The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONEON) FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 29, 1857

quoted it again, and would probably be rawarded by
selling off the stock now on hand. (A. laugh.) He
quoted his letter, page 84, to Sir John Pechell, but be
omitted to tell them what he recommended---that the sys-
tem of the purchase of commissions shop .ld be extended to
the nary. He came down and omitted all that part, and
wished them to call the Board of Admiralty not a board
but a council, and the first lord of the Admiralty not first
lord, but minister of marine. But the gallant admiral
went on further, and quoted a pamphlet of Sir G. Cock-
.. . .

to their being so many masters. The case was just the
same with respect to the doctyards. Sir G. Cockburn,
after pointing out the errors of the Board of Admiralty,
recommended that the Admiralty Board should be
abolished, and that the management of the navy should
be transferred to a flag officer, as naval commander-in-
chief, to be assisted by two naval officers ; that another
person, having a seat in Parliament, should have the
control of the naval expenditure, submitting it to the
Treasury for approval. The principal objection, as stated
by Sir G. Cockburn, to placing a naval officer at the
head of the service, was, that he might show too much fa-
vour to his personal friends ; but he did not. Why sbou d
that be the case with respect to the navy more than it
was with regard to the commander-in-chief ? He would
now proceed to point out some of the evils attendant upon
the constant changes which took place at the Admiralty.
When the old set went out, a new batch came in—tee
first lord, perhaps, knowing nothing of naval officers,
and the others having all their business to learn. No-
body was left to teach them except the secretary ; and
the confusion attendant upon each change might easily
be imagined. The house would be astonished at the
expenses incurred in ship-building under the different
boards. Some years ago be took the trouble of ascer-
taining the number of ships which had been built and
destroyed between the years 1815 and 1849. We bad
got rid of 13 three-deckers and 2 receiving ships ; 153
two deckers and 22 receiving ships ; 20 50-gun ships
and 9 receiving ships ; 180 frigates, from 30 to 59 guns,
and 17 receiving ships ; 65 frigates of 30 guns ; 418
vessels of all descriptions and 20 receiving ships, making
in all 920 ships. During that period there had been
built 14 tbree-deckers. 49 two-deckers, 73 frigates,
from 30 to 50 guns, 39 frigates under 30 guns ; 114
vessels of all descriptions, not including smell craft and
steamers. In addition to the expense of breaking up
ships, no less than 28 had had their sterns altered under
Sir W. Symonds' plan, and 26 under other plans; 68
ships had had their magazines altered—some of them
three times and eight of them twice. The expense of
cutting down a frigate was upwards of 52,0001. From
1821. to 1849 the estimates for the navy amounted to
upwards of 156,000,000/. of which more than 44,000.
0001. were expended on the dockyards. He did not
mean to say tbat it was not necessary to cut down ships,
but he was satisfied that the great number of alterations
were attributable to changes in the Admiralty. He
did not exactly agree with Sir George Cockburn, be-
cause he knew it was useless to attempt to ask any
government to put any naval man at the bead of the
Admiralty, for judged of by civilians, they were only
fit to be shot at. (Laughter.) Lord St. Vincent was
deolared by Mr. Pitt to be an unfit man for the office of
first lord. But that noble lord, by his firmness and
character during the time he failed that office, restored
the navy from the degraded condition into which it had
fallen u ider his predecessors. It had been said that all
our great battles were fought under civilians. Now,
in God's name, what had they to do with battles ?
(Laughter.) Wby the French and English fleets used
to put to sea and fight severe battles, but he could not
at all understand what the First Lord of the Admiralty
bad to do with them. (Hear) The greatest battle
ever fought was fought not during the time a c vilian
was at the head of the Admiralty, but when that post
was occupied by Lord Barham. It was rot Lord
Barham, however, but Nelson who won that
battle. (Hear, hear.) A great deal was done by
Sir James Graham to reform the Admiralty Board,
and the right hon. baronet carried out several
suggestions which had fallen from him (Sir C. Napier)
such as the registering of seamen and giving a
bounty, both which plans were steps towards the more
efficient manning of the navy. But the right hon. gen-
tleman did not take advantage of his own law. With
respect to the continuous service men, ho did not think
one of them ought to be discharged without his consent,
and doubted whether they ought to be di.charged at ail.
He understood that an order had been sent down to
discharge, with their own consent, all the first-class boys,
who were beginning to be useful, and also all the novices
who wished to be discharged. He did not approve a
continuous service for ten years. He theught it would
be much better to take them for five years, and then
allow them to enter for five years more. He understood
that two or three different orders had been sent on this
subject, that the telegraph was almost always at work,
and that the commanders at the different ports hardly
knew what they were doing. The reforms which he pro-
posed were so very simple that he was surprised Sir
James Graham had not adopted them. The Navy
Board, the Victualling Board, and the Transport Board
were abolished. There was one officer at the dockyard,
one at the head of the victualling department, one at
the head of the surveyor's department, one at the head
of the head of the storekeeper's department. The objec-
tions of Sir George Cock burn and Sir George Clerk were,
that the whole of the business would fall into their hands
without responsibility attaching to them. And that was
the case. When Mr. Labouchere began his political life,
