The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-12 00:00:00

ships should be built in the Thames, in the Mersey, and
in the Clyde. The engines should be constructed by firms
of standing, and our dockyards should be kept simply for
repairs, and for nothing else. There would then be no diffi-
culty in ascertaining in future what our expenditure was,
and the expenditure would be immeasurably less than it
was now. With regard to troop- ships, there was no necessity
for any outlay on that account, but France was in a diffe-
rent position, for she could not fall back on a large com-
mercial navy. (Hear.) In the report of the Commis-
sioners, Sir B. Walker, who gave his evidence with the
utmost straightforwardness and candour, declared that he
was placed in a position where he could not with credit
to himself undertake the responsibility which devolved upon
him. Yet when Sir Baldwin was appointed the Admiralty
were perfectly well aware he knew nothing about the con.
struction of vessels, except as being a good sailor. The same
thing occurred over again in the appointment of Admiral
Robinson. Now, in the selection of an architect or an engi-
neer the first requisite was that he should have a practical
knowledge of his profession; and the results which had
made themselves felt in building our navy could not be
wondered at when the incapacity of those who ruled over
this department was so complete. (Hear.) The improve-
ments which science and skill were every day effecting in
the construction of ships ought to be to England a source
of increased power, and not of weakness. (Hear, hear.)
Ne country had advantages comparable with those enjoyed
by England. Here were unlimited supplies of iron and coal;
here were practical engineers equal to any in the world ;
skilled labour was to be had in abundance, and capital to
render all these advantages available. Remembering this he
could not understand the statement made by Sir B. Walker
to the Commissioners, that when the Admiralty invited
tenders for the construction of iron frigates certain contrac-
tors offered the clerks large sums of money to furnish them
with the necessary plans and calculations. Surely in a coun-
try which had taught the world, which was the birthplace
of the steam engine and the parent of the locomotive, there
was plenty of practical skill to which the Admiralty might
have recourse. It seemed to him that nothing would be
easier than for the Admiralty to say to six or seven of our
leading firms, " Here are certain conditions, with which you
must comply, with regard to speed, armament, stowage of
coals, and aceommodation for men; and you shall supply us
with a vessel which, unless it fulfils all these conditions,
we won't take; but If IL dues fulfil them we will pay you
for ; and, moreover, the firm which produces the most
economical and most efficient ship shall, over and above
the stipulated sum, receive a large reward and orders
for the future." (Hear, hear.) Such an invitation
would bring out shipbuilding talent in plenty. Did any-
body suppose that the talent was concentrated only at the
Admiralty ? (A laugh.) The ships of the Cunard line, and
of the Peninsular and Oriental and the Royal Mail Steam
Packet Companies, showed that private yards could turn
out splendid specimens of naval architecture. (Near, hear.)
All that was required was that this talent should be made
available for the service of the country. (Hear, hear.) At
the same time, in speaking of Admiralty mismanagement,
he wished it to be understood that in his opinion the mis-
management was the fault of the system rather than of in-
dividuals. lie had been sorry to hear the remarks made
upon the Secretary to the Admiralty, because his belief was
that no one could have done more than the noble lord had
done in the position which he occupied, and the fact that he
had done so little afforded the strongest possible proof of the
defects of the system. (Hear, hear.) The Admiralty, how-
ever, must now act, and act vigorously. The country ex-
pected this of them, and had made up its mind, on evidence
quite irresistible, that the House of Commons would be
wanting in courage if it did not, without finding fault with
individuals, declare the existing system ought to be at once
reformed. (Hear, hear.) The house would be justified in
saying to the Admiralty,—" We will intrust to you no more
'honey than is absolutely necessary for the honour and safety
of the country. We will refuse our assent to all expenditure
which has its origin in incapacity and mismanagement, and
we will not perpetuate a system which is so ill• conceived, and
which at every point works so prejudicially to the public in•.
terests." (Hear, hear.) He hoped that his hon. friend would
persevere in the motion he had made, and that the house
would by an almost unanimous vote affirm the propriety of
the course which he had suggested. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET—The house has listened with great, I
may say with surpassing interest to the statements made
by my hon. friend and by the hon. baronet. (Hear, hear.)
If I abstain from following them and from defending the
department to which I have the honour to belong from the
various charges which have been made as to its incapacity
and want of ability, and as to almost every detail connected
with Admiralty management, it is not because I am unpre-
pared to show that the Board of Admiralty has done its
best under the circumstances in which it has been placed to
rectify such errors as appear to have crept into its constitu-
tion, and into the various departments which it comprises.
I abstain from attempting any such defence, because we
have now to deal with certain resolutions connected with
the building of line-of-battle ships. It will, therefore, be
my business to show the house that it will be highly inex-
pedient to agree to those resolutions as they stand, because,
if we do agree to them, it is impossible that the Admiralty
can be responsible for the maintenance of your fleet ; it is
quite impossible that the Admiralty can say, We have
done what we consider right for the safety and honour of
the country," if an abstract resolution of this nature is
sanctioned by the House of Commons. With regard to the
details of this motion, my hon. friend says, in the first place,
that it is expedient to defer any further expenditure on the
construction or conversion of wooden line-of-battle ships.
Now, if my hon. friend had followed me three years ago,
in the days when it became obvions to practical men that
our line-of-battle ships were not likely to maintain the po-
sition which they had held in former wars, he would have
conferred a much greater boon upon the country than by
coming forward at this moment.
Mr. LINDSAY.--The noble lord must surely have for-
gotten that I seconded his motion on the occasion he refers to.
Lord C. PAGET.—I am alluding not to that speech, but
to a speech which I made in 1857 and 1858, calling attention
to the building of line-of•battle ships. My hon. friend now
comes and asks us to abstain from building line-of-battle
ships, but he couples this request with another resolution,
or part of a resolution, which I think the house will see it
is quite impossible that we can carry out consistently with
our duty to the public, and with a due regard to the main-
tenance of the naey. He says it is not expedient that we
should :either build or convert any screw line-of-battle
ships. Well, I have expressed my opinion very often in
this house with regard to the conversion of these line-of-
battle ships ; but my views have not been always followed
out, and we have gone on converting as before. These
ships are now in process of conversion. They are occupy-
ing your docks, and so long as that is the case the dockyards
are not available for the repair of your ships now at sea.
That is at once a reason why we should not agree to the
motion to give up the conversion of these line-of-battle
ships. There are four at present undergoing conversion.
They will be probably out of their docks in the course of the
present year, and after they are out I sincerely hope that
there will be no more of these line-of-battle ships converted.
(Hear, hear.) My hon. friend then calls on the House to
declare " that it is inexpedient to incur during the presen

