SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 09 March 1857 vol 144 cc2095-111

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.

MR. GLADSTONE,

who had given notice of his intention of moving, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, that in order to secure to the Country that relief from taxation which it justly expects, it is necessary, in the judgment of the House, to revise and further reduce the Expenditure of the State, said, that owing to his attention having been called away at the moment by the noble Lord the Member for London, he had accidentally allowed the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair to escape him. He wished to know whether it was competent for him to make the Motion of which he had given notice?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, the right hon. Gentleman's notice was upon going into Committee of Supply. That question had been put, and the House had gone into Committee. It would be better, therefore, to proceed with the business of the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

remarked that the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was one that could not be proposed in Committee of Supply.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he had given notice of his intention to move a Committee of Supply and he had done so, and was, he believed, entitled to proceed.

MR. GLADSTONE

explained that he had omitted to move his Resolution at the proper moment in consequence of his attention having been engaged by the noble Lord. Three Motions which stood before his own had been withdrawn. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) would waive his privilege and allow the House to resume, in order that he (Mr. Gladstone) might make his statement. He had no disposition to interfere unnecessarily with the progress of public business, and therefore trusted that his request would be acceded to; but if the right hon. Gentleman stood upon his privilege it could not be helped.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

was sorry to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman, but did not think it was desirable to delay the progress of public business. The right hon. Gentleman had already that evening addressed the House at some length, and he (Sir C. Wood) hoped he should not be considered discourteous in. proceeding with his statement.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

bore witness that it was by no fault of the right hon. Member for the University that he had allowed the Motion for going into Committee to escape him. He (Lord J. Russell) had gone to the right hon. Gentleman to inquire whether it was his intention to bring forward his Motion, and it was while his right hon. Friend was replying to that inquiry that the Motion for going into Committee was made. Under those circumstances the First Lord of the Admiralty could, of course, take his own course; but as a matter of courtesy, perhaps, he would give way to the right hon. Gentleman's request.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

imputed no blame to the right hon. Gentleman for not making his Motion at the proper time, but thought it for the convenience of the House and the public that he should proceed with his own statement.

I do not, Sir, propose to detain the House at any length upon the present occasion. I believe it is the wish of the House to grant Votes on account and no more, therefore any lengthened statement from me at present is unnecessary. When the whole Votes are taken and the whole Estimates are before the new Parliament will be the proper time for a full and complete statement. I propose now only to take sums on account of each Vote, equal to about one third of the whole amount of each item. That will cover a sufficient time after the probable meeting of the new Parliament to allow ample and complete discussion of the whole estimates. If the House wishes me now to make any lengthened statement I will do so, but otherwise I will proceed at once to the various items. There is only one point which I wish to mention specifically, and that is in regard to the number of men required for the public service. I have not been able to reduce the number of men employed to as great an extent as I desired; but that has mainly arisen from unwillingness of the seamen to leave the service. A large proportion of the men in our navy consists of continuous service men who cannot be discharged when the ship is paid off; and, although we have paid off every ship which has served her time, the number of men is still higher than I had wished it to be. Only the other day the Dauntless was paid off, and every man on board was a continuous service man, and, although the whole ship's company was paid off, not a man left the service. More than that, a privilege has long been conceded to the old seamen when their ships are paid off, before taking the leave to which they are entitled, to enter their names upon the books of the flag-ship, and still continue in the service. Considering that these are old men-of-war's men, I think that the House will agree that we did right in not depriving them of this privilege when they desire still to remain in their country's service. This must be a gratifying circumstance to the nation; but, at the same time, it will explain why so large a reduction as was intended has not been made. No ships have been commissioned except for the necessary relief of others whose time of service has expired, and every means has been taken to reduce the number of men employed as far as practicable, having due regard to the valuable old sea- men whom I have mentioned. Under these circumstances, I trust the House will be as indulgent to us as we have been indulgent to the old seamen. I have no other point to mention now, but am ready to answer any questions which hon. Members may wish to put to me.

