Commons Sitting of 17 June 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3°. and passed. Administration of Criminal Justice.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from an immense number of Places, complaining of Refusal to grant Sites for the Building of Churches for the Free Church of Scotland.—By Sir John M'Taggart, from Inhabitants of the Parish of Portpatrick, for the introduction into all Railway Bills of such Provisions as may appear sufficient for securing the Observance of the Sabbath according to the Commandment.—From Proprietors in, and Inhabitants of, the City of Dublin and Neighbourhood, against the Places of Worship, &c. Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Philip Howard, from Secular Clergymen and Laymen of the Town of Maryport and its Vicinity, professing the Roman Catholic Religion, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Colquhoun, from Rural Deans and Clergy of the Rural Deaneries of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-upon-Trent, in the County of Stafford, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, but providing for the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester.—By Mr. Hope Johnstone, and Mr. Lockhart, from a great number of places, against the Abolition of the existing Religious Tests in the Universities of Scotland.—By Mr. Deedes, Mr. George Palmer, and Mr. Robert Palmer, from several places in the Counties of Kent, Essex, and Berks, for rating Owners of Small Tenements to the Poor Rates in lieu of Occupiers.—By Mr. Milner Gibson, from Owners of Houses and Small Tenements in the Borough of Manchester, and by Mr. Robert Palmer, from Owners of Tenements of Small Value in the Parish of Wokingham, against the Rating of Tenements Bill.—By Sir George Grey, from Parochial and other Clergy of the Metropolis, and from Bankers, Merchants, Traders, and others connected with the Commercial Pursuits of the City of London, for promoting the Establishment of Public Baths and Washhouses.—By Captain Pechell, from Robert Blythe, heretofore Assistant Clerk to the Commissioners of the late Property Duties and Assessed Taxes for the District of Woodbridge, in the County of Suffolk, complaining of Injury inflicted on him by the Crown, through the Instrumentality of the Solicitor to the late Board of Taxes, and praying for Inquiry.—By Mr. Young, from Clerks of Petty Sessions of the County of Cavan, for Alteration of Law respecting Clerks of Petty Sessions (Ireland).—By Sir Robert Ferguson, from Members of the Board of Guardians of the Londonderry, for Extension to Ireland of the Death by Accidents Compensation Bill.—From Masters, Wardens, and Councils of the several Chartered Trades Guilds of the City of Dublin, against the Abolition of the Guilds of Dublin.—By Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Robert Price, from several places in the Counties of Monmouth and Hereford, for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By Sir John Yarde Buller, from Ratepayers of Buckfastleigh, in the County of Devon, and by General

615
Lygon, from Board of Guardians of the Martley Union, in the County of Worcester, for Alteration of the Poor Removal Bill.—By Mr. Hope Johnstone, from Parish Schoolmasters within the Presbytery of Penpont, and from Ministers and Elders of the Presbytery of Dumfries, duly met and constituted, for the Adoption of Measures for Ameliorating the Condition of the Burgh and Parochial Schoolmasters of Scotland.