year the expenditure requisite for the completion of the
line-of-battle ships now on the stocks; and that during the
present year it is not expedient to commence the construc-

tion of any wooden vessels which carry guns on more than
one deck." Now, I have heard various arguments upon
this question of woeden ships. Hon. members tell us on a
sudden that wooden vessels are to be no longer component
parts of the navy, that they are to be thrown ox one side,
and that all our war vessels must henceforth be built of
iron. Sir, lam not prepared, and Ido not think that any
practical naval man is prepared, to subscribe to such a doc-
trine. (Hear, hear.) I quite admit that these very large
iron-cased ships should obviously be built of iron, because
you cannot build wo den ships of very great tonnage—at
least, I do not believe you can—consistently with the
strength which is required for such vessels. That is a rea •
son in itself, but there are various other reasons why it is
very advisable to construct these ships of wood. We have
no experience to guide us as to the inadvisability of building
small wooden vessels. One of the most serious defects of
iron vessels is their liability to foul. In any future war
speed will be the quality which will determine the su-
periority. (Hear, hear.) The vessel which has the greatest
speed, and can carry, not the largest number of guns, but
a small number of the heaviest guns, in all probability will
have the advantage over other vessels. But iron vessels •
in warm climates are so liable to foul that unless they are
continually docked they cannot maintain their speed.
I am not prepared to say that we may not discover some
scientific method of keeping the bottoms of these vessels
clean, but according to our present lights it would be highly
inadvisable to give up building wooden vessels. The term
employed by the hon. gentleman, carrying "guns on more
than one deck," is so exceedingly vague that I don't under-
stand what it is that he means; but I must ask the house
not to agree to any abstract resolution which would bind
the Government to cease from building any more of that

very useful class of vessels, corvettes and gunboats. The
third resolution of the hon. gentleman lays down that "it

is inexpedient without further experience to sanction the

expenditure of any money for adapting her Majesty's dock-
yards for the construction of iron vessels." There is not
the slightest intention on the part of the Government to

adapt the dockyards for the construction of iron vessels. I

am not prepared to say that the iron ship which is about to
be built at Chatham will be built cheaper than a vessel

built by contract. It is very doubtful whether she will be,

but there are strong reasons under the circumstances why

one ship should be built at Chatham. We have no experi-
ence with regard to building these vessels. It was quite
impossible for any Board of Admiralty or any scientific man
to foresee what improvements might suggest themselves in
the course of the building of these vessels. (Hear, hear.)
In building the Warrior we found that it would be advis-

able, as the Armstrong 100-pounder admits of a narrow
port, that her ports should be reduced in size. But the
Warrior was ordered by contract ; the consequence of which
is that we were tied to a certain form of vessel and a certain

size of port, and to various other details which we have

been otliged to alter, and the contractors necessarily come
down upon us for additional sums in Tayment for these
alterations: It may be said that these points ought to have
,been considered beforehand, and no doubt it would have
r".l. advisable if possible; but I have always believed and
said that the greatest care and consideration was be-
stowed by ray right hon, friend on the commencement of

