The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 26, 1859.

estimates which it will be my duty to submit, I hope the
committee will not think I am unduly or improperly occu-
pying, their time if I venture to enter into some explanation
of the gradual increase of the amount of the navy-estimates,
and of the great sum which those estimates have now at-
tained. The hon. gentleman who has been prevented
addressing the house had given notice that he would move
to refer these estimates to a committee. I am bound
to say that the hon. gentleman intimated to me, a short
time before the Speaker left the chair, that it was not his
intention to proceed with that motion, and I believe his
only motive in rising was to announce that intention. [Mr.
W. Williams—Not exactly.] (Laughter.) I feel no sur-
prise that it should be the desire of the hon. gentleman to
refer those estimates to a select committee. The amount
of the estimates for the present year, 1858-9, is no less than
£8,851,371. The estimates which it will be my duty to
move for the ensuing year, 1859-60, are considerably in-
creased, being no less than £9,813,181. There is in round
numbers an increase on the estimates of about £1,000,000.
It will be my duty, before I sit down, to offer to the house
an explanation of that additional million, but there remains
the very large sum of nearly £9,000,000 for the current
year, with regard to which T think it natural the public
should feel a great desire for further information. When
these very largsi sums are required from year to year, it is
very natural that the public should desire to be informed,
and they have a right to expect that they will be informed,
on these points—namely, that they derive the full advan-
tages of these immense sums being expended, and that
Ministers are not asking for more than the public service
requires. (Hear, hear.) It will be in the recollection of
those members who are apt to refer to the favourite year
1835, that in that year the navy estimates had fallen to little
more than £4,000,000, while the number of men voted was
26,500 seaman and marines. At that time, it must be re-
membered, there were none of the expenses of a steam navy.
I am very much disposed to think that it would have been
better for the country if the navy estimates had never been
allowed to fall to that low amount. (Hear, hear.) They
were lower then than was consistent with the interests of
the public service. (Hear, hear.) By 1845, however, they
had risen to £7,000,000, and the number of men voted had
risen to 40,000 seamen and marines. This gradual in-
crease went on from year to year, and in 1841 it led to the
appointment of a select committee, presided over by Lord
Seymour, which investigated the whole of our expenditure
under the heads of army, navy, and ordnance in the closest
possible manner. The hon. member for Lambeth himself
must allow that if he had succeeded in persuading the house
to refer these estimates to a committee he could not have
hoped for a more searching inquiry into our expenditure
under these heads than was entered into by this committee.
The result of that inquiry was that the navy estimates were
reduced, and in the following year did not exceed the amount
of £6,000,000. They went on slightly increasing, but they
did not rise above £6,000,000 until 1852. Between that
year, however, and the present year there is a great differ-
ence, and I desire to enter into a comparison of the expendi-
ture of the two years, which I trust will satisfy the house
and the public that the great increase is owing to causes
over which we have no control. I name the year 1852-3,
first because I was in office then, and consequently am more
familiar with the expenditure of that year, and also because
it was the year immediately preceding the great increase
'caused in our expenditure by the cost of the Russian war.
.The year 1858-9 is again a year of peace--if not of entire
peace, at least undisturbed by any such great war as that.
•In the year 18.52-3, the navy estimates were £5,835,588;
in the present year they have risen to £8,851,371, being an
. increase of no less than 51 per cent. Both being years of
peace, it is natural that the house should desire some ex-
planation of the great difference between them, and I hope
to be able to show that the increase has been forced upon
us, and has not been caused by the extravagance of any
Government, or of any particular Minister. I will take the
first item of wages of seamen and marines. In 1858-9 this
item is £2,401,599 ; in 18.52-3, it was £1,543,025, being an
increase of 55f per cent. This is an item with regard to
which there can be no objection, unless you object to the
policy of raising the number of men. The number of men
being increased, the amount of wages is necessarily in-
creased. The next item is the cost of provisions, and by
an accidental rise in the price of provisions the increase of
this item is in a greater ratio than was to be expected from
the increase in the number of men. It has risen from
£544,507 to £1,027,357, the increase being 88f per
cent. I meat to have added, with regard to the increase of
the number of men, that since 1852-3 the cost of the Coast-
guard has been added to the Navy Estimates, being nearly
8,000 additional men to be provided for—to say nothing of
additional pay and allowances. The cost of the Coastguard
and the Royal Naval Coast Volunteers is £178,592, and it
applies entirely to this year, there being no such item in the
year 1852-3. The next item is the vote for the wages of arti-
ficers. It is now £966,921; in 1852-3 it was £666,929, being
an increase of 45 per cent. A large increase has been caused
by the increase of steam factories to our dockyards, which has
arisen entirely from the increased adoption of steam power in
our navy during the last few years. This is a cause of course
entirely beyond the control of any Government. (Hear, hear.)
On the item of naval stores there is an increase of 57i per
cent. In 1852-3 it was £882,495, this year it is £1,389,742.
This increase is clearly owing to the great additions which
have been made to our navy. In illustration of this aug-
mentation in the cost of our navy the house will perhaps
allow me to compare the cost of manning sailing and steam
vessels in the years 1852-3 and 1858-9. In 1852 the average
pay of all ranks of men was £39 14s. Bd. ; in 1858-9 the ave-
rage has risen to £.4.3 Zs., being an increase of £3 Bs. 4d. per
man. In 1852-3 it required 970 men to man the Britannia,
a first-rate sailing ship, and the cost of that ship was
• £26,693 yearly. It requires 1,100 men to man the Marl-
borough, a first-rate of the present day, and her cost annually
is £35,248. The Arethusa, a 50-gun frigate of 1852-3, re-
quired 500 men, and cost annually £14,585. The Shannon, in
1858-9, requires 560 men, and costs £19,341. The cost of
building the hull of the Indefatigable, a 50-gun frigate in
1852-3 was £51,836 ; but the Shannon, also a 50-gunfrigate,
cost £71,112 ; and the Orlando, a new steam frigate launched
last summer, cost £99,375. These figures go far to explain
the great difference of expense in one part of the estimates at
least. I can give another proof of the same thing in a differ-
ent way. The construction of the Britannia, 120 guns, re-
quired 4,550 loads of rough timber and 218 shipwrights,
while the Marlborough, the same class of vessel recently built,
required 6,068 loads of timber and 334 shipwrights. So that
here again you have a proof of how much more costly it is
to build ships in these days than it was a few years ago.
The Rodney, again, required 3,610 roads of timber and 219
shipwrights, while the Renown, a vessel of the same class,
but lately built, required 4,680 loads of timber and 277
shipwrights. (Hear, hear.) The immense increase in
the size of our ships has led also to a great augmenta-
tion in another item in our Navy Estimates, which has
been the subject of remark on several occasions—l mean
the vote for new works. Between 1852 and 1858 the in-
crease in new works has been from £265,140 in 1852 to
£58.5,862 in 1858, or 120 per cent. The cause of this must,
upon consideration, be obvious. As your ships increase in
size you find that the slips and docks, which were perfectly
sufficient a few years ago, have now become insufficient,
and that you must therefore go to the great expense of re-
construction. We have in the whcle of her Majesty's
yards 42 building slips, and at this moment only nine of
them are large:enough for the construction of first-rate
ships. We are increasing the size of those slips, and, of
Course. a large amount of money is required for this
Purpose. Then, again, we have 33 docks, of which four
only, in her Majesty's yards, will hold our largest ships.
We are obliged to alter those docks, and five of them are
la?''Y being increased in size ; but we cannot accomplish
'nn! without expending an immense amount of money,
and if you look at the estimate for "new works" you will
find that the large sums there given are devoted to these
purposes.
es
Having entered into this comparative
ofstate-
ment the expenses of 1852 and 1858, I wish now to
refer to some observations which fell from me when mov-
ing the estimates last year. You may remember that I
then drew attention to the enormous amount of money
that was expended in this country
steam machinery, in the purchase of
i and that we had expended no less
than
sitia4l•ovtliding steam engines for the
Royal Navy,
to ascertain how thaten that I thought it desirable
money had been expended, and
that the mode of supplyingengines to our vessels was
conducted on the best,tapproved, and most scientific
principles. I have redeemed pledge which I then gave
to the house, that there should be an inquiry into these
subjects, and in the course of summerlast I appointed a
committee consisting of Admiral Rams Mr. John Ward,
and Mr. Nasmyth, and I entrusted to them' the duty of
of the navy.
in-
vestigating the state of the steam mach-
ltlintery of
The result of that inquiry is that the sitneaeZ
and et in
the Royal Navy is in a very creditable stateniaa°
v—ear, hear.)
this respect the money has been well expendedn
public have been faithfully served. (Hear. That
committee has issued a most able report containing severalat
recommendations which it is the intention of the Admiralty
to adopt, as we believe that they will tend to the advantage
of the public service. One of those recommendations is
that we should apply for tenders for the supply of engines
much more largely than has hitherto been the case, and in
__
pursuance of this recommendation. we have thought it our
duty to invite tenders from Liverpool? Scotland, and most
of the eminent houses engaged in this particular business.