NAVY CIVIL DEPARTMENT.
On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Navy Civil Departments Bill,
SIR C. NAPIERcalled the attention of the House to the state of the administration of the Navy. He had repeatedly urged on the House the necessity of having naval men and not civilians at the Admiralty. He had also often called the attention of the House to the mode in which our ships were constructed; but he had always been met with an allegation that he was interfering with the Prerogative; and so they had gone on from bad to worse, because the Admiralty would not listen to the suggestions of any persons who were not in their own department. On foreign stations, where the interference of the Admiralty in petty details could not take effect, the ships were much better worked. The hon. and gallant Member proceeded to complain of the appointment of Surveyor of the Navy. His having built a ship the merits of which were very doubtful, was no qualification for that post. Indeed, unless a man had been bred in a dockyard, and was well acquainted with all the details, he would not be fit for such a position, however clever he might be as a scientific man. He denied that the experiments made in shipbuilding had been successful. He denied, too, that the late trials afforded any fair test of the relative merits of the old and new system of shipbuilding; for the ships were not fairly weighted, and their respective merits remained still an open question. He was very much disposed to question the accuracy of the returns which had been made on his Motion. The expense of docking at Devonport, for instance, was stated at 83 l.; but various items which ought to have been enumerated had been omitted. He did think the Admiralty had not acted properly towards the House of Commons. The helter-skelter way in which they had gone on constructing ships was owing to the Neptunes at the Admiralty, as Lord St. Vincent styled them; and millions would have been saved to the country if a different system had been adopted. He had moved for a return relative to the
616
steam vessels in the navy, that every Member of the House of Commons should have full information on that subject. When he first moved for those returns, he was met by the First Lord and the Secretary of the Admiralty with the statement, that, with reference to the public service, it was improper to give those returns, which would be accessible to Foreign Powers. But did not the Secretary possess the fullest information as to the state of the French navy? Of course the Secretary had a list of the steam vessels in the French service; and he verily believed that the French Government knew that day more about the state of the English steam navy than the House of Commons. An incorrect return had been made. He would not call it a false return, as a noble Lord on the other side of the House had styled it some time ago. What he wanted to know was, not the new scale of arrangement, but the position of the steam navy at the present moment, in the event of a war. He wanted to know the strength of the guns, and other particulars; but these had all been suppressed in the returns. It was true that the Secretary of the Admiralty had made a supplementary return; but he (Sir C. Napier) felt that he must make out a statement for himself. Beginning with the steam frigates, he begged to refer, in the first place, to the Penelope, which he had last year designated "the porpoise;" she seemed as if she was always under water; and whoever recommended that she should be cut down ought to have previously entered into calculations for the purpose of ascertaining whether she could carry the weights which she had to carry. Her main-deck guns were only 4 feet 11½ inches from the water when she had 500 tons of coals on board; and she could carry only 9½ days' supply of coals. The Terrible had no stern ports at all till he had himself pointed out the defect. When the stern ports were supplied, they were made in a part of the vessel where stern ports were never intended to be, and, in consequence, as regarded the guns, there was not sufficient power of elevation. Instead of its being practicable to elevate the guns eight, or nine, or ten degrees, they could be elevated only 1½ degree. The Retribution could point one gun forward and one aft; she could also take two of her broadside guns and point them forward; so could the Terrible. Why did not the return state so? But he did not want a return of the broadside guns that might be

