The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONION, FRIDAY

to their being.so many masters. The case was just the quoted it again, and would probably be rewarded by
same with respect to the doc yards. Sir G. Cockburn, selling off the stock now ea hand. (A laugh.) He
after pointing out the errors of the Board of Admiralty, quoted his letter, page 84, to Sir John Pechell, but he
recommended that the - Admiralty Board should beomitted Y
to tell them what he recommended—that the s s-
abolished, and that the management of the navy should
tern of the purchase of commissions should be extended to
the navy. Hs came doWn and omitted all that part, and
be transferred to a flag officer, as naval commander-in- wished them to call the Board of Admiralty not a board
chief, to be assisted by two naval officers ; that another but a council, and the first lord of the Admiralty not first
person, having a seat in Parliament, should have the lord, but minister of marine. But the gallant admiral
control of the naval expenditure, submitting it to the went on further, and quoted a pamphlet of Sir G. Cock-
Treasury for approval. The principal objection, as stated ; burn's, or rather some notes that he left, and which were
by Sir G. Cockburn, to placing a naval officer at the : never intended for publication. Now, it was known that
head of the service, was, that he might show too much fa- I Sir G. Cockburn, who was a long time at the Admiralty,
I ha i great differences of opinion, not with the civilians but
rithoteesboi7,ordt.heTheetthlodn. and gal-
was to his personal friends ; but be did not. Why shou d
that be the case with respect to the navy more than it
lwaintthatteinraalvalumoteencilbtelLssnef
was with regard to the commander-in-chief ? He would
G. Cockburn'qs notes in that house. In In thatv house Sir G.
now proceed to point out some of the evils attendant upon Cockburn said "he had no hesitation. in stating, and in
staking his private as well as his public character on the
the constant changes which took place at the Admiralay.
When the old set went out, a new batch came in—the i statement, that it was necessary far the safety of the
first lord, perhaps, knowing nothing of naval officers, country that the Board of Admiralty should remain con-
and the others having all their business to learn. No- stitated as it was at present."
body was left to teach them except the secretary : and Sir C. NAPIER—What date was that?
the confusion attendant upon each change might easily Mr. B. OSBORNE—In 1820. But he had another,
be imagined. The house would be astonished at the years later, when Sir G. Cockburn said, "Speaking: five
from
expenses incurred in ship-building under the different the experience he had, he was sure that any alteration in
boards. Some years ago he took the trouble of aster- the constitution of the Board would be injurious to the
taming the number of ships which had been built and beat interests of the country." Probably, when gentlemen
destroyed between the years 1815 and 1849. We bad got out of office, and when they got oat of command, they
got rid of 13 three-deckers and 2 receiving ships ; 153
e thug our ,might d have
dthe
b
1
two decaere and 22 receiving ships ; 20 50-gun ships I
plied to be pth 82 e
Board of saini°iralt t
y, a Her acouafd.
and 9 receiving ships ; 180 frigates, from 30 to 59 guns,
refer to his own pamphlet. [Sir C. NAPIER—The page?]
and 17 receiving ships ; 65 frigates of 30 guns ; 418 Page 213. This was Lord John Russell's letter to him :
—" You may remember when you applied to me in 1846
vessels of all descriptions and 20 receiving ships, making
in all 920 ships. During that period there bad been for a seat at the Board of Admiralty, then about to be
built 14 three-deckers. 49 twoeiecaers, 73 frigates, formed under Lord Auckland (a civilian.), and I stated
from 30 to 50 guns, 39 frigates under 30 guns ; 114 my opinion that your services would be more useful to the
vessels of all descriptions, not including small craft and public in a naval than a civil department." He thought
steamers. In addition to the expense of breaking up it rather extraordinary that the ganant admiral, having
ships, no less than 28 had had their sterns altered under applied for civil service under a civilian First Lord in
Sir W. Symonds' plan, and 26 under other plans; 68
1846, should
to carry on the 846. should in 1851 come donwanvaalidsiftealilrsthoefmtittheaeteiet wast
ships had had their magazines altered—some of them
impossiblewith a civilian as First-Lord. It was not the rule to LIZ
three times and eight of them twice. The expense of civilians as First Lords of the Admiralty. On the con-
cutting down a frigate was upwards of 52,0001. From trary, there had been a great many naval First Lords, and
1821 to 1849 the estimates for the navy amounted to although at the beginning of their cffice naval lords were
upwards of 156,000,0001. of which more than 44,000, popular, they generally ended with giving great dissatis-
-0001. were expended on the dockyards. He did not faction. It, was a singular thing that whenever there had
mean to say that it was not necessary to cut down ships, been a parliamentary inquiry into the state of the navy,
but he was satisfied that the great number of alterations it had always been. wheneatnaval man was First Lord;
were attributable to changes in the Admiralty. He alleffected when'ne tiLmyphoavdelinainasciviliali theas ;.iliervsyt.