the formation of that vessel. We have found out since
that we can get a greater flotation by giving a flatter mid-
ship section to the sister ship which is going to be built;
but if we had entered into a contract for that vessel we
should be tied down to the exact form of the Warrior.
There are various other details with which I will not trouble
the house which make it quite reasonable that we should
try one vessel in our own yard with a view of carrying out
any improvements which may suggest themselves in the
course of construction. (Hear.) The hon. baronet the
member for Finsbury spoke somewhat loosely on this matter.
He is for having us confine the building of these vessels to
the three rivers—the Mersey, the Clyde, and the Thames,
and with singular favouritism he would exclude all other
manufacturing ports. I don't know ;where he got his in-5
formation, but he would have the house believe that the
Warrior built by the right hon. gentleman opposite is a
great success and will have great speed, while the present
Board of Admiralty are building vessels which will have no
speed, no stowage, which will be left behind to be captured
by the enemy, and, in fact, will be totally useless. But
when hon. gentlemen come down here to make powerful
speeches and give the house all this information they are
bound to give us something like truth. (Hear.) Let us see
what is really the estimated speed of the different classes.
The Warrior and the Black Prince, and vessels of that
class, it is hoped, will have a speed of 14 knots ; the Defence
and the Resistance will have a speed of llf knots ; and the
smaller class of 4,000 tons it is hoped will have a speed of
12 1-3 knots. These are not vessels that can be said to be
destitute of speed, or which cannot be expected to keep pace
with the fleets of this country. In fact, Ido not believe
there is a single line-of-battle ship in the navy which has
the speed of the slowest class of these vessels. I trust,
then, that with regard to these three resolutions the house
will not agree to them, that it will put some confidence in
the department which is responsible for building and
maintaining your fleets, and that it will not tie us down to
building nothing but one description of vessels. The hon.
gentleman who moved these resolutions made some observa-
tions which I think he had not duly considered. He has
come home printed with information from France. (Hear,
hear.) I have no doubt that the Minister and the authori-
ties there have relied on him for setting right the English
people, who were altogether in a mist and seemed possessed
with an idea that the French had a large fleet, when in fact
they had nothing at all. (Hear, hear.) But I don't
think my hon. friend is consistent with himself in the
figures he has given us. The last time he spoke he told
us that the French had only 88 ships.
Mr. LINDSAY—I referred entirely to of kient ships.
Lord C. PAGET—In our calculations we only speak of
efficient ships ; we only include steamships, and leave sail-
ing ships out altogether. My hon. friend says that Eng-
land has 22 line-of-battle ships more than all the world
combined. But this is a statement really not founded on
fact. We have 67 steam line-of-battle-ships built or
building. France has 37, Spain 3, Russia 9, and Italy 1,
making 60. I admit that that is a very great superiority.
(Hear, hear.) But it does not amount in figures to what
the hon. gentleman stated, because he stated that we had
22 more line-of-battle ships than all the rest of the world
put together. Again, he says that we have nine more
frigates than France. Now, England has 52 frigates and
France 47, and not, as my hon. friend states, 43. When
he comes to tell the House these things it makes it appear
that we are going to an enormous and unnecessary ex-
pense in building ships when France has no force at all
commensurate with ours. He tells us that the French iron
ships will not be ready in 2} years. I say that is entirely
erroneous. (Hear, hear.) I do not say that all the
French iron ships will be ready in 21 or in 5f years, but I
say that every one of the French iron-cased ships, big and
little, may be ready in the course of the present summer.
(Cheers.) I state that to my hon. friend on the best
authority. I am not prepared to say; that they will be
ready, but I say that every one may be ready in the course
of the present summer. (Cheers.) With regard to the
Magenta, one of the very largest of the French iron-cased
ships, carrying 52 guns, it is only within the last two
days I have been told that the Magenta is very nearly
ready for launching. It is true that the plates have then to be
put on. But it is unfair for my hon. friend to state that
we are making these vast preparations, and that other nations
are not making due preparations. (Hear, hear.) Ido not
blame them. But I say that the French and every nation on
the continent are making great naval preparations, and
therefore that it is the bounden duty of Ministers to see that
we have a fleet sufficient to maintain the safety, honour,
and dignity of this country. (Cheers.) The hon. gentle-
man has quoted the Navy Estimates of France. He com-
pared the Estimates of past years, and he made out that the
French are less than half the Estimates of this country.
But will the house remember that we have to maintain a
vast force upon the seas to protect our colonies and com-
merce, and that we cannot do that without paying for it ?
(Hear, hear.) Our navy is spread all over the globe. Our
navy is frittered away—(hear, hear, from Mr. Bright)—and
large expenditure is the consequence. The hon. member
for Birmingham says "Hear, hear." I should like to ask
him what his Manchester friends would say if in some out-
landish country British ships were plundered and their
crews murdered for want of a British man-cf-war to protect
them. (Cheers.) There are constant demands from abroad
for the presence of British men-of-war, and if you will
maintain this great fleet you must pay the pip9r. (Hear,
hear.) I wish to make allusion to the statement of the hon.
member for Sunderland with regard to timber. I think, if
there is one thing for which the Admiralty has been blamed
more than another, it is for not maintaining a proper stock
of timber. (Hear, hear.) It has been said, " You are build•
ing your ships of green wood. You are living from hand
to mouth, and no one could tell what would happen to the
country if a war broke out when your dockyards are
denuded of timber." (Hear.) What has the present
Admiralty done ? They have listened to the wise advice
which was given to them by many hon. gentlemen—viz., to
get together a good stock of timber. If the house agree to
the vote, large as I admit it is this year, we shall then be in
a position in which we have not been for a considerable
number of years with regard to the stock of timber.; and I
believe that, come what may—whatever emergency may
arise, we shall have a stock of timber which will enable
us to repair and, if necessary, to build the ships which
are requisite for the navy. (Hear, hear.) I will not advert
to certain peddling reforms which the hon. member asked
for with regard to the Admiralty Department. I have
a comparative statement of the expense of the Staff of the
Admiralty now and in former times, when the Estimates
used to be only £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 per annum. It is
not worth reading to the house, but if the hon. member
would look at it, he would be satisfied, that every possible
economy has been introduced in the personnel of the Ad-
miralty. In 1829, in the old days of the Navy Board, when
30,000 was the vote for the seamen, and the Estimates were
£6,000,000 a year, the Admiralty consisted of five ands, 16
Commissioners, four secretaries, 26 clerks at Whitehall and
93 clerks at Somerset-house, making together 244 indivi-
duals, and the amount of their cost was £162,800 a year. In
1861—I will spare the house the intermediate years—when
£78,200 is the vote for the seamen and the Estimates are
£12,000,000, the Staff at the Admiralty consists of six
Lords, two secretaries, five principal officers, 47 clerks at
Whitehall and 223 clerks at Somerset-house, making toge-
ther 283 individuals, and their cost is £96,780. (Hear )
There is also a considerable number of temporary clerks,
but in those days there was the same proportion. I cannot
help thinking that with the great reform which the hon.
, member wishes to introduce he might have spared the
personnel of the Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) The hon. mem-
ber reverts to the report of the Commission on Dockyard
Expenditure, and quotes very strong language used by that
Commission in their report. I cannot but admit that the
Commission have given, upon the whole, a very fair report,
but I wish they had not rather left it to be inferred that de-
fects in the accounts of the navy beget suspicions of mal-
versation. lam quite sure that it was not the intention of
any member of the Commission to leave such inference. I
know of nobody who has ever accused any individual of
malpractices with regard to the accounts, but the impres-
sion has got abroad. It has created great pain in the
department, and one of the most intelligent and dis-
tinguished superintendents of dockyards has earnestly re-
quested me to remove it. (Hear.) I should state to the
house, and I am sure the hon. gentleman who proposed the
Commission will corroborate me when I say that from the
first the Admiralty has been most anxious to give every in-
formation. To whom is it due that these errors, upon which

