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

the o xpediency of causing the Channel squadron to ma-
nceu vre, with the view of promoting its efficiency. If two
ships , however, were sent to Gibraltar, and another to the
West Indies, he did not exactly know how the small num-
ber o' f vessels which remained behind could manoeuvre
with advantage.
Le.rd LOVAINE said it must not be supposed that be-
calm( two or three ships were detached from the squadron
for a time, they must not be regarded as portions of it for all
imp) rtant purposes.
The vote was then agreed to, as were also a vote of
£5O, I )00 to defray the salaries of the officers of her Majesty's
nava 1 force at home, and one of £B,OOO to defray the salaries
of fix e officers of her Majesty's naval establishments abroad.
A vote of £150,000 for the wages of the artificers and
labor irers 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
bezecessary that the question should again be brought under
cons ideration 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-
dty 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 could have been
made against us. My noble and gallant friend the mem-
ber for Sandwich, referring to the observations which fell
from the right hen, 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
which he 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 18.56. 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 hen, member for Norfolk, and which I
have reason to know excited upon both sides of the Atlantic
the 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 1854, 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 18,56 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 discussiou 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. bl 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 advice 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 reduce 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
ffrst 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 inthe 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 25, 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 29 vessels and the French 23, but I be-
I 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 again
refer to his own statements as proving my case. He had
the task of introducing the estimates last year, and lat 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 enongh, 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 these ships were in good condition, and it
was not fair to exclude them." The right hon, baronet also