The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-07 00:00:00

went on to say that if ships building and converting were
included, the superiority of England would be still more
manifest, and the same observations applied to large frigates.
Now, I submit I cannot have a more complete testimony of
the condition in which I left the navy. I had no reason to
believe that there were any additional exertions being made
in the French yards, and, in fact, we know at that time
there were none. Having quoted the right hon. baronet's
words, I now adduce his acts as completely exculpating me
from he charge which he has made. The efficiency of the
navy in this respect depends upon three votes—the one we
are now consideringfor works to be done in the dockyards,
the one for stores, and the vote for improvements, &c.
The right hon. gentleman reduced every one of those
votes—not hastily, but after having very properly taken a
month to consider the estimates, and then he came down
here and spoke of the " prodigious expense" of the system
that had prevailed, and of the "unprecedented force" in
the dockyards. He stated that the reductions he proposed
had been very carefully considered, and he was of opinion
that the sums originally intended were not actually required
for the efficiency of the public service. I had proposed to
increase the number of men in the dockyards in order to'go
on with the building of line-of-battle ships, but the right
hon. gentleman reduced that vote, arguing against me upon
our superiority over the French navy. We are aware of
things now which were unknown to us at that time, and it
now appears that before then the right hon. gentleman had
received a submission from the Surveyor of the Navy that
the building of line-of-battle ships was insufficient for the
wants of the country. I should like, too, to know how the
right hon. gentleman dealt with those two officers who
formed a portion of his board as they did of mine. They,
I know, concurred in my views, but how he managed to
convert them or to overcome their opposition I can't tell.
The right hon. baronet must either have converted them to
his views, or he has overruled the opinions of those officers
who had the best means of judging of what was right to be
done. (Hear.) I have had no communication with those
gentlemen upon the subject, but I draw the inference that
the convictions of the right hon. gentleman must have been
very strong when they enabled him to convert or overrule
the opinions of such competent judges. Well, then, if he,
after ample consideration and with the fullest information,
thought it right to reduce my estimates because of our
superiority over the French navy, I put it to any candid man
in this house whether I am fairly liable to the imputation
that has been cast upon me by the right hon. gentleman that
I was ignorant or negligent of the state of the French navy.
(Hear.) I think I have pretty well disposed of that charge,
but there is just one other point to which I will advert,
with respect to those block ships which the right hon.
gentleman last year held in such high esteem, and which
he now utterly condemns.
Sir J. PAKINGTON.—As sea-going ships.
Sir C. WOOD.—I said in 1857 that I did not consider
them as sea-going ships, but the right hon. gentleman con-
demned that view, and expressed a much higher opinion of
them then. He has since told us, " I have no hesitation
in saying that the block ships are totally useless."
Sir J. PAKINGTON.—That is not correct. It is not
in my speech, which I have here.
Sir C. WOOD.—AII I can say is, that I copied these
words from the Times report. The right hon. baronet may,
in correcting his speech for publication—and I see he has a
copy in his hand—have struck out those words, but they
were reported in the Times as I have quoted them. 1
would, however, remind the house that they must not sup-
pose that all the French ships are as fine sea-going ships as
our new line-of-battle ships are. There is one of them I
know, the Montebello, which has only 140-horse power,
while the weakest of our block ships has 200-horse power.
I say that for the defence of our coasts, at least, these block
ships are good and efficient, and with regard to our force in
line-of-battle ships we were stronger in that respect than
France up to the time when I left office. I have a state-
ment of the force in each navy in January, 1858, and I
found that at that time we had 25 screw line-of-battle
ships and the French had 22. We had also nine block
ships and 15 large screw frigates ; the French 11 screw
frigates. Thus, including the block ships, we out-
numbered the French line-of-battle ships by 34' to 22, and
including heavy frigates our superiority was 16 vessels.
Taking steam-vesssels of all other descriptions, large and
small, in both countries, I find we had a total of 368, and
the French had 144, leaving us a superiority of 224.
Whether with that amount of force our coasts were in any
danger, or whether any old woman had reason to fear
being disturbed at night by a French invasion, is a point
upon which the house can determine for themselves. The
question that has been raised applied only to the build-
ing of line-of-battle ships, and I have confined my re-
marks solely to that point, and I think the house
will agree that I was justified in making, and that
I have succeeded in making, a complete exculpation from
the charge that has been levelled at me and the Board of
Admiralty with which I was connected, that we were ne-
gligent and that we left the coasts of this country in a de-
fenceless condition. (Hear, hear.) Whether the state of
things whiCh existed when I left office has been altered
since, I am not able to say, but I do know this, that the
right hon. baronet reduced the power of building ships in
April, having previously received a submission from the
Surveyor of the Navy recommending a different course.