such great stress is laid, have been discovered but to the
Board of Admiralty ? The Commissioners would never

have discovered the errors, but the Board of Admiralty

took pains to go into the accounts, and through that ex-
cellent officer, Commodore Drummond, to check them ; and

the moment any error was discovered, his instructions were

to lay it before the Commission. It was the earnest desire

of the Admiralty that every error should be laid before the
Commission, with a view to rectification. When, therefore,

the hon. gentleman says, "Look at the accounts—how
worthless they are," he should at least do the Admiralty
the credit of adding that the Admiralty have used their ut-
most endeavoui•s to have the errors discovered. (Hear.) I
confess that I greatly regret the report should be so meagre.
I wish the Commissioners had shown, by proper marginal
notes, the evidence upon which each of their opinions is
founded. (Hear.) It has been always usual to do so, and I
must say that in that respect I think the Commissioners
have not given the information which it is desirable they
should have [given us. I believe the Admiralty have
already taken steps to rectify these grave errors in the ac-
counts, and in August last, long before the Commission re-
ported, they instructed their Accountant-General to go into
the dockyards and prepare a proper system of accounts, on
the double-entry system, with a view to bring these great
shipbuilding accounts under proper regulations and ma-
nagement. I think, therefore, that the observations of my
hon. friend on the conduct of the Admiralty in that respect
are scarcely justifiable. My hon. friend also stated that
the average cost of ships in our navy was £33 per ton. The

return furnished to the commissioners of the cost of ships
built at Pembroke gave that average per ton, but then about

a fifth of those ships were line-of-battle ships. As the Pro-
portion of line -of-battle ships constructed in the other dock-