617
pointed forward or aft, but of those which might be fired right ahead and right aft. There was a still more serious matter. The Terrible was a vessel of 1,840 tons, but carried only 550 tons of coal; that was to say, eight days' coal in a steam frigate almost as big as a line of battle ship. The Retribution, of 1,641 tons, carried only 540 tons of coal, and the Vulture carried only 420 tons of coal. Here were those vessels built for frigates carrying only eight days' coal. He asked why when these vessels carried so few guns, they did not call them by their proper names—steam corvettes? If there was a war, there would be French steam frigates mounting fourteen guns; and what was likely to be the result if they fell in with vessels which were nothing more than steam corvettes? He maintained that there was not one of them at the present moment that was deserving of the name of a man-of-war. No attention had been paid by the Admiralty, the Surveyor of the Navy, or the Inspector of Steam Machinery, to placing the engines and boilers in a proper manner. All the steam-boxes were five or six feet above the water; every one must see that if, in action, a single twelve or twenty-four pounder struck the steam-box, every man below must be destroyed—must be boiled to death or fried to a cinder. Let the Admiralty try it; he would give the Board any one of their steamers; let them go down into the engine room under water, and let him (Sir C. Napier) take a gunboat and fire a twelve-pound carronade shot through the steam-box, the First Lord of the Treasury might make out new patents for fresh Lords of the Admiralty as soon as he liked, for none of them would ever come on deck again. In case of a war, which might take place to-morrow, the whole steam fleet would be sent to sea; the country would expect great things from the commander; with a force of 10,000 or 15,000 men it would expect the war to be put an end to in three months; but the very first shot that went through one of these steam-boxes would destroy every man below; it would be impossible to prevent it. It had happened once in the river, and every one was scalded to death. There was no earthly means of escape. If such a thing happened, they could not expect to get a single engineer to serve on board these vessels. It was the bounden duty of the Admiralty to ascertain whether these vessels were fit for war or not; if they were not, they should
618
correct their error at once. It could be done; Mr. Seaward, in the steamer built by him (Sir Charles Napier), had succeeded in placing the steam-box under water; and it ought to have been done fifteen years ago. Then with respect to cutting down ships, which was an acknowledgment they did not know how to build them, they had since 1800 cut down eight three-deckers into 80-gun ships, because they were so excessively crank; thirteen two-deckers had been cut down to frigates. When the first one or two were cut down, he had not much to say about it; but after finding from experience that they could not stow their water, provisions, and men, was it wise or proper to go on, and cut down thirteen? After it was proved to demonstration that our 46 and 42-gun frigates were not fit to fight the American frigates, they went on, and after 1815 built forty-five of that description. And now the Admiralty were cutting them all down into corvettes—why was that? Surely 42-gun frigates were better than21-gun corvettes. He had moved for a return of the expense of cutting them down, and here was another proof of the way in which the House was treated in its returns; the Admiralty said it "had no means of ascertaining the expense of cutting down" these vessels. Now, he knew they had the power of ascertaining the expense of cutting down every ship. The bulwarks of these corvettes were so low, that if any one who had been in action would tell him that the men could stand to their quarters so exposed, he would say he knew nothing about it. When he was a young man he commanded a frigate that was very high out of the water, and he had the hammocks taken down from the nettings; afterwards, when in action on the coast of Calabria, the musket balls flew about them pretty thick, and he assured them the hammocks were all stowed as usual the day afterwards. A large number of ships had had their sterns altered, and it was said there was no way of ascertaining the expense of it; yet the Admiralty had made a return of such an expense two years before, and were perfectly able to do it at the present moment. In the same way they said they could not ascertain the expense of altering the magazines; yet they had given a return of that expense last year. They had an immense list of new ships, besides those on the stocks: what was the use of going on year after year building such enormous ships? At the present moment it was

619
