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

the shoulders of the Ministers. (Hetir, hear.) On them
be the consequences which may result from the dissolution
of Parliament which they have advised. As reference has
been made to proceedings elsewhere, I cannot sit down with-
out expressing my astonishment that in that place notice
should, in a most irregular and unprecedented manner, have
been taken of proceedings in this house—(hear)—and an
opinion been expressed upon them contrary to that of the
highest authority in this house. (Cheers.) We sometimes
inspect the journals of the other House of Parliament, and
I have no doubt that members of that house sometimes in-
spect ours, and by that means they obtain information as to
what is passing within the walls of this house ; but this is
the first time that I have ever heard any person holding
the distinguished position occupied by the noble peer who
has been referred to openly criticise in' that place the pro-
ceedings of this house, and take upon himself to cite autho-
rities with respect to them which this house does not in the
slightest degree recognise. (Cheers.) lam glad to hear
the right hon. baronet say that the dissolution which has
been advised in this case and that which took place in 1857
stand upon exactly the same grounds. The issue in that
case was a definite one. There was a vote of the House of
Commons upon a particular question of policy upon which
my noble friend advised the Crown that a dissolution might
take place with a view to an appeal to the country. That
appeal was distinctly answered. I only hope that on the
present occasion the issue will be as clearly understood—
(cheers and counter cheers)—and that, the House of Com-
mons-having by an adverse vote condemned two of the main
features essentially bound up with the principle of the bill
for amending the representation of the people submitted by
the Government, we shall have the opinion of the country
and of the constituencies upon those parts of the measure.
(Hear, hear.)
Colonel FRENCH said that, although no one would
question the power of the Government to advise her Ma-
jesty to dissolve Parliament, it was equally well understood
that it was not justifiable for them to take that course
unless they had some hope of a majority being returned to
support their opinions. That was now the point of dif-
ference. That was the point which the Government would
have to answer immediately upon the return of the new
Parliament. It was strange that the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty, who had accused the noble lord the member for
Tiverton of indirect disrespect to her Majesty, should have
overlooked the direct disrespect of which the noble lord at
the head of the Government had been guilty in stating else-
where that he would not under any circumstances recom-
mend that the noble lord the member for the city of London
should be charged with the formation of a Ministry, and
that there was a member of that house representing the
people with whom, under no circumstances, would her Ma-
jesty have anything to do.
Mr. MALINS saw with great satisfaction the extraor-
dinary uneasiness with which hon. gentlemen opposite re-
garded the impending dissolution. (Cheers.) During the
last week they had been exceedingly bold, declaring that
they were quite indifferent to a dissolution, and would not
be coerced by it. The house might now judge what that
indifference meant. Why were they so uneasy ? Was the
dissolution unconstitutional ; was it improper ? (" Very.")
Had her Majesty's advisers done anything which was not
in consonance with the best principles of the constitution ?
(Hear, hear.) The language of the noble lord the other
night was so strong that it was only comprehensible that he
intended to follow it up, and that he and his party would
take care that there should be no dissolution, because the
supplies which were required should not be forthcoming.
(Hear, hear.) Was the noble lord in earnest in that threat;
and, if so, why had he not followed it up by action ? Was
it that the majority on which he counted had melted down
to too small dimensions ? Having long beenaccustomed to
look upon the noble lord as a man who might in an emergency
be relied upon to uphold and support the principles of the
English constitution, he was greatly disappointed to find
him now disposed to adopt such extreme principles.
Sir J. TRELAWNY rose to order. A number of gentle-
men had given notice of their intention to make motions
on going into committee of supply, and it was not fair that
other questions should take precedence of them. (Cries of
" Go on.")
Mr. MALINS said he should like to know what was the
issue new tendered to the country. (Hear, hear.) Was it
the issue tendered by the noble lord the member for the
city of London, who had told them what his Reform Bill
was to be ? And was the noblelord the member for Tiverton
inclined to adopt it ? (A cry of "He has said so.") Had the
noble lord said so ? He had not the good fortune to hear
the noble lord, but he understood that he had said that he
was not for that bill—(" He did not say anything of the
kind")—and unless the reports which had reached him
greatly deceived him, the noble lord had expressed himself
to the effect that whenever the bill sketched by the noble
lord the member for the city was brought in he should be
found among its most strenuous supporters—he meant
opponents. (A laugh.) Were hon. gentlemen opposite
agreed amen.. themselves ? The great majority of them ex-
pressed anxiety that the present Government should remain
in office. (No, no, and hear, hear.) He repeated it, that
unless the noble lord was surrounded by a body of gentle-
men upon whose word no reliance was to be placed, which
was the last suggestion he should make, the great ma-
jority of them did not desire the retirement of the present
Goverment. They were not agreed upon the provisions
of a Reform Bill. Were noble lords and right honourable
gentlemen opposite, when they came into office, prepared
to accept the ballot ? Upon no other condition would
honourable gentlemen below the gangway give them their
support. He presumed that neither the noble lord the
member for Tiverton nor the noble lord the member for
the city would undertake to conduct the government
of the country upon such terms ; but, if so, what was
to be the principle of their union in office ? The dis-
solution of Parliament had been forced upon Ministers,
not for the public good, but for party purposes, and in that
light it would be regarded by the country. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. LEWlS.—There has been throughout our recent
debates a constant, unfair, and wholly unsuccessful attempt
to fii upon this side of the house the responsibility of the
present state of affairs. The remarks which have just been
made by the hon. and learned member for Wallingford
would almost lead the house to suppose that it was my
noble friend the member for Tiverton and the gentlemen
sitting on this side who have advised the dissolution of
Parliament, and who were responsible for that important
step. (Hear.) But observe what has been the course
of the Government upon this subject. On acceding to
power last year they took the Government, according to
the expression of my noble friend, with its engagements.