He received another submission in July, and he also then
obtained information of what was doing in the French
dockyards, which caused him such considerable alarm asks
described to us a few weeks since. He then found that we
had 29 ships-of-the-line, and the French had the same
number, and that at the rate of progress then going on in
each country the number would be before the end of this
year 40 French to 36 English ships. lam not responsible
for the rate of working in 1858, but if the right hon. gentle-
man thought the progress in launching and conversion was
insufficient, may I ask why did he reduce my estimates ?
(Hear, hear.) I have here a statement issuing from the
Surveyor's department, dated Christmas, 1857, showing the
state of shipbuilding at that time, and the probable time of
their completion. It was of course impossible to state pre-
cisely what would have been the case, but we anticipated
launching before the end of the financial year 1859 a larger
number of ships than the right hon. baronet proposes now
to launch, with the exception of the eight vessels about to
be converted. Now, let the house remember that in July
last the right hon. baronet became acquainted with the pro-
ceedings in the French dockyards which hays-been alluded
to. My belief is, that up to the winter of 1857-8 no great
exertions were made in the French dockyards, but perhaps
since then great exertions were made; nothing else can ac-
count for the line-of battle ships increasing from 22
in January to 29 in July. In that country they have
the power of compelling workmen to leave :private
yards to work in the Imperial dockyards, and
I have seen lately that a very large supple-
mental credit is asked for on account of money expended
in 1858 for the transformation of the navy. But surely it
was the duty of the right hon. gentleman opposite, know-
ing these things in July, when Parliament was sitting, to
have come down to this house and ask for a supplemental
vote to enable him to carry on the work in our dockyards
pari passu with the French. To be sure, he told us there
were obvious reasons why he should not do so, and he spoke
of the alarm that would have been created ; but the alarm
would not have been greater in July last than it was in
February. The Government were not pledged to their esti-
mates, because the right hon. baronet, in April, when
moving them, said,—
"If the present pressure continues at the close of the
session,—if, in point of fact, we find that the late Govern-
ment was right, and that they did not exaggerate the re-
I quirements of the country, I shall have no hesitation in
coming down to the house before Parliament is prorogued."
Surely, he knew in July all the facts which he knows now
and he ought then to have done what he had said he should
do if necessary. But what did he really do ? He took the
men off job and task work and thus reduced the amount of
the work done. I think the right hon. baronet assumed a
very grave responsibility when he omitted to do as he said
he would—come to this house for additional means to enable
him to increase the building powers of the country. If he
had done so he would not have lost, as he now has lost, nine
valuable months. (Hear.) Even if he did not choose to do
that he should have employed additional men, and it was
his duty to have incurred the risk of exceeding the esti-
mates sanctioned by Parliament. If he had done so, and
had made a statement of his reasons in the following Feb-
ruary, the house would, I am sure, not only have sanc-
tioned his proceedings, but they would have applauded
them. In my own case, in 1854. after Parliament was
prorogued, and we had ordered the construction of
a certain number of gun vessels, we found that the
Russians were building at a faster rate than ourselves,
and I then consulted my noble friend then at the head of
the Government, and he agreed with me as to the
course I should take, which was to order the con-
struction of a large number of additional gunboats, which
cost somewhere about half-a million sterling. It was my
duty to do so, and if I had not done so I should have merited
impeachment. I cannot but think the right hon. baronet
has incurred grave responsibility by the loss of those nine
months, for, although, of course, no one will object to the
vote now asked for, yet money is not time, and the latter
cannot be recovered. I will not longer trespass upon the
patience of the committee, but I think that I have shown
that I was not negligent or ignorant of the state of the
French navy—that I did take means which the right hon.
gentleman himself thought were proper to increase the
power of our dockyards—that when I quitted the Admi-
ralty our shores were in an adequate state of defence—and
that, if from any unforeseen circumstances there should be
at the end of the year 1859 any inadequacy of line-of-battle
ships to meet any force that France could bring against us,
such inadequacy is not faialy to be attributed to any neg-
lect on my part in the spring of 1858. I trust the com-
mittee will be of opinion that I have exculpated myself
from the charge of having neglected the interests of the
country, which has been imputed to me by the right hon.
gentleman opposite. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—Of all the questions which come
under the consideration of the house none are so painful
and none are so distasteful to the house as allusions of a
personal character, Ido not blame the right hon. baronet,
if he thinks my speech bore hardly upon him, for entering
upon a defence; but I think he has imputed to me charges
which I never made; and, next, I think, he has failed in
his endeavour to vindicate his own administration of the
navy. The right hon. gentleman has extended his obser-
vations to such a length that, at this hour (a quarter past
five), I fear I shall scarcely be able to reply to them so fully
as I could desire. He complains of this passage in my
statement on introducing these estimates :
" I may state at'once that we ask for this great addition
to the cost of ship-building, because I am bound to say that
when I succeeded to office 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."