1. 53,700 men and boys for the sea and coast-guard services for four months ending on the 31st day of July, 1857, including 15,000 Royal Marines.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

wished to call the attention of the Committee to two or three points connected with these Estimates, with a view of having them explained by the right hon. Baronet. He found that in the expenditure of last year there had been several deviations from the Votes of the House—those on some items being greatly extended, on others curtailed. Several items, too, were jumbled up in one Vote, so that it was impossible to know the sum required to be spent on any one of them in particular. He had thought that it would be better to refer the Estimates to a Select Committee, as it was only by such means they would be able to unravel the intricacies with which they abounded. It did not come within the province of the Auditor to correct any over expenditure, and thus Government was enabled to apply the public money without the sanction of Parliament. Under existing circumstances, however, he would not propose a Committee. In one return the Auditor stated that on each one of nineteen items there had been more expended than had been voted, and that on five others the expenditure had been less than that authorised by Parliament, the balance against the nation amounting to £.323.000. That indicated a state of things which ought to be inquired into by a Committee. They were now called on to vote 33,000 seamen and 15.000 marines, while during the war they voted 60,000 seamen and 16,000 marines. In 1841, too, the year of peace, in which they had voted the greatest number of men, the seamen numbered 32,500, and the marines 10,500. From a comparison of these figures he was led to think it very extraordinary that in proportion to the number of seamen they should want so many marines. They had now thirty two Generals of Marines, whereas formerly they used to have only two, one of whom, was also an Admiral and the other a military officer, and he had never yet heard of a General of Marines taking the command of a division. It was now proposed to vote £1,395,000 upon naval stores, and £578,000 upon new works in the dockyards. During the last four years they had expended on stores no less a sum than £9,800,000, and upon new works £1,395,000, so that the amount now proposed appeared to him extravagant. They had, since the French war, expended £12,000,000 upon their dock-yards, and here was a proposal for half a million in addition. The expenditure upon labourers was very disproportionate to the amount asked for stores and new works. Another point was, that they had now seventeen Admirals in commission, three or four of whom were Commissioners in the Dockyards, and 270 idle. The total number of ships in commission was 297, so that they had, within ten, an admiral for every ship.

