The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-24 00:00:00

ciency as he had described it. To his mind the explanation
of the noble lord the Secretary of the Admiralty with regard
to thiS vote, either in its constitutional aspect or as to the

application of the money, was by no means satisfactory.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON regretted that a subject of
such importance should be discussed in so thin a house.
He must do hon. gentlemen opposite below the gangway
the justice to say that that was the only part of the house

which presented anything like a full appearance. (Hear,

hear.) As to the benches behind the Government and the
Opposition benches he regretted there were but few /nem-

bers on them. He believed that if the hon. member for
Sunderland had been made a member of the Board of Ad-

miralty by the noble lord at the head of the Government
they would have been saved from several of these discus-

sions on naval affairs. The hon. member had rather un-

generously attacked him for the cost of these iron ships.

He had never concealed from the house that these ships
would be most costly.
Mr. LINDSAY assured the right hon. gentleman that he
had never attacked him.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had always informed the
house that the cost of the iron ships would be large. With
regard to the immediate question before the house, it did
not seem to be so much one of the amount of money as
whether England was to remain the first maritime Power
of the world. If she were, they must not indulge in those
hot and cold fits about expenditure. A large supply of
timber was an indispensable condition of that supremacy.

The hon. member for Montrose said that he (Sir John
Pakington) had asked for a vote of only £672,000 for
timber. That was true, but he must, in justice, say that
that vote was limited not with any reference to its amount,
but from considerations connected with the state of the
timber market. The supply of timber in the dockyards in
1859 was one of the largest stocks they had had for some
time ; but when it came to be applied to the requirements
of the navy it was found to be quite insufficient, owing to
the increase of the navy. One of the evils complained of
was that they were obliged to use unseasoned timber on
account of the insufficiency of the stock of seasoned timber.
Their motive for increasing the naval force of the country
at that time was their comparative feebleness in regard to
the French navy. On inquiry they found that not only
was France going ahead of England in the building of ships
of war, but that the dockyards of France were well supplied
with an immense stock of timber. He thanked the Admi-
ralty for the efforts they were making to increase our
supply of timber, and he expressed a hope that the hon.
member for Montrose would not persevere in his amend-
ment for reducing the vote.
Lord PALMERSTON said that if the thinness of the
house and the small interest manifested in the question
under consideration were matter of regret he wished to ex-
press his regret at another circumstance, and that was that
two hon. gentlemen, anxious as he well knew for every-
thing which concerned the honour, welfare, dignity, and
happiness of this country—who were themselves perfectly
conversant with the great importance of the maritime trade
of the country to our political existence—should come
down with a motion in the shape of an amendment to the
vote which would have the effect of crippling the navy, on
the power of which the existence not only of their pro-
sperity but of their national existence depended. (Hear,
hear.) The question was, not whether £600,000 or
£900,000 should be expended on timber. The pith, mar-
row, tendency, and effect of the motion was whether they
should have a navy or not—(oh, oh)—because if they de-
prived the Admiralty of the means of having h sufficient
supply of timber they could not have a sufficient navy.
(Hear,) His noble friend the Secretary of the Admiralty
had informed the house that the vote asked for would only
obtain a two years' supply of stock; but last year it was
maintained that they ought to have a three years' supply in
stock. All that was now required was a two years' stock.
His hon. friend said they were now building iron ships, and
therefore that they did not want timber. Many hon. gen-
tlemen seemed to think that iron ships were built entirely
of iron, but the fact was that even in the construction of iron
ships an immense quantity of timber was requisite. It was
said that we should take example from France, and that as
there was a total abstinence on the part of the French Go-
vernment of anything like naval preparations, it was ab-
surd on their part to have so large a stock of timber in store
as that vote would supply. Did his hon. friend know the
amount of timber in store in France ? We had 80,000 loads
in our dockyards, France had,160,000 loads in her's. (Hear.)
With a smaller navy, with a less demand for timber, France
had actually double the amount of timber which it was the
object of the present vote to supply our arsenals with. The
argument for making the contract was in his opinion un-
answerable. Timber such as was required for the building
of ships grew only in certain positions, and if they did not
avail themselves of the occasions which offered of obtaining
large supplies, other people would step in and we should re-
main without that which was essential to the maintenance
of the navy. (Hear.) Under these circumstances he saw no
reason for assenting to the motion of his hon. friend, even if
the contracts had not been made. But there was no reason
for blaming the Admiralty for making contracts for supply-
ing that material, which was absolutely necessary for the
maintenance of the navy, without which this country would
be utterl3. ruined. (Hear.) Imagine if anyforeign Power, or