I must be permitted to remark, however, that it is a per-
fectly new doctrine that an Opposition, when it comes into
office, abandons its own engagements and adopts those of
its antagonists. (Hear, hear.) However, without dwelling
upon that part of the subject, I shall only say that Ministers
voluntarily undertook the engagement of bringing in a Re-
form Bill. They promised to do so on various occcasions by
declarations of individual members of the Government
during the recess, and they announced in the Speech from
the Throne their intention of introducing a measure of
reform. After mature deliberation that bill was brought
forward; it was made the subject of a long and able debate,
and by the solemn judgment of the house it was con-
demned as unsatisfactory. In consequence of the adverse
decision of this house they abandoned their bill ; but they
do not announce that they will bring in any other measure
(hear hear) ' • on the contrary, they state that in the present
year it is not their intention to propose any other measure
of reform, and they appeal to the country against the deci-
sion of this house. Now, is not that a distinct appeal upon
the measure of the Government ? (Hear, hear.) Upon
what possible question can it be an appeal if not upon their
reform policy, upon their recent bill, and against the ad-
verse
decision of the house in connection therewith.
(Hear.) They do not substitute any other measure, and still
less do they state what that measure is to be; they simply
appeal against the decision of the house, and that decision
was pronounced upon their existing Reform Bill. (Cries
of " No, no," and cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—It was a refusal to entertain the
question.
Sit. C. LEWIS--The decision of the house was pro-
nounced upon the two important characteristics of the bill.
(Hear.) Those two points were selected for the decision of
the house, and upon those two main points, which included
the most essential principles of the bill, the house decided
against the Government. (Hear.) Observe what was the
conduct of Lord Grey's Government in 1831, when they ap-
pealed to the country upon the subject of their Reform Bill.
That is the case which is most exactly in point. Lord Grey's
Government brought in a bill that was condemned by the
House of Commons by a considerable majority. The
course pursued then was very similar to that which has
been taken in the present instance. Upon going into com-
mittee a resolution was moved, condemning one of the
most important parts of the bill, and it was carried, as I
have said, by a considerable majority. The Government
never for a moment pretended to say that that was not a
condemnation of their bill. They stood by the bill ; they
went to the country upon the well-known cry, " The bill,
the whole bill, and nothing but the bill." No other issue
was raised ; the country pronounced in their favour, and its
representatives came to this house, knowing what they had
promised to vote upon. (Hear.) A dissolution is now
about to take place. I want to how upon what it is to
take place. (Hear.) Up to the present moment no issue
has been raised either here or elsewhere beyond this—that
the country is asked to express its 'confidence in the Go-
vernment, in consequence of the policy which they have
adopted on the subject of reform. Can they put any other
issue before the country ? Can they say that they ask the
confidence of the people in respect of a policy which they
are about to pursue upon the subject of reform ? No such
thing. (Cheers.) Here is their bill ; it was • condemned
more or less by every member who spoke in the recent de-
bate, whether on this or the other side of the house, and
upon its merits ministers appeal to the country. (Hear,
bear.) Surely they do not go to the country simply upon
the question whether they shall retain their offices. That
is not a question upon which an appeal can be made to the
constituencies. Some principle—something beyond a mere
vague expression of confidence—must be implied in an ap-
peal. (Hear, hear.) Gentlemen on this side are not re-
sponsible for the step about to be taken. A bill was sub-
mitted for our consideration, and we rejected it. We have
been told that in doing so we showed a want of respect to
the Crown. Observe what hon. gentlemen opposite did last
year' with respect to the India Bill. A reconamendation from
the Crown wasmade to this house to consider the question
of India. The Government prepared a bill carrying that
recommendation into effect, and what was the course iaur-
sued by hon. gentlemen opposite ? Why, they would not
allow us even to read the bill a first time, and they met us
by a resolution precisely similar to that to which so much
object ion has been lately taken. The only distinction, in
fact, between the two cases is, that in the one they
even refused to allow the Government to lay their bill on
the table, while in the other we reserved our opposition to
the second reading, the proper time for it. (Hear, hear.)
To say, after a debate of seven nights, which was virtually
a debate upon the second reading of the bill, that we have
been guilty of disrespect to the Crown, is one of the most
monstrous attempts at imposing upon the credulity of the
constitutional
right
yi
country which my Parliamentary experience can ush.
(Cheers.) We have merely
exercised our
right to consider and reject a measure proposed,
Crown, but by the Government, whose acts we arrepaotnlibt
them
er
to canvass and criticise in every possible way. lies the responsibility of the bill itself and of the dissolution
which they have recommended, and the real issue which
the country has to decide is—does the Reform policy of the
Government, as expressed in that bill, entitle them to the
confidence of the public ? (Cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—The right hon, gentleman ap-
pears to be labouring under a misapprehension 'as to what
fell from me upon a former occasion I never said anything
so absurd as that any want of respect was shewn to the
Crown in not entertaining the Reform Bill, but I did say
that the language of the noble lord the member for Tiver-
ton, on the subject of a dissolution, trenched upon the Royal
prerogative, and was wanting in respect to the Crown.