very doubtful whether a few years hence it would not be necessary to give over building large ships altogether: he did not mean to say the Admiralty should not keep up a certain number; but if they had fifty sail of the line, and the slips full besides, it was more than they wanted, and more than they could possibly man. Every year the estimates for building ships increased; for last year the estimate was 1,300,000 l., this year it was 1,600,000 l. He could not consent to such an estimate again unless their system was changed. He believed the errors the Admiralty had fallen into arose entirely from the construction of the Board. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) added one Lord to it, and divided its business into five or six departments. The First Lord took all the patronage: that he believed was his department; another had the building of all the ships under his control; another the stores; another the victualling and medical department. Now, so immense a labour as attending to the building of all the ships of the navy was totally impossible for any man to perform; the best excuse for the gallant Officer who had charge of that department was to say he could not attend to all its duties. The consequence was, the business was left to the Surveyor of the Navy, who had gone on upon his own system at an enormous expense, without a bit of improvement. He had had the construction of a vessel himself, and it had occupied all his time and attention; he had consulted builders, captains, officers experienced in steam ships, and engineers. Had the gallant Officer ever brought such men together to consult upon any one point? If there was so much trouble in building one ship, what must be the task of the officer who had charge of all the navy? This was the cause of the inferiority of our steam navy to private and merchant steamers. There was not a builder in Glasgow, or the river, who would not produce better steamers than were to be found in the navy. The Cunard steamers sailed to Halifax and the West Indies in all seasons, and carried coals enough to cross the Atlantic with cargo and an immense number of passengers; the Scotch and Irish boats sailed winter and summer; but the moment the Admiralty sent a squadron to sea, the steamers had to put back into port perfect wrecks! This arose from nothing but ignorance, downright ignorance, and giving the building of the vessels entirely to one man. Every one of these
620
ships, with one or two exceptions, had been built by the Surveyor to the Navy, and it had, therefore, been impossible to avoid making some of those errors which he (Sir C. Napier) had pointed out. He should show an instance of gross ignorance. A frigate called the Fox had been given to be built to a Mr. White; that gentleman did not know much about gunnery, and he said, "I'll make her sail, but I can't answer for what she'll do with her guns;" and so it turned out that when a trial was made, the Fox could not point her guns. But no attention was paid to that circumstance; and afterwards, when the Amphion was building at Woolwich, it was directed that she should be constructed with the same bows as those of the Fox; her original bow was removed, and the new one put up at an expense of 6,650 l., and the same defect then appeared in the Amphion as had before appeared in the Fox. Then, to make bad worse, they made a steamer of her; and to give space for the engines she was deprived of the whole of her main deck, and various other alterations, which produced great inconvenience, were effected. All that was sought for by this change would have been gained had she been left as at first, in cases of necessity to be taken in tow by a steamer. The gun-ships which they called block-ships had been constructed also on a very bad principle; they would not, after all, sail more than five knots an hour; and they would have been just as efficient if left to be towed by steamers. He thought he had now pointed out many of the errors committed by the Board of Admiralty: he was not alluding to the gallant Officer (Sir G. Cockburn) in particular; the system was a bad one, and had been the same from time immemorial. He had been anxious to see a change in that Board; and when it had been changed, it had been his wish to see it divided, as in the Ordnance, into different departments. That was the object of his present Bill. It was of little use for him to speak of the propriety of a naval Lord being made First Lord—it was all nonsense to expect anything of the kind; for there were always too many civilians who must have precedence. It was his object that one of the Lords should have the entire management of the dockyards; that another should be at the head of the medical and victualling department. Such had been his opinion; but the right hon. Gentleman, it was supposed, knew a great deal better, and the Admiralty remained