SIR, HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he was not prepared to say that the Estimates, with one exception, were extravagant, or could be much reduced, and as the right hon. Baronet intended to take only one-third of the vote for the year, he should not offer any opposition. He wished to know, however, whether they intended to take a vote for the excess of £211,000 in the expenditure of last year? No less a sum than £828,000 had been expended without the authority of a vote of that House, but solely on the authority of the Treasury. That was a variation which surely ought to have received the confirmation of the House. It was true a larger sum was taken for men than was spent in the wages of men, and there was a saving in that and other respects. There was, under the head of naval stores, £620,000 which had not been spent as appropriated by the House. The authority of the House would be completely set aside in these matters unless some change took place. He trusted the Government would see the necessity of placing such; enormous departures from the votes of the House as he had mentioned under some proper check, for otherwise it was perfectly idle to vote Estimates in the ordinary way. Then, with respect to the audit of these accounts, how did the House stand? The Auditor explained the authority he had over the accounts, and in so doing made a most remarkable declaration. He stated that, supposing he found that a sum of money had been spent against the provisions of an Act of Parliament, or against an order of the Treasury or an order in Council, or supposing he discovered that a sum of money had been expended twice, no error of that kind, however palpable, came within the scope of his powers. The supposed audit would, in point of fact, appear to be no audit at all, inasmuch as the Auditors had not the power to correct the most manifest blunders.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, he did not think, considering we were likely to have a Chinese war, that 53,700 was an extravagant number of men to vote. On the contrary, he should have been glad to see the vote a little larger, because 5,700 of those men were to be employed in the coastguard service, and could not, therefore, be said to increase the efficiency of the navy. That left them 48,000 men—namely, 33,000 seamen and 15,000 marines. He should like to know, however, how many of the 33,000 seamen were what was called "continous-service men," and how many were "novices,"—which was a new term, but a very suitable one? He might further observe, that there was now no "Reserve" provided for, and therefore he concluded that these 5,700 men were intended to form a reserve. With respect to the 15,000 marines, to whom the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had referred, he (Sir C. Napier) should like to see a greater number of marines than we had at the present moment, for in times of peace they would form efficient garrisons in seaport towns, and in the event of war might be marched on board ship, while the militia might be sent to replace them in garrison. The hon. Member for Lambeth had complained that there were so many Generals of Marines, not one of whom was employed. He (Sir C. Napier) regretted it was not the custom to employ them, as some of them were young enough for service, and they might be usefully employed in commanding garrisons in seaports manned by marines. With regard to the continuous - service men, he understood they were not always quite so fit for service as they ought to be. They were entered for ten years, and it was proper the Government should keep faith with them; but it often happened that they were not a good class of men, and not likely to be useful to the service hereafter. He should therefore suggest that before a man was entered for ten years he should be submitted to a probationary service for one year. He also begged to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the circumstance that when an "able-bodied"seaman became a petty officer he lost the additional pay which he had been previously receiving, which he (Sir C. Napier) thought was a hardship. He (Sir C. Napier) would again draw the attention of the Government and the House to the fact that we were now in the fortieth year of peace (with the exception of the Russian war), and had as yet no regular system of manning the navy. Some time ago a rule was established that men should be called out by proclamation, and then receive a bounty—a system which entailed great expense and inconvenience on the country; but whether that rule were altered or not he (Sir C. Napier) was not aware. It was of the utmost importance that some regular system should be established of manning the navy, and if they wished to have that great branch of the public service efficient when war broke out they must commence in time of peace. In Russia, France, Holland, and other countries there were well-organized methods of manning the navy, and unless England also adopted something like a system in the matter the day would come when she would reap the evil consequences of her neglect. The Channel, which was formerly a great protection to us, was now so completely bridged over by steam, that the state of insecurity was alarming, and unworthy a great nation. They might depend upon it that we were not safe in leaving so important a subject to chance, and he urged upon the Government that, taking warning by what occurred during the last war, they should adopt measures which would enable them to fit out a fleet with the greatest alacrity; and he should be very happy to give all the assistance in his power towards carrying out so desirable an object. He had given notice of his intention to bring under the notice of the House the speeches of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) at Stafford and elsewhere relative to Cronstadt; but, as he believed that it was the general desire that a dissolution should take place with as little delay as possible, he would not occupy the House with matters personal to himself, and would leave the hon. Baronet to play out his vagaries before his constituents.

MR. W. S. LINDSAY

complained of the large amount which appeared in the Estimates under the head of new works; but he said that the fact was that every succeeding Board of Admiralty had notions of its own to carry out, and that what one Board recommended another countermanded. He had met with a ludicrous example of this the other day at one of Her Majesty's dockyards, where he saw some men engaged in pulling down a magnificent pile of buildings. He inquired of a person who appeared to be the head of a department what was the meaning of the proceeding, and the man's reply was, that he didn't exactly know, unless it was that the last Lords liked the Elizabethan style, and the present preferred the Corinthian. The man might have intended this for a joke, but there was a good deal of truth in the observation, for it set forth the system to which he had alluded. There was as much difference between the Lords of the Admiralty as to their ships. The iron Lords built a fleet of iron ships, and the wooden Lords came and condemned all the iron Lords had done. The iron ships were then sold for a very small price. He hoped that next year a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject of the navy, and that the result would be the appointment of one responsible, permanent head, in lien of Boards changing with the Administration. Manning the navy was undoubtedly an important and a difficult question, but he was persuaded that they must never depart from the voluntary system.