Lord. ha been
did not exactly agree with Sir George Cockburn, be-
hon. and gallant admiral went backs as far as the rein
cause he knew it was useless to attempt to ask any
of Edward VI. He would not go so far back. Was the
government to put any naval man at the head of the hon. and gallant admiral aware that it was to Lord Sand-
Admiralty, for judged of by civilians, they were only
- with, a civilian, that they were indebted for the marines
fit to be shot at. (Laughter.) Lord St. Vincent was as a separate body from the sailors; that he first corn-
declared by Mr. Pitt to be an unfit man for the office of menced the inspection of the navy. Then, Lord Keppel
first lord. But that noble lord, by his 'firmness and was a distinguished naval commander, but what did Lord
character during the time he filled that office, restored Shelburne say of his naval administration ? He said that
the navy from the degraded condition into which it bad a change was necessary, seeing that the affairs of the navy
fallen usder his predecessors. It had been said that all were going to ruin. Then there was Lord Howe. He was
our ga naval man, but as First Lord of the Admiralty he gave
in Great battles were fought under civilians. Now,
name, what bad they to do with battles ?
universal dissatisfaction,' and there was a remarkable both in the Lords and the Commons as to the de-
(Laughter.)fa-
Why the French and English fleets used vouritism displayed in the promotions while he was in
to put to sea and fight severe battles, but he could not office ; and Mr. Fox said, "he approved of Lord Howe's
at all understand what the First Lord of the Admiralty conduct when at sea, but that all hisnaval ability vanished
had to do with them. (Hear) The greatest' battle when he got on shore." But the hon. and gallant admiral
ever fought was fought not during the time a c vilian quoted Lord St. Vincent as a naval First Lord, Why,
was at the head of the Admiralty, but when that post Lord St. Vincent was most unfortunate in his administra-
was occupied by Lord Barham. It was not Lord
the navalY estimates, And ttooeni
dockyards
theistem; they positively sold the hemp in the
Gwohvaqnwmaesnzt,irinloirtdtrar to reeedhur Barham, however, but - Nelson who won that 4
battle. (Hear, hear.) A. great deal was done by
1800? "I am inclined to think that ioetween speech
St.
Sir James Graham to reform the Admiralty Board, Vincent as a commander and as First Lord of the Admi-
and the right hon. baronet carried out several
ral-y there is a very wide difference. He is much less able
suggestions which had fallen from him (Sir C. Napier) in a civil than in a warlike position."
such as the registering of seamen and giving a Sir C. NAPIER—What was Mr. Fox's opinion?
bounty, both which plans were steps towards the more Mr. B. OSBORNE said he was aware that Mr. Fox
efficient manning of the navy. But the right hon. gen- voted on that occasion in favour of Lord St. Vincent, but
tlecnan did not take advantage of his own law. With he did not say anything in his favour.
respect to the continuous service men, he did not think Sir C. NAPIER—Yes, he did.
