we arrive at that
reform which is necessary. If the Government is not dis-
posed to enter upon this inquiry itself, I should prefer an
inquiry by a Royal Commission to an inquiry by a select
committee. The Government, however, have decided not
to do this reform themselves, or to grant a Royal commis-
sion, and therefore there only remains to support the mo-
tion for a committee of this house. I will assume that it is
the intention of the Government to accede to the motion to
be made to-morrow for the appointment of a committee of
this house, and I will therefore say no more on that sub-
ject. I wish before I sit down to put a question to the noble
lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, of which I gave him

notice this morning. My question is whether it is the in-
tention of the Admiralty that Sir B. Walker should leave
England before he gives evidence to this committee. I
have heard with great surprise a report that Sir B. Walker
is to sail for the Cape on Saturday next, although the com-
mittee is to be moved for to-morrow. Now, Sir B. Walker,
after his long experience in the building department, is, if
not the most important witness who can be examined be-
fore that committee, at least one of the most important wit,-
nesses whose evidence they will take. (Cheers.) I will
suggest to my noble friend, whether, if Sir B. Walker is
allowed to leave England the very day after the committee
is appointed, an impression will not be created in the public
mind that the Admiralty do not desire to have him exa-
mined before that committee. (Cheers.) The noble lord
shakes his head, and I do not say that is the feeling of the
Admiralty ; but there is an obvious danger that such will
be the impression on the public mind. I adverted to
this subject in my place a few days ago, and I had hoped
that the intention to allow Sir Baldwin Walker to leave
England before he gave his evidence would be abandoned.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure the house
that evidence so important as that which Sir B. Walker
can give will not be lost by a few days' delay in taking his
departure. (Hear, hear.)