SIR GEORGE TYLER

said, he fully agreed with the gallant Admiral opposite (Sir C. Napier) that unless some thorough system were established for manning the navy, in any emergency we should always be at a loss for seamen. He regretted much the discouragement which, he feared, was to be offered to the Naval Coast Volunteers. He had on a former occasion proposed that the force should be considered as a naval militia, to serve, as the general militia served the army, as a nucleus for the navy. Last year there was a provision for 5,000 Naval Coast Volunteers; but they had disappeared from the present Votes; and altogether there was a great reduction in the efficiency of the naval force. He thought that if economy were to be practised it should be in some other part of the public service; for the country had strong proof, in a recent case, that the naval service was not in so efficient a state as it should be; and he, therefore, could not approve of the reductions which it was proposed to make in that force. He thought that some system of manning the navy ought to be adopted, so that an adequate number might be obtained upon any occasion of emergency. He believed that making over the Coastguard service to the Admiralty was a great improvement, and he trusted that the number of cruisers attached to the Admiral's flag ships on the const would be increased so as to afford an inducement to youth to enter the service. As regarded the number of boys, he should be disposed to increase rather than lessen it; and he hoped that they would be readily received on board the receiving ships. He regretted the reduction of £6,000 on the vote for the Coast Volunteers for the reasons he had already stated, and he trusted the Government would give the subject that attention which he thought its importance deserved.

SIR CHARLES WOOD,

in reply, said, his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had adverted to the number of marines kept up. The answer of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) to those remarks was just that which he should be inclined to give. The Admiralty hoped to establish before long a large reserve of good and trained seamen, and there must, at the same time, be a corresponding number of marines ready to serve afloat. When this system was brought into full operation they would be prepared, at any emergency, to man a larger number of men-of-war than they had at any time heretofore been enabled to do. As to the Generals of Marines, their retirement was settled by an Order in Council some time ago, and it was not a matter over which the Board of Admiralty had any authority. Then the hon. Gentleman complained that the vote of stores was very large. So it was, in consequence of one or two items only introduced into the Estimates of late years. For example, the substitution of steam for a sailing navy had entailed an enormous expenditure (£200.000) for coals. Another large item was the purchase of steam machinery. Hon. Gentlemen were hardly aware of the enormous increase of expenditure entailed on these and other heads. We were, in point of fact, creating a steam navy, and he hoped before long England would be in the same relative position with regard to her steam navy as she had always been heretofore with regard to her sailing navy. At the present moment we were not in that position in which so great a maritime Power as England ought to be placed, though he would not now go into details on the subject—but we did not possess that superiority which as the first maritime nation in the world we ought to have, and therefore a considerable expenditure must be looked for some time to come under the head he had last mentioned. So with regard to works. The greater size of ships at present created the necessity for considerable alterations in our docks. Thus, there not being a dock in the Queen's yards which would take in the Himalaya, one of the finest vessels in the service for the transport of troops, it was found necessary, in the course of last summer, to take down the head of the newest dock they had in order to prepare accommodation for this vessel. A large American frigate, the Merrimac, came to this country the other day, and had doubtless been seen by many hon. Members. Well, there was only one dock in the kingdom which could take in that vessel. His hon. Friend would see that, if the navy were to be maintained in an efficient state, they must have the power of docking ships of this class. The hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) had asked how many continuous-service men there were, and how many "novices?" The number of continuous service men was, in round numbers, 23,500. As to the other class alluded to, although the men were entered as novices, and were regarded as such as long as they were kept in the training ships, they were not sent afloat until they could be rated as ordinary seamen. There was no intention to diminish the number of boys; on the contrary, the Admiralty felt it most desirable to keep up a full number of youths, whose early training afloat rendered them afterwards highly efficient and valuable. The hon. and gallant Admiral had alluded to compulsory service. No doubt the French and Russians in this respect possessed means of sending men afloat which we did not possess. He believed, however, that, with the reserve of seamen and marines, combined with the number of men to be drawn from the merchant service, we should be able in future in time of war to man a larger number of vessels than we had ever been able to send out heretofore. He should be very sorry to be driven to impressment; nothing but extreme necessity and danger would justify resort to such a system; but it must be remembered that, if compulsory service were surrendered, a substitute must be provided, which would naturally be attended with expense. The country must pay for giving up the forced service, and the system of reserves now adopted was, he believed, as cheap a one as could be devised, whilst, at the same time, it would place this country on such a footing that we need not be afraid of being caught unprepared on the breaking out of a war. The hon. and gallant Officer (Sir G. Tyler) appeared to think that the efficiency of the Naval Coast Volunteers was diminished in consequence of some proposal made by the Admiralty. He (Sir C. Wood) was not aware to what the hon. and gallant Officer alluded, because, so far from doing anything to diminish, they were taking measures which would increase that efficiency. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer that the stationing of ships of war at different parts of the coast would be conducive to the popularity of he service, instead of distributing the Naval Coast Volunteers among six districts. the Admiralty now proposed to divide the coast into as many districts as there were coast-guard districts, and to take the Naval Coast Volunteers to those stations for the purpose of being drilled. The largest number of Naval Coast Volunteers raised was on the east coast of Scotland. Preparations had been made, and orders issued for drilling them, for the first time, in the course of next month, and Captain Fraser, who had been on that station for two years, expressed the greatest confidence in the success of that experiment. As to the story related by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) he agreed with him that it must be a joke. Where the occurrence happened he did not know; he was not aware that any great building had been pulled down for the purpose of substituting one style of architecture for another; and, for his own part, he certainly had not the slightest preference for the Corinthian over the Elizabethan order.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that his statement as to the appropriation of large sums without the consent of Parliament remained untouched. He considered that a more efficient audit ought to take place, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation on the subject, so that the House might have some assurance that these accounts were duly verified.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he would not undertake to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question off-hand.