yards is only a tenth, it is clear that the average cost per
ton throughout the navy is much less than the amount
stated. The Admiralty do not deserve the condemnation
which my hon. friend would pass upon them. They have

earnestly endeavoured to rectify any defects in the adminis-

tration which came under their notice. I believe I have

furnished the house with mere information as to the ez-

penditure and operations of the Admiralty than was ever
given before—(hear)—and we intend always to pursue the
same frank and open course. It is also the anxious desire
of the Admiralty to exercise the greatest economy which is
compatible with the maintenance of our navy in a state of
efficiency. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will not
press his motion, or that if he does the house will not agree
to it. (Hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK said it appeared to him that his hon.
friend (Mr. Lindsay) took a somewhat singular course, and
that he relied upon grounds which did not bear out the con-
clusions at which he had arrived. His hon. friend said that
too large a navy was a menace, but he (Mr. Bentinck) was
prepared to contend that his hon. friend had transposed the
who le condition of the question. It was not the navy of
England which was a menace to France, but the navy of
France that was a menace to England. The requirements
of England in time of peace were sevenfold more than those
of all other countries in the world. His hon. friend said
that France would never attempt the invasion of this coun-
try, because we were so superior in line-of-battle ships ; but
he ignored the fact that amongst the great naval prepara-
tions of France for some years past was a class of vessels
most adapted for the purposes of invasion, and which could
only be required as against a country beyond the sea. His
hon. friend placed the most implicit reliance on the state-
ments be received of the amount of money expended in the
French dockyards, and said the system of finance over the
water was one of control and guarantee. He (Mr. Bentinck)
admitted that a system of control did exist in that country;
but he did not believe that his hon. friend or any other man
had the means of ascertaining how the money was spent.
(Hear.) It was true that our own estimates were more than
double what they were a few years ago; but from what did
that arise ? From the menacing attitude of the French Go-
vernment, and the improvements of science in the con-
struction of our own navy. The hon. member for Finsbury
(Sir S. M. Peto) said that nothing but iron ships should be
built for the future; but if the third resolution proposed
by his hon. friend—that no more money ought to be voted
for the purpose of the dockyards constructing iron vessels
—was agreed to, what would be our position in the case of
the breaking out of a war ? (Hear.) With regard to the
Board of Admiralty he (Mr. Bentinck) believed that if it
was defective it was the duty of the House of Commons to
effect its reconstruction, so that it might perform its func-
tions itmcienoy ror the benefit of the euuntly ; but any
attempt: on the part of the house, such as that proposed by
these resolutions, to deal with details which ought to be left
entirely with the executive, would involve a principle
which he could never sanction.
The Earl of GIFFORD agreed with the hon. member for
Sunderland in the first resolution, because he thought they
might at least rest for a year from building any more ships,
and he trusted that the ships now undergoing conversion in
the dockyards would be the last that would be so treated.
With regard to iron ships of war, he was of opinion that
until the Government had had more experience as to those
already constructed they should not give further orders. He
did not agree with the hon. member for Sunderland in the
second part of the second resolution, but in the last clause
of the resolution he entirely concurred. He thought it was
not expedient that they should convert Chatham into a place
for the construction of iron ships. To do so would involve
the necessity of erecting expensive machinery, engaging ex-
perienced artisans, and the building of a long slip for other
purposes, and the Government would thus improperly oc-
cupy one of the largest dockyards in the kingdom, and
which ought to be reserved for more legitimate objects.
(Hear, hoar.) He entirely agreed with that part of the evi-
dence of the late Comptroller of the Navy (Sir B. Walker)
which stated that it was desirable, and indeed essential,
that the Government should have at their dockyards all the
means of repairing both iron and wooden ships of the navy ;
but he would ask whether they did not in their vast esta-
blishments at Portsmouth, Sheerness, and Woolwich, al-
ready pos Bess those means and which would be sufficient
for all purposes during the next 10 or 12 years. In reply
to the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, he
desired to observe that the commissioners did not take
credit to themselves for having discovered the errors
pointed out by Commodore Drummond ; but the commis-
sioners simply stated the result of those discoveries in the
appendix to their report. Then, again, as to the commis-
sioners having created a feeling in the country that mal-
versations had taken place in the dockyards, he did not
remember the slightest reference in their report which could
lead to such an idea. With regard to their re-
port on building ships at Pembroke, he would remind the
house that under the terms of their instructions the com•
missioners were required to state the cost per ton of build-
ing ships, and they naturally expected that some accounts
would be laid before them for the purpose. (Hear.) But
they found the accounts in such a state of confusion that the
commissioners soon discovered they could not hope to give
a reasonable answer. There were in fact no means of form-
ing accurate calculations, and their only alternative was
simply to make that statement in their report. (Hear.)
(The noble earl spoke in so low a tone as to be almost inau-
dible in the gallery.)
Mr. CORRY said the first of the resolutions appeared to
him to imply that line-of-battle ships and frigates built of
wood were destined to be superseded by iron. He could not
concur in that resolution. If the only object in building
wooden ships were for the purpose of the defence of their
own shores, he should not feel indisposed to go along with
the hon. member for Sunderland ; but it should be remem-
bered that a small portion only were employed around the
shores of this country; that the vessel of the largest class
were employed for the defence of British interests all over
the world, and of their colonial empire, which extended to
the remotest regions of the earth, and that any interruption
to the commerce with their dependencies would be a national
calamity. As regarded the question of the defence of our
own shores, it was idle to oppose wooden ships to iron
ships, and we must depend not so much on our weoden as
on our iron walls. The last Board of Admiralty, when they
determined on building the Warrior, were much alarmed at
the dimensions of these ships, and there was some discus-
sion on the subject, and the result was that one of the es .
sential elements of these vessels was great and commanding
speed, and that the required speed could not be attained
with a vessel of less dimensions. He was glad to find that
the vessel of this class which was recently laid down at
Chatham was to be as powerful, if not more powerful,
than the Warrior itself. If he did not agree with his hon.
friend the member for Sunderland in the propriety of not
building more wooden ships, he entirely agreed with him
in the necessity of this country being superior to France
in iron ships. He believed that the French government
intended to build to more of these ships. Well, it was
a disagreeable thing, inasmuch as one of these ships cost
some £400,000, but if the French went on building them,
we must do the same. Two years ago he was a member of
what was called the Treasury committee, which was ap •
pointed to inquire into the naval expenditure of England
and France; and he remembered stating in this house that
they found that from 1852 to 1856 inclusive, the French
estimates were £19,800,000, whereas the expenditure was
£31,600,000. He mentioned that to show that French esti-
mates were not very much to be depended upon.
Sir J. PAXTON said he was a strong advocate for iron
vessels. One of the greatest objections which had been
urged to them was that the vessels became so foul at the
bottom that they could not sail in the manner that they
ought. But there was a plan for raising these vessels at no
very great expense, which could be seen in operation any day
in the Victoria Docks. The largest vessels could be raised
in half an hour, placed on pontoons, and floated about with
with the greatest ease, The apparatus would cost from
£40,000 to £50,000, which was no great matter as cora•
pared with the amount of these estimates. The Secretary
to the Admiralty stated that there were ten of these large
iron ships being built in France which could be finished
this year, and yet the house was asked to expend £2,500,000
in building wooden vessels, and only £700,000 in building
iron vessels. The Government of Sir Robert Peel com-
menced building iron ships, but they were soon stopped,
and at the same' time an attempt, which nearly succeeded,
was also made to stop the screw propeller. If it had not
been for the Emperor of the French, iron ship-building
would have stopped altogether in this country. At the time