Sir C. LEWIS—I did not refer to the remark of the right
hon. baronet, that the language held by my noble friend on
the subject of a dissolution was disrespectful to the Crown.
What I alluded to was an expression used both here and

elsewhere, to the effect that we showed a want of respect to
the Crown in not entertaining the measure of reform pro-
posed by the Government. Such an expression was used,
and I repeat it is entirely erroneous. (Hear, hear.)
Mr, OSBORNE did not rise to discuss the potion of

reform, but to protest against the hon. and learned gentle-
man opposite robbing the printers of Wallingford by ad-
dressing his constituents through the House of Commons.
(A laugh.) We had heard enough of the Rehm debate ;
the battle ought to be fought out on the hustings. (Hear,
hear.) He was glad the Government had dissilved, because
he thought a general election might tend to put parties
upon a proper footing. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman
concluded by asking the Government whether it was true
that they had appointed a member of the House of Com-
mons to the vacant judgeship of the Irish Encumbered
Estates Court, contrary to the report of the Commissioners,
and in the face of the decreasing business of the Court ?
Mr. S. ESTCOURT replied that a judge had been ap-
pointed to the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland, and
that the person selected was a member of that house. He
could say nothing about the business of the court or the
report of the Commissioners ; but he should be glad to
answer the question of the hon. gentleman more fully upon
a future occasion. Turning to the general question before
the house, the right hon. gentleman said the Government
did not complain of the course which the noble lord the
member for Tiverton had pursued since Monday last ; on
the contrary, they thought that his willingness to facilitate
the disposal of indispensable business, in order that the
dissolution might take place as early as possibla, was con-
formable with the policy which they themselves adopted in
similar circumstances ; but they could not forget that the
tone of his speech during the recent debate was one of ab-
solute defiance apparently founded on the belief that it was ab-
solutely impossible for them to have recourse to a dissolution.
(Hear.) The noble lord recommended them to pursue a
course which neither he himself nor any party in that
house would have followed, and it was not surprising that
his remarks should have created an unpleasant feeling.
(Hear.) After all, however, the Government and the Op-
position must fight out their battle upon the hustings, t.nd
he, for one, did not fear the result. - Ministers did not ac-
cept the recent vote as a defeat of their bill, which, on the
contrary, had not been discussed at all. But the real ques-
tion before the country was, whether the business of the
State should continue to be conducted by the present Go-
vernment or be transferred to other hands. (Hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY said that, so far as he was able to judge,
the present Government had conducted the affairs of the
country well and wisely. But the question at issue was not
one of confidence in the Administration, but whether their
Reform Bill was satisfactory. Re believed that it was
erroneous in its fundamental principles and rude in its con-
struction, and therefore he had voted against it, though
with reluctance and regret. (Hear, hear.)
Sir A. AGNEW referred to a statement made the other
night by the Minister for War—that in Malta Lord Hill's
circular would be strictly adhered to, and that, therefore,
the Host would not in future be saluted by the English
troops. The fact was, that it was under Lord Hill's circu-
lar that such salutes were now given. He hoped the hon.
and gallant general would reconsider the matter, The hon.
baronet then asked the Lord-Advocate when the Royal com-
mission for inquiring into the working of the Forbes Mac-
kenzie Act would be issued.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked the First Lord of the
Admiralty to explain an excess of £790,000 in the expendi-
ture of 1857-8.
Lord NAAS, referring to the question of the hon. mem-
ber for Dover relative to the Irish Encumbered Estates
Court, stated that the vacant judgeship had been filled up
in conformity with the provisions of the Act passed last
year; and that the business of the Court was amply suffi-
cient to employ three judges.
Mr. MELLOR said that when the Aet was under discus-
sion last year the house was told that the Court would not
require more than two judges ; but it was thought that as
Mr. Hargreaves was about to be pensioned off at his full
salary, the country might as well have the advantage of his
services. In the event, however, of his transference to
England, where it was proposed to establish an Estates
Court, the understanding was that the vacancy in Dublin
would not be filled up.
Sir F. BARING did not wish to refer to the topic on
which the present discussion commenced, but he understood
that it was an order of the house that anything passing in
the House of Lords should not be referred to in the House of
Commons. (Hear, hear.) He concurred in the wisdom of
that order, thinking it desirable that they should not amuse
themselves or embitter their proceedings by reference to
what occurred in another place. But he should like some
reciprocity to be displayed—(cheers)—or circumstances
might arise which would necessitate the alteration of that
order. If accusations and attacks were to be made personally
on members of the House of Commons, and they were pre-
vented answering those attacks by an order of the house, he
conceived that then such an order would stand in the way
of fairness and justice, and ought no longer to be continued.
(Cheers.) He would now advert to another point. It was
the old practice that all expenses with respect to the man-
agement of the revenue should be paid out of the gross re-
venue. This was bad as a system of account, a great sum
of money being thus withdrawn from the supervision of
Parliament ; and in 1854 an act was passed prohibiting
expenditure for the management of the revenue from be-
ing paid out of that revenue, and providing that it should
only be paid out of money voted by Parliament. He ob-
served, however, that a contract had been entered into by
whichthe Postmaster-General engaged to pay the contractors
for the conveyance of mails between England and Ireland
the sum of £105,000 out of the revenue of the Post-office,
contrary to the provisions of the Act of 17th and 18th Vic.,
cap. 94. This was entirely against the Act of Parliament,
and was wrong both in principle and law. He presumed
that this course had not been intentionally pursued, but
originated in some blunder in copying an old form of con-
tract; and he hoped he should be given to understand that
it was not the intention of the Government to go back to
the old practice.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the error in question had
originated from oversight in copying an old form of con-
tract ; but it would not have the effect of withdrawing the
money from the control of Parliament, for the sum would
have to be voted. Nothing was fu.rther from the intention
of the Government than to depart from the spirit of the
Act of 1854.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was glad to hear that explanation,
as in his mind the violation of the Act would be most un-
pardonable.