Lord C. PAGET said that when the right hon. gentle-
man alluded to Sir B. Walker's departure a few days ago
he consulted the hon. and gallant admiral who had given
notice of his intention to move for a committee to ascertain
whether he and the other gentlemen of the committee de-
sired the attendance of Sir B. Walker to give evidence
before them. He added that if it were the desire of the
committee that Sir B. Walker should remain, the noble
duke at the head of the Admiralty would offer no objection,
although very important duties called Sir Baldwin to his
station. After consulting with the committee, the hon. and
gallant admiral stated that it was not necessary for Sir B.
Walker to remain and give evidence, because he had already
given his evidence at large before a Royal Commission on
the constitution of the Admiralty so far as related to the
department of shipbuilding. That was all the evidence he
could give on that subject, and if he remained he could add
nothing to that evidence. Even now, if it were the wish of
the House of Commons that Sir B. Walker should remain a
few days to give evidence before the comtnittee,the noble duke
would not put himself in opposition to its wishes. (Cheers.)
The motion of the hon. member (Sir J. Elphinstone) was
couched in rather strong terms. It was like hanging a man
first and trying him afterwards—(a laugh)—and was not
altogether consonant with the English love of fair play and
of giving every man a fair trial before he was hanged. No
doubt the hon. gentleman's sole object was to discover the
best way of remedying the defects in the constitution
of the Board of Admiralty, and some of his resolu-
tions contained suggestions that were extremely valuable.
Ha was not prepared to agree in all the matters mentioned,
and there was one most important omission, for the ac •
countant's branch was not adverted to. He wished to
correct a statement which had been greatly misunderstood
with respect to the Volunteer Marine Artillery. He could
assure the house that, as he stated the other night, the Ad-
miralty would do anything in the world to forward this
great national movement. He was instructed by the Ad-
miralty to state to the house that if they could see their way
to some practical plan of giving the Marine Artillery proper
practice with great guns they would be glad to do so. Far
from having thrown overboard or offered resistance to this
great national movement, they had long had under consi-
deration by what means they could give their aid to
the movement in a practical and not very expensive
mode. (Hear, hear.) It must be obvious that if ships were
to be found all along the coast of England for the purpose,
it would be necessary to add largely to the crews, and to
supply barracks and other requisites, so that it would be-
come a very expensive matter. In practically considering
such a project it must always be borne in mind that a ship
might be caught in a gale of wind, and the men might
then be kept on board for several days. It was the
general wish of the Government that the greatest
facilities should be given to the Volunteers, and he was em-
powered to state that the Admiralty were considering a
proposition for erecting batteries with ship guns and all the
necessary gear at various places on the coast, with the view
of affording facilities for exercise to the Volunteer Marine
Artillery, to the Coast Volunteers and others. (Hear.)
He was not prepared to say that means might not be found
for giving greater assistance to these Volunteers, but all
that he now stated was that the Admiralty were deliberat-
ing on the erection of batteries, as far as possible, along the
coast. He was anxious to correct by this explanation an
erroneous impression which seemed to have been entertained
to the effect that the Admiralty were setting their faces
against this great and glorious national movement. (Hear.)
The hon. member for Sunderland in talking of these Volun-
teers had referred to the appointment of officers. That
question of officers had been dealt with at the Admiralty,
' and after a plan had been prepared in connexion with the
Board of Trade it was found that an act of Parliament was
required. His intention, therefore, was to bring in a bill to
enable the Admiralty to enrol merchant officers as Volun-
teers. (Hear, hear.) He thought this plan would be very
popular among merchant crews. The hon. member for In-
verness••shire had called attention to the appointment of the
controller of the navy ; and, beginning with Mr. Pepys,
gave an interesting history connected with the matter ; but,
Mr. Pepys, clever and honest as he was, had great prejudice
against naval men— (a laugh)—and was not a very fair judge
as to propriety or impropriety of appointing a naval man to
the situation. It must be borne in mind that the building
of ships in former days required tws branches of knowledge
—shipbuilding and, practical seamanship. In the present
days a knowledge of engineering also was required. The
question, then, was which of these branches should be
deemed the first. It had always been held that the practi-
cal naval officer had on the whole the most important duty
to perform, as he had to see to the arming, rigging, and
fitment of the vessel, and therefore it had always been wisely
held that at the head of the ship building department there
should be a naval officer, for he was best able to judge upon
a ship coming into dock whether it wanted repairs. It had
been asked whether it was respectful, when the commission
was just about to report, to appoint a naval man to the
office for five years permanently. His answer was that
a naval officer never could be said to be appointed perma-
nently to such a post, as he might be got rid of to-morrow
by his services being required in another way. Therefore
he held that the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty
had done wisely in filling up the office, and had chosen, on
the whole, the best man for it. He would now make a
few remarks in answer to the statement of the hon.
member for Sunderland. The hon. member had been in
Paris, and had been received by all the most important
persons there ; and he was very grateful to the hon. gen-
tleman for the information he had given the house respect •
ing the French navy. Ihe hon. member said that the
Frer ch navy was composed of very few ships, and that, in
fact, there were only 88 screw ships afloat. Well, a return
slight be made of the English navy showing not a greater
number. (Hear, hear.) If all vessels were excluded,
such as the French excluded, from calculation, a return
might be made in this country similar to that made in
France. (Hear, hear.) He had looked to the French re-
turn of 88 ships with a considerable amount of interest, and
he found that it excluded all ships in reserve, all paddle
ships, and all transports ; and let the house remark that
the French transports were magnificent vessels. (Hear.)
He had no doubt that the return was a perfectly honest
return in its way, but it was not, according to the English
view, a return of the navy. With regard to the British
navy he had laid on the table a return showing every ship
building and afloat. The hon. member talked about people
being alarmed. There was no alarm, for there was nothing
to be alarmed at, as the British fleet was in a very satisfac-
tory state. However, though there was no cause for alarm,
there was cause for making progress in the construction of
iron-cased vessels. The hon. member had told the house I
that France had 15 of these ships, but that only La Gloire
was launched, and that the rest were in their infancy, and
would not be ready under two years. This was all a mat-
ter of opinion, and he had reason to believe that those ships
were very nearly ready. He believed that every one of those
ships, if the French desired it, could be afloat this summer.
(Hear.) He had had curiosity like other men, and had seen
them. A sister ship of La Gloire was ready to be launched,
and he believed that the others were in a fair state of prepa-
ration. Let the house remember that the French had 15 iron-
eased ships ; two were vessels of 52 guns, of a very largo
class. There were four others, sister ships of La Gloire, and
four more of a very formidable character, which they (sailed
floating batteries. That made 10, and five ironcased gun-
boats gave a total of 15. We had only seven under con-
struction. It was true they were much finer ships. (Hear,
hear.) He agreed with his right hon. friend that they were
finer ships—much finer ships. He thought they were very
superior ; but he said this, that if they found much more
progress made over the water in building these ships it would
be the bounden duty of the Government to come down to
the house and state frankly and fairly what was going on,
with a view, if necessary, to extend the number of our iron-
cased vessels. (Cheers,) With regard to other questions
to which reference had been made he would postpone his
remarks until he was making his general statement in com-
mittee.

Mr. BENTINCK urged the Government to reconsider
its determination with regard to the volunteer marine
force, and to promote that important and most useful move-
ment, by affording those volunteers the fullest oppor-
tunity for practical training, by providing them with
ships, batteries, and experienced officers for that purpose,
As a member of the committee appointed to inquire into the
condition of the gunboats, he had moved a resolution which
would, in his opinion, have brought out the facts as to who
were really responsible for the building of these boats, and
the condition in which they were. He was opposed by the
right hon. baronet then the First Lord of the Admiralty
(Sir C. Wood), and the committee did not adopt his motion,
on which he told them respectfully that he thought the
very object for which they were appointed had been frus-
trated, and that he should take no further part in its pro•.
ceedings. He trusted that if any future committees were
appointed they would probe the matter to .the, bottom, for
until they got at the persons who were really responsible in
these matters they had done nothing to prevent misma
nagement.