MR. COWAN

complained of some transaction that had taken place in regard to these public works. A gentleman named Morton, who desired to tender for the machinery for the slip at Bermuda, had not had an opportunity given to him of ten- dering for the work. He should like to know who the fortunate individual was who obtained the contract, and also whether the work was certain to be efficiently and economically done. He very much approved of the rigid scrutiny which important Votes of money now underwent at the hands of hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby).

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

referred to the slave squadron on the coast of Cuba, and its present non-efficiency, stating that the merchants of Jamaica complained that these vessels on the coast of Cuba and coast of Africa were employed in any and every other kind of business than that for which they were specially appointed. He thought the country had a right to expect a far larger result towards the extinction of the slave trade considering the immense sums of money that had been spent, than was the case; and he hoped the attention of Government would be directed to this subject, and more especially to the fresh complaints that had come from the West India stations. The hon. and gallant Officer was reading an extract from a Jamaica newspaper in confirmation of these statements, when,

LORD LOVAINE rose to order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether it was competent for an hon. Member to read a long extract from a newspaper.

MR. CHAIRMAN

said, that the House had some time since overruled the decision of the Speaker, that a Member ought not to read from a newspaper.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

continued, and read the statement in question.

MR. BOWYER,

as a member of the Committee that sat last Session on Public Moneys, testified that the system of auditing the public accounts was very inefficient. The Board of Audit could merely take cognizance of the fact of certain payments having been made; but they ought to have the power of investigating their legality. He hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would give an answer to a question which the Liverpool Financial Reform Association had requested him to put with regard to the ship called the Royal Frederick, which was a three-decker, and had been on the stocks at Portsmouth for twenty years. That ship, which was kept on the stocks ten years after it was ready for launching, was about to be converted into a 120–gun steamship. The Committee ought to have some satisfactory explanation of the detention of a ship of that size so long in a state of idleness. He wished to know what was the total cost of the vessel, and also whether, when her keel was laid, petty officers were appointed to her in the usual manner, and had been kept on pay from that time till now.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