Mr. WILSON observed that though the contract might
be made by the Post-office in perfect conformity with the
existing system, yet no money could be paid until after it
was voted by that house. If that were not the case it would
be quite clear that the whole control of the house would be
gone in this respect. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD-ADVOCATE in answer to a question put by
Sir A. AGNEW, stated that the terms of the commission
and the names of the commissioners for inquiring into the
publichouse question in Scotland were settled, and that
only the formal part of the issue of the commission remained
to be done.
Sir A. AGNEW inquired whether the commission would
be issued before Easter.
The LORD-ADVOCATE did not know how long the
formal part of the business would occupy.
General PEEL, in answer to a question put by Sir A.
AGNEW, said that the orders given by Lord Hill would not
be altered.
Sir D. NORREYS expressed a hope that the noble lord,
the member for Tiverton, would be mire precise in reference
to his agreement with the noble lord the member for Lon-
don as to what he proposed to do in his Reform Bill with
small boroughs.
The house then resolved itself into a committee of
SUPPLY.
On the vote of £2,000,000 to pay off Exchequer Bonds,
payable in May, 1859,
Mr. WILSON complained that they were called upon to
vote, almost as a matter of form, to renew the debt, instead
of paying it off out of the ways and means of the year.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the object of the vote was to
give authority to the Government to pay off a debt which
would fall due when the house would not be sitting.
After some further discussion the vote was agreed to.
£13,277,400 for Exchequer Bills, charged upon the re-
venue of 1"59, £1,125,000 on account, for payments con
nected with the revenue department, were also voted.
On the vote of £1,856,000 on account for civil service
charges,
Mr. LINDSAY proposed to reduce the amount by
£lO,OOO, the amount proposed for Kingstown Harbour.
Lord NAAS having explained that this sum was for
works already in progress
The amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. E. JAMES drew attention to the large arrears in
the Probate and Divorce Court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the only remedy
was to appoint more judges. The arrangement for the
assistance of the common law judges having failed, he
could hold out no hope that a remedy could be provided in
the present session.
After a few words from Mr. WALINS,
The vote was agreed to.
THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
Sir J. PAIINGTON—This is the last vote connected
with the Civil Service, and it now becomes my duty to pro-
pose certain votes on account of the navy estimates. It
may be remembered that I recently &flounced to the house
my intention to lay upon the table the reports of certain
committees. Among these were the report of a committee
which I had appointed on the machinery of the navy ; and
I also proposed to introduce the report of the committee on
our dockyard expenditure, and the report of a confidential
committee appointed by the Government to investigate the
causes of the great increase which has taken place in the
naval expenditure of the country.. At the same time I in-
timated my intention to lay on the table a statement on the ,
part of the Surveyor of the Navy with reference to the alle-
gations of the noble lord the member for Sandwich (Lord
C. Paget). In consequence, however, of the sudden change
of affairs I wish to intimate to the house the course I prc-
pose to take in reference to these four important documents.
I am sorry to say that it will not be in my power to com-
municate to the present Parliament the report of the Com-
mittee on Dockyard Expenditure, as they have not yet
completed their labours; but the three other reports I laid
upon the table three or four evenings since. I wish to take
this opportunity of stating that which I ought to have
mentioned on an earlier day—namely, that Sir Baldwin
Walker has repeatedly expressed to me his anxious desire
to face, in the most candid and open, and, as far as he is
concerned, the most prompt manner the statements made
by the noble and gallant officer. So far as Sir Baldwin
Walker is able to meet those statements in writing he has
done so. In his reply, which will be in the hands of members.l
in a few days, the Surveyor of the Navy has gone fully into
the allegations of the noble lord that £5,000,000 of public
money have been wasted in reckless expenditure during the
last 11 years, and that with respect to certain ships therehas
been a reckless and unnecessary expenditure in altering them
from time to time while in course of construction. On the
part of Sir B. Walker and the shipbuilding department, and
I was going to say of the Admiralty, though the present
Board have had so little to do with the matter that it would
be more correct to say on the part of our predecessors in
office, I regret that the sudden dissolution of the present
Parliament has put it out of my power to pursue the course
which I certainly should otherwise have taken—namely, to
move the appointment of a committee, constituted in the
fairest manner possible, to inquire into the truth of the alle-
gations made by the noble and gallant lord, and to ascertain
how far they were borne out by the facts. I fear that, in
the present state of public affairs, I have no alternative. It
11 indispensably necessary to await the assembling of a new
Parliament before these serious statements can be investi-
gated by a committee of this house, and I must therefore
limit myself to the expression of a hope that the written
reply made by Sir Baldwin Walker • will have the effect of
removing the erroneous impressions which the speech of the
noble and gallant officer created. lam quite sure that it
will induce the public and the house to suspend their judg-
ment until an inquiry can take place ; but I hope the in-
formation furnished is so full as entirely to disper these im-
pressions. My bon. friend (Sir H, Willoughby) asks for an

explanation as to the difference between the sums voted in
the year ending March 31, 1858, and-the actual expenditure,
which shows an excess of £790,249. This amount is made up
of two large items on account of the RUssian and Chinese
wars. The sum -of -n64,924 was incurred on account of
claims which arose during the Russian war, for which no
vote was taken in the navy estimates ; and a second sum of
£391,943 was taken out of the £400,000 which was voted for
the war with China. These two amounts, with £133,382,
which was an excess upon the estimates for that year, toge
ther make up the total of £790,249. [Sir H. Willoughby
—" Are there any outstanding votes ?"] lam not aware of
any outstanding vote in connection with the naval depart-
ment. The right hon. baronet concluded by proposing a
vote of £20,000 on account of the scientific branch.
