The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-04 00:00:00

SUPPLY.-THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

The house then went into committee of supply on the
navy estimates, when the discussion on vote 10, of £3,489,477
for naval stores and steam machinery was resumed.
Mr. LINDSAY moved to reduce the vote by £lOO,OOO.
The bon. gentleman reminded the committee that in for-
mer years he had endeavoured to reduce the vote for
anchors. The Government always told him that there was
'only one firm that could make anchors fcr the navy, and
that firm was the one which had supplied them ever since
1840, but he could never get any satisfactory explanation of
that circumstance. He only knew that the Government
paid £3,434 for anchors which might have been had from
other firms of equal eminence. They were now told that
there were only two firms that could make steam engines
for the navy. He was strongly opposed to expenditure in-
curred in that manner so unnecessarily, and so greatly
above the market price. Ho was the more opposed to this,
that the Government had announced their intention of
building Fo many wooden ships, that there could not be so
much occasion for steam machinery. He moved to reduce
the vote by £lOO,OOO.

Mr. CONINGHAM also oppos'd the vote, and moved
to reduce tho vote by £55,000 for steam machinery at
Chatham, if the motion of the hon. member for Sunderland
did not raise the question.

Sir J. ELPIIINSTONE complained that the Ad-
miralty should continue to give the preference to heavy
anchors after the necessity for them had passed away.
Four anchors of five 'tons each being needed, their great
weight at the bows of a ship of fine lines forward, de-
pressed her so considerably as to diminish her speed in a
very great degree. He believed they must in time substi-
tute iron for wooden ships, and the manufacture of ma-
chinery was therefore absolutely necessary. They were
now going to reconstruct their whole system, and cer-
tainly they ought to have a better adviser than the sur-
veyor of the navy. They ought to have a council
composed of men practically acquainted with iron ship
building, because they were only on the threshold of ex-
periments, which may cost the country millions of money.
Lord C. PAGET went very far with his hon:
and gallant friend the member for Portsmouth in his
opinion that they could not have too many investigations
into the subject.he alluded to, which may cost enormous
sums of money. His noble friend at the head of the Admi-
ralty had given it his most serious consideration, and ap-
' pointed a committee consisting of Sir John Hny, Dr.
Percy, Mr. Fairbairn, and other officers who were engaged
for some time in making experiments on vari3us kinds of
iron, and the class of ships to 'which it could be applied,
or might be built of that material. With respect to the
intentions of the Government as regarded iron-cased ships
to be built hereafter, he might say that great attention
had been paid by the other maritime nations of Europe to
this subject, which were more er less constructing vessels
of that class: The Government thought it necessary,
therefore, to commence five more, in addition to the seven
now in course of being built. These seven consisted of the
Warrior, Black Prince, and Achilles, which were of the
largest size, and would be shortly mounted with their
guns; the Resistance and Defence, of a smaller size, but
of 3,000 or 4,000 tons, and the Hector and Valiant, of a
still smaller description. Those seven, as he had stated to
the committee, were now in course of construction, and five
more would be immediately laid down. Then as to whether
they should be built of wood or iron, it so happened that
they had already in their dockyards frames of wood already
laid down for 90-gun ships, which would be covered with
iron plates, and able to carry, after that process, 50 of the
heaviest guns. This class of ships would be extremely
valuable. They would have engines of 1,000 horse power,
which would give them a very high speed, and altogether
they would be exceedingly useful ships in time of war. The
hon. member for Sunderland had said his objection to this
vote was that he did not know what number of engines
we were constructing. The answer was that altogether 64
engines were to be constructed. Of these there were only
five that were for line-of-battle ships. One of these was so
far advanced that is might almost be said to be completed,
and the others were also nearly so. Of course it would be
a loss to stop the completion of any of these engines in their
present state. With respect to anchors, if the hon. mem-
ber could bring any satisfactory tender for anchors of 70 to
100 cwt. at the Admiralty price, he was sure due considera-
tion would be given to them, but the Board did not feel
warranted to entrust the construction of first-rate anchors
or chains to strange persons any more than the construction
of first-rate engines. What they did was to allow strangers
to tender for Smaller works, and if they were executed
satisfactorily to permit them afterwards to tender for
works of a more important kind. They had also of late
largely increased the number of persons allowed to send
in tenders. With respect to the objection of the hon.
member for Brighton to building one of the iron-cased
ships at Chatham, he was sure it would be seen that in
entering upon the construction of a number of these new
ships it was most desirable that we should have at least
compare other
and
qbnuaillidtyinagn
dt oc
atsetst
s°l3Biepsslibiyp,obfotohurasowton
material. ofa workmanshipnd