of the Crimean war we-had floating batteries, but they
were not designed by us ; the designs were sent from

France. The French had very little to do with iron, and

yet we saw them striving ahead of us in respect to ship-
building while we were lagging behind. He contended that
vessels should be built entirely of iron, and that every part
of a ship should have the same strength. It was

quite clear that no vessel could live before the Warrior for

ten minutes. (Hear.) Wo ought to have iron ships, and
better iron ships than any other country in the world. With
regard to our wooden vessels, he believed they might still
be used to go to the colonies and to distant parts, but we
should find, after a little time, that the construction of iron
ships would very much lessen in expense. When, in
process of time, the navy was entirely reconstructed, not
above half the number of sailors would be required to do
three or four times the work at present accomplished. He
did not wish, however, to lay any blame upon the Govern-
ment with regard to this question. It had grown upon
them within the last few years. Science was making such
wonderful strides in every department that from day to day

new plans and new discoveries were constantly presenting
themselves. As the greatest commercial and manufactur-
ing people on the face of the earth we must keep pace with

- -
our neighbours, and if France or any other country con-
structed impregnable ships, we must construct ships of the
same, or better material. He admitted the Government

had done all in their power to decide this question, but no
Government was competent to deal with it. They ought to
take the advice of the greatest practical men in the kingdom
with regard to the construction of the navy. (Hear.)