621
as it was. The placing the Lords at the head of the different departments was a mere conventional matter; they were not in reality responsible, and could always shift the responsibility to the surveyor and to others. The several Lords should have a designation, in order to let the public know who was and who was not to blame when an error was committed; but at this time it would be, he knew, disadvantageous to the service to be exposed to different administrations, just as Ministries changed, and a new set of men, totally ignorant of the duties to de performed, came in. It, on reflection, appeared to him that it would be a much better plan for the Admiralty to have the power of appointing a comptroller of the dockyards, and another comptroller of the medical and victualling departments, such officers not to have seats at the Board. If they were to have seats at the Board, things would remain as before; because it was perfectly impossible that a man would find fault with his colleague. Had the Lords of the Admiralty ever found fault with the gallant Officer for bad shipbuilding? Not one of them. But if a man, responsible as the head of a department, had permitted a shipbuilder to launch such a ship as the Terrible, fault would have been found with him, and he would have been put out of his situation as being incapable of executing the duties intrusted to him. It would, in fact, be best if the Admiralty were ruled by one man; but as there was no prospect of that, it was best that it should be ruled by three men—the First Lord and two others. With three, they were always sure of a majority; but when they had six to consult, it was difficult to come to any decision; and the consequence was never-ending procrastination and delay, for which no one was to blame, for they could not say who was responsible. What could be the objection of the Admiralty to send Captain Rous out of the Admiralty to Somerset-house, and to make him a superintendent of the medical and victualling department, to correspond directly with the Lords, and to take orders from the Admiralty? They would then have an effectual management, and would no longer have two Lords going on board a ship once a year, looking at her and doing nothing more; for it was not to be expected that they would find fault with the captain. It might be said that this was proposing to give too much power to a superintendent; but he would hold his situation at the will of the Admiralty; and
622
if Captain Rous attended to his particular department alone, they could not doubt that it would be carried on ten thousand times better than at present. It would be giving to him much less duty than that performed by the gallant Officer now. The junior Lords of the Admiralty were worse off than clerks. Did a First Lord ever allow them to object to anything? [Sir G. COCKBURN: Yes.] Then all he (Sir C. Napier) had to say was that it was different from what it used to be. Why, would the gallant Officer let a captain talk to him? Certainly not. The comptroller of the dockyard should not confine the shipbuilding to the builders in the dockyard. If he could find cleverer men outside he should go to them; and the plans ought to be submitted to and examined by the surveyor. Had there been such an officer as he had spoken of, instead of having, as they now had, as bad frigates as it was possible to construct, they would have had a magnificent fleet. The last part of the Bill before them would, he thought, prove extremely advantageous. The Admiralty had themselves admitted they were wrong when they appointed a Commission; but as this Commission had not been permanent, as recommended, little benefit could have been derived from its labours. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
VISCOUNT INGESTREsaid, he was desirous of seconding the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend; for he considered that the measure now brought forward was one of very great importance. Since he enjoyed a seat in that House, he had to the best of his ability supported the interests of the navy, believing them to be inseparably connected with the true interests of the country. He took that course upon public grounds: he had always pursued it without reference to any party consideration whatever; and in giving his support to the present Bill, he begged it to be understood that he meant to cast no reflection whatever upon the Board of Admiralty. He entertained a great respect for those who composed that Board; and he doubted not that they were all truly anxious to do their duty. With reference to the Navy Board—which the Board of Admiralty found to be an imperium in imperio—its abolition was certainly an improvement for this amongst other reasons—that the Admiralty experienced no small difficulty in controlling the operations of the Navy Board; but, in getting rid of that