one of them ought to be discharged without his consent,
Mr. B. OSBORNE said then the gallant admiral ought
and doubted whether they ought to be discharged at ail. to be ready with his quotation. Then he went to Lord
He understood that an order had been sent down to Barham, who was a naval First Lord, and he took great
discharge, with their own consent, all the first-class boys, credit to Lord Barham for fitting out the fleet that fought
who were beginning to be useful, and also all the novices the battle of Trafalgar. He (Mr. B. Osborne) maintained
who wished to be discharged. He did not approve a that the First Lord's duty was as much civil as naval; and
continuous service for ten years. He thought it would it was a singular thing that with this exception the fleets
be much better to take them for five years, and then which had fought in all the great actions had been fitted out
allow them to enter for five years more. He understood by First Lords who were civilians. Take Lord Rodney'svic-
that two or three different orders had been sent on this tory in 1782, the victories in 1744, the battle of the Nile, and
the battle of Copenhagen; the fleets in all these cases were
subject, that th®- telegraph was almost always at work, fitted oat when a civilian was first lord. Mind there was
and that the commanders at the different ports hardly a deal in the selection of the officer to command. Now,
knew what they were doing. The reforms which he pro- what had been the great improvenients instituted by first
posed were so very simple that he was surprised Sir lords who were civilians ? Why, Sir James Graham was
James Graham had not adopted them. The Navy the means of saving 1,200,0001. by consolidating offices in
Board, the Victualling Board, and the Transport Board the navy. Up to that time the navy accounts had never
were abolished. There was one officer at the dockyard, been audited, and from that day to this they had been
one at the head of the victualling department, one at audited. He did not mean to lay it down as a rule that
the head of the surveyor's department, one et the bead they should never appoint a naval man, but he said that
of the head or the storekeeper's department. The objet- the opportunities and the education of naval men were not
times of Sir George Cockburn and Sir George Clerk were, of that sort that they should be put into the importantosition of first, lord of the Admiralty.lf the found a
that the whole of the business would fall into their hands Position
adapted to that situation, do not lt it be against him
without responsibility attacbing to them. And that was that he was a naval man, but it would be stultifyingp them-
the case. When Mr. Labonchere began his political life, selves to say they would have none but a naval man. The
it was as a lay lord of the Admiralty. The accountant- bon. and gallant admiral hal said that his late colleague
general's department was under his care, and he lived at Mr. Phinn retired because he did not like signing letters
Somerset-house, and attended strictly to his orders. which he could not read, and that he had conscientious
There was no necessity for a lay lord to be placed over scruples about signing them. Mr. Phinn had no such
the head of the accountant-general, who ought to have scruples, for he did read the letters, and he retired because
the management of the whole of the accounts of the he preferred the business of the bar. Then the hon. and
navy, and to be in communication with the first lord, gallant admiral talked about private letters, and he was
astonished that he should, considering the use he had
and the first lord only. The head of the victualling- made of the letters from Sir J. Graham which were never
department ought to reside at Somerset-house, and intended to be published. The hon. and gallant admiral
\
take his departure altogether from Whitehall. All said there ought to be a permanent officer to teach the
or ders belonging to the medical and victualling depart- boards who were coming in. There was a permanent officer,
ments ought to be signed by him, and his master the surveyor to the navy, who was not liable to be changed
ought to be the first lord. At the head of the sur-
veyor's department there ought to be another officer,
on the change of government. The hon. and gallant ad-
miral was fond of maligning his own fleet, not regarding
who ought not to be at the Admiralty at all. The vice the manceavres of that fleet, when it anchored in Faro
admiral of Great Britain ought to be at the head of the
Sound. He would read the criticism of the Russian pa-
surveyor's arid store department, and all letters and tom- mire].
pert
. complimentary, as it was the hon. and gallant ad-
munications from the superintendents of dockyards ought ' The handling of the English ships was
admirable. The English make very little use of our buoys
to be sent to him, and be ought to inspect the dockyards When they take a new channel they lay down buoys of
in an efficient manner, not pzoceeoing at railroad speed, their own. One thing may be affirmed positively, that
going down to the different ports and hoisting his flag. no pilot of ours would ever venture on his own respon-
The
rear-admiral ought to have the inspection of the sibility to take deep sea going ships into places wkish
victualling and medical departments, and to hoist his have been navigated by large English steamers, though
flag also. By these arrangements enormous sums of it must be admitted they have occasionally grounded." 1
money wouli be saved, and the different parties would British fleet. here was
RussianHeivas tsuesrti=taes:eoatrhleeffihciencayo
and
the
only have their own specific duties to attend to. Now,
]ant admiral affirm that the throne of Englandn was gal-
how how ought the Admiralty Board to be composed ? It worth six months' purchase. If he did not know that the
was said that the First Lord was responsible, but he al- gallant admiral was rather wild about this subject, he
ways laid the blame on the board, and the board laid should be ashamed that such an expression should have
the blame on him. He had no objection to the present come from a British admiral. While they had the navy
First Lord, because he would do as well as any other. in its present condition, and while they had a Board of
(Laughter.) He would make the First Lord Minister Admiralty comprising such men as Sir R. Dundas, Sir M.