Capt. JERVIS said the manfacture of shells had been
brought to such perfection that they acted as mines, and ex-
ploded within the timbers of a ship in the act of passing.
He, therefore, agreed with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lind-
say) that we ought to give no more money for the construc-
tion of wooden line-of-battle ships. But it would take many
years before we could construct an iron fleet, and yet we
must still maintain our' supremacy on the seas. He ques-
tioned whether we had yet got the iron which would be

necessary to construct an iron navy. In 1861 the power of
offence in naval warfare was greater than that of defence,
and it remained for modern science to ace whethe the balance

could be restored. The hon. member talked of ships with
7-inch plates, but had he considered what that would in-

volve ? Last year it was considered a great feat to launch
a ship of 4,000 tons with plates of only 4 inches, At pre-

sent they did not know what were the proportions for
plated vessels ; what the proper engines, or what the pro-
per armament. The Admiralty had acted therefore wisely
and judiciously in feeling their way. While he was wil-
ling to afford every encouragement to trade, he thought
the Government were wise in building at all events a cer-
tain proportion of their iron vessels themselves, and thus
creating a check upon the prices charged by private builders.
He should, therefore, vote against the third resolution.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITBREAD begged to assure the noble lord the
member for Totnes that the difference between seasoned
and unseasoned wood was not nearly so important as the
difference between good and bad iron. (Hear, hear.) So
sensible of that was the noble duke, the First Lord of the
Admiralty, that last autumn he appointed a committee to
make a series of experiments upon every description of Iron
that could be submitted to them. That committee consisted
of the most eminent men unconnected' with the navy, and
although they hadnot yet made their report he had no doubt
that their services would be found to be of the greatest
value. (Hear, hear.) As to the expensiveness of the build-
ings that would be required to be erected in the Govern-
ment yards, he had only to say that those at Chatham had
only cost £4,000. He could not deny that the accounts in
the Government yards were not altogether satisfactory, nor
would they be until a proper system of double entry had
been introduced, but it would have been more handsome in
the noble lord to have said that they were sufficient to show
that no labour was remunerated that was not performed,
and no stores paid for that were not received. (Hear, hear.)
The late Secretary to the Admiralty said it was a great
mistake to build iren-plated vessels of less size than the
Warrior. Now the stowage of eoal of the Warrior and Black
Prince at full steam was for .7 days ; of the Resistance and
Defiance for 8 days; and of the last design for 5 days; but
the stowage at ordinary steaming was for the Warrior and
Black Prince 14 days; for the Resistance and the Defiance,
b 3 days ; and for the new design 10 days. That was at least
a mere satisfactary account than had been given of the mat-
ter. (Hear, hear.) Surely hon. members would not have
had the Government go on with nothing but the design of
the Warrior. Why, last year the Warrior herself was
gravely criticised because she was not entirely covered with
armour. Surely the only way in which to arrive at a satis-
factory result was to try different kinds of vessels. (Hear.)
Efficiency was the measure of value, and every gentleman
who had spoken that night had pronounced the iron-plated
ships which this country possessed to be as superior as was
possible to anything built or building in France. (Hear.)
When for instance they complained that some of our ships
were too small, they should remember that a very large
portion of the Emperor's were very small ones ; and if it
was a fault for the packing of our shipi to be of wood, the
French ships were constructed entirely of that material.
(Hear, hear.) As to floating docks, he could only say that
they were not popular with naval men ; and he did not
believe that a dock capable of floating the Warrior could
be constructed for anything like £40,000. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. SMITH was glad his hon. friend the member for
Sunderland had brought forward this question. His hon.
friend seemed to think that the question of iron as against
wood was settled. (" No, no," from Mr. Lindsay.] Then,
if it was not settled, why were we to cease building wooden
vessels ? At all events, if large ships were made of iron, he
(Sir F. Smith) must contend that small ones ought to be of
wood; and that because it was impossible to make them of
sufficient buoyancy with any other material. As to the
question of whether the government ought to go on with
the wooden ships they were building, he held in his hand
an important return which gave the number under con-
struction. He found that there were ten line-of-battle ships
and twelve smaller vessels. He found there was a 91-gun
ship of which only one and five-eighths of an eighth was
completed; and five others of which only from half an
eighth to an eighth and a half was built. Surely the noble
lord would not go on with those ?
Lord C. PAGET—We are not going on with them.
Sir F. SMITH was glad to hear that; but he hoped the
noble lord would clear the slips—would pull what was done
to pieces and convert the materials. He quite agreed that it
was most important to proceed with due caution ; but what
he complained of was, that though five years had elapsed
since the necessity of having plated vessels was forced upon
the public, very little had been done towards solving the
many problems that must be decided before we could hope
to have a satisfactory fleet.
Mr. DALGLISH said that when the noble lord the Sec-
retary to the Admiralty was in opposition, the burden of
his charges against the Admiralty of the day was that they
were always cutting and paring at the vessels. But now
the noble lord himself proposed to put up a little establish-
ment at Chatham to find out the best mode of building iron
ships. If thb noble lord were to go to the iron building
trade of this country, and tell them the quantity and qua-
lity of iron he wanted, he would find that they would either
perform what they promised or not be paid. (Hear, hear.)
Then his hon. friend the member for Norfolk seemed not to
have got over the recent panic about a French invasion.
Within the last fortnight he (Mr. Dalglish) had been to
Toulon and Cherbourg, and he could assure his hon. friend
that any invasion, from that quarter at least, as far as the
building of ships was concerned, was out of the question.
At Toulon there were two small corvettes ; an iron frigate,
which was then ready to be launched, had been launched
within a few days past; and there was a transport of 500-
horse power. La Gloire was also there, and after passing
round her, he (Mr. Dalglish), although no great judge of
nautical matters, could not help saying he believed that the
iron ships built under the late Admiralty were infinitely su-
perior to La Gloire. At Cherbourg there were twcecorvettes.
There was also a steamer about to be coated with iron in
dock. They had also laid down the keel of a fourth vessel ;
but neither the steamer lately launched, and about to be
coated with iron, nor the other vessel, were nearly ready for
service. With regard to the motion of the hon. member for
Sunderland, there was one reason which should induce the
Admiralty not to press on the completion of these large
line-of-battle ships. It had always appeared to him that
when steam became the motive power of ships instead of
sails, that large three-decked and two-decked ships offered
a great resistance when urged against 'the wind. He
proposed to the noble lord to take the 90-gun ships now
built and building, and to case them with iron. The noble
lord would then have a fleet of iron ships quite as well
built and as effective as those of the French. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN said he thought the house was under
great obligations to the hon. member for Sunderland for
having brought this motion before the house. The discus-
sion had been so ;interesting, and the result so beneficial,
that he (Mr. Horsman) should be very sorry if the hon.
member detracted from the effect of what he had done that
day, by urging the house to a division which must lead to a
very false impression of what was the opinion of the house
on the question. There were very few hon. members who
did not agree with the spirit of his motion. Even on the
Treasury bench a general sympathy was felt for the views
which he had expressed. The effect of what had been said
that evening was to acquit the present Admiralty of all
blame in this matter, and he (Mr. Horsman) thought they
fully deserved that acquittal. He thought that whatever
difference of opinion might exist in the house, they were
agreed in this, that every subject connected with the navy
was now well considered, and thoroughly thought out, and
that all those who were responsible to the house for the ad-
ministration of the navy, acted upon that responsibility,
feeling that every step which they took was carefully
watched by the house. For many years past the whole
question of Admiralty administration was a great mystery
in the house. It was felt that the administration was at-
tended with great expenditure, with very small return. And
here he must hear his testimony to the improvement ef-
fected by his hon. friend opposite (Sir J. Pakington). When
he came into office, the navy was at the lowest possible