These phrases were intended to cover all ;the various func

tions which the navy of England has to perform—(hear)—
and, taking that free and extended view of them, I beg to say
I adhere literally to that statement. (Hear, hear.) I said—
" 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."

Surely there was no want of courtesy in that. ladded

" It will be seen that during the time that right hon.
gentleman was at the board of Admiralty considerable addi-
tions of the smaller vessels mere made, such as corvettes,
sloops, and, above all, gunboats. I am not sure whether the
addition of gunboats had not commenced in the time of the
right hon. baronet the memberfor Carlisle; but our present
gunboats were chiefly added ty the right hon. baronet the
member for Halifax, and I do not think a more valuable
addition has ever been made to the navy than those gun_
boats."

Was that an attack on the right hon. gentleman ? I will
trouble the house with one more extract. I said,—
" Those additions were chiegy made in 1856 ; they had
reference to the war then goiig 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 consi-
derable force of those gunboats and sloops were added to the
navy, the line-of-battle ships and frigates did not increase
in the ratio which the interests of the public service de-
Eluded, Ou the oontrarY, the reoult of the war was ttotu-

ally to check the progress which ought to have been made
in augmenting the number of line-of. hattle ships."
Now, Sir, I ask, after reading those extracts—and there aro
no others bearing on the point in question—is the right hon.
gentleman justified in saying that I brought those three
charges against him ? (Hear, hear.) If I erred at all, it
was surely on the side of courtesy, and I am prepared to say
that I do think the right hon. gentleman, partly from the
causes to which I have adverted and partly from other
causes, did not take those steps which were incumbent on
him, in the position he occupied, with the view to strengthen
our navy, and to make up the deficiency in our line-of-
battle ships 'which had resulted from the introduction of
steam. In justification of that statement I would refer to a
speech of the right hon. gentleman made in May, 1857, on
bringing forward the new navy estimates. He said on that
occasion,—
" Nevertheless, it would be unwise not to continue build-
ing a certain number of ships of a large size. We must
100 to what other nations are doing in this respect. It is
plain that no great naval engagement could be maintained
in the middle of the Atlantic between line-of-battle ships
and gunboats. The French are building large and more
powerful line-of-battle ships than ourselves ; the United
States also are building ships and frigates larger than any
we have."
Then he added a little on,—
" He had never said, as had been supposed, that we must
bring the numerical proportion of our ships to those of the
French up to what it had been during the last war. All he
said was, that when our line-of-battle ships only exceeded
the French by two that was not the proportion that our
fleet should bear."
Here I find in May, 1857, a distinct acknowledgment on the
part of the right hon. gentleman that our line-of-battle
ships were not what they ought to be when compared with
the French force ingthat respect. Why, I ask, did he not
take steps to redress that inferiority, and to restore the
strength of the navy to what it ought to be ? (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman says he did. I join issue with
him, and say he did not. The statement I have just quoted
was made in 1847 by the right hon. gentleman on moving
the estimates ; but in that year he took no steps whatever
to correct the deficiency the existence of which he had
avowed. He did nothing to remedy it, and we have had it
from his own lips that in the financial year 1857-8 two line-
of-battle ships were launched, which is one less than the
maintaining rate of three per annum. (Hear, hear.) So
much for the year 1857. I come now to the year 1858,
when I succeeded to office. What had the right hon. gen-
tleman done then ? I understood him to say that eight
line-of-battle-ships were launched in 1858.
Sir C. WOOD—What I said was that eight line-of-battle
ships were added to the navy in 1858, as appears by a
return which I hold in my hand.
Sir 3. PAKINGTON (resuming)—l hold in my hand a
return from which it appears that, instead of eight, the
number is only four. (A laugh.)
Sir C. WOOD—Here is a return, signed by Sir Baldwin
Walker, surveyor of the navy, showing that of steamvessels
added to the navy in 1858 there were eight ships of the line
—namely, four built and four converted, (A laugh.) That
is the statement contained in paper 65 of the present ses-
sion, for which I moved on the 16th of February.