observed, that as the Navy Estimates had been reduced to the extent of £3,000,000, it became the duty of the Admiralty to take especial care that the number of ships in commission should be sufficiently large to enable us to maintain our position in the event of an outbreak. Efficient officers ought to be selected for those ships, and every encouragement given to, and good faith scrupulously kept with, the seamen. He was glad to hear from the First Lord of the Admiralty that the naval service was at present in so much favour, for he (Admiral Walcott) had endeavoured all his life so to improve the condition of the seamen as to make the service attractive. He suggested the desirableness of providing the navy with some sort of uniform—the more simple the better—and of extending to the naval cadets a system of training, similar to that which was practised on board the ship Illustrious with the most beneficial results, for young boys destined for the navy. He had been on board that ship—for the grant of which, for the purposes of training, the First Lord of the Admiralty deserved the gratitude of the country—and was highly gratified with the system. He trusted that the Admiralty would speedily adopt a training system for the better instruction of naval cadets in their profession.

SIR MAURICE BERKELEY

said, that there was a general uniform throughout the service, and naval cadets would be trained in ships such as the Illustrious before they were sent to sea. It was true that in the system of continual-service men there had been, as there would be in all new systems, some difficulty. Some of those who were entered as boys did not grow up sufficiently robust to make able seamen, and were complained of by some captains. The Admiralty were now endeavouring to devise a plan by which such boys should be got rid of. Had the Committee gone into these Estimates, and had any attempt been made to reduce the number of men, he should have felt it his duty to state in the most distinct terms that the reduction of the number of men now voted would be the greatest blow that could possibly be given to the British navy. He had taken the greatest possible pains to make himself acquainted with all the details of the manning of the navy, and he could assure the Committee that owing to the change of our maritime laws, and to there being another nation speaking the same language as ourselves, without any distinctive mark, it was and would always be difficult to man the navy properly. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) had paid great attention to this subject, and many of his plans for manning the navy were now being acted upon. At one time he (Sir M. Berkeley) fancied that the Coast Volunteer scheme, a child of his own, would be a failure; but he was happy to be able to tell the Committee that he now had reason to believe that in any future war we should be able to draw a large body of men from the Naval Coast Volunteers.

MR. C. W. MARTIN

complained of the high rate of wages given to the labourers in the dockyards. The effect had been to increase the value of labour on the coast of Kent, till labourers now got as much as £60 yearly. Of the three classes connected with the soil—the labourers, the farmers, and the landowners—the labourers were the best used and the landowners the worst. The right hon. Gentleman might think of that in carrying out the reduction.

MR. BENTINCK

said, that he had been quite prepared to hear that the alteration of the maritime laws had caused a difficulty in finding men for the navy; and he was glad that that difficulty was now surmounted. There was another subject to which he wished to draw attention, which was if any improvement was proposed for the more easy coaling of ships in Plymouth Sound?

CAPTAIN DUNCOMBE

said, that the captains of ships, in consequence of the introduction of steam, were gradually becoming coal-heavers and stokers. He wished to know if there were arrangements to lessen the use of steam and increase that of sails in the navy. At present there was a great deal of coal used when it was not required by the exigencies of the service, and where sailing would do just as well.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