Sir J. PAKINGTON said ho was much disappointed
with the explanation given by the noble lord as to the num-
ber and the armament of the ships about to be built. He
found that he had understated the other night the facts as
to the French ships of this class now in process of construc-
tion. There was another large frigate constructing at Tou-
lon. Altogether the number already built of various classes
and in process of construction was 25, and to meet these
noblee oafna things
gallantto hislor
dm mind. vessels the Government told them that they were about to
lay down six, which with six constructed sr in prccess of
construction would make 12. That was not a satisfactory
stat
would He
statew ihshowed
tvheirsyoommumchttttheeatwthaes
competent to carry on such an inquiry as that which had
been referred to, and he must, in conclusion, express his
disappointment that the Admiralty seemed not to be sen-
sible of the great naval. preparations that were being made
in France. (liear.)

I 4 ,rINT.I4Y cPeettrred With the right hcn, lxirQhgt iu

the opinions he had expressed in relation to the iron-clad
ships of France. They were told that the French had 24
or 25 iron-clad ships, while they (the English) had not
more than 12. He dicl not see why the Admiralty should
not convert certain classes of their ships and cover them
with iron plates. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the
Warrior (British ship) it was considered that at close
quarters she would not be able to compete with La Gloire.
He had been told that at close quarters a shot into the
Warrior would go through two or three compartments,
and that a shot driven into her between wind and water
would be very alarming. He therefore thought that such
ships were not those upon which they should rely for their
defence, and that the Admiralty should not build and the
Government should not sanction any more such ships.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK said they had discussions of this kind
year after year on this subject, but they came to nothing—
(hear, hear)—and they were now much in the same situa-
tion as on former occasions. With respect to their ship
anchors, he was told that those who tendered for them were
very much in the same situation as those who tendered for
machinery ; but such was not the case. Mr. Trotman's
authors were subjected some years ago to tests, and the
report of the committee was that his anchors were superior
to those of the Admiralty. But Mr. Trotman had not at
the time the power to carry out this experiment. He (Mr.
Bentinck) wanted to know whether by the process of testing
they could or could not give better anchors than they had
at present,' and at a cheaper price ? He agreed in the
opinion expressed by his friend, as to the Board of Admi-
ralty, and he could only say that he and his hon. friend sat
day after day inquiring into the merits and demerits of that
board, and that such an inquiry, as related to it, was per-
fectly hopeless. Then, with respect to the proposed reduc •
tions of expense, so long as the Board of Admiralty was
constituted as it was, there was no chance of any—they must
submit to the Board. With respect to iron clad ships, he
concurred with the right hon. baronet, the member for
Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), that the Admiralty, the
Government, and the Legislature ought to take such steps
as would ?tit them upon an equality with their Gallic
neighbours. (Hear, hear.) The invasion of France by
England had been spoken of as a justification for the efforts
which were being made by France to increase her naval
armament ; but there was nothing less likely than that this
country would think of invading France, and for this rea-
son, that she had not one fifth of the land forces possessed
by France. (Hear.)
Mr. DALGLISH trusted the Admiralty would not go on
too rapidly in building iron ships.
Sir F. SMITH contended they were not bound blindly
to rush into a vast expenditure. He did not see why the
wooden vessels which were in a state of progress ought not
to be lased with iron instead of their building new iron
ships.
Lord C. PAGET said among the eminent men consulted
were Mr. Laird and Mr. Napier, of Glasgow, in the con-
struction of these ships. It had been stated that Mr. Trot-
man would make anchors cheaper than the Admiralty
could. All he (Lord C. Paget) could say was this, that if
Mr. Trotman would send in a tender itwould be laid before
the board for consideration.
Mr. CONINGIIAM said as there were other anchor-
makers in the country he thought the making of anchors
for the Admiralty ought to be thrown open to public com-
petition.