Sir J. PAKINGTON (continuing)—Well, I hold in my
hand a printed return, showing that there were only four
added--(a laugh)—viz., the Donegal, the Windsor Castle,
the Hero, and the Edgar. I can only reconcile the differ-
ence by assuming that there were four built and four con-
verted. But that does not affect the argument I was pur-
suing, which is, that the right hon. gentleman, having ac-
knowledged that he was then aware of the deficiency, did
not take the necessary steps to correct it. The mode in
which I prove this is by referring to the course taken by the
right hon. gentleman on the estimates of last year. What
was that course ? The right hon. gentleman added £lOO,OOO
to the estimates of the preceding year for shipbuilding.
Well, we all know that £lOO,OOO, even if that sum had been
available for the purpose, would do very little towards re-
dressing the deficiencies in the navy, having regard to
what ought to be its proper strength. But the proposal of
the right hon. gentleman to add £lOO,OOO was not really an
addition to that amount, for he had taken £30,000 too little
in the previous year, 1857, so that the actual addition to the
estimates of last year was only £7o,ooo—(hear, hear)
I leave it to the house to determine whether an addition of
£70,000 to our naval estimates wassufficient to bring up our
force to the position in which it ought to be, considering the
state in which it was at that moment. (Hear, hear.) But
I have a still more serious question to ask the right hon.
gentleman. I find in his speech of 1857 a statement to which
he has adverted to-day, but without giving the figures,
showing the comparative strength of the English and French
navies. That statement was made on the 18th of May, 1857.
The right hon. gentleman stated the comparative naval force
of England and France in 1793, 1817, 1840, and 1857. He
was then speaking of ships-of-the-line. His statement was
that on that day, the 18th of May, 1857, the English screw
line-of-battle ships were 42, and the French screw line-of-
battle ships 40. "In this," the right hen, gentlemen said,
" I omit our blockships, which, though very efficient for
certain pm-poses, could not keep their places in a cruising
or blockading squadron." I wish to ask the right hon.
gentleman where those 42 line-of-battle ships are ? (Hear.)
He stated on the 18th of May, 1857, that we had 42 screw
line-of-battle ships, exclusive of blockships. In January,
1858, we had only 25 screw line-of-battle ships. (Hear.)
Sir C. WOOD—that statement the right hon. gentleman
will find includes the screw line-of-battle ships which were
building and converting, as well as those which were afloat.
Of those there were 42 English and 40 French.
Sir J. PAKINGTON (resuming)—Now that the right
hon. gentleman has made that explanation I must say I
think he was not dealing candidly with the house, seeing
that in his statement on the 18th of May, 1857, he was in-
cluding ships which at this moment are not launched.
(Hear.) I should have had no objection to the right hon.
gentleman making that statement if he had plainly told the
house what he actually meant ; but he did no such thing.
I told the house the other night how many ships we were
building and converting, and what the state of those ships
was ; but the right hon. gentleman was not so explicit on the
18th of May, 1857, for he merely said we had then 42 screw
ships of the line, and the French 40. I think every man
who heard that statement of the right hon. gentleman, or
read it, would be led to the belief that that was the
effective force at that moment, and nobody could ever
suppose that the right hon. gentleman was practically,
though not intentionally, misleading the house and the
country by stating the number of ships which the
country could only suppose were effective, but including, in
reality, the ships which now, two years after, are still on the
stocks and yet unlaunched. (Hear, hear.) I think the
house and the country have a right to complain of the right
hon. gentleman's statement as wanting in candour and in -
nuousness. If the force was then in the state which he I.as
now explained, it was his duty as First Lord of the Admi-
ralty to have said so frankly to the house. (Hear, hear.) I
confess I cannot understand, if that was his meaning, how
he could have been so wanting in ingenuousness as not to
tell the house that, instead of having 42 ships afloat, we had
on his own showing I know not how many ; for, in the fol-
lowing month of January we had only 25 effective line-of-
battle ships. (Hear.) When I succeeded to office I found a
fleet with only 25 or 26 line-of-battle ships, and that the
right hon. gentleman had proposed an addition of £lOO,OOO
to increase the force. What had he done to correct that state
of things? Next to nothing. He did add £70,000 to the.
estimates when we had only 25 line-of-battle ships. I say
the right hon. gentleman neglected his duty. To come
down to this house, as the Naval Minister, and propose
an increase of only £70,000 to the estimates, at a
time when we had only 25 line-of-battle ships, I say was to
fall greatly short of the duty which he owed to his country.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says that ono of my
charges was that ho did not know the state of the French
navy at that time. I did not make that charge. I said,
from the information I received when I came to the Admi-
ralty, I did not believe they were apprised of the state of
affairs in France with that accuracy with which they ought
to have been informed. Again, the right hon. gentleman
says I overruled the members of the Board. I beg leave to
tell him I did no such thing. We had no difference at that
Board, and I am happy to say we never had. The right
hon. gentleman complains that I cut down his estimates.