Lord C. PAGET denied that he had ever made a charge of
any description against any gentleman connected with the
Admiralty or the naval department. (Hear, hear.) He had
only, to the best of his ability as a naval officer, calculated
what he thought was the expenditure upon the navy.
guarding himself at the time by saying that he should be
very *inch obliged to his 'right hon. friend if he could
contradict the figures laid before the house. By the
courtesy of his friend, Sir Baldwin Walker, he had
during the last half-hour been furnished with a copy of
the paper written by the Surveyor of the Navy. Of course
he could not be expected now to enter into details, but he
was bound to say that in that document he saw no sub-
stantial contradiction to the statements he had made re-
specting the alteration of certain ships. Be that as it might,
he hoped that in the new Parliament a committee would be
appointed which would go very seriously into this expendi-
ture in shipbuilding. Meanwhile he would suggest to his
right hon. friend that he should come prepared to lay the
estimates before the new House of Commons in a more satis-
factory form. In making the statement he addressed to the
house the other night, he (Lord C. Paget) had a vague idea
that he was not asking for anything unprecedented, that in
former days the naval estimates were prepared exactly in
the form which he wished to see adopted, and that it was
only within the last 40 years that they had assumed their
present unsatisfactory shape. Now, he had consulted old
navy estimates, and taking those from 1811 to 1819, he
found the ships' names given in a tabular form, as he wished
now to see, with the number of their guns, whether
building or what was the nature of their repairs,
the time when they were taken in hand, and when they
would be completed, the charge for the hulls, masts, yards,
rigging and stores, while the total charge was given in an-
other column. The name of every ship in the navy was
thus set forth, and the most detailed information was fur-
nished to the house, at a time, too, when it was of import-
ance that the French should not be acquainted with our
resources. He would now explain how it was that the
House of Commons came to be mystified. The lesson was
instructive, and he hoped his right hon. friend would profit
by it. He had received a letter from Admiral Tucker, who
had sent him a pamphlet published in 1849, addressed to
the right hon. member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) who
was then at the head of the Admiralty. It was at the time
when a committeewas sitting on our naval expenditure, and
this gentleman, who was thoroughly acquainted with naval
affairs, recommended certain reforms, particularly advo-
cating among other things that there should be a detailed
estimate of ships building and in course of alteration, as had
been the case in former years :
" Formerly," he says, and until the year 1819, the navy
estimates used to contain, for each ship in course of building
or repair, the following colums of information:-1. Name
of the yard, royal or merchant, at home or abroad. 2,
That of each ship. 3. Whether building, or nature of the
repairs, and whether contracted for, or not • and whether
Government did or did not supply any part of materials.
4 and 5. The time when each ship was taken in hand, and
when to be completed. 6 and 7. Charge for that year of
hull, masts, yards, stores, &c., of that ship. 8. Total cost
of the identical ship for that year. With such annual in-
formation it was very easy to watch some of the conduct of
the Board of Admiralty.'
The reason for adopting the present form of estimates was
thus stated :
" At the end of 1818- terminated some communications
which my father, who had been Lord St. Vincent's secre-
tary, and second secretary to the Board of Admiralty, and
who all his life attended to naval affairs, had, by Lord St.
Vincent's command, with Lord Melville, respecting the pro-
gress of work in our dockyards ; when some of my father's
statements were ascertained to be so very accurate that he
was supposed to have obtained sight of an official document
which ought to have been considered confidential. To re-
move that impression he attended at the Board of Admi-
ralty, and he did so to the ' entire conviction' of Lord Mel-
ville and of the Board. A part of the conversation (ofevery
word of which I retain a memorandum) is to the present
point. ' You have stated, Mr. Tucker,' said Lord Melville,
that eight sail of the line is the average annual produce of
the yards. How did you get at that information ?" From
the navy estimates.' How so ?' asked a sea lord ?" How ?
why thus :—The navy estimates show every line-of-battle
ship building and repairing, and when she is expected to be
finished, and by comparing the estimates of one year with
another it will be seen when any ship had been launched or
put out of dock.' The members of the board looked at each
other and said nothing, but the very next navy estimates
assumed the very unintelligible form in which, as regards
ships, they have ever since appeared ; while upon every
other head they have ever since, year after year, given
clearer and clearer information."
In a letter accompanying the pamphlet, Admiral Tucker
said the old system was put a stop to by Sir G. Cockburn,
who, on learning that his father got his figures from the
navy estimates, said " I will take care you don't get them
for the future." Here, then, was the mystery solved, and
he hoped his right hon. friend, perceiving that what was
asked for was no new thing, would be disposed to grant
that which in itself was but a reasonable demand. (Hear.)
