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

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 £264,924 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 much 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 committee was 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.
1 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 (of every
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. PE CHE L 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 thick 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 commexced his observations by stating
that the Channel squadron consisted of six or seven sail of
the line, but 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 to lecture 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. (Hear, 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. NAPIEIt 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 the vessels which the
gallant admiral alluded to as having gone to Gibraltar might
in a few days returns 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 an 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 uphold the
honour of the country and the distinguished 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. a ton 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 CODRINOTON urged 1113 eh the Government