(Hear, hear.) I also thought it my duty to appoint another
committee to inquire into the labour in our dockyards. The
sum expended in our dockyards is enormously large, and it
is most important that in expending those sums economy
should be practised, and that we get 20s. for our pound.
(Hear.) I by no means state that I have any suspicion that a
wrong practice has existed in the dockyards ; but the com-
mittee of 1848 recommended an inquiry into this subject,
and I wish particularly to ask the attention of the hon.
member for Lambeth to this. They state in their report
that it is idle to suppose that a Parliamentary committee
could really investigate the details of dockyard expendi-
ture--(hear, hear)—that it is altogether out of the question,
and that any efficient inquiry must be conducted by some
body of men appointed specially for the purpose. In con-
eeliuence of that report a committee was appointed soon
after
; they closely investigated the expenditure in the
dockyards? and as aresult great economy and many im-
provements were introduced. But that took place ten
years ago, and I thought it desirable that we should have
another inquiry into the expeAlit ure of the dockyards, in
order to ascertain whether the ney was laid out in the
most judicious andeconomical manner, or whether there
was any room for improvement. That committee was
headed by Admiral Smart,and it has been engaged in the
present
investigation down to thetime. The report is not
yet finished, but I understand from the chairman that the
result of the inquiry will be the recommendation of very
considerable changes, which in pinion will lead to a
much more economical and judicious ° expenditure in the
mention this to show
dockyards in future. (Hear, hear.) tis
the desire that there is on the part of the Government to
large sums
secure.the most advantageous expenditureeoftlti
intrusted to their care—(hear)—and I trust
parisort which I have instituted between 1858 anda thelg COM-
will
lead to the impression that in the expenditure of these sums
s
we have been influenced solely by a sense of duty aesb-w—a-
desire to exercise the utmost practicable economy. (II
ear I
will now turn to the estimates which I propose for the en.-
gnizig year, NA to the Argt vote, kip, which I shall place in
, ,

your hands at the conclusion of this statement—namely, to
the amount of men for which we intend to ask for the en-
suing year. Before I proceed to say anything with regard
to this vote I wish to refer to the report which has just
been placed in the hands of hon. members, anl which was
looked for with very great anxiety by the public. I allude
o the report of the commission moved for by the hon.
and gallant officer opposite on the manning of the navy.
As that report has only been in the hands of honourable
members two or three days, and I had not the advantage of
seeing it more than two or three days belbre it was com-
municated to the public, the committee, I think, will at
once see that it was impossible that her Majesty's Govern
rant could have framed these estimates with any refer-
ence to the contents of that report. But I cannot omit
to say, and in so saying I think I am only giving ex-
pression to a very general opinion, that that commission
is entitled to public gratitude for the manner in which
it discharged its duties. (Cheers.) On consenting
to the motion for the appointment of that commis-
sion, I stated that I had one object especially in view, and
that was that some mode should be devised for establishing
a connection between the Royal navy and the mercantile
navy, in the event of any emergency requiring that addi-
tional strength should be given to the Royal navy. (Cheers.)
I stated that so far as concerned the ordinary manning
.of
our fleet in time of peace I did not believe that the commis-
sion would be able to discover anything more effectual than
the plan recommended by the Manning Committee of
1852, and carried into full effect by my right hon. friend the
member for Carlisle, when he was First Lord of the Admi-
ralty—namely, the continuous service system. (Hear, hear.)
I find in.-the report that the commission entirely confirm
the view which I then ventured to express. I think we may
rely with confidence on the ordinary manning of our fleet
upon that systeM, and I hope the house will enable the Go-
vernment to carry out that system still more efficiently. I
believe that there is no recommendation in the report of the
commission, from the beginning to the end of it, which is
not at least entitled to the prompt and serious consideration
of her Majesty's Government. I will at present express no
opinion upon the plan of a most important character which
the commission has devised for establishing a connection
between the Royal navy and the mercantile navy. The
vote for men that we are now going to propose is, I admit,
of a very unusual amount. I believe it is the largest vote
of men ever proposed in this house in a time of peace—
(hear, hear)—and I admit that we are bound to show rea-
sons for it. I trust that looking at the state of public affairs
and of the naval service, the committee will not hesitate to
confirm the opinion of her Majesty's Government, that we
should not have done our duty to the country if we had not -
boldly asked Parliament to give us this vote. (Cheers.)
But I will speak without disguise on this subject. Appa-
rently, there is only a difference of 3,000 men in this vote,
but in reality the difference is much more. The demands
upon our naval service in distant parts of the world are not
now so great as they were twelve months ago. Our naval
force in China is reduced by about one-half. (Hear)
During the last twelve months several ships have returned,
and several ships are now returning from distant parts of
the world, and others have been recalled. Under these cir-
cumstances, the committee will admit that it is impossible
for me to state exactly the number of men which will thus
be placed at the disposal of the Government ; but I think I
may venture to say that, as compared with the votes of last
year, the real available increase must be taken rather at
7,000 than at 3,000 men. I find that at this time twelve.
month our force in the East Indies and in China consisted
of 68 ships, 767 guns, and 10,000 men. That force is now
reduced to 47 ships, 374 guns, and 4,875 men, being a re-
duction of more than 5,000 men. The committee will bear
in mind that this includes the marines attached to those
ships. On the East and West coasts of Africa, and at the
Cape of Good Hope we have 36 ships, about 200 guns, and
3,200 men, being about 200 men less than this time twelve-
month, and at present her Majesty's Government do not
intend to increase that force. I believe that the negotia-
tions now in progress between this country and the United
States will'enable us at no very distant day to carry on the
suppression of the slave trade on much more easy terms and
more successfully than at present. I believe that the send-
ing out of stepmships of smaller tonnage, or gunboats, will
materially enable us to do so. On the east coast of Ame-
rica we have 278 men more than last year. Our force in
the Pacific has been considerably increased, and now con-
sists of 12 ships, 281 guns, and 2,845 men, being 661 more
men than we had there a year ago. The main cause of
this increase was the disturbances occasioned by the dis •
covery of gold in the Fraser River. We received most
urgent requests from British Columbia to increase our
naval force there, but the ships that we sent out will be
shortly recalled. In the Mediterranean, also, our force
has been increased. It consists of 23 ships and 5,951
men, being 777 more men than there were last year.
The main cause of this increase was that on acceding
to the office I now hold I found that our force in the
Mediterranean was much below the usual amount. There
were several sloops and other smaller vessels there,
but no frigates. The result is that on foreign stations we
have now 1,786 men more than we had this time twelve-
month. I will now advert to another heavy item in the
vote for this year—namely, the Channel squadron. Our
Channel squadron at present consists of seven ships, 498
guns, and 4,697 men. I include two ships—the Ciesar and
the Diadem—which will be shortly recalled from Central
America, where they are doing temporary duty. The com-
mittee will remember that a year ago it was my duty to
state that we had no Channel squadron whatever; that we
had no naval defence of our own coast. • I stated emphati-
cally that in my opinion we could not do without a Channel
squadron—(cheers)—and I promised that as soon as I had
the means at my disposal I would provide a squadron for
the Channel. Before the close of the summer the Channel
squadron consisted of six line-of-battle ships and three
frigates, to which was shortly afterwards added another
powerful frigate. The line-of-battle ships are the Royal
Albert, Renown, Orion, Caesar, Victor Emmanuel, and
Brunswick. I have heard it said that this Channel squadron
is really too weak to be of any avail to the country. (An
hon. member, "Hear, hear.") My hon. friend's cheer
gives me to understand that he is of that opinion. (Hear.)
But I hope the committee will, at all events, admit that it
is a good commencement of the defence of our coast. (Hear,
hear.) My hon. friend will admit that five of these line-of
battle ships are of a most powerful class. Perhaps I cannot
say that the Brunswick is a very powerful ship. • But as I
have stated, this squadron is at present deprived of the
services of the Caesar and Diadem. They are now recalled,
and in the meantime I can state for the consolation of the
gallant admiral (Sir C. Napier) that very recently two
powerful line-of-battle ships, the St. Jean d'Acre and the
AloierA, have been added to ilio 3... run form, Tu a ohm 6
time -it will be further augmented by two frigates. The
Channel squadron will therefore consist of eight powerful
line-of-battle ships and six frigates, and when joined by
the force in the Mediterranean, of four line-of-battle
ships and two frigates, the combined squadron in the
Channel will consist •of 12 line-of-battle ships, and
eight frigates, in all 20r ships of war. The gallant admiral
may say that this force is not sufficient, but it is a stronger
Channel squadron than we have maintained for many years,
and I earnestly hope it will be found sufficient ; but, if not,
I am confident the house will place at the disposal of her
Majesty's Government the means of making it so to any
extent required. (Hear, hear.) As to the number of men
the Government asks for, I am aware that, on one hand, we
may be charged with extravagance in requiring a greater
number than we have ever had in time of peace ; on the
other hand, we may be told the number is not large enough.