concurred with the hon. and gallant Captain that economy would be greatly promoted by the enforcement of a regulation restricting the use of steam to cases of urgency. He bore testimony to the activity and zeal displayed by the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty (Sir M. Berkeley) in manning the navy, and expressed his opinion that the crews of Her Majesty's ships were now so well off as to pay, provisions, and treatment (in all of which respects their condition had been much improved since he was on active service), that there was no danger of their deserting to foreign ships.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he quite agreed with all the observations which had been made as to the necessity of reducing to a minimum the use of steam in the navy. It was a source of great expense, and might be the means of deteriorating the skill of our officers. The subject had for some months engaged the attention of the Board of Admiralty, and very stringent orders had been sent to the commanders on foreign stations, requiring them to enforce upon the officers under their command to limit the use of steam to cases of necessity and emergency. In addition to this all officers in command of vessels were required to state in their logs, not only every occasion in which steam was got up, but the reasons for its use. As to the coaling in Plymouth harbour, and also in that of Portsmouth, nothing but the expense had prevented his asking the House to sanction some additional provision for that purpose. In Portland Roads some such provision had been made; but in the other cases he had been obliged to postpone until another year asking the House to vote any money for this purpose. As to the wages of the labourers in the dockyards he had to state that when the war began the artificers, such as shipwrights, &c., were put upon task and job work instead of daywork. The result of this was greatly to increase the amount of work which they performed and the efficiency of the yard. In order to enable the labourers to keep pace with the artificers and to remunerate them for their extra exertions, there was at the same time given to them a sum of money per week which was called "exertion money." The reduction in the dockyards would be effected by reducing the artificers from task and job work to day-work, which would take effect on the 31st of March; and then, as a result of that, the "exertion money" of the labourers would cease. He could not exactly tell the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) what had been the cost of the Royal Frederick; but there were several instances in which large sailing ships had been kept on the stocks, while the construction of steam ships which were more urgently wanted was proceeded with. The great item of the excess to which the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had alluded—namely, between £500,000 and £600,000 was almost entirely owing to the large number of gunboats which the Government had thought it necessary to construct in the previous year. He thought the Government were justified by the circumstances of the time in incurring this expenditure, and he threw himself with the greatest confidence on the judgment of the House.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

had no doubt that this outlay was very judicious, but it was the constitutional question it involved that demanded attention. A sum of £691,000 having been expended as excess under one head alone, he contended that it ought to be brought constitutionally before the House for its sanction and authority.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the question respecting the slave squadron. Mr. Cowan said that Mr. White had stated that he was now appointed slip engineer in Gosport Harbour. He wished to know if this was true, and if he might be allowed to move for copies of any correspondence which had passed between him and the Admiralty on the subject of tenders for the construction of ships.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that, as to the slave trade, it was more effectually checked by ships on the coast of Africa, where were its strongest holds. The ships in Cuba were not fit for the service. They were small vessels, and unless there was a, depot of coal at Cuba there was no means of making a proper use of them. As to Mr. White, there was a slip director at Gosport, but no slip engineer. As to the correspondence, if the hon. Gentleman would let him know exactly what he wanted, he would give him an answer. As to the slips, they were lengthened as large ships had to be built.

MR. COWAN

read a letter from Mr. White, stating that he was appointed consulting engineer at Gosport.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that no such person was appointed to that office.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

repeated his complaint as to the number of officers of marines appointed to do duty. He had no wish to interefere with the efficiency of the navy.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that the greater part of the Generals of Marines were now retired officers.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

said, that the hon. Member for Lambeth was always complaining of the large lists of Admirals. He had long ago replied to these objections. He himself was sixty-one years old, and only ten out of the list of Admirals were younger than himself.

Vote agreed to; as were also the remaining Votes.

1. (2.) £800,000, on account, Wages.
2. (3.) £300,000, on account, Victuals.
3. (4.) £50,000, on account, Admiralty Office.
4. (5.) £80,000, on account, Coast Guard Service.
5. (6.) £30,000, on account, Scientific Departments.
6. (7.) £60,000, on account, Naval Establishments at Home.
7. (8.) £10,000, on account, Naval Establishments Abroad.
8. (9.) £300,000, on account, Wages to Artificers, &c. at Home.
9. (10.) £20,000, on account, Wages to Artificers, &c. Abroad.
10. (11.) £500,000, on account, Naval Stores.
11. (12.) £200,000, on account, New Works and Repairs.
12. (13.) £20,000, on account, Medicines and Medical Stores.
13. (14.) £30,000, on account, Miscellaneous Services.
14. (15.) £250,000, on account, Half Pay.
15. (16.) £200,000, on account, Military Pensions.
16. (17.) £60,000, on account, Civil Pensions.
17. (18.) £80,000, on account, Freight.
18. (19.) £400,000, on account, Packet Service.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

The House resumed,