Sir C. WOOD merely rose to explain. He thought the
question as to the responsibility of building the gunboats
had been set at rest once for all. The late Sir C. Napier
had repeatedly alleged that the Fit* Lord 9f the Admiralty

had ordered the building of these gunboats without coun-
selling the naval lords of his board. Now, the fact was, that
Sir Maurice Berkeley, the first naval lord of that board,
was examined by the committee, and he .distinctly proved
not cnly that the naval lords had been consulted, but that
in all that was done with respect to these gunboats he acted
with their entire concurrence. Indeed, he might say that,
during the three years he was at the Admiralty he invaria-
bly consulted the naval lords, and he might add that be
acted in almost if not in every case with their entire concur-
rence.

Mr. BENTINCK said he had been misunderstood. Ha
did not speak as to the responsibility of the order for build
ing the gunboats, but who were responsible for the condi-
tion they were found to be in.
Captain TALBOT, as an officer in her Majesty's navy,.
wished to say that he believed the statement of the noble
lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would cause great dis-
appointment. He deeply regretted to learn that the navy
of England was not in the state of preparation it should be,
especially with respect to its manning. He hoped that ere,
long something would be done to place it in a state of effi-
ciency in this respect, so as to be equal to any emergency.

Sir M. SEYMOUR concurred with those hon. members
who had urged that immediate changes should be made in
the constitution of the beard. He did not think the exist-
ing Admiralty were influenced by political feelings, though
there was a general feelhig to that effect. He thought the
time had arrived when is would be of great public advan-
tage that the whole matter should be inquired into. At the
close of the war in 1816, there was the greatest difficulty in
manning the navy; various methods had been resorted to,
to remedy this, but every attempt made in obtaining a re-
serve had been a failure. Several manning commissions
had sat, but without producing any satisfactory result.
Even the offer of an increased bounty was a failure. (Hear,
hear) They had the ballot for the militia, but it was a
question whether the ballot could be ever made applicable
to the navy. The existing ma chinery for the ballot was
cumbrous in the extreme, and was not fitted to meet an
emergency. He was of opinion, however, that they were
in a condition to meet an emergency with ships, and ha
should regret the day the navy could not submit to publio
stricture.

Sir M. PETO was anxious to call the attention of the
house to a matter in connection with the subject of debate.
There was no doubt that the time was come when they
should cease to build timber ships. France had ceased to
do so, and the opinion of all scientific men was that France
was right in doing so. He believed that the statements
about the danger to be apprehended from France were
quite erroneous, and he was of opinion that the Admiralty
had abundant moans of finding out the truth of these state-
ments. He had himself been at Cherbourg and at Toulon
when statements wore made of the activity at those places,
anti he found, on the contrary, that such statements were
entirely destitute of foundation. The tendencies of all per-
sons w.ho were connected with dockyards were in favour of
timber ships, and hence the opposition to iron-sheathed
ships. If he were to go over to the French Government,
and make any suggestion, it would be considered, and if
found to be of aziy value, would be at once acted upon; but
from his experience and the knowledge he possessed, he
weuld not go out of his way to offer any suggestion to the
Board of Admiralty, because he was perfectly aware of the
manner in which it would be treated. He had risen partly
for the purpose of saying that he should give every opposi-
tion in the eatimates to any vote in favour of timber-built
ships. Did the noble lord suppose he could send out a
wooden ship into the Channel in the event of war ? It was
time the house should know that every shilling henceforth
expended on wooden ships was money wasted. He was
at Algiers at the time when La Gloire entered that
port, although the weather was very hard, and the
paddle-wheel vessels in the French squadron came in
many hours later. That was an evidence of speed, and
although it was said she was not an easy craft in rough
weather, they might rely upon it that any defect in her
would be remedied in the next built. As regarded the
durability of iron ships, it could not be doubted that, if only
the iron were properly selected, an iron vessel would be in
as good condition after fifty years' service as she was on
the day she was launched. Looking at the vast expendi-
ture on the navy, which was still constantly increasing, it
was time that we should cease an expenditure which, even
in France, the only country whose maritime rivalry we
need be jealous of, had been relinquished. If iron ships
were adopted entirely for the navy much less dockyard
accommodation would be needed, and it would only be a
question of first outlay; while, looking at the number of
guns and the character of the ships, a force of only one-
third the number of men would suffice to man them. It
was true that a large sum of money might be needed in the
first instance, but the ChancellOr of the Exchequer could
spread the amount over a number of years, so as not to
make any very heavy pressure on the public purse. He
believed that the country was prepared to meet any neces-
sary expenditure, but it demanded in return that th •
money should not be wasted. Now the hon. member for
West Norfolk took occasion every now and then to express
all sorts of misgivings as to the policy and designs of the
Emperor of the French, and the hostile feelings of the
French people towards us. Last session, too, in another
place, Lord Howard de Walden stated his impressions
on the same subject. That noble lord, however, mixing
continually with the same circle of persons, could know
actually nothing of the feelings of the great mass of the
nation like those who had occasion to mingle with the
lower strata of society. He (Sir S. Peto) had had abun-
dant opportunities of the kind, and so far from the French
entertaining any hostile feeling towards the people of this
country, ho could assure the house that what they did en-
tertain was of the most genial and cordial nature. (Hear and
laughter.) When it was said, therefore, that they desired to
wipe out the stain of Waterloo, that was an assertion not
worthy of a moment's thought. Many of the French, in-
deed, believed that they gained the battle of Waterloo, but
that some unfortunate accident towards its close deprived
them of the full benefit of victory. (Laughter.) Of the policy
of the Emperor personally, though he might be regarded as
a partial exponent of it, he could speak in the same satis-
factory terms. He concluded by expressing his belief that
the Emperor of the French was sincerely anxious for a cor-
dial alliance with this country, and he said that those who
distrusted that alliance were guilty of injustice to an ally
whom he could not help believing to be sincere, honourable,
and trustworthy. (Hear, hear.)