Mr. BALL was of opinion that this country should
always be in a position to show that it was the first naval
country in the world.
Lord PALMERSTON assured the house that the ques-
tion as to the best method of providing steam-engines and
boilers had not escaped the attention of her Majesty's Go-
vernment. It was a subject of vital importance to this
country, for every one must see at a glance that if any other
power were to acquire maritime superiority, the eminence
of England would be lost, and her interests would be en•
dangered. The question therefore was, seeing that other
countries, and most especially their nearest neighbour, were
making efforts and commencing a career of an extensive
construction of iron-clad ships, what could the Government
do to meet the corresponding demands of this country. The
right hon. baronet stated the other day very accurately the
number of ships of war which the French Government had
already constructed, or had ordered to be constructed. The
total number, so far as they were informed, amounted
to 15. Of these the larger number had only recently been
ordered to be laid down, and it would take considerable
time before the entire 15 were launched and fitted for sea.
Her Majesty's Government had built or were now building
seven iron clad ships, as had been stated by his noble friend.
The Government had to consider the best and readiest method
of providing a considerable and valuable addition to our
iron clad ships, and it was thought the readiest and most
effective method, and that which would be accomplished in
the shortest space of time, would be to take advantage of
the preparations that had been made for constructing
wooden line-of-battle ships, to pile five of them up and pre-
pare them to be clad with iron. (Hear.) It was obvious
they would save time in that way, because they would have
the materials prepared, and tke ships would be fit for sea
at an earlier period than the five ships which it was now
proposed to commence for the first time. The French ships,
all but two, were commenced. They were to be covered with
iron, and our five ships would be of the same class and d -
scription, and armed with guns of the best possible calibre.
They would be formidable, and he trusted that by arrange-
ments they would be sea-going ships as well as floating
batteries. (Hear.) Therefore, when these five were added
to the other seven, they would have 12 vessels as against 15
of the French. The French had about the same number of
floating batteries as they had, and the one might be set
against the other. He wished the house clearly to under-
stand, that although the Government now stated the mea-
sures they were prepared at once to take, 'that did not pre-
clude them in any degree from taking other measures with
a view of building other iron ships of a larger and more
formidable description. But that which had passed in the
present discussion would show that it would be unwise to
launch at once any of these iron vessels of the new de-
scription until the Government had come to some clear

and definite understanding of what was the best form
and the best construction of vessels of that kind. This
would involve a large expenditure, but that expenditure
should not stand in the way of providing the best means
for the national security. Ships of that description must
be built by contract. They could not be built in the Go-
vernment dockyards, and before the Government undertook
to complete large iron• clad vessels, experiments should be
made to ascertain the best and most maul vessels of that
kind. In the meantime the Government were taking those
steps which would put them in possession of five iron-clad
vessels armed with the heaviest guns. They would be
ready before the five vessels ordered by the French Govern-
ment, because they were prepared with the materials,which
he supposed the French were not ; and therefore when these
five were equipped and ready for sea, we should be, in his
opinion, quite on a par with the French. (Hear, hear.)
Sir M. PETO said that no hon. member would withhold
from Government what was necessary for the honour and
dignity of the country, but it was quite clear that there was
a general want of confidence in the Board of Admiralty and
its executive. They could not commence the building of
five iron-clad ships without large establishments. Chatham
Dockyard was the last place that ought to have been selected
for the construction of the first iron ship. With regard to
the clothing of wooden ships with iron, he should like to
know where that was to be done ; as he was anxious that
they should not get into the erection of large establish-
mente for that purpose. The house would not grudge the
money for five such vessels, or for five more if they were
needed, but it was their duty to consider seriously where
the establishments for building them were to be placed, and
that there was a proper staff available to superintend their
construction, which he was bound to say they had not.
As regarded their naval rivalry with France, France was
only doing what this country should have done in 1858.
France had taken advantage of the experience gained at
Kinburn during the Russian war, soon after which it
began building iron-plated ships. He deprecated these
discussions, because he knew the effect which they pro-
duced in France. The Government rushed into a reckless
expenditure to maintain a prestige in the presence of a
neighbouring country, where not a shilling was laid out
without adequate value to represent it. He regretted to see
them led on by a vague', feeling of apprehension, arising
from the knowledge that a great mind in France was doing
that which they lacked the energy to do here.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, with regard to iron-plated
ships, observed that, assuming their employment in naval
warfare would be effective, as to which there was great
doubt, the question was, which was the best mode in which
they could be built—whether in the Government yards or
by private contract. They had no system, he maintained,
by which the cost of a ship of war could be known ; if they
had, the noble lord could state how much the Achilles had
cost. Until they had a better system, therefore, they should
be careful how they trusted the Government with all those
millions of money. The question he wished to put to the
Government, therefore, was, what was the machinery they
had by which the cost of a vessel built in their yards, and
capable of comparison with a contract-built vessel, could be
ascertained.

