SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 5 March 1841)

§ Mr. Hume
enquired whether any portion of the stores, cannon and ball, landed in Syria had been supplied from the naval stores.

§ Lord Dalmeny
None whatever.

§ Sir Thomas Cochrane
would recommend the Admiralty to make an addition to the number of large frigates. We had now sixteen frigates of fifty guns, of which ten were razées, whilst the neighbouring 1357 power of France had nineteen frigates of fifty guns and upwards, besides sixteen on the stocks, making together thirty-five heavy frigates. Therefore our forty-six gun frigates would be unable to cope with the larger frigates now building abroad. In another branch, also, he hoped to see an increase; he meant the steam force, than which there was no force so likely to maintain the supremacy of this country. By the Navy List, it appeared that the number of our steam ships was forty-nine; what their size was he was unable to state, but there were only six now building. By a return which he bad of the French navy, he found that they had thirty-three steamers afloat, and they were building no less than eleven. If this return were accurate, it was unquestionable that we were not building sufficient steamers to contend with that power in case of war. He hoped, therefore, that the Admiralty intended to augment the fleet, that let war break out when it might, our superiority might be as great as it had ever been.

§ Sir C. Adam
said, that the gallant Officer had stated, that we had already a large number of frigates, and he did not differ from him that they should be ultimately increased; but what he had ever held was, that so long, as we had so large a number of small seventy-fours, the frigates were not so much needed, because he maintained that even sixty-gun frigates were not equal to seventy-four gun ships. So long as we had these line-of-battle ships we were not inferior, because the great use of large frigates was, that, sailing better than others, they could come up to the rear of the enemy's fleet and bring them to battle, and if the seventy-four-gun ships could do this they were better than frigates. With respect to armed steamers, the steam-fleet had been much increased, and the Admiralty would go on year by year building as many as they ought to do consistently with economy and with reference to the power of other states. They had launched seven this year, six or seven more were on the stocks, and they were entering into a contract for engines for six or seven more large steamers. The gallant officer and the House might therefore rest assured that the subject would not be neglected by the Admiralty.

§ Sir T. Cochrane
differed from the gallant Admiral as to the efficiency of small line-of-battle ships instead of frigates.

§ Sir C. Adam
said, that it should be remarked that the seventy-four-gun ships were much more efficient now than formerly, because they carried thirty-two-pounders on all their decks.

§ Captain Pechell
said, that first the Admiralty were blamed for not launching so many line-of-battle ships, and now they were blamed for not building more steamers; both these causes could not be correct. The fact was, that at the conclusion of the last war we were left with a legacy of forty sail-of-the-line, which were then called, and still deserved the name of, the Forty Thieves, and the gallant Gentleman should know that we could not launch other ships till we had worn out these. As to steamers, the minister of marine in France had made it a matter of complaint to the chambers that the French steamers, when compared with the English, were not at all equal to them. With respect tn the Gorgon, the Stromboli, the Phœnix, and the Vesuvius, there were none equal to them known abroad. If any gallant Gentleman said, that we were deficient in steamers, it would appear that he had not looked at one of the despatches from Acre, or heard of the eminent services performed by the steamers in transporting troops, and on other services, and did not know that Admiral Stopford had thought one steamer and one frigate sufficient to be left to take care of Sidon.

§ Sir James Graham
wished for some explanation as to one item in this vote. When he had the honour to preside at the Admiralty this country was fortunately at peace, and the best relations subsisted between us and the United States; and at that time it was determined, after great deliberation, to abandon all attempt to dispute the superiority on the lakes of Canada. But he saw by the present vote, that there was a sum of 20,000l entered for the building and purchase of steam-vessels in Canada. He would ask, therefore, for what purpose this purchase was to be made, and whether there was any change to be made in that policy, which he had described, of deliberately abandoning all attempts at contesting the superiority on the lakes?

§ Mr. More O'Ferrall
replied, that no change was intended in the policy described by the right hon. Gentleman. The steamers were not armed steamers, but they were provided with the view of more easily transporting the troops on the lakes.

§ Mr. Hume
had thought, that peace had been restored in Canada, and that now, when the union had been declared, they would not have heard of a vote which had not been asked in former years.

§ Lord J. Russell
assured the hon. Gentleman, that the vote was not in consequence of any anticipated disturbance, or to put down any internal disturbances that might arise in Canada, but for the more easy transport of troops already there, and with regard to Lake Ontario, he thought that if there should unfortunately be, what he had no reason to suppose, any disturbance of the friendly relations subsisting between this country and the United States, he should not be prepared to say, that we ought not to have a force on the lake.