623
Board, they had perhaps gone a little too far. He certainly was not for making it a sine qua non that the First Lord of the Admiralty should be a naval officer; on the contrary, he thought it would in many cases be better to have him a civilian, though exceptions to that rule might occasionally arise; unfortunately, however, the responsibility was so divided, that the Board was absolutely inefficient. He did not wish, upon the present occasion, to detain the House with any lengthened discourse; but he felt it impossible to let that opportunity pass of calling attention to the garbled, twisted, and imperfect manner in which returns respecting the navy were made to that House. He had made several attempts to ascertain various expenses; but the returns were incomplete, and were not signed by any person. He wished to compare the war and the peace expenses of the navy; but unfortunately not one of the returns laid before the House enabled him to accomplish that object. Again, he thought the House had a right to complain of the unscientific plans upon which the Admiralty were accustomed to proceed. He thought that there should be a Board of Construction, to which all plans ought to be referred; and thus the vessels of the British navy would become models of skill, and not be built, as at present, haphazard. As to the ships built according to the plans of the present Surveyor of the Navy, it was to be expected that they should roll. Before he sat down, he wished to inquire whether the House might not hope for a more detailed report from Admiral Sir William Parker respecting the experimental squadron of last year? The House merely received formal letters accompanying the report; but substantial and practical information was not supplied either by the report or the letters. He wished to add one word respecting the size of steam vessels. In his opinion many which had recently been built were too large. The Surveyor of the Navy ought not to be allowed to build ships, but to survey those which other persons built. There ought to be a board with a surveyor at its head. He would merely add, that he should support this Bill, as it would tend to obviate the present difficulties, put a stop to the present extraordinary expenditure, and place the navy upon a footing commensurate with the importance of that branch of the service.
MR. CORRYsaid, that when the gallant
624
Officer favoured him with the intimation of his intention to bring in this Bill, he told the gallant Officer that, although he should not oppose its introduction, he could give him no expectation that it would be in his power to support the Bill in any of its future stages; and, now that he had heard the gallant Officer's explanation of the Bill, he was not more disposed to give it his support than from what he previously knew of the gallant Officer's sentiments on this subject. In fact, a more objectionable measure it was very difficult to conceive. The gallant Officer proposed to reduce the number of the Lords of the Admiralty from six to three, and to appoint in their place three controllers, viz., a controller of the dockyards, another of the medical department, and a third of the accounts. So far the measure was tantamount in principle to a reconstruction of the Navy Board, with this very serious objection added—that whilst the powers of the Navy Board were vested in five or six individuals, the powers conferred by this Bill were to be vested in only one, as the head of his particular department. In two of those departments the only qualification to be required was, that the one controller should have served five years as controller in some dockyard, and the other the like period in a victualling-yard. But at the present moment there were only five persons who, according to that provision, would be qualified for the former office, and but three for the latter. Then, again, the individuals elected for those offices were to be nominated, not by the Crown, but by the Admiralty, so that they would not be responsible to Parliament; and any one in the slightest degree conversant with the public business of this country must know that those officers would soon be subordinate only in name, and that the whole executive power would be vested in them. It was monstrous that such powers as were proposed by this Bill should be placed in the hands of any single individual, and he not nominated by the Crown. These were his objections to the Bill, as far as related to the controllers of dockyards and the victualling department; but the provisions of the Bill as to the controller of accounts were more extraordinary, for that officer would have to bring forward the estimates for the naval service, and yet the Bill did not oblige him to have a seat in Parliament. But the alterations proposed to be made by this Bill would greatly increase the labour of the establishment, and consequently its expense. The objections

