SIR FREDERIC SMITH, reverting to the matter of the gunboats, said, be certainly could not yield to the appeal made to him by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, not to press his Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. All that had fallen from the noble Lord and other Members made him more anxious that this Committee should be appointed. He bad no desire to attach blame to anybody—it was in perfect ignorance as to where the blame lay that he wished for an inquiry. It might be with the Government—though he did not believe it; it might be with the contractors, or it might be with the inspectors; but the House ought to know who was to blame. No doubt there was a great deficiency of seasoned timber, and he quite agreed with the gallant Officer opposite that on an emergency it was better to have gunboats built of unseasoned timber than no gunboats at all; but the House ought to know what sort of designs had been given out; whether proper specifications had been drawn up; whether they had been complied with; whether the terms of the contract would inflict penalties on the contractors for their shortcomings, and whether the inspectors had done their duty. He believed that the whole matter hinged on this question of inspection. The Admiralty might say that 1104 it was difficult to get inspectors; but they might be got if they were properly paid. The Secretary of the Admiralty, he had no doubt, would do his best to probe the matter to the bottom; but everybody who knew what a public department was would acknowledge that a Committee of the House of Commons could perform the duty much more effectually. The Government should ascertain where the fault lay, and should then visit the real offenders. They ought to find out the inspectors by whom these vessels were passed, and take steps to punish them if they deserve it.
§ MR. WHITBREADwas understood to say that the Admiralty had no objection to furnish a return of the cost of the gunboats, but it was right that the House should know the exact position of this question. The Admiralty had referred the matter to their legal advisers. There was not the least intention on their part to screen any contractor who had been guilty of these practices complained of; but the question which remained for the decision of their legal advisers was whether, having had inspectors to overlook the construction, and having received these vessels, they now had the power to institute legal proceedings against the contractors. It would be singular to have legal proceedings going forward and a Committee sitting at the same time; and the course he would suggest, therefore, was that the subject should be deferred until that day week to ascertain the exact position in which the Admiralty stood. They would then be able to acquaint the House whether they intended to take legal proceedings, and, if not, it would of course be in the power of the House to appoint a Committee if it thought fit to do so. The same answer applied to the proposal of the gallant Admiral, that the names of the contractors should be published. Pending legal proceedings it was not right to do so; but hereafter, if the House thought it necessary that the names of these contractors should be given, it would be in their power to call for them. As to the best mode of keeping gunboat3, whether afloat or hauled up high and dry, it was not yet settled by the authorities which of the two modes was the better. Recently a gunboat which had been kept afloat for a number of years was examined and found to be as defective as any of those which were kept ashore. As to the question respecting the timber in the Government yards, he was not aware that there was 1105 any foundation for the statement that the Government were now using unseasoned timber there.
§ MR. WARREsaid, that as soon as this discussion went forth to the world every one who had had a contract for the construction of these gunboats would more or less become an object of observation or suspicion. It would therefore be only right that the Admiralty should publish as soon as possible a list of vessels which had been honestly and truly built. While proceedings were taken against the guilty it was due to those with whose vessels no fault had been found that their conduct should be vindicated. The iniquity of driving these short bolts could not be portrayed in too strong characters. In his opinion it was an offence little short of wilful murder to send a ship to sea so constructed that she would probably go to pieces, and it displayed an amount of wickedness for which no punishment that the law could inflict would be too great. With regard to harbours of refuge, he wished to express his earnest hope that the question would be seriously entertained by the Government. The expenditure necessary might be spread over a series of years; but no one could hear of the casualties which took place every year on the shores of the United Kingdom, so many of which casualties might be averted if there were a harbour to run to, without feeling that the question was one of national importance. The four harbours most strongly recommended by the Commission on this subject were one on the north coast of Scotland, another on the east coast of England, a third on the north coast of Cornwall, and a fourth on the west coast of Ireland. Others might be wanted, but as everything could not be done at once the Government might take these four first, and it would be well to set about them immediately.