Sir J . PAKINGTON assured the noble and gallant lord
that he was always happy to receive a lesson when it was a
good one. He thought he might venture to say that he had
afforded proof to the house of his desire that nothing should
be concealed which it was consistent with the public inte-
rests to disclose. (Hear.) For the present he could only
promise his noble friend that he would turn his attention
to this matter in the recess, and would consider how far he
could submit the estimates in a fuller shape than at present.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY saw from the newspapers that tenders
had been invited for steam machinery, the supply of which
used formerly to be confined to two or three firms. He
should like to hear from the right hon. baronet the prise at
which the engines were obiained by open competition, as
compared with that given when a practical monopoly ex-
isted. Another point to which he asked attention was as to
the anchors supplied to the Admiralty. Some seven or eight
years ago he served on a committee which condemned the
Admiralty anchor as the worst of several which were exa-
mined, but this condemned anchor had, nevertheless, con-
tinued in use on board her Majesty's ships ever since, while
the supply remained a monopoly in the hands of the same
individual, and the country had continued to pay the
monopoly price. He should be glad to hear from the First
Lord an explanation on this point.
Sir G. PECHEL asked the right hon. gentleman whether
his attention had been drawn to Capt. Kynaston's plan for
lowering ships' boats at sea, which was described as parti •
cularly effective ?
Sir C. NAPIER hoped that any committee which might
be appointed in the new Parliament would begin at the
beginning, and inquire into the constitution of the Board
of Admiralty. With regard to the Channel squadron he
wanted to know what had been the use of the six, or seven,
or nine sail-of-the line which composed it ? The ships had
been lying idle in harbour, and the officers and men were
gaining no experience whatever. When the present state of
Europe was taken into consideration he did not think the
navy ought to be allowed to remain idle, and he should
therefore express a hope that the First Lord of the Admi
ralty would issue orders to the effect that the Chanel squa-
dron should move about from place to place, so that a more
perfect practical knowledge of its duties might be ensured.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the hon. and gallant ad-
miral was too ready to depreciate the service to which he
belonged. (Cries of " Hear, hear," and " No, no.") The
gallant officer had commenced his observations by stating
that the Channel squadron consisted of six or seven sail of
the line, bat he had subsequently set it down at nine, so
that he had absolutely contradicted that which he himself
had asserted. (Hear, hear.) The fact of the matter, how-
ever, was that the line of battle ships connected with the
Channel squadron amounted at the present moment to 10,
and that there were also in connection with it six of the
most powerful frigates which had ever been seen in this
country ; but the gallant admiral, not content with making
contradictory statements, had proceeded tolecture the Board
of Admiralty with respect to the places in which the Chan-
nel squadron was kept. In his opinion, however, the Ad-
miralty and the officers in command of the Channel squa-
dron must be allowed to be the best judges as to when it
should proceed to sea or remain in harbour. (Hoar, hear.)
He could assure the hon. and gallant officer that he was
fully alive to the importance of improving the discipline of
the squadron, and that nothing would be left undone to
promote that object. (Hear, hear.) 'With respect to the
question of the hon. member for Tynemouth, in reference to
the extension of the area within which tenders for steam-
engines might be received, he could only say that the mo-
nopoly which formerly existed—if it were a monopoly—had
been destroyed, and that several houses had been invited to
send in such tenders. He trusted, however, that he should
be excused if he did not enter further into detail on the sub

ject on the present occasion. His hon. friend had next pro-
ceeded to advert to the costliness and inferiority of the an-
chor used by the Admiralty as contrasted with that which
might be obtained in other quarters • but the committee
would, he trusted, suspend their judgment on that point
until certain returns which he had moved for had been laid

on the table. When the information which might be ga-
thered from those returns was supplied it would, he thought,
be found that the Admiralty anchor was neither so' inferior
nor so costly as his hon. friend seemed to suppose. He
should next say one word in reply to the question of the
hon. and gallant member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) in
reference to the invention of Capt. Kynaston for the lower-
ing of boats. The public was, he admitted, very much in-
debted to the author of that invention. The experiments
with respect to it were still in progress, and no final decision
as to its adoption had as yet been made. (Hear, hear.)

Sir C. NAPIER defended the justice of the observations
which he had made, contending that there were two sail of
the line at Gibraltar which the right hon. baronet numbered
among the Channel squadron but which might more properly
be included in the Mediterranean fleet. He did not think it
was fair of the right hon. gentleman to endeavour to blind
the committee on so important a subject, while he adhered
to the statement that the Channel squadron had been kept
for a period of four or five months doing nothing at all.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that th 3 vessels which the
gallant admiral alluded to as having gone to Gibraltar might
in a few days return ; that they had never been attached to
the Mediterranean fleet, and might justly be numbered
among the Channel squadron.
Admiral WALCOT complimented the right hon. baronet
the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the manner in
which he had, since his accession to office, discharged the
duties which it had fallen to his lot to perform. (Hear.).
With regard to the Channel squadron being kept in au effi-
cient state, he would only say that he believed no officer
could be better fitted to secure that end than Sir C. Fre-
mantle, by whom the squadron was commanded. He might
also observe that, from all he could learn, the Channel
squadron was in a high state of efficiency, and that when
occasion arose it would be found prepared to ur hold the
honour of the country and the distinguiblied character of
the service. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY, referring to the observations made by
Sir J. Pakington with respect to the Admiralty anchor,
said he had taken his statement in reference to it from the
report of a committee of that house, in which it was set forth
that the Admiralty anchor was the worst of seven descrip-
tions of anchors, which had been brought under their notice.