625
to the Bill were so great that the House would excuse him if he did not go through all the details of the gallant Officer's speech; but before he sat down he must refer to one or two of his statements. The gallant Officer had complained of the manner in which the shipbuilding connected with the Admiralty was conducted. Upon that point he could inform the gallant Officer that Her Majesty's Government had recently appointed a Commission composed of the most eminent practical men, to inquire into the subject; but as to the gallant Officer's charge, that the steamers were the worst that could be built, he utterly denied it. The greatest possible pains had been taken to improve the building of steamers; and with respect to those to which the screw-propeller was applied, the experiments which had been made with the Rattler gave him the utmost confidence in the result. Then the gallant Officer said that all the steamers in the navy were built by one person. He found, however, from the returns that the total number of steamers built in the last five years was fifty-four, and that of that number not less than thirty-four were constructed upon lines other than those of the Surveyor of the Navy, so that twenty only had been constructed by that officer. With reference to that vessel which the gallant Officer had spoken of as having been altered, he could inform the gallant Officer, that the Admiralty being anxious to apply the screw to common sailing vessels, this vessel had only been altered in length, in order to give effect to the experiments that were made with a view to that object. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord who had last spoken with respect to any report from Admiral Parker, he had only to say that that officer had not, as far as he was aware, sent any further report as to the sailing qualities of the experimental squadron under his command than that which appeared in the returns before the House. Having stated his objections to this Bill, he would not detain the House further upon the subject than to call upon them not to allow the naval service to be tampered with by such a Bill as this, and to support him in the Motion he then made, that this Bill be read a second time that day six months.
CAPTAIN PECHELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, in moving his Amendment, must have forgotten that the measure had been sanctioned by the very high authority of Captain Rous, while filling the
626
office of Lord of the Admiralty, and it also had the concurrence of the noble Lord the Member for Staffordshire. As for his part, as he was most anxious to improve the service in every respect, he felt it his duty, and it was also the duty of the House, to pass a Bill which would in his opinion correct those evils which had been so fully proved to exist in the naval department. The gallant Commodore had shown a great many reasons why an improvement should take place, particularly in the construction of ships; but that was now so neglected as to prove how totally reckless the Government was in that respect. He was, however, willing to confess, that while on many occasions the Admiralty did act in the spirit of fairness, yet he had also to state that they had too often allowed that competition to take place which tended to the injury of the surveyors of the navy—and knowing that to be so, he could not join with the gallant Commodore in his condemnation of the surveyors of the navy. That led him to observe that he would object to any committee of shipbuilders to the total exclusion of the services of the surveyors of the navy. While the gallant Commodore had given substantial reasons for improvement, and while his Bill would effect much good, yet he feared it would not accomplish all the objects the gallant Officer had in view. Without doubt a great change was required in the Board of Admiralty, but how to effect it was the question. It was most desirable that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have it in his power, without risk of loss of office, to act in accordance with what he conceived to be the interest of the navy. As, in his opinion, the Surveyor of the Navy was deserving of the highest respect, the Admiralty, in endeavouring to get rid of him, were acting a very unwise and unjust part. The gallant Admiral (Sir E. Cockburn) would hereafter be called upon to produce a certain document, by which it had been agreed by the members of the Admiralty to make the Surveyor of the Navy a perfect cipher. He was very glad that the Bill proposed to maintain the services of the Secretary of the Admiralty, who was admitted by all to be a very efficient officer. This Bill, although, as he said before, it would not effect all that was desirable, yet he was at all times ready to vote for a Motion that would have the effect of improving the present management of the navy, and he should therefore vote for the second reading.
CAPTAIN BERKELEYbegged to say, for his gallant Friend Captain Rous, that that gallant officer knew nothing of the Bill, and totally repudiated it.
SIR G. COCKBURN, in reference to the complaint that the present Surveyor of the Navy was allowed to have so much power without interference on the part of the Admiralty, said that one of the earliest things done by the present Board of Admiralty was to have a committee of shipbuilders to meet at Woolwich, to take into consideration the present mode of building ships, and to give their opinion thereon. They had made a report, and the Surveyor had made his remarks on their report. The next thing done by the present Board of Admiralty was, to pick out three of the most distinguished persons in the School of Naval Architecture, who were to state in what respect the present form of shipbuilding was erroneous, and what improvements could be made. In reference to the observation, that they had made a committee of which the Surveyor of the Navy was not a member, he had to say that they had done everything to obtain every scientific information on the subject of vessels. With reference to the guard-ships, these ships had been prepared for the purpose of protecting the harbours at home.
CAPTAIN PLUMRIDGEsaid, that there was no finer ships than the Vernon, the Vanguard, and the Queen. He defended the conduct of the Surveyor of the Navy, who, he contended, had not had fair play, either in or out of the House.
MR. CHARLES WOODopposed the Bill, because it proposed to undo a great deal of what had been done by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) in abolishing the Navy Board.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERreplied: With regard to what had been said about Captain Rous, he begged to explain that he had spoken to the gallant Captain, when he was a Member of the House, upon the subject. The Speaker had asked him whose name was to appear on the back of the Bill, and he had at once spoken to Captain Rous, who, as it was a mere matter of form, gave permission to have his name placed upon it. Since that period, however, his gallant Friend had ceased to be a Member of the House; and as Captain Berkeley, now speaking for him, said he knew nothing about the Bill, and totally repudiated it, he (Sir Charles Napier) could only say that he was not surprised at that, inasmuch as the gallant
628
Captain was now a member of the Board of Admiralty. As to the explanations given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he was not all satisfied with them. He disapproved of the new system of teaching British seamen to play the game of long bowls with the enemy. What had made the navy hitherto invincible was the habit of reserving their fire and laying themselves close alongside an enemy's ship. But if once they contracted the habit of playing at bowls they were ruined. Now as to the adoption of the screw propeller; the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that eleven ships had been built and fitted with the screw. [Mr. CORRY: Fifteen.] Fifteen! So much the worse. He considered that it would never be found to answer. He had had paddles applied to his ship, and they answered very well. He thought that all the sailing vessels should be supplied with engines and paddles, in order to enable them to move when becalmed, or in confined positions; but he disapproved totally of the screw. One word before he concluded, in reply to the objection made by his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Wood) to the Bill, that it would re-establish the Navy Board; he begged to say that it would do no such thing. Nothing could be further from his wish than to re-establish the Navy Board, and there was no provision in the Bill for such a purpose.
The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question. The numbers were:—Ayes 11; Noes 107: Majority 96.

