The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-12 00:00:00

per annum. (Cheers.) What I wish particularly to call
attention to in this vote is a sum of £9,304, which the com-
mittee are asked to agree to in order to improve the posi-
tion of officers in command. The committee are aware
that her Majesty Las been pleased to make an addition to
the pay and allowances of officers in command of ships.
It has Leen stated that this is a deceptive and not a real
increase. (Hear, hear.) But if these officers are not
to benefit by this regulation why are the public to pay
£9,000 under this head ? The committee will find that this
is a very great and considerable improvement in the com-
mand pay of officers. (Hear.) The captains of line-of-
battle ships will receive an addition of £lOO to their pay ;
the captain of a frigate £7O. Commanders and lieutenants
in command will receive, the former 2s. Gd. a day and the
latter 2s. If ny hon. friend the member for Portsmouth
had looked to the details he would have seen that if the Ad-
miralty had not adjusted the captain's pay they would be
giving him more than a rear-admiral. The pay of the cap-
tain of a line-of-battle ship is £7OO a year. It is proposed
to give him, in addition, £1 10s. a day, or £547 command
money, and but for the regulations made by the Admiralty
the total amount would be more than the pay of an admi-
ral. Of course, if you were to increase the captain's pay in
that ratio, you must also increase the admiral's pay, and so
on throughout the service. (Hear.) I think the house
ought to know what has been done in regard to increasing
the pay of the navy during the last two years. The House
of Commons during the last two years has agreed to an ad-
dition to the pay of the navy involving a permanent burden
of £50,000 a year. (Hear.) The increase of pay to the
various classes in the navy is a generous and fair increase,
and it is a little unreasonable that demands should, not-
withstanding, be continually made for increasing the pay
of all classes in the navy. (Cheers.) After vote No. 1 I
may pass briefly to No. 2, the charge for victualling, which
of course depends on the number of men. I will only call
attention to one charge, which will, it is hoped, be advan-
tageous to the seamen, although it may not be more econo-
mical to the service. We have often heard that the beef
supplied to seamen is bard, tasteless, and tough—in fact,
resembling mahogany. (A. laugh, and hear, hear.) Well,
we are trying a plan of curing our own beef at Davenport.
We shall kill the finest beef, and we shall cure it in the

best fashion, so that this will be a change of very great
value to the seamen. (Hear, hoar.) On vote No. 3, for
the Admiralty, there appears some increase, but with

regard to the Admiralty itself there is this year
a decrease. The increase in this item is caused by heavy
laVv charges in respect to coastguard cottages all over the
coast. The house has taken great interest in providing cot-
tages for the families of these men. We have taken a con-
siderable sum for that purpose, and the acquisition of these
cottages entails a considerable law expenditure. The actual
establishment of the Admiraltyshows a decrease in the pre-
sent year. There has been a reduction of clerks and a revi-
sion of the establishment. \V have been getting rid of
temporary clerks and somewhat improving the position of
the establishment clerks. The next vote, No. 4, is for the
coastguard. The committee may be interested in knowing
the actual cost of our naval reserve. I have seen it stated
out of doors that this year the Admiralty have been cutting
down the important branch of the naval reserves, and tak-
ing a less sum than last year for this purpose. The contrary
is the case. Last year we had no experience in this matter,