it was as a lay lord of the Admiralty. The accountant-
general's department was under his care, and he lived at
Somerset-house, and attended strictly to his orders.
There was no necessity for a lay lord to be placed over
the head of the accountant-general, who ought to have
the management of the whole of the accounts of the
navy, and to be in communication with the first lord,
and the first lord only. The hi.ad of the victualling-
department ought to reside at Somerset-house, and
take his departure altogether from Whitehall. All
orders belonging to the medical and victualling depart-
ments ought to be signed by him, • and his master
ought to be the first lord. At the head of the sur-
veyor's department there ought to be another officer,
who ought not to be at the Admiralty at all. The vice-
admiral of Great Britain ought to be at the head of the
surveyor's and store department, and all letters and com-
munications from the superintendents of dockyards ought
to be sent to him, and he ought to inspect the dockyards
in an efficient manner, not proceeding at railroad speed,
doing down to the different ports and hoisting his fist,.
The rear-admiral ought to have the inspection of the
victualling and medical departments, and to hoist his
flag also. By these arrangements enormous sums of
money woull be saved, and the different parties would
only have their own specific duties to attend to. Now,
now ought the Admiralty Board to be composed? It
was said that the First Lord was responsible, but he al-
ways laid the blame on the board, and the board laid
the blame on him. He had no objection to the present
First Lord, because he would do as well as any other.
(Laughter.) He would make the First Lord Minister
of Marine, having under him the vice-admiral and rear-
admiral of Great Britain. Should he happen to be a
civilian he ought to have a captain of the fleet to assist
him, and make him acquainted with things which he
might not understand, for they might as well make a naval
officer a bishop as a civilian a First Lord. All orders ought
to emanate from the Minister of Marine, who ought to
have two secretaries, one a civilian and the other a naval
man. Ile did not think it would be necessary to have
more than one naval officer to assist the Minister of
Marine, besides the two secretaries. He would tell the
Government that Alen they did something very speedily
to improve the condition of the navy some very serious
disaster would happen. Oar disasters began at the lat-
ter end of the last great war. The English navy never
knew what it was to be beaten until we went to war
with America. The Americans took the whole of our
corvettes. Then our frigates began to walk into the
Americans; but they did not inflict that injury which
they ought to have done. And why ? Because the
Americana had paid more attention to their navy
than we had done, and were proud to be able
to heat their cousins. What was the result ? The
Emperor of France sent nine frigates to sea, and we
nad four drawn battles. That was the siate of the
case at the end of the war. It was admitted that the
French navy bad got into a high state of discipline, and
sras as good as our own, and that they could man their
fleet when we could not man ours. Now we ought net
to allow our navy to remain in its present condition. We
ought to have a better system of management, and our
ships ought to be better manned. Unless an improve-
went took place in both these respects great disasters
would befall the country. We had now no Channel fleet,
and in the course of a few months we should not have
a single ship of war in England. When our men were
paid off they would go to America and other countries ;
if we should want them we should be unable to obtain
their services. Now, suppose a war should break out be-
tween this country and France, which was not impos-
sible, and Russia should join France, he did not believe
the Queen's throne would be worth six months' purchase.
(Cries of "On, ob.") Mon. members might cry "Oh,
oh ;" but we had neither men nor ships fit for slosh a
contingency, our best ships being all abroad, and nothing
but trash remaining in our ports. He wanted to open
the eyes of the country to the fact that if France and
Russia were to unite, we should not have the means of
defending ourselves. He had been himself in action, and
had been beaten simply because his vessels were badly
manned and disciplined. When in Portugal he had a
bad ly-manned fleet, and when he fell in with Don
Mignel's fleet, and his own son boarded one of the
enemy's vessels, he was hardly followed by a single man.
The men had no confidence in each other, and of the ten
marines on boarl only three of them ventured to go ird.
By all the rules of fighting his own vessel ought to have
been taken instead of Don Miguel's. (Laughter.) The
First Lord of the Treasury was responsible for the
present state of the navy, and ought not to remain
at the head of the Government unless he was deter-
mined to keep up an efficient fleet. He did not ask for
a very large or expensive fleet, but one of high order,
commanded by exesellent officers, and manned by young
and able seamen and good marines. With these, and
if they could man the fleet well, he defied the world.
A British fleet • with men accustomed to act together
would face anything in the world. But a fleet manned
by persons picked up in the streets was not efficient.
The hon. and gallant admiral concluded by moving the
resolution.
Mr. BENTINCK seconded the motion.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the speech -of the hon. and
gallant admiral had been so discursive that he hoped the
house would forgive hint if he imitated him in that re-
spect. The principal argument of the hon. and gallant
officer was the want of permanence in the first Lord of
the Admiralty. Why, as this Government was neces-
sarily parliamentary, the government officers could not
be permanent. It would be an agreeable thing to many
if they could. The head and front of their offending was
the want of permanency.
Sir C. NAPIER—The Duke of Cambridge is perma-
nent:

would be met by somo other excuse ; but he wculd not
press his motion.

The motion was then withdrawn.
TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. MOORE moved for nod obtained leave to bring in
a bill to provide for the better securing of and regulating
the custom of tenant-right as practised in the province of
Ulster, awl to secure compensation to improving tenvnts
who may not make claim under the raid custom, and to
limit the power of eviction in certain cases.
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SCHOOLS (QUEEN'S
UNIVERSITY) IRELAND.

burn's, or Sather some notes that he left, and which were
never intended for publication. Now, it was known that
Sir G. Cockburn, who was a long time at the Admiralty,
ha great differences of opinion, not with the civilians but
with the naval members of the board. The hon. aid gal-
lant admiral quoted these notes, but he would quote Sir
G. Cockburn 's notes in that house. In that house Sir G.

Mr. FAGAN moved for leave to bring in bill for secur-
ing the more effectual promotion of the medical and surgi-
cal sciences in the Queen's University i❑ Ireland, by ena-
bling the ratepayers of the unions of Cork, Belfast, and
Galway to provide for the enlargement and better main-
tenance of certain hospitals in the said cities and town, and
for the further extension of the provisions of the act of her
present Majesty to endow new colleges for the advance-
ment of learning in Ireland.
Mr. GROGAN opposed the bill. It ought not to be
brought forward in the absence of the Secretary for Ire-
land, and as a commission was now engaged in inquiring
into the condition and state of education in these colleges,
they ought to wait for the report.
J. D. FITZGERALD had not read the bill, but, as
mach interest was excited on the subject in the cities
affected by it, the Government would not oppose its intro-
duction. Before it came on for a second reading the Secre
tary for Ireland would be in his place.
After a few words from Lord NAAS, the motion was
agreed to.