It appeared that the Admiralty, in accordance with their
contract, paid at the rate of £44 10s. to £73 10s. ato for
their anchors, whereas they could be supplied by other firms
at the rate of from £2O to £3O a ton. The result was an
_ _

unnecessary outlay of 120 per cent. (Hear, hear.)
General CODRINGTON urged upon the Government

the expediency squadron to ma-
noeuvre, its efficiency.' -If two
withthoef
vciaeuwsinofgpro them o.tCihnant
ships, however, were sent to Gila% Aar, and another to the
West Indies, he did not exactly Ir.now how the small num-
ber of vessels which remained behind could manoeuvre
with advantage.
.2 .

. .
Lord LOVAINE said it mrist not be supposed that be-
cause two or three ships were detached from the squadron
for a time, they must not be regarded as portions of it for all
important purposes.

The votj was then agreed to, as were also a vote of
£50,000 to defray the salaries of the, officers of her Majesty's
naval force at home, and one of £B,OOO to defray the salaries
of the officers of her Majesty's naval establishments abroad.
A vote of £450,000 for the wages of the artificers and
labourers in her Majesty's dockyards and naval establish-
ments at home being put,

Sir C. WOOD rose and said,—lf the present vote had
been proposed in the regular course of the estimates I should
have thought it my duty to make some comments upon it.
As this is, however, merely a vote on account, and as it will
be necess iry that the question should again be brought under
consideration when the new Parliament assembles, I shall
abstain from adverting to it further on this occasion. I may,
nevertheless, be permitted to take this opportunity to throw
myself on the indulgence of the committee while I reply to
some observations which fell from the first Lord of the Ad-
miralty in his statement in introducing the estimates a few
weeks ago, and in which he impugned the conduct of the
Board of Admiralty with which I was connected, in not
building a sufficient number of larger line-of-battle ships,
and in not-paying sufficient attention to the relative infe-
riority of our naval force as compared with that of the
French. This statement when made was so contrary to any-
thing which I could be supposed to have anticipated that I
was not, at the moment, provided with the necessary docu-
ments to enable me to controvert it. I have, however,
anxiously waited for this opportunity to reply to it, and, as
I hope, successfully, to vindicate the course pursued in this
respect by the Government of which I was a member. The
right hon. baronet said that the increase in the number of
larger line-of-battle ships had not proceeded so rapidly as the
requirements of the public service demanded, and, had he
confined himself to that assertion, I should have no reason
to complain. But the right hon. gentleman went on to say
that he considered it to be his duty to ask the House of
Commons to assent to a large additional sum for the build-
ing of ships, because he was bound to state that, when he
succeeded to office, he had not found the navy of the coun-
try in a condition adequate to the defence of our coasts. The
right hon. gentleman added that he did not mean to impute
any blame in this respect to his predecessors, but I appeal
to the committee to say whether a more serious charge
than that which I have just mentioned co4ld have been
made against us. My noble and gallant friend the mem-
ber for Sandwich, referring to the observations which fell
from the right hon. baronet on that occasion, remarked
that the first object which he seemed to have in view was to
make an attack upon those who had preceded him in office ;
the next, to vindicate his claim to the large sum of money
whichhe asked the House of Commons to vote ; and I would
now ask the right hon. gentleman whether he could have
been so ignorant of the actual state of our navy as the ac-
cusation which he made against us would seem to imply ?
That accusation was one of a most serious character; one,
indeed, so serious as, if true, to render our conduct open to
impeachment. I trust, however, I shall be able to demon-
strate to the committee that the charge is devoid of founda-
tion, and to vindicate the characters of the gallant officers
who were associated with me at the Admiralty Board, as
well as my own conduct, from the aspersion which has been
thus cast upon them. The accusation which the right hon.
baronet has made against us resolves itself in point of fact
into three heads—that we neglected to ascertain the state
of the French navy ; that we did not build an adequate
number of ships of the line; and that we left the coasts of
this country unprotected so far as its safety depended upon
the existence of an efficient naval force. I shall now pro-
ceed to deal with those three charges. I went to the Ad-
miralty during the progress of the Russian war. The right
hon. baronet who preceded me there had made great exer-
tions to strengthen our navy, and it became my duty to act
still more vigorously in the same direction towards the close
of the year 1855, and in the early part of 1856. The result
of those efforts was the magnificent fleet which in the latter
year assembled at Spithead, which WAS alluded to in terms
of high praise by the hon. member for Norfolk, and which I
have reason to know excited upon both sides of the Atlantic
th© greatest admiration of the naval resources of England.