of Marine, having under him the vice-admiral and rear- Berkeley and Capt. Milne, the throne was secure, and he
thatn stategmalleannt
admiral of Great Britain. Should he happen to be a hoped the house would not listen to such statements as
civilian he ought to have a captain of the fleet to assist tdh:dsuecoeffrtohme beandgallant admiral, and that they would
him, and make him acquainted with things which he
wast talisrloi nal the u
a inferenceedte
might not understand, for they might as well make a naval that the hon. and gallant admit-Tilt
alter the constitution of the Board of Admiraeltl as he was
officer a bishop as a civilian a First Lord, All orders ought to judge of the stability of the throne. He trusted that
to emanate from the Minister of Marine, who ought to the house would negative this motion by a large majority.
have two secretaries, (men civilian and the other a naval Sir G. PEC HELL said the fact of Sir G. Cockburn be-
man. He did not think it would be necessary to have ing 16 or 17 years at the Board of Admiralty and hiding
more than one naval officer to assist the Minister of his light under a bushel all that time detracted consider-
Marine, besides the two secretaries. He would tell the ably from the value of his notes. He certainly thought
Government that unless they did something very speedily that the system of constant changes which prevailed at the
to improve the condition of the navy some very serious Admiralty was much to be deprecated.
disaster would happen. Our disasters began at the lat- Mr. KER approved of the principle which threw our
' ter end of the last great war. The English navy never do .kyards open to the inspection of all persons ; but he
knew what it was to be beaten until we went to war objected to the systemship-trade,
of giving drawings to persona who
with America. The Americans took the whole of our
were experts in the when these persons were
been
foreigners. He had shown a large model of the Duke
corvettes. Then our frigates began to walk into the
of Wellington line of battle ship a twelvemonth before
Americans; but they did nut inflict that injury which that vessel was launched.
they ought to have done. And why ? Because the
Admiral WALCOTT urged upon the house the necessity
Americans had paid more attention to their navy of keeping up a sufficient naval force in the Mediterranean.
than we had done, and were proud to be able In his opinion twelve line of battle ships ought to be
tsta-
•
to beat their cousins. What was the result ? The tinned at Malta. He advocated also the formation of a
Emperor of France sent nine frigates to sea, and we board of experienced and scientific men, for the purpose of
nad four drawn battles. That was the state of the reporting upon those scientific improvements which from
case at the end of the war. It was admitted that the time to time might be made abroad, or which might be
French navy had got into'a high state of discipline, and brought forward by inventors at home. The hon. and gal-
was as good as our own, and that they could man their lent member had said that the junior members of the Board
with ropes round their necks, and that
of Admiralty fist,
fleet when we could not man curs. Now we ought not
to allow our navy to remain in its present condition. We they were afraid to express their opinion. He could not
ought to have a better system of management, and our believe so meanly of his professional brethren as to think
ships ought to be better manned. Unless an improve-
that this was the case, but if it were so, all he would say
was that he wished the ropes were stretched, and the
ment took place in both these respects great disasters junior (" Hear," and cheers.)
would befall the country. We had now no Channel fleet, Lord C. PAGET believed that upon the whole the pre-
and in the course of a few months we should not have sent system worked beneficially for the country. W
a single ship of war in England. hen our men were members were hanged.
Mr. WARRE pointed out that in considering this mat-
paid off they would go to America and other countries ; ter it should not be forgotten that during the past few years
if we should want them we should be unable to obtain science hal completely changed the state of naval warfare.
their services. Now, suppose a war should break out be- After a few words from Mr. LINDSAY,
tween this country and France, which was not impos- Sir C. WOOD said that no continuous service men bad
sible, and Russia should join France, he did not believe left the service except at their own request, or in conse-
the Queen's throne would be worth six months' purchase. queues of being unfit to continue longer in the service.
(Cries of "On, oh.") Lion. members might cry "Oh,the propriety of inquiry in-
However, astheeittteestaoonarTriaosf
Admi
Admiralty, he thought he
oh ;" but we had neither men nor ships fit for such a
etiotettitiled conductd
best of
byh B
confining himself to that question.