and we took a nominal sum of £lOO,OOO. We have since as-
certained the real wants of the service, and the vote for the
pay of the royal naval reserve is accordingly reduced to
£BO,OOO. What the royal naval resolve costs will be seen in
page 26. We have taken out the various votes and put them
together. The reserve will consist of 7,000 men, aid the
sum they will cost is £107,949. In vote No. 1 will be found
the pay of ,the training ships ; in No. 2 the victuals ; in
No. 10 the supply of naval stores to ships ; in No. 12 the
medical charges. These items together make £27,000, in
addition to the item of £BO,OOO in No. 4, so that we have
a royal naval reserve of 7,003 men at a cost of £107,000,
which is at a rate something like £l5 a man. The coast
volunteers cost us £28,000, and there aro about 4000 men,
showing the cost of the Royal Naval Volunteers to be
about £7 a year. The expense of the coastguard may be
estimated in the whole at £750,000, and the total cost of
our reserves may be stated at £837,000, including all the
expenses of the coastguard ships. I pass over No. 5, in
which there is no change, except in regard to a small addi-
tior.al expenditure upon the new survey in Australia. The
Australian Government have proposed that they should pay
one moiety of the survey about to be instituted of a part
of their coast. In No. 6 there is no change from last year.
The vote No. 7 refers to Her Majesty's establishments
abroad, and on this there is an increase in consequence of
the war with China; as, for instance, a larger staff has
been required for Hongkong. Vote No. 8, comprising the
wages to artificers, &c., employed in Her Majesty's
establishments at home, requires that I should say a few
words in explanation. The committee are aware that we
have had at work in our dockyards for the last two years a
vast number of hired men above our establishments,
amounting at one time to nearly 20,000 men, and these
men were working, not by the day, but upon the system of
task and job, so that there was no limit to the work per-
formed. The result of these great exertions in the dock •
yards has been most satisfactory as regards progress in
shipbuilding, and already in the autumn of last year it
became manifest that a large number of men might be dis-
pensed with in the dockyards. It then became a question
how this should be effected, and the Government thought
that it would not be well to discharge all these artificers
and labourers who had been gathered together in the dock-
yards on a sudden, but that it would be best to retain them
till the spring, and then discharge them in such a way as
not to throw them upon parishes. The Government,
therefore, thought it their duty in the month of February
to give some notice to the dockyards that the number of
workmen would be greatly reduced, but that no man would
be discharged without a :month's notice, and Without
being sent home free of expense. The Govern-
ment al. o determined to discharge the men in
small numbers, and not to throw a great number out of
employment at one and the same time. That was the
fairest course to pursue with regara to these valuable
men, whom it was impossible to have gone on employing,
as we could not find timber for them. We have expended
during the present year, or at least shall have expended by
the end of the month, no less than 80,000 loads of timber ;
and hon. members may readily believe that no possible
supply could keep pace with that result. The Government,
therefore, thought it their duty to discharge a large number
of workmen, but to do so at a period of the year least incon-
venient to them, and he believed that work at the present
time, independent of that in her Majesty's dockyards, is very
plentiful. With respect to this vote there is the consider-
able decrease of £328,555 as compared with the vote of last
year. The next vote (No. 9) relates to artificers in her
Majesty's establishments abroad ; and, in consequence of
the hostilities with China, there is some increase in it. The
next vote (No. 10) is for naval stores for the building, re-
pair, and outfit of the fleet, steam machinery, and ships
built by contract. It is one of the most important votes
in these estimates, and with respect to which the least in-
formation is always given. (Hear.) The Government are
gradually endeavouring to let daylight into the vote. We
have this year introduced into the Estimate some new de-
tails, and I am not prepared to say that the information
may not still be very much enlarged. I may be asked why
there should be the great addition this year of £285,000 and
odd for atom es, when we are reducing the dockyard establish-
ments P My answer is that this is not an expenditure, but
an increase of capital. The money is wanted for the pur-
chase of stores, to place ourselves in a position hereafter; to
meet any emergencies that may arise. It is our duty to re-
place our stock of timber, which at the present moment is
in much too low a state. That is the reason for asking for
this large sum. If the committee agree to the vote we shall
in the course of the present year replenish our stock of
timber not only to what is called the establishment, but, in
accordance with the wise recommendation of the righthon.
member for Oxfordshire, we shall have a considerable sur-
plus. Under these circumstances I trust the com-
mittee will not hesitate to vote the money. It is not that
we are going to expend this timber, but what we want is to
lay in a stock of it. There is an item in this vote for an
iron-cased ship to be built in Chatham dockyard. I know
that there is an opinion that it is unwise in Government to
attempt to build iron-cased ships in her Majesty's dock-
yards. I am not prepared to say whether hereafter it would
be advisable to turn our dockyards into iron building esta-
blishments ; but the Admiralty have thought it advisable,
with the view of ascertaining the comparative cost of build-
ing iron-cased vessels in the dockyards and of building
them by contract, that one of these vessels should be built
in Chatham dockyard. I beg the house to bear in mind that
this is merely an experiment which the Government have
made with the view of ascertaining the comparative cost of
iron-cased ships as built in her Majesty's dockyards and in
private establishments. I may add that six of those vessels
are now in progress of being built, of which number two
have been launched, two more will soon be launched, and
the remaining two will be finished next year, an additional
sum of from £114,000 to £116,000 over and above the sum
of £375,000 asked for in those estimates being all that will
be required for their completion. There are two items set
down for troopships, but I can assure the committee we seek
to build these vessels simply in lieu of ships that have been
f
lost. We are asking you to assent to no augmentat.itentin
our usual transport fleet. We are not desirous of iematimaang
our neighbours over the water in constructiZaing
t ronly thaty
ships of this class. We are anxious to
ro-
sary we should have for the purpose
comparatively small number which itorf'ms
tphoesiootivnetliynuneedcrees:
lief of our troops. Two of our transport ships have un-
fortunately been lost, and these it is expedient that we
The new ships will cost £70,000 each,
and shouldfor replace.thatsum
we can provide vessels which will carry
a complete battalion of troops from one station to an-
other. There is also in the vote of which lam speaking
an, item for the construction of store-ships—a class
of vessels of which I am aware the hon. member for
Sunderland very much disapproves, but with which I do
not think it would be either wise or economical altogether
to dispense. I at the same time go with the hon. member so
far as to regard the question as one of degree. Ido not
think it would be well to get up a great fleet of Government
transports, as the French have done, but I am nevertheless
of opinion that it would be impolitic to trust entirely to
private ships. This, however, is a subject which will Le
fully discussed before the committee upstairs, and I shall
not therefore enter further into it at the present moment