But, how much ? Upon the matter of dockyard
ahel
dOw
wished
, sOaho
added
dd.
thee
d IS
that
error
ro
owrsßaldwin a
baod;udst
xst Wthheo aoweorh
labour I took off £20,000. I first proposed to take off
o
remonstrated, and said
e £30,000n1 Itd
omi dwa sdhoei
my
Iy;
statement
thentvee dis-
covered
to the house in April the real difference between the rinirtihndi hon. gentleman's estimates and mine was only £20,000. But
fle
rwe
no ule e nf o
hhaadv ek
nmo
wade
tthheant dwi
hff
ae rt e cI
ken,
oowr innodwe e
ofd a
tnhye d i f
in-
efficient state in which the navy was left by the right hon.
gentleman. He talks of my speech of the 12th of April.
How long had I then been in office ? Why not a month.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says, that after full
deliberation I did so and so. Why the truth is, I had not
then had a full opportunity of ascertaining the state of the
English, much less that of the French navy. (Hear.) I
only said then that I was unwilling to adopt large estimates
without first satisfying myself of their necessity; but, un-
doubtedly, if I found that necessity I would ask for an
increased vote. The right hon. gentleman says I did so in
spite of the remonstrances of Sir Baldwin Walker. No
such thing. The right hon. gentleman has misunderstood
what I said on a former evening. I corrected the estimate
after I took office, previously to receiving, so far as I re-
member, that " submission" from Sir Baldwin Walker
which came into the Admiralty either at the extreme
end of March or the beginning of April. [Sir C. WOOD.
—March.] But why was it that we received that
" submission ?" If the right hon. gentleman had done
his duty to the Board of Admiralty, if he had 'put the
navy of England on the footing on which it ought to be, or
even proposed to put it on the footing on which it ought
to be, why was it, I ask, that the Surveyor of the Davy
felt obliged to come to me, immediately on my taking
office, and make a remonstrance as to the defective
state of the navy, and implore that I would forth-
with proceed to add to the number ofline-oft-hbeatrtilgehsthihposn.?
(Cheers.) Why, the very fact of that "submission" having
been made is the most conclusive evidence of that
neglect of the navy of . this country which
gentleman has denied. If he had put the navy on an effec-
tive footing, Sir Baldwin Walker would have had no occa-
sion to come to the Admiralty with such a "submission" on
our immediately taking office. The remonstrance was made
in April, and I immediately added £50,000 t,, what I had
proposed. In the following month of May there was
another "submission" from Sir B. Walker ; and what did do then? Why, we immediately put our whole dock-
yard force on task and job work, and it was owing to the
exertions we then made that we were enabled to have It
hCehaarnn.) elTFhleeerit ogfhstixholn gentleman
shisapysaitn.twas
August. (Hear,
my duty to
have come down to the house in July and ask for an In-
creased estimate. But, sir, it was only at the ex-
treme end of July, just towards the close of the session,
that we discovered that which the right hon. gentleman
ought before to have discovered—namely, the rapid strides
which the French navy (Hear, hear.) Why
did not the right hongewneman find that out ? Why was
it reserved for us in the month of July, in consequence of
inquiries prosecuted during the summer ? We then learnt
the state of the French navy and the rapid advance which
it was making ; but when those discoveries were made
Parliament was on tho point of breaking up, and
we could not then have come before the house with a
supplemental estimate
ewihthaodubt
eteankionng athceouervsee wofhiwcharwwaes
w
unusual, and unless
should not have been justified in creating the alarm which
such a step would have produced.d the country. (Hear,
d ? D
hear.) What did we o neglect the occasion ?
No. We immediately took the most active and effective
adapt our position to it ; we proceeded to convert
ouratep line-of-battle to ships, which are now practically added to
our ivy,and so endeavoured to restore to it that efficiency
which we found did not exist when I came to the Admiralty.
p/ear.) And now that we have come to a new session of
arliament, and have had to frame our own estimates, we
have not, like the right hon. gentleman, made a proposal to
take a !Foto of 40,000, we vro dad culy 25 effective WA.