(Hear, hear, from Sir C. Napier.) The gallant admiral in-
timates that the number is not sufficient ; but it is an un-
usually large force. The estimate prepared for last year by
the right hon. baronet (Sir C. Wood) was 2,000 men more
than the highest estimate for 1857. The present Govern •
ment found the estimate made for that number when it
came into office, and, after mature consideration, thought
the late Government had not asked for a greater force than
the public service required ; we adopted that estimate, and
it is now my duty to ask for such an addition to it as will
place at our disposal a force of 3,000 men. As to the man-
ner in which they will be employed, I have already stated
what are the demands of our foreign stations, what are our
intentions with regard to the Channel squadron, and what
number of men that squadron will probably require. In
dealing with figures of this kind it is very difficult to speak
with perfect accuracy. These numbers of men are fluctu-
ating from day to day, as one ship comes into port and an-
other leaves it; but I think I can say that, after all the men
are allotted to the different ports and ships in different parts
of the world, we shall have a surplus force at home of about
3,000 men. (Hear, hear.) This brings me to a recom-
mendation I find in the very able report of the commission
appointed to inquire into the means of manning the navy.
It is substantially the same recommendation as that of the
committee of naval officers that inquired into the same
subject in 1852. I will read the passage in the report of
the last commission referring to the advantage of having a
reserve of seamen at home :

" Another recommendation of the committee of 1852,
which has not hitherto been carried into effect, is the main-
taining an adequate reserve e seamen in the home ports.
They observed that from the information and evidence that
had been laid before them ' during the progress of the in-
quiry, they had been led to the conclusion that it was de-
sirable to keep a larger force at home than had been cus-
tomary of late years ; and they recommended, ' that your
Majesty's navy shculd be maintained at such a numerical
force in commission as, independently of the Channel squa -
dron, will admit of 10,000 seamen and boys (exclusive of
officers) being retained in England for the protection of the
ports and the coasts of the United Kingdom."
" The evidence before us shows that, when a ship of war
is commissioned, the most costly part of her complement,
namely, the officers, and perhaps the greater part of her
crew, immediately become a charge upon the State, and
continue so for several weeks, and even months, during
which she is unable to put to sea for want of the smaller
portion of her crew ; while the whole expense of the ship
which she was intended to relieve is going on.
"We are, therefore, of opinion that a reserve of seamen
should always be maintained in the home ports, ready to
complete the crews of ships put in commission, for the re-
lief of foreign stations, and as the best and most prompt of
all reserves in the event of a sudden armament. The num-
ber to be thus retained in the home parts should bear a re-
lation to the number in commission ; and, with our present
Peace establishment, we think that it should not be less
than_ 4,000, besides thole retained in the harbour guard
'With this recommendation !lis- Such an arrangement also would afford a ready
mucusmnin your
giving a systematic training in gunnery to all the
it, the Government
ofra
e your Majesty's naval service."
I most cordially concur ; and I
beg to add that before the Manning Commission adopted
sense an the obvious ergohad decided—l might say in deference
to the report 2, but rather in deference to common
before Parliament necessity of the case—not to come
without asking for_ a number of men sufficient to establish
with the estimates of this year
such a reserve.l3,(llarineagr,ohear.) Of its necessity there can
th.eapassage I have read from the
rebepnorotdoofutt.
conainissio:.
fully confirm it. From
atitve here a statement that will
when the Ganges was ee
zany she remained in
statement it appears that
her crew ; the
till
January,
was detained
harbour 110 daYS before she
) —the Marlborough
\\'‘a-ith 62 men
181'417, 1858 ; the
Diadem, commissioned in Aug t, completed
135 days, and did not go to sea
commissioned in November,
detained
Renown,
172 days for the same purpose, and then sailed
short of her complement—(hear, hear
was delayed 129 days, and the Eurytthis 121.
ships manned within the last few years ; some of themewaerree
delayed six months, all of them an average Period of four
months, before they obtained their crews. Now, I ask the
house whether it thinks the ingenuity of any enemy could
devise anything more humiliating' or more calculated tc
impress foreign nations with a conviction of the decay of
the naval power of England than the fact that our ships of
war remain in port four, five, and six months together, lin_
able to obtain their complement of seamen ? (Hear, hear.) I
trust there will be but one feeling in the house as to the
necessity of putting an end to this humiliating state of
things. (Hear, hear.) We therefore ask for such a number
of men as will place a surplus force at our disposal sufficient
to Maintain a reserve of seamen in our home ports, which
can, at the same time, be made useful in traininf, sailors in
gunnery and the exercises so essential to the efficiency of the
service (Hear, hear.) The expense of this additional
force of 3,000 men is not so large in proportion as the num-
ber of men required. The estimate for the wages of seamen
for the current year i5X2,487,062 ; this amount would have
lieenS.444oo more had it not been for the fact that our naval
i °l'Ve WIT consists of a larger number of large ships and a
•

smaller number of small ones, which diminishes the average
expense per man and the number of officers employed.
Before I quit the subject of the men there is one other sub-
ject to which I wish to advert—l mean the practice adopted
by the late Board of Admiralty of sending out line-of-battle
ships as the flagships of the admirals on foreign stations.
(Hear, hear.) My opinion is that this practice leads to a
very unnecessary expense, and at the same time interferes
with the efficiency of our naval force. (Hear, hear.) The
flagships on our foreign stations, with the number of men
in each was till lately as follows :
Calcutta 720
Boscawen
Cumberland
Ganges
Indus 650

Total 3,390
I have received remonstrances on this point from more than
one of our admirals on foreign stations, and I am sure the
house will see the force of the objections taken by them.
The house is well aware that at one period last year there
was some probability of a difference between this country
and the United States, arising out of circumstances con-
nected with the suppression of the slave trade on the coast
of Cuba. At that time it was essential that our naval force
should be in a most efficient state. But just then I received
a letter from Sir Houston Stewart, stating that his flagship,
the Indus, was altogether unfit for active service. (Hear.)
This may be said of these flagships generally, and, in addition
to their being unfit fcr the kind of service in which they
ought naturally to be employed on foreign stations, they are
taking up a number of men who might be more usefully em-
ployed in other labours. (Hear, hear.) In my opinion, it is
better policy to let the admirals on. foreign stations carry
their flags on screw steamships. This would cause a very con-
siderable saving in regard to men, while the screw steamers
would be really fit to render good service on the stations.
(Hear.) Acting on this belief, I have recalled flagships
from some stations and replacrd them with screw steamers,
while in other instances it has been found more convenient to
allow the ships to finish their time on the stations on which
they are placed. As a rule, in future the practice will be
to employ screw steamers on those stations as in every way
a more economical system. (Hear, hear.) The next vote
is that of the victualling of the navy, amounting to
£995,647. Last year it was £1,027,357—showing this year
a saving, which is principally to be attributed to the reduc-
tion in the price of provisions. The next votes relate to the
Admiralty-office, the Coastguard service, the scientific
branch, and her Majesty's establishments at home and
abroad, being numbered respectively 3,4, 5,6, and 7.
'These all vary more or less from the rates of last year, some
being increased and some diminished ; but it is unnecessary
to enter into the details, though I shall be ready hereafter
to offer any explanation that may be required. Vote 8 re-
fers to wages of artificers, and I shall afterwards explain to
the house the large increase that has taken place in the
vote, believing that I shall best consult the convenience of
members by separating in this way the extra from what
may be called the ordinary portion of the expenditure under
this head. On the vote for the expense of wages in estab-
lishments abroad I shall follow a similar course. Vote 10
is always a heavy item, relating to naval stores. Here,
again, I shall defer my explanation of the causes of the
great increase that is proposed, only observing for the pre-
sent that in ordinary circumstances the increase would have
been £95,448, in consequence of the necessity of adding to
the stores. Vote 11, for new works, is a heavy item, but
there is no material alteration from last year. Votes 12
and 13, for medicine and medical stores, and for miscella-
neous services, require no particular remark. Vote 14, re-
lating to half-pay, brings before me a subject on which I
wish to make a few remarks. The change in the vote itself
is very small, amounting to an increase of £12,361, but I
am desirous of stating the opinions which I entertain
with regard to the present state of the Navy List. (Hear,
hear.) I cannot help thinking that this is a very serious
question, affecting the welfare and efficiency of the navy.