§ Sir J. Graham
said, that the opinion of the best authorities, when he was at the Admiralty, was, that in case of war, the defence of Upper Canada must rest rather on the affections of the people, and on the military, than on our naval forces.

§ Mr. C. Wood
said, that the change took place from the policy described by the right hon. Gentleman two or three years ago, during the time of the insurrection in Canada, and it was necessary, not for the purpose of asserting our naval supremacy, but for transporting troops. Steam-boats were, therefore, used on the Lakes Ontario and Erie, without intending any change in the general policy of entrusting the defence of the colony to the military, but as an auxiliary to that force. Hon. Members would recollect an irruption into Canada at the upper part of Lake Erie; the troops were at the junction of the two lakes, and there was difficulty in obtaining transports for them, because there were no steam-boats, except those belonging to the Americans, and they were so much engaged in the ordinary traffic, that the hire of a steamer for a year and a half or two years exceeded the original cost of the vessel.

Sir De Lacy
Evans said, that it was most inconvenient for hon. Members to state in that House what the Government might have decided, as to a particular line of defence in any part of our possessions, in case of any future war.

§ Mr. Hume
wished it to be understood by the House and the country, that we were now called upon to vote 1,282,536l. for naval stores, whereas the utmost that 1360 used to be asked in lime of peace was 400,000l. or 500,000l., or at most 600,000l. This was the way in which the public money was expended, to keep up the naval stores to a war complement, when we were declared to be at peace. If the House chose to keep up such a large amount, he must rest satisfied with doing his duty by protesting against it. He had opposed the grant of so many men, and as that had been carried against him, it would be useless to divide against the present vote.

§ Mr. Goulburn
referred to an item of 193,000l. which was in the vote for Post-office expenses. He had taken the liberty on a former evening of referring to the state of the Post-office revenue, and he begged to point out that this afforded another means of estimating the manner in which the receipts of the Post-office had been swelled out. The amount charged last year was only 65,000l., showing an increase of 12,800l., which was caused by the Admiralty having taken a great part of the charge from the Post-office.

§ Mr. Hume
hoped before long to see the Post-office so conducted as that it would not be looked upon as a source of revenue.

§ Mr. C. Wood
said, that the system which had been adopted had been found to produce the best effects in relation to the carriage of letters. The expenses were now entirely paid by the amount of postage charged.

§ Mr. Hume
wished to know whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to adopt any new system of telegraph between London and Portsmouth. A new plan had been suggested, by which communication might be kept up day or night, with the greatest precision and rapidity.

§ Mr. M. O'Ferrall
said, that the subject had been under consideration, but as yet no positive decision had been arrived at upon it.

§ Captain Pechell
begged to suggest, that the case of the pay of admirals' secretaries was worthy of some attention. They were selected from among the pursers in the navy, and before the naval commission their salary had amounted to 1361 299l. per annum; since then, it had been increased to 300l.: an amount of pay which he thought inadequate.

§ Sir C. Adam
said, that the report of the commission had been acted upon, and he saw no reason for any alteration being made in an arrangement so recently made.

§ Captain Pechell
wished to know whether the Lieutenant-governor of Greenwich Hospital was in the receipt of his half-pay, as well as of the amount of the salary to which he was entitled.

§ Sir C. Adam
answered in the negative. It was not usual for the Lieutenant-governor of Greenwich Hospital to receive half-pay, and he knew no reason for altering the present state of things. The office was one of emolument, and although there was no doubt that the addition of half-pay might be agreeable, he did not at present feel that any reason existed for any new arrangement.

§ Sir H. Hardinge
thought, that it was important that the naval and military services should be assimilated. Sir Charles Walker, the Lieutenant-governor of Chelsea Hospital, received his military pay as well as the emoluments of his office, and he saw no reason why the same rule should not be adopted in reference to Sir James Gordon, the Lieutenant-governor of Greenwich Hospital.

§ Mr. C. Wood
pointed out, that the Lieutenant-governor of Greenwich Hospital, being an officer on half-pay, could not receive his half-pay at the same time as the salary of his office. The case was expressly provided for by act of Parliament which forbade the receipt of pay and salary at the same time. Sir C. Walker was an officer on full pay, which might account for the distinction in his case.