Cockburn said "he had no hesitation in stating, and in
staking his private as well as his public character on the

,'statement, that it was necessary- for the safety of the
Country that the Board of Admiralty should remain con-
stituted as it was at present."
Sir C. NAPIER—What date was that?
Mr. B. OSBORNE—In 1820. But he had another, five
years later, when Sir G. Cockburn said, " Speaking from
the experience he had, he was sure that any alteration in
the constitution of the Board would be injurious to the
best interests of the country." Probably, when gentlemen
got out of office, and when they got out of command, they
might have different opinions. If he were rightly in-
formed, in the year 1826 the bon. and gallant admiral ap-
plied to be put. on the Board of Admiralty, He could
refer to his own pamphlet. [Sir 0. NAPIER—The page ?]
Page 213. This was Lord John Russell's letter to him :
—" You may remember when you applied to me in 1846
for a seat at the Board of Admiralty, then about to be
formed under Lord Auckland (a and I stated
my opinion that your services would be more useful to the
public in a naval than a civil department." He thought
it rather extraordinary that the gallant admiral, having
applied for civil service under a civilian First Lord in
1846 should in 1857 come down and tell them that it was
impossible to carry on the naval affairs of the country
with a civilian as First Lord. It was not the rule to have
civilians as First Lords of the Admiralty. On the con-
trary, there bad been a great many naval First Lords, and
although at the beginning of their office naval lords were
popular, they generally ended with giving great dissatis-
faction. It was a singular thing that whenever there had
been a parliamentary inquiry into the state of the navy,
lit had always been when a naval man was First Lord ;