Hon. members who have ever looked into the Navy List
must be aware that it is one of the most complicated and
unintelligible documents that any man could take into
his hand. (Hear, hear.) It is difficult, if not, indeed, im-
possible, for those who have not devoted their lives to the
study of the Navy and Retired List to understand the de-
tails with which it is encumbered. (Hear, hear.) And what
is the result of such an examination of it as can be given ?
Is the present state of our naval force with respect to offi-
cers as put down in that list in a condition of efficiency ?
(Hear, hear.) My belief is— and I say it with a full sense
of the difficulties of the case, and without wishing to say
anything rash or imprudent—that! the state of the Navy
List is not satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) It requires revi-
sion, and if that is carried out with a judicious hand it may
tend greatly to the efficiencyof the service and the economy
of the public money. There are on the list about 3,700
officers, of whom 1,700 are on the reserved and retired list,
and the remainder on the active list. Out of the list of 100
admirals 39 are between the ages of 70 and 87, while of the
whole number, excluding the Board of Admiralty, only 14
are employed. (Hear, hear.) Out of 358 active captains
31 are above the age of 60, and while out of the whole
number only 90 are employed 180 of the remainder have
never served afloat in their present rank. (Hear, hear.)
Out of 507 active commanders 56 are above the age of 60,
and while out of the whole number only 179 are employed
290 have never served afloat in their present rank. (Hear,
hear.) Take next the lieutenants. Out of 1,061 active
lieutenants 120 are above the age of 60, and of the whole
number about 500 are employed in sea-going, ships and 190
in the Coastguard and packet service. Of the remainder
a large proportion are either unwilling to serve without
some prospect of promotion or of increased half-pay in
consequence of such servitude when they become unfit.
(Hear, hear.) This is the state of the upper part of the
Navy List. It is overcrowded. These officers cannot get
employment, and, as we have seen, a large proportion of
them have never served afloat in their present rank.
Now, simultaneously with this state of things, it so
happens that in the lower ranks of the navy we
literally have no officers for the ships. (Hear,
hear.) At this moment the ships in commission
in the navy are nearly 400 short of their comple-
ment in regard to mates, midshipmen, and officers of that
class. There must be something wrong in a state of things
that overcrowds the upper list and leaves an insufficiency
of officers for the bottom. (Hear, hear.) Some reform is
wanted; but what is to be done ? Promotion in the navy
is almost at a standstill. (Hear, hear.) Since I have had
the honour of holding my present office—now 12 months—
I have had only two vacancies for post-captains in the
navy. (Hear, hear.) By an order in council lam bound
tk, one promotiu. Jur curee vacant:Los ; anti to tills way
I hope to be able somewhat to reduce the overcrowded list;
but the system falls very hard on the officers that are not
promoted. In fact, the system of promotion may be de-
scribed as stagnant. (Hear, hear.) We have 11 reserved
lists of the higher order of officert, but except in the case of
one list, called the reserve flag list, every one of these is
completely choked, and we have no power of transferring
officers. I have stated to the house that during last sum-
mer we thought it our duty to ascertain the state of the
French navy. We had heard much of the progress made
by France in increasing her naval armament during the last
few years. We took means of ascertaining what were the
facts, and we found that the line-of-battle ships of France
were exactly the same in number as our own—viz., 29. The
French had fewer three-deckers, first-rates, than we had,
but of our 29 ships there were 9 which were Inferior to any
of the French ones. Therefore, we must make up our mind
to this, that in July last the screw line-of-battle ships of
France were 29, and those of England also 29 in number ;
but that in point of power and efficiency the line-of-battle
ships of England were, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, inferior to those of France. The 9 ships to which
I have referred are sailing SiO-gun ships, which have been
converted into screw eighties, and consequently have not
room for their engines, and are generally inferior ships.
In a report, dated in December last, Sir Baldwin Walker
says—

" With the exception of some of the more recently built
frigates there is scarcely a sailing ship which in its present
state is fit to go to sea, and most of them require such ex-
tensive repairs that it would not be desirable to incur the
expense of repairing them. As regards the screw vessels
all the 80-gun screw ships which from necessity were con-
verted have the same armament as they had as sailing ves-
sels, and are consequently so much pressed with their
weights, and cramped for stowage, as to render them bad
sea boats. . . . All these 80-gun screw ships ought not
therefore to be considered as forming part of the effective
screw force, but can only be regarded as vessels fit to re-
place the blockships for home service. The latter, from
their great age, are so defective that they will not be worth
repairing after their present commission. To shoiv the
superiority of the French ships of the corresponding class,
80 guns, it may be stated that five were reduced from 100
and 10 from 90 gun ships, and are, therefore, not only more
powerful sailing ships but better enabled to stow their ma-
chinery, &c., than the English 80-gun screw ships."

Having thus shown the opinion of the Surveyor of the Navy
that in July last out of 29 ships we had nice of a very in-
ferior quality, I will now turn to what our prospects were
with regard to the year 1859. We bad four ships receiving
engines, and during the year 1859 there were two new ships
to be launched and one to- be converted, which would have
raised the number of our line-of-battle ships to 36. We
found that the progress of the French navy was not to beat
all in the same ratio. At the end of 1859, on the contrary,
the comparison would have stood—England, 36 line-of-
battle ships, with 3,400 guns, and 19,750-horse power, none
of these ships being the inferior ones to which I have re-
ferred; France, 40 line-of-battle ships, with 3,706 guns and
27,510-horse power. I hope it will be clearly understood
that in making these statements I am not speaking in an
unfriendly spirit towards France. (Hear.) No man can
desire more than I do, for the sake of France, for the sake
of England, and for the sake of the world, that the friend-
ship and alliance between the two countries may long con-
tinue. (Hear.) Nor do I intend to blame France for the
efforts which she is making to increase her naval power.
(Hear, hear.) On the contrary, I respect the spirit with
which the French Goveanment have carried out these addi-
tions. But my argument is, that we are bound to do the
same thing; that it is inconsistent with our naval power
and with our national safety and dignity that we should al-
low such a state of things to continue. (Hear.) When this
state of things was brought under my notice last July,
when I found nominal equality but real inferiority with re-
spect to France, and learned that that inferiority would, as
time went on, be increased, I felt it my duty to lose no time
in bringing that state of things under the consideration of
my colleagues. I did so in the month of August last. At
that time Parliament was just about to be prorogued, and it
would, for obvious reasons, have been extremely unadvis-
able to come to the House of Commons with additional esti-
mates for an increase of our force. The Government, how-
ever, felt that this was a state of things which we could not
allow to continue, and we therefore asked the Surveyor of
the Navy what arrangement could be made to enable us,
with the labour at our disposal, and without exceeding the
estimates to which we were pledged, to increase the num-
ber of our line-of-battle ships. The result of our delibera-
tions was, that we determined to withdraw from the ordi-
nary building and repair of ships a force sufficient to enable
us at once to commence the conversion of four powerful
three-deck line-of-battle ships, viz.' the Neptune, the St.
George„ the Trafalgar, and the Queen, into two-deck
screw sips, with 90 guns and 500-horse power each. That
was all we could then accomplish. Those orders were given
in the month of August last ; during the course of the
winter these ships have been rapidly advancing to comple-
tion, and in the course of the spring they will be launched,
and added to the strength of the British navy. In addition
to these four ships we now propose to convert five others,
viz. the Lion (which was ordered to be converted by the
right honourable baronet opposite, Sir C. Wood, but with
which no progress has been made), the Nelson, the Royal
William, the Waterloo, and the Rodney. The Nelson,
dhainvteo
converted the Royal William, and the Waterloo, three deckers, will,
in course of the ensuing year, be converted into ships of
hesitated
screwstate
dl
aboute-of -
tbhaet t le ex
and the Rodney, at present a 90-gun ship, will be
I should
o
the Rodney, had not a sister ship of hers, the London, lately
been so treated with ps eh I cf yt the
ef
same class.
great success. I 11mention the
W 1 now
new line-of-battle •
slops which we propose to add to the navy
durinc, the en •
0 suing year. Had no extraordinary exertions
have been made only two ships would been launched in the
Hood course of the year 1859, viz., theand lteßevenge,
n
both of 91 guns ; the Hood having 600 and
the Revenvgeego
horse power. Gentlemen who have looked at the returns of
the navy will see that there are included in them 10 ships as

in course of building. These would have been launched at
different periods during the next few years, but we have
selected those which were the most forward, and therefore
could be operated upon most easily, and with the least ex-
pense, and.propose to launch four of them during the ensu-
ing-year. In all, therefore, there will be launched during
the year six screw line-of-battle ships—viz., the Hood, 91
guns, and 600-horse power ; the Revenge, 91, 800-horse
power; the Victoria, 121, 1,000-heilse power; the Howe,
121, 1,000-horse power • the Duncan, 101, 800-horse power;
and the Prince of Wales, 131, 800-horse power. It
will be seen that during the time that that right hon. gen-
tleman was at the Board of Admiralty considerable addi-
tions of smaller vessels were made, such as corvettes, sloops,
and, above all, gunboats. lam not sure whether the addi-
tion of gunboats had not commenced in the time of the
right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle ; but our present
gunboats were chiefly added by the right hon. baronet the
member for Halifax, and I do not think a more valuable ad-
dition has ever been made to the navy than those gunboats.