List of the AYES.

Bridgeman, H.

Plumridge, Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

Power, J.

James, W.

Rashleigh, W.

M'Carthy, A.

Wawn, J. T.

Martin, J.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Napier, Sir C.

Pechell, Capt.

Ingestre, Visct.

List of the NOES.

Alexander, N.

Buck, L. W.

Allix, J. P.

Burroughes, H. N.

Antrobus, E.

Cardwell, E.

Arkwright, G.

Carew, W. H. P.

Austen, Col.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Bailey, J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baillie, Col.

Clive, Visct.

Baine, W.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Barkly, H.

Compton, H. C.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Blackburne, J. I.

Damer, hon. Col.

Bowles, Adm.

Deedes, W.

Brotherton, J.

Divett, E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Douglas, Sir H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

629

Duncombe, hon. A.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Dundas, Adm.

Meynell, Capt.

Du Pre, C. G.

Miles, P. W. S.

East, J. B.

Miles, W.

Escott, B.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Fellowes, E.

Neeld, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Neville, R.

Finch, G.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Packe, C. W.

Forbes, W.

Palmer, R.

Forster, M.

Palmer, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Peel, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Gill, T.

Reid, Col.

Godson, R.

Round, C. G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Round, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Scrope, G. P.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Seymer, H. K.

Greene, T.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Grimsditch, T.

Sheppard, T.

Grogan, E.

Smith, A.

Hale, R. B.

Smythe, hon. G.

Hamilton, G. A.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Spooner, R.

Henley, J. W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Stuart, H.

Hodgson, R.

Sutton, hon. H.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hope, Sir J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Hume, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Jermyn, Earl

Trotter, J.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Turner, E.

Jones, Capt.

Vesey, hon. T.

Legh, G. C.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Lincoln, Earl of

Wodehouse, E.

Lockhart, W.

Wood, C.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Mackenzie, W. F.

TELLERS.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Baring, H. B.

M'Neill, D.

Cripps, W.

Main Question as amended agreed to. Bill put off for six months.

RATING OF TENEMENTS BILL.
MR. ALLIXmoved the Second Reading of the Rating of Tenements Bill.
MR. R. PALMERcomplained that the Bill should be forward at such a late hour, and expressed his opinion that it was a measure which ought not to be adopted without careful and mature consideration.
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, that this Bill would discourage the building of houses for the poorer classes. The effect of rendering the owners of small tenements liable for rates would be to discourage the investment of capital in the erection of houses for the labouring population. There was no doubt that the physical comforts and moral habits of the poorer classes depended, to a great extent, on the character of their habitations; and it appeared, from returns on this subject, that in this metropolis, and in large towns, as well as in the country, great numbers of the poor were crowded into small houses, and in many cases entire families occupied
630
only one room. He thought, then, that the Legislature ought to afford every encouragement to the providing of comfortable habitations for the poorer classes. Under the existing law the poorer classes were exempted from rates; for, by the 54th George III., magistrates were enabled, on the recommendation of overseers, to exempt poor persons from the poor rate. This enactment, however, was practically attended with great inconvenience; for those who claimed exemption had to make an appeal to the overseer, and then to appear before the magistrates, to establish their case—a proceeding which involved considerable loss of time. He considered that the best course would be to introduce a measure exempting the occupiers of tenements under a rental of 6l. a year from the payment of rates. The object of the promoters of this Bill was evidently to discourage the building of small houses, for the petitions in its favour emanated from ratepayers, who complained that under the present law persons were induced to come into their parishes and build small tenements. The principle upon which the exemption under the 54th George III. was adopted was this—that there was a large class of persons who, though not actually receiving parochial relief, were on the verge of pauperism, and who, therefore, could not properly be called upon to pay poor rates. The moment the Bill now before the House came into operation this exemption, which applied to hundreds of thousands of cases, would at once cease. But did they think the landlords would not take care, if they were chargeable with the rate, to put it upon the occupiers in the shape of an increased rent? There could be no doubt they would do so. The Poor Removal Bill might make it the interest of many landlords to pull down cottages in order to prevent a right to relief, irremovable, being acquired by residence, and here was another Bill with the same tendency. Many small cottages paid next to no rent, and were scarcely worth repairing: the owner would not find it worth his while to pay rates for them. The Bill would amount to a penalty on building them, and must lessen the comforts of the poor. It was easy for ratepayers to complain of such property not being rated now; but this was not the only property exempt; there was funded property. Stock in trade, which was legally liable to be rated, was exempted by an annual Bill. If exemption from poor

631
rate were made dependent on the cottages being properly drained and ventilated, that would tend to meet the objection made to sanatory recommendations, that the poor man's house could not pay more than at present. Under all circumstances, he (Mr. P. Scrope) would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
MR. HAWESsuggested, that as it was near six o'clock, the debate had better be adjourned, and the rest of the Orders of the Day might then be disposed of.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at six o'clock.