and all the improvements in the navy had been
effected when they had hail a civilian as First Lord. The
hon. and gallant admiral went back as far as the reign
of Edward VI. He would not go so far back. Was the
lion. and gallant admiral aware that it was to Lord Sand-
wich, a civilian, that they were indebted for the marines
as a separate body from the sailors; that he first com-
menced the inspection of the navy. Then, Lord Keppel
was a distinguished naval commander, brit what did Lord
Shelburne say of his naval administration ? He said that
a change was necessary, seeing that the affairs of the navy
were going to ruin. Then there was Lord Howe. He was
a naval man, but as First Lord of the Admiralty he gave
universal dissatisfaction, and there was a remarkable de-
bate, both in the Lords and the Commons, as to the fa-
vouritism displayed in the promotions while be was in
office ; and Mr. Fox said, " he approved of Lord Home's
conduct when at sea, but that all hisnaval ability vanished
when he got on shore." But the hon and gallant admiral
quoted Lord St. Vincent as a naval Firat Lord, Why,
Lord St Vincent was most unfortunate in his administra-
tion. In his time they p ,sitive;y sold the hemp in the
dockyards to the French Government, in order to reduce
the naval estimates. And what was Mr. Pitt's speech ie
1800? ." I am inclined to think that between Lord St.
Vincent as a commander and as First Lord of the Admi-
ralt y there is a very wide difference. He is much less able
in a civil than in a warlike position."
Sir C. NAPIER—What was Mr. Fox's opinion?
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he was aware that Mr. Fox
voted on that occasion in favour of Lord St. Vincent, but
he did not say anything in his favour.
Sir C. NAPIER—Yes, he did.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said then the gallant admiral ought
to be ready with his quotation. Then he went to Lord
Barham, who was a naval First Lord, and he took great
credit to Lord Barham for fitting ont the fleet that fought
the bat le of Trafalgar. He (Mr. B. Osborne) maintained
that the First Lord's duty was as much civil as naval; and
it was a singular thing that with this exception the fleets
which had fought in all the great actions had been fitted out
by First Lords who were civilians. Take Lord Rodney's vic-
tory in 1782, the victories in 1744, the battle of the Nile, and
the battle of Copenhagen; the fleets in all these cases were
fitt•sd oat when a civilian was first lord. Mind there was
a deal in the selection of the officer to command. Now,
what had been the great improvements instituted by first
lords who were civilians ? Why, Sir James Graham was
the means of saving 1,200,0001. b,r consolidating offices in
the navy. Up to that time the navy accounts had never
been audited, and from that day to this they had been
audited. He did not mean to lay it down as a rule that
they should never appoint a naval man, but he said that
the opportunities and the education of naval men were not
of that sort that they should be put into the important
position of first lord of the Admiralty. If they found a
man adapted to that situation, do not let it be against him
that he was a naval man, but it would be stultifying them-
selves to say they would have none but a naval man. The
hon. and gallant admiral ha I said that his late colleague
Mr. Phinu retired because ho did not like signing letters
which he could not read, and that be had conscientious
scruples about signing them. Mr. Phinn had no such
scruples, for he did read the letters, and he retired because
he preferred the business of the bar. Then the hon. and
gallant admiral talked about private letters, and he was
astonished that he should, considering the use he had
made of the letters from Sir J. Graham which wera never
intended to be published. The hon. and gallant admiral
said there ought to be a permanent officer to teach the
boards who were coming in. There was a permanent officer,
the surveyor to the navy, who was not.liablo to be changed
on the change of government. The hon. and gallant ad-
miral was fund of maligning his own fleet, not regarding
the neanceivres of that fleet when it anchored in Faro
Sound. He would read the criticism of the Russian pa-
per, complimentary as it was to the hon. and gallant ad-
miral. It said :—" The handling of the English ships was
admirable, The English make very little use of our buoys
When they take a new channel they lay down buoys of
their own. One thing may be affirmed positively, that
no pilot of ours would ever venture on his own respon-
sibility to take deep sea going ships into places wki h
have been navigated by large English steamers, though
it must be admitted they have occasionally groun led."
Now here was Russian testimony as to the efficiency of the
British fleet. He was surprised to hear the hon and gal-
lant admiral affirm that the throne of England was not
worth six months' purchase. If he did not know that the
gallant admiral was rather wild about this subject, he
should be ashamed that such an expression should have
come from a British admiral. While they had the navy
in its present condition, and while they had a Board of
Admiralty comprising such men as Sir R. Dundas, Sir M.
Berkeley and Capt. Milne, the throne was secure, and he
hoped the house would not listen to such statements as
those of tiie hon. and gallant admiral, and that they would
deduce from that statement about the throne the inference
that the hon. and gallant admiral was as little qualified to
alter the constitution of the Board of Admiralty as he was
to judge of the stability of the throne. He trusted that
the house would negative this motion by a large majority.
Sir G. PECHELL said the fact of Sir G. Cockburn be-
ing 16 or 17 years at the Board of Admiralty and hiding
his light under a bushel all that time detracted consider-
ably from the value of his notes. He certainly thought
that the system of constant changes which prevailed at the
Admiralty was much to be deprecated.
Mr. KER approved of the principle which threw our
do .kyards open to the inspection of all persons ; but he
objected to the system of giving drawings to persons who
were experts in the ship-trade, when these persons were
foreigners. He had been shown a large model of the Duke
of Wellington line of battle ship a twelvemonth before
that vessel was launched.
T urged upon the house the necessity
naval force in the Mediterranean.
line of battle ships ought to be sta-
tioneddvocated also the formation of a
scientific men, for the purpose of
upon
.those scientific improvements which from
f
time might
.he made abroad, or which might be
blo❑
aAkhredideampooiifunpr
teagi
opinion
rop:n.r
sufficientawelo
aona
reportingtime
to
brought for ward by inventors at home. The hon. and gal-
lent member bad said that the junior members of the Board
of Admiralty it with ropes round their necks, and that
they were afraid to express their opinion. He could not
believe so meanly of his professional brethren as to think
that this was the case, but if it were so, all he would say
was that be wished the ropes were stretched, and the
junior members were hanged. (" Hear," and cheers.)
Lord C. PAGET believed that upon the whole the pre-
sent system worked beneficially for the country.
Mr. WARRE pointed out that in considering this mat-
ter it should not be forgotten that during the past few years
science had completely changed the state of naval warfare.
After, a few words from Mr. LINDSAY,
Sir C. WOOD said that no continuous service men bad
left the service except at their own request, or in conse-
quence of being unfit to continue longer in the service.
However, as the question was the propriety of inquiry in-
to the conduct of the Board of Admiralty, he thought he
should do best by confining himself to that question.
With respect to having a naval first lord, he had never de-
nied the fitness of a naval man for the office ; but he did
not think that the first lord should necessarily be a naval
man, seeing that five-sixths of the bus ness transacted was
of a civil character. The gallant admiral also proposed
that the principal officers should be relieved from respon-
sibility to the board. So they were in all matters of de-
tail, it was only in matters of great importance that the
jurisdiction of the whole board was brought into play. He
(Sir C. Wood) derived the greatest assistance from the
naval members of the board, and was the last man to un-
derrate the importance of their, professional knowledge.
After one or two further observations, the right hon. gen-
tleman Sir C. NAPIER replied, complaining of the line taken 9
concluded by opposing
by the Secretary to the Admiralty, and of. the conduct o
the hrtion.
Sir Maurice Berkeley in writing to the officers of his flee
for opinions of his character.
The house then divided--
For the motion
Against it
LAND TAX