(Hear, hear.) They are extremely popular, and while I
have held office I have received applications for them from
the service in various parts of the world. But the additions
made by the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir C. Wood) had
reference to the emergency in which they were made. Those
additions were chiefly made in 1856 ; they had reference to
the war then going on with Russia; and the right hon.
gentleman very naturally added vessels of a class suited to
the emergency of the moment ; but while a - considerable
force of those gunboats and sloops was added to the navy,
the line-of-battle ships and frigates did not increase in the
ratio which the interests of the public service demanded.
(Hear, hear.) On the contrary, the result of the war was
actually b check the progress which ought to have been
made in augmenting the number of line-of-battle ships in
the navy. I hold in my hand a statement of the proposals
made by the surveyor of the navy for an increase of line-
of-battle-iaips and frigates during the last ten years. I have
the programme submitted and the orders given thereon, but
those orders were not carried out. In the course of the last
ten years tie orders for ships of the line amounted to 37, but
the numbel• of ships of the line actually built during those
years was only 25, and therefore when I came into office I
found 12 like-of-battle ships less than we should have had if
the intentions of the Admiralty from year to year had been
carried out, (Hear.) In late years, I believe, the falling-off
originated in the requirements of the Russian war, which
to a certain extent had the effect of diverting labour from
the building of line-of-battle ships. With regard to frigates,
that is a strongercase. During the last 10 years proposals
were made for adding 37 frigates ; the actual number built
was only 23, so that there was a deficiency of 14 frigates in
that intend. All this has made a very material difference
in the positive and relative state of the navy. I attach no
blame to the late Admiralty for having built those smaller
vessels, bat we must recollect that m contemplating the
future action of our navy we must have regard to the pos-
sibility of a naval war. (Hear, hear.) We cannot look for
a repetition of a war similar to that with Russia; we must,
I say, contemplate the possibility of a naval war; and
should we ever find ourselves involved in a naval war it
will be absoluteiy essential to have line-of-battle ships and
frigates in such numbers as will enable us to conduct such
a war in a satisfactory manner. Very shortly after I came
into office we received at the Admiralty a paper called a
" submission," from Sir B. Walker, the Surveyor of the
Navy, calling our attention in very strong terms to the un-
satisfactory state of her Majesty's naval force in respect to
line-of-battle ships. This " submission" was laid before
the Admiralty, I think, in the latter part of March last.
Again, in May we received from Sir Baldwin Walker
another pressing " submission," calling our attention to the
deficiency of line-ofabattle ships. In the course of the sum-
mer we thought it our duty to institute inquiries into the
state of the navy of France. We felt, as I shall soon show,
that the navy of England was not in a satisfactory condi-
tion ; but we thought it our duty to make inquiries in refe-
rence to the condition of the navy, of France. In July we
again received a strong " submission" from Sir B. Walker,
urging on us the necessity of making vigorous efforts for
the safety of our own shores in the building of powerful
ships of the line. From that document I will read an ex-
tract. Sir B. Walker says :
" The information recently received from France having
fully confirmed the accounts previously obtained of the
state of the French navy, and shown the additions contem-
plated during the ensuing year, it is now beyond a question
that, although a few years ago we were far ahead of them
in respect of screw line-of-battle ships, they are now, for
the first time, equal to us, and unless some extraordinary
steps are at once taken to expedite the building of screw
ships of the line the French, at the close of next year,
will be actually superior to us as regards the most powerful
class of ships of war."
(Hear, hear.) Again, he says
" This condition of things would not have occurred if
the successive programmes of the last few years could have
been carried out, but the exigencies of the late war so inter-
fered with the building of ships that it was found utterly
impossible to do so."
I now wish to state to the house that last summer, when
my attention was drawn to this state of affairs, the effec-
tive line-of-battle ships in England were in number only
29. (Hear, hear.) With respect to block ships, of which
we have heard a great deal, and of which I scarcely knew
how to speak in the first instance on my coming into office,
I must say I have now no hesitation in stating that these
block ships are wholly useless. (" Hear, hear," and a
laugh.) They are good for nothing as sea-going men-of-
war ; they may be useful perhaps as floating batteries ; but
as men-of-war I say they are perfectly useless. Most of
them are rotten, and they are very nearly worn out. (Hear,
hear.) We must dismiss block ships then and sailing line-,
of-battle ships from our consideration. The effective line-
of-battle ships in England, as I ha% e said, when I came to
the Admiralty were reduced to the low number of 29. The
house will permit me to state what the number of the navy
in England has been in former times. In the seven years'
war (1760) there were 113 ships of the line in commission,
with 86,626 seamen and marines - in the American war
(1783) there were 126 ships of the line in commission, with
105,443 seamen and marines ; in the French revolutionary
war (1799) there were 120 ships of the line in commission,
with 120,409 seamen and marines • in the war with France
(1809) there were 113 ships of the line in commission, with
144,387 seamen and marines ; and in the war with Russia
(1856), when we had no enemy on the sea—when
we fought no naval action, and when our ships of
war were engaged in the transport of troops, or
in attacking stone walls, there were 42 ships in commission
(including block ships and sailing ships) with 67,791 sea-
...en and marines. Thor nuiriug, aluyr and block ships
answered the purpose when there was no enemy on the
sea; but you cannot calculate on them in future , and, in
the event of a naval war, when you want effective ships,
although the lowest number you had in the war with Rus-
sia was 42, your force is reduced to the lower number of 29.
That was in the summer of last year ; and four ships were
taking in their engines, which increased the number to 33.
(Hear.) I shall not dwell longer on this matter. I admit
its difficulty, but it seems to me that the difficulty must be
grappled with. The efficiency of the public service re-
quires it. My belief is, without pledging myself to any de-
tails, that the sound principle is to follow the rule already
adopted to a considerable extent in the army. Naval offi-
cers, like all other human beings, must yield to the force of
time ; and it is essential to the well -being of the navy that
we should have the services of active and vigorous offi-
cers, capable of performing their duties. The best system
of promotion is that which, while it induces aged officers
to retire, will secure the advancement of younger men
to posts which their physical strength and professional
attainments qualify them to fill. In answer to a question
put to me yesterday, I stated that I should avail myself of
this occasion to allude to a subject which has lately excited
very great interest—viz , the present position of the surgeons
of the Royal navy. (Hear, hear.) lam sorry to find that
my answer has been very much misunderstood. Iby no
means intended to imply that I had any doubt or hesitation
as to the course to be adopted. On the contrary, I then
meant, as I mean now, to express in distinct terms my
opinion that the present position of the surgeons in the navy
is not satisfactory. (Hear, hear.) But Igo still further. The
complaints we now hear from these officers are, no doubt,
much founded upon the late warrant issued in respect to the
army; but I think that even before the date of that warrant
the surgeons of the navy were not relatively placed on an
equality with their brethren of the army. Now, however,
they have an unanswerable claim to the consideration of
their country. Nothing in the military service could be
nobler or more gallant than the manner in which the medi-
-6.1 officers of the navy have discharged their duties under
the most trying and painful circumstances, and they are,
therefore, entitled to more liberal treatment than they now
receive. Their claim is based upon two grounds—first, it is
due to them as gentlemen that their position should be im-
proved, and secondly, public policy requires that the services
of this most useful branch of the profession should be more
highly appreciated and better requited, so that able and effi-
cient men may not be deterred from joining the navy. It is,
therefore, our intention in spirit and in substance to concede
to naval surgeons the advantages which they justly seek to
obtain. At the same time I will not and cannot now
commit myself to the exact mode in which that object
shall be carried out. The peculiarities of the naval service
may render it inconvenient to follow the precise rule
pursued in regard to the army ; but these and other points
of detail will be duly considered before our plan is finally
decided upon. The naval chaplains have preferred a very
similar claim, as have also the class of masters, and it is my
desire to take the whole of these questions into simultane-
ous consideration, carefully examining them in their rela-
tion to each other before arriving at any definite conclu-
sion on the subject. The next vote is that for transport,
on which there is a considerable reduction. It has fallen
from £410,500 last year to £200,000 for the present year.