(Hear.) It is of course perfectly just to say that our atten-
tion was then directed, to a great extent, to the building of
vessels which were required for the purposes of the war in
which we were engaged, but it is not correct to state that
the building of line-of-battle ships was neglected during
the years 18.54, 1855, and 1856. It may, under the circum-
stances be matter of interest to know what was actually ac-
complished in that direction during this period. I may
inform the committee then that the number of steam ves-
sels which was added to our navy during the three years I
have just mentioned was : —Line-of-battle ships, 14 ;
frigates, 6 ; block ships, 5 ; mortar ships, 3 ; corvettes and
sloops, 18 ; floating batteries, 8 ; gun vessels, 28 ; gun-
boats, 156 ; troop and store, 10 ; tenders, &c., 36 ; making
altogether 284 steam vessels ; added to which there were
106 mortar vessels constructed. (Hear.) Such was the
addition which was made to the steam force of our navy
during the last three years of the war. In 1856 came peace,
and it of course became necessary to reduce our naval force
from the war establishment. No reduction, however, in
the rate of building in our dockyards took place for nine
months after, and they were not reduced fully to a peace
expenditure until the Ist of April, 1857. Now, it became
my duty in 1856 to consider the state of our navy with
respect to the question of what our peace establishment
should be, but I had not an opportunity of making a
statement upon the subject until the month of May,
1857. I then entered into a very full explanation with re-
spect to it. I went at considerable length into a compari-
son between the state of our own and that of the French
navy at the time. I adverted to the comparative strength
of both at various periods of our history, and I referred to
the additional cost of a steam as compared with a sailing
fleet. I gave, in short, to the house all the information
which I could procure on the subject, and I shall now, with
the permission of the committee, quote one or two passages
from the speech which I then made. I said on that occa

sion :
" The French are building large and more powerful line-
of-battle ships than ourselves. We ought not to be without
the means of meeting such vessels."
I then proceeded to state that the number of the French
screw line-of-battle ships was 40, while our own was 42, and
added that in this list I omitted our block ships, which,
though very efficient for certain purposes, could not keep
their place in a cruising or blokading squadron. I was fol-
lowed in the discussion which ensued by the noble lord the
member for Sandwich. Did he think I had overrated the
force of the English navy and underrated that of the
French ? Far from it. M y noble friend said—
" The First Lord has stated that we had 42 line-of-battle
ships. The fact was that we had 51, for the nine screw
block ships, which he had excluded from his enumeration of
ships of the line, were amongst the most efficient of our
line-of-battle ships."
He then referred to the French naval force, and observed:
"As reference had been made to the French navy, he
might state that he held in his hand a list of their screw
line of-battle ships with which he had been favoured by the
French Minister. They amounted to 31, so that the number
of our steam line-of-battle ships was nearly double that of
our allies. He was of opinion, therefore, that the First
Lord might with great propriety rest upon his oars, and
take the opportunity of consulting members of the naval
service before he proceeded to add to the number of these
vessels. Instead of increasing our line of-battle ships he
should appoint a committee to consider what descriptien of
vessels ought to be built."
I did not take the advide of my noble friend. I proceeded
in building ships, and in doing so maintained a supply of
men in our dockyards, the number of which was con-
demned by no less an authority than my right hon. friend
the member for Carlisle. We did not red ace our dockyards
to the peace establishment of the year preceding the war.
We reduced it to the war establishment which my right hon.
friend had sanctioned in 1854, and which was 1,200 men
stronger than the peace establishment in ordinary times.
What did the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle
(Sir J. Graham) tell us ? He said 10,800 artificers was too
great a number to keep up in time of peace. Now, in the
first year after the Russian war we continued to build line-
of-battle ships, and kept up a larger establishment for that
purpose than the right hon. baronet thought was actually
necessary. In the course of tkat year I authorised the
hiring of additional men' and the excess of wages was
£17,000. The amount of building done in 1857 was 50 per
cent. greater than it was in the year preceding the outbreak of
the Russian war. It must be recollected that the launching
of ships depends mainly upon the amount of building done in
the preceding year. In 1857 there were added to the Royal
navy 15 steamships, of which only. two were line-of-battle
ships; while in 1858 there were also 15 ships launched, in-
cluding eight line-of-battle ships. T admit that I did
think in 1857 that building was proceeding as rapidly as could
be desired ; and I went to Portsmouth myself, and I also
sent Sir A. Milne, the Surveyor of the Navy, who reported
to me upon the subject. Upon that report I prepared the
estimates for 1858-9, containing a very considerable
increase in the building force of the dockyards. As
I have said, the amount of building depends upon the
surplus number of men left disposable after providing
for the fitting and repair of vessels. The average
number of men employed in building in 1856 was 1,600,
and we proposed an addition of 1,340 men, or about
83 per cent. It was not my fate to bring on those
estimates, but those figures appeared upon the face of them
as prepared by me. I had, too, then a statement of the
comparative strength of the English and French navies, in
respect of steam line-of-battle ships. At that time the
French had 22 line-of-battle ships, and we had 2.5, in ad
dition to nine block ships, making a total of 34 vessels fit to
take part in any action in the Channel. I have in my hand
a nominal list of the French navy and a nominal list of the
English navy, made out before I quitted office, and there-
fore I speak without fear of contradiction. My gallant
friend (Sir C. Napier) made a similar statement, only that
he stated we had N vessels and the French 23, but I be-
lieve he included in both instances vessels which were being
fitted with engines. I have quoted the words of the right
hon baronet opposite in my own vindication, and I afrain
refer to his own statements as proving my case. He had
the task of introducing the estimates last year, and I at that
time told him I thought he was taking an injudicious step,
and one prejudicial to the public service by diminishing the
estimates that I had -prepared' in respect to the outlay for
the building of steam line-of-battle ships. The right hon.
baronet upon that occasion said—" The right hon. member
for Halifax had complained that we had not line-of-battle
ships enough, and that we had only two more than the
French. That was true, if only the line-of-battle ships
actually afloat were meant, and the block ships were ex-
cluded. He admitted that those block ships should be
superseded by line. of-battle ships as soon as possible, but
four or five of those ships were is good condition, and it
waa not fair to exclude them." The right hon, baronet also