... 35
_152-117

Mr. MACKINNON moved for a select committee to
consider the expediency of a more equitable adjustment
of the laud-tax; also of allowing a further redemption
of it ; and whether the tax might not be made more bene-
ficial to the revenue. This tax, he said, was so unjust in
its operation and so partial that it was impossible it could
be allowed to continue in its present state. He gave a
short history of the land-tax, in order to show how it be-
came so unjust and unequal ; the rate being in some places
in the pound, an i in others 35., rich communities pay-
ing nothing and poor communities being taxed heavily.
Sir J. TROLLOPE observed that the impediments to
a readjustment of this tax arose from the Act of William
and Mary making it perpetual, and the Redemption Act
of Mr. Pitt in 1798, and unless the house was prepared to
repeal the latter Act, and impose a fresh mode of taxaticn
in lieu of the land tax, it was impracticable for a commit.
tee of that house to deal with the subject. He should
therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. NE ATE supported the motion. The real Ties.
Con he said, was bow far the Act of Mr. Pitt precluded
Parliament from considering the whole subject, and the
restoration of the tax to what it was intended to be. There
was nothing in Mr. Pitt's Act, in his opinion, that pre-
cluded the house from considering the question in its
widest beating.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted
that Mr. Mackinnon would not press his motion. The
subject, he observed, was well understood ; it had been
repeatedly considered by the house, where its anomalies
had been fully admitted ; but the difficulty of removing
them arose from the Redemption Act of Mr. Pitt. The
only way of obviating them would be to impose what in
reality would be an additional Income-tax.
Mr, MACKINNON said he feared next session he

Mr. B. OSBL}RNE said the Commander-in-Chief was in
a totally different position. He was not a member of the
cabinet. The hon. and gallant officer proposed no real
change ; he proposed a board under a different name ; he
could not call it a board, but a council. What happened
when they had a Lord High Admiral ? They had a council,
the very thing that the hon. and gallant admiral proposed
under a different name. And what happened then ? Sir G.
Cockburn complained, and a change took place, and they
went to the boari again. The hon. and gall nt admiral had
quoted frequently from his book on the navy. The last time
ho brought forward the subject he was the means of put-
ting his book through another edition, so many copies were
wanted by the Admiralty and by bon. members, lio had