The item for the packet service differs little from the cor-
responding charge for the last year; and, in fact, it ought
not to be included in the navy estimates at all. It should
by rights be compromised among the votes for the Post-
office department—(hear, hear) ;—and I only wonder that
tohfo a
secofmorpathrie
the right hon. gentleman opposite did not get rid of it long
ago when he presided at the Admiralty. The general re-
sultsonne
xt betweenyeer i thes
that, e t ismu
pa
pt
nf ogr
wt hee
did present
nenot
and those
take any extra money for shipbuilding, and did not add
3,000 men to the navy, there would be a saving of more
than £138,000 in favour of the next year. Including the
expense for this 3,000 men, but deducting the charge for
extra shipbuilding, there would still remain a saving of
£23,897 upon the estimates for the next year. The real
addition to our naval expenditure on account of the pro-
posals we intend to make will amount to £1,009,604. With
the permission of the committee I shall now turn to the
increase of the navy which we recommend; and here I may
observe that throughout this statement I wish to deal with
the house with the most perfect candour. I must there-
fore say that this sum of £1,009,604 which appears to be
the additional cost we are to incur for shipbuilding,
does not represent the whole augmentation of charge
which we contemplate. Besides that amount there are
postponed payments to the extent of £260,000. Of
that money £lOO,OOO will be devoted to steam machinery,
which will net be paid for during 1859-60, but will be
brought into the accounts for the commencement of the
year following, being disbursed by instalments. There will
also be a payment of £160,000 due for the construction of
vessels by contract. Thus, the entire expense of the in-
crease we propose to make in tho navy is not exhausted by
the sum of £1,009,604 which stands on the paper, but in
fact will amount—though it will not all be required for the
present financial year—to £1,269,604. The question then
arises—Why is that we want this addition to our navy ?
Are there sufficient reasons to justify us in asking Parlia-
ment to grant an increased expenditure for this purpose, in
round figures of nearly £1,300,000 ? My belief is that
neither in this house nor in the country will there be any
hesitation as to the propriety of this outlay. (Cheers.) I
am sure it is my duty, as it is the soundest policy, to treat
the house with perfect frankness on these subjects. I did
so last year, and I intend to do so now. I have previously
stated my conviction that the extent of our naval force is
known to foreign Powers. Foreign Governments are per-
fectly well aware of what goes on in this country. If there
is• any concealment at all, it is concealment from the
people. (Hear.) It is right that the people should know
what is the real state of affairs, and why they are called on
to make these great efforts. I may state then, at once, that
we ask for this great addition to the cost of shipbuilding,
because I am bound to say that when I succeeded to the
office I now hold I did not find the navy of this country in
a proper and adequate state for the defence of our coasts
and the protection, of our commerce, (Hear, hear.) I beg

here in the most explicit terms to disclaim any intention to
cast censure upon any former Administrations. If there
is anything which I am more anxious to avoid than another
it is any appearance of party spirit or party controversy.
I cheerfully do justice to former Governments, - and espe-
cially to that which immediately preceded us, to which in
regard to many points great credit is due ; and while they
left many things still to be done, it is but fair to say
that there were strong and obvious reasons connected
with the Russian war why certain reforms should not then
have been adopted. The right hon. member for Halifax
lately moved for a return showing the number of ships of
all descriptions which during the last few years have been
added to our navy. We propose in the ensuing year to con-
vert five more line-of-battle ships, and to finish six new
ones. The result will be that the Royal Navy will, in re-
spect of line-of-battle ships, be increased by 15. I now
come to the question of frigates, and I am sorry to say that,
in respect to that class of vessels, our position in compari-
son with the French navy, is still more unsatisfactory than
it is with regard to line-of-battle ships. In the course of
the autumn, I found that instead of being upon a par in
point of numbers, as was the case with regard to line-of-
battle ships, we were in a positive numerical inferiority of
12 frigates. (Hear.) The English navy comprises 17
screw frigates and nine paddle frigates, two receiving their
engines and six building, making a total of 34. The French
navy reckons 15 screws, 19 paddle-wheels, three receiving
their engines, one converting, and eight building, making
an aggregate of 46. I cannot help here calling the atten-
tion of the committee to a comparison of the naval forces of
England and France at various periods in former years. In
1812 England had 245 line-of-battle ,ships, while ' France
had 113. We had then 272 frigates and France 72. In
1820 England possessed 146 line-of-battle ships and France
58. We had 164 frigates and France 39. In 1840 England
had 89 line-of-battle ships and France 44. We had 180 fri-
gates and France had 50. In 1850 England had 86 line-of-
battle ships and France 45. England had 104 frigates and
France 56. I have at the same time to state, for which the right
hon. gentleman opposite in some degree deserves the credit,
that among our frigates are some of the very finest ships of
that class that ever floated. Two very remarkable frigates,
the Mersey and the Orlando, have just been launched carry-
ing 50 and 40 guns respectively. It is true that they are ex-
perimental ships, and that their value is not yet fully ascer-
tained, but I have every reason to believe that they will be
splendid men of war. Some of the French frigates, too, are
not so strong in respect of horse-power as ours are. hen
we discovered our inferiority the Government felt, and, I
believe, the Committee will also feel, that we really had
no opinion but to endeavour, as soon as possible, to remove
that inferiority—(hear, hear)—and, therefore, the plan
which the Government now asks you to enable Ahem to
carry out is this. I may first observe that we have some
12 or 14 sailing 80-gun ships, which, as of that class, are,
I fear, almost useless, but which I had hoped might be con-
verted into good frigates. lam sorry to say that they are
so old, averaging upwards of 30 years, as not to be worth
the cost of conversion. Upon the other hand, we have
about 12 or 13 50-gun sailing frigates which are compara-
tively young, only averaging about eight or ten years of age,
and they will be converted and lengthened, and will be
most valuable vessels. Our proposal is, as to frigates, in-
stead of launching three, which is the usual number, each
year, to hurry on two which are building, and so launch
five this year. They will be the Galatea, of 26 guns and 800-
horse power ; the Ariadne, of 32 guns and 800-horse power ;
the Bacchante, of 50 guns and 600-horse power; the Nar-
cissus, of 50 guns and 400-horse power ; and the Immortalite,
of 50 guns and 600-horse power. In addition to these we
propose to convert four of the sailing frigates to which I
have adverted—the Phaeton, Severn, Sutlej, and the Phoebe
—to lengthen them amiefilips, at the bows and at the stern .
(Hear, and laughter.) I believe these ships will become
as efficient and as valuable as it is possible for converted
ships to be. I fear they will be very costly ships, but still
most valuable and effective, carrying the same armament
they now bear-750 guns. The cost will be for the labour of
conversion £42,000 for each ship, and the cost of engines of
500-horse power £30,000, so that each ship will cost about
£72,000. If, hoWever, we were to construct new ships of
the same size they would cost at least each £40,000 more ;
and, moreover, these converted frigates can be added to our
navy in a much less time than it would take-to build new
ones. We thus propose to add nine frigates in the course of
the year. I now have to beg the attention of the committee
to a portion of this subject which is the most difficult, but
upon which lam bound to be candid—l allude to the sub-
ject of iron• cased ships. In referring to the French navy I
made no mention of what they were going to do in respect
to those ships, but it appears that they have laid down at
Toulon two vessels upon that plan, which are far advanced
towards completion. They are to be about the size and ton-
nage of the vessel which they consider to be their finest
line-of-battle ship, the Napoleon, upon which I understand
they have been modelled. They are only to carry 30 guns,
but those guns are to be of the heaviest calibre, and the
vessels are to be coated with 4f inch plates of iron or steel,
it not being yet decided which metal shall be adopted. In
this state of things the Government felt it to be their duty
in the course of last summer to institute experiments as to
the power of certain metal sheathing to resist shot. The
committee will perceive that it would not be proper in me
to enter into detail at present upon that subject—(hear)—
and I can only say that the experiments were most care-
fully made with all varieties of metal and in all ways. In
the course of the autumn, as every gentleman who reads the
newspapers must know, some wonderful inventions were
made in artillery, and it then appeared to me to be my duty
to ascertain how far the previous experiments would be
affected by the recent discoveries in artillery arms. The
house will not expect me to give in detail the result of these

experiments, buer am bound to say that it has convinced
the Admiralty that, whatever be the cost, we have no op-
tion in the discharge of our duty but to commence the con-
struction of these iron-cased ships. I shall not conceal
from the house that they will be the most costly ships ever
built for the British navy ; but still, assuming—that of
which I have no doubt—that our plans will receive the
sanction of Parliament, we have resolved that it is our duty
to lose no time in building at least two of these vessels.