Admiral WALCOTT said that the'navy, the first arm of
our power, was entrusted to an ever-varying board, the
members of which, by the time they became familiar with
their duties, were replaced by new members. A board so
constituted, and so liable to change, was not fit to be en-
trusted with the safety of our shores, and he might say
with the honour of the country, as was the case with the
navy.

Admiral DTINC OM BE thought that Admiral Sir Bald-
win Walker, having given his evidence, should at once pro-
ceed to his station, which he might almost say had been
without a commander-in-chief for a considerable period.
Mr. WHITBREAD said, in reference to some observa-
tions on the state of discipline in the fleet, that when the
navy was weeded of those men who entered it merely for
the sake of the bounty, the discipline would be satisfactory.
Sir J. ELPHIN STONE then withdrew his resolutions,
and the house having gone into committee, pro forma,
resumed.

ENCLOSURES BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
BANK OF ENGLAND PAYMENTS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
LAW OF FOREIGNERS BILL.
The amendments on this bill were considered and agreed
to, and the third reading was fixed for to-morrow.

SALMON FISHERIES BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a
bill for the improvement, regulation, and protection of the
salmon fisheries in Scotland, and stated that its object was
to carry out the recommendations of the committee of last
session, and to place the control of the fisheries in the hands
of the Fisheries Board at Edinburgh.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
ROADS IN SCOTLAND.

The LORD ADVOCATE also obtained leave to bring
in a bill to enable counties in Scotland to abolish tolls and
statute labour, and to maintain their public roads and
bridges by assessment.
The house then adjourned.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—We quote some more interesting
cures without medicine by Du Barry's delicious revalenta
arabica food. Cure No. 49,832.—Wortham Ling, near
Dias, Norfolk—Fifty years indescribable agony from dys-
pepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatu-
lency, spasms, sickness at the stomach, and vomitings, have
been removed by Du Barry's excellent revalenta arabica
food—Maria Joly. Cure No. 3,9o6.—Thirteen years cough,
indigestion, and general debility, have been removed by Du
Barry's excellent revalenta arabica food—James Porter.
Athol-street, Perth. Cure 47,121-- Miss Elizabeth Jacobs,
of Nazing Vicarage, Waltham Cross, Herta, a cure of
extreme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings, low
spirits, and nervous fancies. Cure 48,314—Miss Eliza-
beth Yeoman, Gateacre, near Liverpool : a cure of ten
years dyspepsia, and all the horrors of nervous irritability.
Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment,
and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's Food
which, at a few pence per day, saves 50 times its cost in
other remedies, removing effectually, w.thout purging,
constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and
liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate
No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure,
MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr.
Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu-
rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of
false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against
Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences
that Nevill has a patent for Arahica. Food and that Du
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly fake.
No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry
and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper.
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must
ext3c,t to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b.
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The
121 b. and 241 b. canisters aro sent carriage free on receipt
of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re-
gent-street, London; loortnum Mason, and Co. ; Abbit,
60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox-
bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate-
street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Ce.
tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co. King William-street,
City ; at 127 High Holborn; and all grocers

LONDON : Printed and rublished by MUItDO YOUNG, at
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SuN Office, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex,
Oil 1, H6l.