contingency, our best ships being all abroad, and nothing With respect, to having a naval first lord, he had never de:
but trash remaining in our ports. He wanted to open nied the fitness of a naval man for the office • but he did
the eyes of the country to the fact that if France and not think that the first lord should necessarily be a naval
Russia were to unite, we should not have the means of man, seeing that five-sixths of the business transacted was
defending ourselves. He had been himself in action, and of a civil character. The gallant admiral also proposed
had been beaten simply because his vessels were badly that the principal officers should be relieved from respon-
manned and disciplined. When in Portugal he bad a lability to the board. So they were in all matters of de-
badly-manned fleet, and when he fell in with Don tail, it was only in matters of greatah iemupiolrtrentece that theE:e
al iguel's fleet, and his own son boarded one of the jdtisdiction of the wholee board
the greatestwsr assistanceg pay. Fie
the
enemy's weasels, he was hardly followed by a single man. (Sir
navalo.V)od)deriv d
of the board, and was the last man to un-
Toe Mf a lied no confidence in each other, and of the ten
derratete members
importance of their professional knowledge.
marines on beari only three of them ventured to ho nett. After one or two further observations, the right hen. gen-
By all the rules of fighting his own -vessel ought to have tleman concluded by opposing the motion.
been taken instead of Don Miguel 's. (Laughter.) The Sir C. NAPIER replied, complaining of the line taken
First Lord of the Treasury was responsible for the by the Secretary to toe Admiralty, and of the conduct of
present state of the navy, and ought not to remain Sir Maurice Berkeley in writing to the officers of his fleet
at the head of the Government unless he was deter- for opinions of his character.
mined to keep up an efficient fleet. He did not ask fur The house then divided—
a very large or expensive
commanded by excellent officers, and manned by young Against it
and able seamen and good marines. With these, and LAND TAX.
if they could man the fleet well, he defied the world. Mr. MACKINNON moved for a select committee to
A British fleet with men accustomed to act together consider the expediency of a more equitable adjustment
would face anything in the world. But a fleet manned of the land-tax; also of allowing a further redemption .
al to the revenue. This tax, he saki, The hon. and gallant admiral concluded by moving the
by persons picked up in the streets was not efficient. of it ; and whether the tax might not be made more be
ficid, was so unjust n
in
reselution. e
its operation and so partial that it was impossible it could
be allowed to continue in its present state. He gave a
Mr. BENTINCK seconded the motion. short history of the land-tax, in order to show how it be-
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the speech of the hon. and caine so unjust and unequal ; the rate being in some places
gallant admiral bad been so discursive that he hoped the lii. in the pound, and in others 35., rich communities pay-
house would forgive him if he imitated him in that re- ing nothing and poor communities being taxed heavily,
to
spect. The principal argument of the hon. and gallant Sir J. TROLLOPE observed that the
impedimentsAc o
officer was the want of permanence in the first Lord of a readjustment of this tax arose from the
Redemption
Act
the Admiralty. Why, as this Government was needs- and Mary making it perpetual, and
sarily parliamentary, the government officers could not of Mr. Pitt in 1798, and unless the
house was prepared to
be permanent. It would be an agreeable thing to many opeal the latter Act, died
impose raactice fresh mode of taxaticn
ble for a commit-
the want of permaneecy. tee
if they could. The head and front of their offending wasin lieu of the land tax it was imp
of that house to deal with the subject. He should
therefore oppose the motion.
Sir- C. NAPIER—The Duke of Cambridge is penile. Mn. NEATE supported the motion. The real ques-
nent.
tion, he said, was how far the Act of Mr. Pitt precluded
Mr. B. OSBnlnniE said the Commander-in-Chief was in Parliament from considering the whole subject, and the
a totally different position. He was not a member of the restoration of the tax to what it was intended to be. There
cabinet. The hon. and gallant officer proposed no real ttas nothing in Mr. Pitt's Act, in his opinion, that pre-
change ; he proposed a board under a different name ; he i eluded the house from considering the question n its
could not call it a board, but a council. What happenen, widest bearing.
had Lord Hi ,h Admiral ? They had Con. ,soil The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted ;
when they a a Ca".neil, his motion. The
the very thing that the hon. and gallant admiral `reposed that Mr. Mackinnon would not press
t 1 it had been
under a different name. And what happened then, s Sir G. i subject, he observed, was well understood t
Cockburn complained, and a change took place, and they repeatedly considered by the house, where its anomalies
of removing
went to the boar I again. The bon. and gallent admiral had ' had been fully admitted ; but the difficultye_tr.Pitt.
The
quoted frequently from his book on the retvy. The last time them arose from the Redemption Act f ?.1
he brought forward the subject he was the means of put. only way of obviating them would beto impose what in
tiug his book through another edition, so man—
e copies were i reality would be an additional Income-tax.
wanted by the Admiralty and by hon. members. He Lai t 11r. MACKINNON said he feared next evasion he