I am bound to say, also, that we feel it to be no less our
duty to throw away no chance whatever in endeavouring
to -make these ships as effective and successful as pos-
sible. We have called upon the most competent parties
' in different parts of England connected with private
trade to give us their designs and counsel. We have like-
wise called upon our officials in the dockyards—upon our
able master shipwrights of whom, I am glad to say, we
have a considerable number—to furnish us with designs.
Tho determination of the Admiralty is to leave nothing un-
done, to take every precaution that prudence and caution
can suggest, in order that the large sums which these ships
will cost shall not be thrown away. We are equally re-
solved at the same time to lose not a moment in bringing
these ships into existence. They are the ships which ap-
peared in our estimates under the head of ships to be built
by contract. Wehave not'room to build them in our dock-
yards. From the mode of construction which we propose
we have no hesitation in confiding their construction under
ouesuperintendence, to those who will build them by con-
tract ; and by the close of the year upon which we are now
entering, I hope these two ships may also be added to the
strength of the British navy. (Hear.) Such are the pro-
posals to which we ask the consent of the house. If they
are sanctioned the result, as regards ships, will be this—in
the course of next year 15 line-of-battle ships, about half
our existing number of heavy frigates, and two iron-cased
ships, which will be as powerful as we can make them, will
be added to our navy. The general result will be an addi-
tion to the naval force of the country of 26 powerful men-
of-war. (Hear, hear.) Such is the use we propose to make
of the sums which we ask you to vote. L-have been per-
fectly open and candid with the house. (Cheers.) I have
stated to them our necessity, and I have also explained how
we propose to meet it. If am asked why we propose to do so
much, I answer it is not more than the case requires. If I
am asked why we do not propose to do more, I say these
proposals are the limit of our power—our dockyards could
not do more within the year. But I tell you frankly that
when these ships are completed—when we have added 15 to
our line-of.battle and nine to our heavy frigates, and when
we have built the two iron-cased ships to which I have re-
ferred—l, for one, shall not be content with the strength of
the British navy. (Hear.) At the end of next year, instead of
33 as now, we shall have 48 line of-battle ships. But there
are four more new ships on the stocks ; there are four more
line-of-battle ships which will bear conversion, and I hope
that in the ensuing financial year of 1860-1 Parliament will
consent to the completion of these eight vessels, thus raising
our force at the end of that year to 56 line-of-battle ships.
I trust also that Parliament will sanction a further addition
to our frigates, so. that ere long our supremacy may be
thoroughly re-established. (Hear.) I feel greatly indebted
to the house for the patience with which they have heard
my protracted, and, I am afraid, in some respects, dull
statement. (Cries of "No, no," and cheers.) I trust they
will consider that we have done no more than our duty in
making these proposals to them. We have made these pro-
posals from a conviction that it is our duty to invite the
House of Commons to aid us in our attempt to restore the
naval supremacy of England. (Hear, hear.) We are
bound to recollect the vital importance of this question.
We are bound to recollect that we have not only, like Rus-
sia, or France, or the other great continental Powers, to
provide for the protection of our own coasts and maintain
our position in Europe, but to protect an empire and a com-
merce that extend over the four quarters of the globe.
(Hear, hear.) Our naval force is of necessity divided, and
therefore it is essential for England not to allow her navy
to fall, as it has fallen, down to the lowest amount ever
known in our history—an amount not exceeding that of a
neighbouring Power without anything like the same de-
mand upon its force. (Hear, hear.) It is our duty to take
care that our naval force is, not only adequate to preserve
our position in Europe, but sufficient to answer the de-
mands made upon us in all parts of the world. (Hear,
hear.) Let me add, abore all, that we make these pro-
posals in the interests of peace. (Hear, hear.) lam con-
vinced that with peace England must be powerful. The
best guarantee for peace is to show that we are prepared for
war, and I cannot, I think,' conclude My speech in more
appropriate terms than those which I find in the ad-
vice of Sir Francis Bacon to Sir George Villiers :
" God is the God of Peace,—it is one of his attributes ;
therefore by Him alone we must, pray and hope to continue
it ; there is the foundation. And the King must not
neglect the just ways for it. Justice is the best protector
of it at home, and providence for war is the best prevention :
of it from, abroad." (Cheers.)

Sir CHARLES WOOD did not intend, in any observa-
tions he was about to make, to offer any opposition to the
proposal of the right hon. gentleman. He felt that the
country ought to be always prepared for war, and he would
therefore vote with pleasure for the proposed increase in the
number of men in the navy. He wished to know how the
3,000 men who were to be the reserve were to be lodged.
He would suggest that they should be lodged in barracks.
Last year he proposed a vote of £25,000 to purchase land
for barracks in Keyham to lodge sailors; but that item was
struck out by the house in its desire to carry out economy,
and he was glad to see that a sum of £25,000 was in the
estimates for a similar purpose, and it should have his sup-
port. He was most anxious that they should have an
effective reserve of men. He had last year obtained a vote
for 9,000 coastguard men as:a reserve ; and he regretted that
that force was not now to be increased by at least 1,000
men. A naval coast volunteer corps would be a most valu-
able addition to the naval force of this country, and he was
glad to see that means were to be taken to enrol this body
of men in the service. He now came to the question of
the building of the navy, and he must say that he entirely
concurred in the proposal as it had been made to the house.
When he was at the Admiralty they employed all the ship-
wrights they could find; but it was not desirable to build
too many vessels, as they were invariably attacked with
dry rot in the course of years. The right hon. gentleman
then referred to the number of small vessels built by the
late Government, observing that they were sufficient for
the purposes of the country. The 'late Government had,
however, built large vessels of war in the course of the
last five years. In 1853, they built 6; in 1854, 8; in
1856, 2 ; in 1857, 2 ; and in 1858, 8; so that with these
vessels and 200 gun-boats they had all that were necessary
for the present moment. It would no doubt be desirable
to build large vessels, but that would.be a work of time. He
found that the extra pay for one year amounted to £17,000.
The late Government proposed last year to add to the dock-

yard establishment 1,340 men, but the right hon. gentleman
refused to act upon that suggestion, and continued the sys-
tem of extra men. The right hon. gentleman had quoted
the report of the committee over which Lord Seymour had
ably presided. That committee was appointed to inquire
into the naval and military expenditure, and one of the
recommendations of that committee was as regarded extra
workmen. In that report it was stated that they ought to
increase the dockyard establishment as a matter of public
policy, and that the extra pay system ought not to be con-
tinued. He (Sir C. Wood) quoted from that report last
year ; but the right hon. gentleman did not choose to adopt
his suggestions and that of the committee, and this year he
was pursuing the same course; for, with the experience of
last year, he still refused to act on the recommendation of
that committee, and increase the establishment of the dock-
yards. The recommendation he alluded to was not only his
opinion, but was also that of high authorities, and he be-
lieved the system of extra pay to be not only unwise but
inexpedient. During the whole of last year, be it observed,
Government could not get shipwrights, but even the young
workmen left the dockyards and went to work in private
yards. By increasing the establishment they kept in their
own hands the power of increasing the amount of work
when it should be required. But if the men in time of peace
were put to task or job work, they would have no means,
in time of war, to make that increase which would be essen-
tially necessary. Now, look at the estimate of the right
hon. gentleman. Under the head of pay to the dockyards
there appears the sum of £50,000 for extra work, which
showed the necessity for increasing the establishment of
the dockyards. When all had been done that was proposed
to be done by the right hon. baronet the navy would not
be made what it ought to be ; and he had stated, and
stated truly, that several ships were not in the state
they should be. As regarded block ships, they were
excellent ships to be used as floating batteries, at such ports
as Glasgow, Liverpool, and other important harbours, and
to be used for the training of men and boys, and the recep-
tion of coastguard volunteers ' • but they were not fit to be
used as sea-going ships, and should not be excluded from
the ships in this country. (Hear, hear.) One thing was
certain, that they must build large ships to compete with
the ships of other nations. He agreed that the Orlando and
the Mersey were both fine vessels, but they ought to have
many more that could compete with advantage with those
of other countries. They must, for several years to come,
increase building ships very considerably, and in eight or
ten years their navy would be in a proper condition. He
therefore objected to the way in which the right hon.
baronet intended to proceed. The same objections he had
urged would apply to the steam machinery, for, if it was
necessary to increase building, it was also necessary to in-
crease steam machinery. The only other matter he in-
tended to refer to was, the proposal to build two iron-cased
ships, and if other nations had used them with a probability
of success, this country ought not to be without • them.