combination of foreign Powers, had complete command of
the sea; what would become of the imports =which the in-
dustry of this country depended? What would become of
those exports without which their industrywould be employed
without fruit; what would become of all those elements of
their national inaependence for the maintenance or winch
the command of the great highway of nations was indispen-
sable ? (Hear.) independent of the consideration of na-
tional defence, of menacing any enemy that attacked our
shores, he was sure his hon. friend, who knew the commer-
cial interests cf the country, could not seriously wish that
our navy should be deprived of those materials which were
so essential to its existence. (Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said that if the vote had been five times
its present amount the speech of the noble lord would have
been just as applicable to the proposition before the house.
The noble lord had not condescended to go into figures, and
he (Mr. Bright) did not place the slightest reliance on his
opinion with regard to the stock of timber in the French
dockyards. Once before the noble lord had misled the house
by exaggerated statements with regard to the particulars of
the French fleet, and unless he had something more specific
he should not be disposed to vote the extravagant sum now
proposed on account of his statement of the amount of tim-
ber in the French dockyards. Members of that house who
recently visited the principal French dockyards, had not
found there the large stock of timber indicated by the noble
lord. When fairly examined he had no doubt that, like the
phantom fleet of France, this would be found a phantom stock
of timber. (Hear.) The noble lord's speech entirely evaded
the question. That question was a simple one. It was quite
evident that their expenditure for naval purposes had ex-
ceeded during the last two years that of former years. They
had more ships of war than all the rest of the world put to-
gether, and it could not be necessary that they should go on
increasing their navy for the next two, four, or six years at
the same rate as they had been doing during the last two
years. Mr. Dundas, a gentleman of great authority, con-
cluded that the consumption of timber this year would be re-
duced one half, owing b the excess of timber remaining from
last year. There was no reason to suppose from anything
the noble lord (who was in a very " Rule Britannia" mood
that night) had said, that there would be any diminution
in the stock of timber next year. This Admiralty business
was the most extravagant and reckless that any legislative
chamber ever had to consider. The £12,000,000 demanded
by the Admiralty was to be expended by persons who knew
nothing whatever about book-keeping, or the business for
which the money was required. Even the noble lord the
Secretary for the Admiralty was often driven to defend
what he could not approve of, with regard to many items
of expenditure in connection with the Admiralty. The
noble lord (Palmerston) whenever those sentiments were
criticised, said hon. members were not patriotic ; but
£71,000,000 a-year was an expenditure that would test
patriotism. Every £lOO unnecessarily expended was the
purchase money of the sufferings and labour of the people.
The time was come when there should be a reduction in the
public expenditure, or a contest would arise between the
Government and the people, which the noble lord himself
wouid be the first to deplore. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY thought the Board of Admiralty werq
bound to keep up a sufficient stock of timber. (Hear, hear.)
Every man acquainted with the subject must admit that for
the last 12 years the supply of timber had been inadequate.
Timber required to be kept in store for three years before it
was used, in order that it might be properly seasoned. The
supply, therefore, should be obtained before the timber was
actually wanted. (Hear, hear.) He regretted that in con -
squence of a want of precaution in this respect some of our
recently constructed ships had been built with unseasoned
timber. The stock of timber in our dockyards at present
was very deficient, and that deficiency should be made up
without delay. The hon. member for Birmingham said
that those opposed to the vote had much property at sea.
That property might be insured, but the honour of the
country could not. (Hear, hear.) It was, therefore, im-
portant that the defences of the country should be in a pro-
per condition. (Hear, hear.) He believed the proposed
vote was perfectly consistent with economy, and would
therefore support it. (Hear, hear.)
Col. SYKES said our navy was at present equal to the
combined navies of the whole world. Did our maritime
supremacy then depend on the difference between 51,000
and 80,000 loads of timber? Certainly not. He thought
the reduction proposed by the hon. member for Sunderland
a very proper one, and would give it his support. The prac-
tice had long existed in India by which the quantity of
timber and the price could be ascertained.
Mr. CONINGHAM expressed a hope that his hon. friend
(Mr. Lindsay) would press his amendment to a division.
The value of iron over wood in ships had been established
at Sinope, and he hoped that this fact would press itself on
the attention of the Government. He did not think a case
had been made out for this large expenditure for timber for
ships.
Mr. CHILDERS wished to know whether the 160,000
loads of timber in the French yards were French loads or
English loads?
Lord C. PAGET wished in the first instance to state
that a French load of timber was 40 cubic feet, and he then
enumerated the items which made up the 160,000 loads in
the different French yards. There were 40,000 loads at
Cherbourg, 30,000 at Brest, 37,000 at Boulogne, and at
Rochfort 26,000 ; and at two other yards there were 25,000
P 43,4 7)500 loads respectively, As to the Luglielt supply, he