Lord C. PAGET, in reply to the hon, member for Fins-
bury (Sir M. Pete) said he begged to state that the ships in
question were all built in her Majesty's yards by the artifi-
cers in the yards, and the only additional expense was for
the iron plates, which would be purchased by contract. In
reply to the hon. member for Evesham, he had to state, that
the expense of building the Achilles would be fully ascer-
tained as a guide to their future operations.
Sit J. ELPHINSTONE said they were Row satisfied
that Government were going to build five ships, but unless
they were properly constructed they would be of no use,
and he would suggest that they should appoint a committee
of scientific men, who would say how these ships should be
constructed, and this inquiry could be carried on simuita-
neo4sly with the building of the ships. If this were done
they would have a report furnished to the house on the sub-
ject in a month, and no delay whatever would take place in
respect to the building of the ships in question.

After a few words from Mr. BENTINQR,
Mr. LINPS4Y conzidered that we wore going on in a
very unsatisfactory manner, in reference to the building of
ships. Where was this increase of ship-building to end ?
We were entering into treaties of commerce with France,
and yet if FratiPP w4g3 wilding five ships this Government
Game down 144 IRked more money for increased shipbuild-
ing. lie believed that Vrauco was going an steadily, what)

we were going on in a most extravagant manner. He would
not call on the committee to divide upon this amendment,
but ho would ask the committee to reduce the vote by
£2,00,000, on account of other items in connection with it.
We had six troop-ships, of which four had carried on all
the service between the Cape and China, while the other
two were available for occasional relief. It was clear, than,
that the Government did not want more of those ships, and
if they did, they could bo hired much more cheaply than
they could be retained as part of the permanent naval esta-
blishment of the country. He moved to reduce the vote by
£200,000 the cost of the two proposed transports.
Lord C. PAGET said he hoped the committee would not
agree to the amendment. (Opposition cheers.) The question
did not depend upon the comparison of cost which the hon.
member had made. Many of the old troop ships required
very extensive repairs, and new ships must be built to do
their work in the meanwhile. The Government had no
control over the rate of freight, or over the rate of wages,
and the hon. gentleman had no idea of the extent to which
these vessels were employed, or of the expense which would
be incurred in fitting up contract transports. It was abso-
lutely necessary to keep up the transport service, and he
hoped the committee would reject the amendment.

Mr. HENLEY thought the Government might use some
of the old frigates now unemployed, instead of spending
£200,000 for two new transports. The same money applied
to the construction of another iron-plated ship would be far
more useful.

Admiral DUNCOMBE supported the vote. As a member
of the Transport Committee, he denied it to be politic that
her Majesty's navy should be denuded of transports, and it
was very disadvantageous to employ frigates in the convey-
ance of troops.
Mr. J. EWAUT and Sir F. SMITH supported the amend-
ment.

Lord C. PAGET reminded the right hon. gentleman the
member for Oxfordshire that they could only use the old
frigates as transports, and they were all sailing vessels.
What they wanted was steam transports.
Mr. HENLEY replied that they had plenty of steamships
in reserve which could bo employed as frigates in time of
peace, and while they were building iron-cased ships.
The committee tuen divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment 6B
Against it
Majority
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was £469,835 for new works, improve-
ments, and repairs in the yards.

Lord C. PAGET explained the necessity of this vote by
the fact, that at the present moment there was more acco-
modation for building ships in France, and more basins than
England had, and it was necessary therefore to increase and
improve their yards. If it be the pleasure of the house the
Government had no objection to appoint a select committee
to consider the entire subject.

After some discussion, the Chairman reported progress,
and the house resumed.

The committee on the education of destitute children was
appointed,

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at half-past one o'clock. •

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-JUNE 3,
THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

Motion made and question proposed, "That a sum, not
exceeding £3,489,477, be granted to her Majesty, to
defray the charges of naval stores, for the building, re-
pair, and outfit of the fleet, steam machinery, and ships
built by contract, which will come in course of payment
during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862."
Whereupon motion made and question put, "That the
item of £60,000, for the purchase of steam machinery
for two troop ships, be omitted from the proposed vote."
The committee divided—Ayes, 68 ; Noes, 85.