Undoubtedly there were great improvements in the power
of the ordnance used on board ships, and it was necessary
that they should keep up their improvements to meet and
compete with those which other nations had. It was not
his intention to offer any opposition, and he believed none
would be made to the vote which had been placed in the
chairman's hands; but he had thought it necessary to
make the observations he had offered to the committee, re-
serving to himself the power of making such remarks as he
might deem to be necessary when other votes should be
proposed ; but he believed a permanent increase in the
workmen of the dockyards would be the best economy and
the true policy for this country to pursue. .
Sir C. NAPIER said that during the time he had had
the honour of a seat in that house he had never heard the
navy estimates brought forward in so clear and distinct a
manner as had been done by the right honourable baronet
that night. He would not follow the right hon. baronet
through his reasons for increasing the navy, but this he
would say that he had told them what was not usual. He
had told them how the money had been expended last year,
and how it would be expended during the present year.
This was certain, that they must build larger and longer
ships than they had built hitherto, and that would re-
quire that they should have larger and longer docks. As
to manning the navy, the report which had been made by
the commission was an excellent one, and if the Govern-
ment followed it up they would have the means of manning
the navy better than it had ever been manned before. He
had only one objection to it, that it did not go far enough,
and encourage petty officers and men to enter the service
by giving them better pay. The pay to petty officers
ought to be higher, and, by making it higher, they would
always be considered better officers, and the men would
be more ambitious of aspiring to be petty officers. He
had proposed that the pay of the petty officers should be
double that of the men, and that the men's pay should be
increased to what it was in the merchant service ; and he
trusted that, when the report was taken into considera-
tion, that he would be able to induce the house to give
that increased pay. Since the year 1815, he would like to
know what the Admiralty had been doing. He must say
that he was very happy he had the honour of proposing
the appointment of the commission he had alluded to.
The next question was whether the vote of 3,000 men was
sufficient. It clearly was not sufficient to keep this country,
even with the men coming home from China, in safety.
The very smallest number of ships should be ten sail of the
line fully manned, and then if it was necessary to have 30
sail of the line on an emergency, there ought to be nine
ships with a small crew, which, in case of emergency,
could be easily increased. Those ships, together with the
Channel fleet, would be of essential service in case of
emergency. That house wanted to have an efficient navy.
They should have a navy equal to France and Russia, and
provided the country was satisfied the money was pro-
perly expended, that house would never refuse it. But
the money was not properly expended. And how could it
be otherwise with the constant changes in the Admiralty?
Every first lord chose his own admirals. Each of these had
his own views, and the result was that what was done by
one Admiralty was undone by another. There were always
some new ideas displacing the old ideas. This involved a
constant expenditure. He recommended experiments, prac-
tical experiments in gunnery, but notwithstanding all his
remonstrances they kept to the old system at Portsmouth.
If they had ten sail of the line in the Channel fleet, they
ought to have ten sail of the line in the first reserve, and
there ought to be a second reserve of the same number.
Without that he maintained the country was not in a safe
condition. Between Brest and Cherbourg, France had 20
sail of the line fully manned. By that he meant tha,t the
ships were in the same condition as our first reserve. France
at that moment commanded the Channel. France com-
manded the Mediterranean. That was a position in which
that country ought not to be. France had a commercial
navy of 180 vessels and 170 steamvessels. She had an army
of 700,000 men, and a powerful navy. This country could
be invaded by France at any time. Where was our force to
oppose to France ? Louis Napoleon could, if he chose, in-
vade this country. That was a position in which that coun-
try ought not to be in. (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to
give any alarm to France ; but he wished to alarm the gen-
tlemen of that house, and get rid of the rotten blockships
and of the rotten reserve ships. Was that a position that
this great country ought to be in ? Our present position was
an invi tat ion t • France. He did not say that France had any
intention of coming to this country, but if she had she could
with her fleet, take the command of the chops of the Channel
and destroy our East India trade, and our Mediterranean
trade. If France declared war upon us, our first battle ought
to be fought at sea; but where were our ships to fight it
upon any sudden emergency ? What would be the conse-
quences if the French, with the'command of the Channel,
landed an army on our shores ? Our little island ought to be
in a position to defy the world. But was she not, at that
moment, at the command of her more powerful neighbour ?
This country ought to be in a position to defy the whole
world. The First Lord of the Admiralty, when he came
into office, found that France and England were equal in
their naval power. Then why did he not increase our
strength ?
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I am not indebted to the hon.
and gallant admiral for inforthation on this subject. In
August last I took measures to increase our naval strength.
Sir C. NAPIER said the First Lord of the Admiralty
was especially responsible for the protection of the country,
and hoped he would adopt necessary measures for that pur-
pose. The late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir C. Wood)
paid off seven sail of the line. This made his successor's
duties more difficult, as it was not very easy to re-establish
that force and re-man our fleet. He (Sir C. Napier) trusted
that we should never find a man in that high office who
would dismiss our men and weaken our naval establish-
ments. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE congratulated Sir J, Pakington
on the clear and business-like statement which he had made.
He (Sir J. Elphinstone) had served on a commission whose
object was to place the navy of England on a proper footing.
That commission had made a report, the suggestions of
which, if adopted by Parliament, would materially benefit
the British seaman. If the Government would give prac-
tical effect to the report of that commission, they would
elevate the character of the British seaman and confer great
advantage on the country at large. As a naval officer, he
thought the British seaman ought to be recompensed for
his services. This would be an inducement to others to
enter into the service of the country. (Hear, hear.) The
ships ought to be so constructed as that the men should
have sufficient accommodation, and that the ship's
company should be kept, as far as possible, in good
health. With respect to small vessels he could not concur
with the right honourable baronet. The small vessels
sent out to the tropical climates were deficient in accom-
modation for the men ; there wad not a comfortable deck
for the men ; the 'main hatch was bad, and in the hold it
was almost impossible to squeeze the men into it. Our docks
were also inadequate for the accommodation of her Ma-
jesty's navy. With Cherbourg staring us in the face, we
ought to have a basin capable of accommodating 25 or 30
sail of the line, with the means of fitting out and repairing
our vessels. Would any merchant fit up a ship in the
stream ? It would be a waste of power. Then why should
the Government do so ? (Hear.) The ships should be so
fitted up in the docks that they could sail out like a flock of
ducks. (Laughter.)
Mr. S. HERBERT observed that if the hon. baronet had
been in Parliament somewhat longer he would have ob-
served that the temper of the house was subject to fluctua-
tions on this subject. He (Mr. S. Herbert) had been
Secretary to the Admiralty for four or five years, and he
always found it difficult to obtain votes for purposes of the
kind now under consideration. Complaints were now made
as to the inefficiency of the navy at the time he held office;
but it should be recollected that at that time our naval
architecture was in its infancy. Every vessel then built was
an experiment, and some of them were condemned shortly
after their construction. Although criticisms had been
made on them by the gallant admiral (Sir C. Napier), yet
the Simoom, Birkenhead, 'Vulcan, Mmgara, and another
built under the directions of that Board of Admiralty were
highly spoken of by the late Board of Admiralty for the
service they performed in transporting troops, &c., to the
Crimea. With respect to what had been said. as to the rela-
tive merits of iron and wooden ships and wooden ships
cased with iron, experience, he thought, had proved that
there was, after all, no very material difference. As to
the votes asked for by the right hon. baronet that night, all
he could say was that he believed there would be no difficulty
raised on the part of any hon. member to the granting of these
votes ; and with respect to that required for an addition to
the'number of men, he was convinced that if even a larger
number was asked for, it would be readily agreed to by the
house and the country. (Hear.) One word as to the fleet it
was proposed to maintain in China. Ho was one of those who
differed from the majority of Parliament in opinion as to
the policy of the Chinese war. Since then there had been
great rejoicings over its termination, and for his own part
he had been disposed to concur in the general feeling on the
subject. But now he should begin to doubt the value of the
peace and the treaty if we were required to support an
armament of 47 vessels and 4,700 men in these distant
waters. (Hear, hear.) Tiln hoped, however, that in the
course of time these large &Ices would cease to be required,
and that we should be able to bring them home, and to con-
centrate them where, if danger was to be apprehended at
all, they ought to be. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. 'WHITBREAD said he had always been of opinion
that we should have a comparative strength of our navy
with that of foreign nations. That had been given to them,
and the result was that it had beenFm rirenalnetohywtGhs toaatt,
eer
nd
for ornsnoemtnhteetmao
oupnti hat
hco
tritthyaodfbteheenFtnirtshteLpoorwd
power
rf
ofth ethAed
in the Channel a fleet equal to ours. That was the most
arilharomg
riinshtshtaotneimeeenuttiherae 11;gaietivehre heardha heoardn siuteshevaeuratliotimn:teyi.