point, and we had lost our command at sea. The right hon.
bart. the member for Droitwich profited by the experience
which other nations had gained, and he introduced the

question of the comparative superiority of iron over wooden

ships. The honourable member for Chatham (Sir F.
Smith) said he believed it was now understood that the
building of wooden ships would cease. He (Mr. Hors-
man) should rather think the conclusion to be that the
building of iron ships should be gradually increased, and
that of wooden ships gradually diminished. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. baronet went out of office, and the present
Board of Admiralty came in. The house had had some ex-
perience of the Duke of Somerset, when he was a member
of that house, as chairman of the committee on public
expenditure. Acting on that committee, the noble duke
established to himself a very high reputation in that house.
The noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had also earned
some distinction in the house, of which he had been fre-
quently reminded, often in no friendly spirit, of being a great
naval reformer. For three years the noble lord made motions
of which he had been reminded that evening, condemning
the great waste of money in the public expenditure, and
the general maladministration of the navy. The two first
motions did not make much impression, but the last of the
three made a very great impression upon the house, and,
in the opinion of =ay persons, greatly contributed to the
circumstance of the noble lord occupying the post which he
now filled with great efficiency. There was only one
point as to which he felt any doubt ; it was not as to any
failure of intention on the part of the noble lord to carry
out his reforms, but he (Mr. Horsman) felt great
doubt as to his power. The right hon. baronet who
seconded the amendment said that the little that had been
done during the present administration was a proof that the
noble lord lacked power ; he had not even the power, as the
house discovered the other day, to send a telegraphic mes-
sage to which the Primo Minister had pledged himself in
that house. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Some hon. gentle-
men seemed to suppose that the noble lord was at the head
of the Admiralty. The noble lorJ, on the other hand, was
perfectly conscious of his inferiority to even a junior lord of
the Admiralty. It had been said that it would be impossi-
ble that year to initiate any reform in the Admiralty. He
(Mr. Horsman) was one of those who thought it a pity this
committee had ever been appointed. He thought public
opinion was quite prepared for reform without the appoint-
ment of a committee. They must now wait for their report ;
but when it did come he hoped his noble friend would then,
whatever might be the views of this board as to his position,

, .
vindicate his own views, assert his own power, and carry
out those reforms which he was the first to initiate. He
_ _

would then prove himself to be one of the most beneficial

reformers who had ever sat on that bench.

Mr.W.IVILLIAMS said that £320,000,000 of money had
been expended in the navy since the termination of the