§
Motion made and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £335,862, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of New Works, Improvements, and Repairs in the Naval Establishments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1859.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must complain of the expenditure upon Keyham Harbour, consequent upon the numerous alterations which had been made in the works. The expense seemed interminable, and he believed it was generally admitted to be inefficiently laid out.
§ MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he wished to press upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the importance of increasing the capabilities of Cork Harbour for the accommodation and repair of the larger class of vessels. The importance of that harbour was evident from the circumstance that between the months of May and December, 1854, during the Crimean war, the tonnage of sailing ships which left that port with troops and stores was 23,662 tons, and of steam vessels 23,019 tons, making a total of 46,681 tons. He also thought it desirable that vessels should have the means of repair in Cork Harbour, without having to go round to Portsmouth or Chatham.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that he had no doubt of the great importance of the port of Cork, but he could not, without further information on the subject, give any promise with regard to the improvement of the harbour. When he came into office he found very extensive works of this kind in progress, entailing a heavy public expenditure, and he felt it to be his duty to reduce, rather than to extend them. At the same time he did not say that additional works might not be required at Cork, but he would make inquiries on the subject.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTI must reiterate that regret, which I recently expressed, on learning that the Government had decided on effecting the following changes in their proposed works and purchases. To purchase ground for the enlargement of Deptford and Keyham Dockyards, £29,484. For extension of docks at Portsmouth and Sheerness, £6,314. For new machinery at Portsmouth and Sheerness, £4,614. For land and erection and repairs of houses for the Coastguard, £10,000. On the first and second heads, I must observe, that as the land must be eventually purchased, the temporary saving will, in all probability, necessitate a proportionate additional cost hereafter: while the increased dimensions of our ships demand an immediate enlargement of our present docks. I cannot but hold the delay in the provision of new machinery which modern improvements in science render 1629 indispensable, is a short-sighted policy and fatal error which at such a period might prove irreparable. The distribution of the Coastguard in scattered lodgings through villages is much to be deprecated as eminently prejudicial to a high state of discipline. I will now content myself with expressing an earnest hope, that when the First Lord of the Admiralty shall have completed his inspection of the yards of Portsmouth, Devonport, Woolwich, Chatham, and Sheerness (as at Portsmouth as yet he has only devoted two days), if he shall find on consideration the proposed reductions are mistimed and disadvantageous to the efficiency of the Naval Service, the right hon. Baronet will not fail to submit a supplemental vote to supply the deficiencies to the notice of this House.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that he would not hesitate to submit to the House any Vote which he thought might be required by the exigencies of the public service. He might observe, however, that sonic misapprehension seemed to prevail as to the importance of several of the items connected with the dockyards upon which reductions were proposed. It was, for instance, proposed to strike off a sum of £4,000 which appeared in the Estimates of the late Government for the Deptford Dockyard, but that item had been required, not for the extension of the yard, hut for the enclosure and drainage of land, which was already bought and paid for, and he was assured by the Directors of Works that the postponement of that Vote would be attended with no inconvenience. With regard to the Chatham Dockyard, last year the Vote taken for the service of that yard was larger than had proved necessary, and consequently an amount equal to the surplus had been struck off the old Estimate, the Director of Works having assured him it would be a superfluous Vote. [Viscount PALMERSTON: "Malta?"] The amount proposed by the late Government for the purchase of land at Malta had been omitted from the Estimate, because he was told it was very doubtful whether the land was in such a situation as to be a desirable purchase, and that no inconvenience could result from the postponement of the Vote. He (Sir J. Pakington) might refer, for the information of the noble Lord, to two other items upon which reductions had been made, and which appeared to be intended for extending dockyards. The first was 1630 the Vote for Forton Barracks, at Portsmouth, and the other for the yard at Key-ham, in Plymouth. He did not know whether the noble Lord was aware that the barracks at Forton had nothing whatever to do with the dockyard. The item for those barracks referred to the purchase of land in the neighbourhood of the marine barracks, at a considerable distance from the dockyard, while there was a large extent of land in the vicinity of these barracks which the Government had already purchased, but had not used; and, having visited the place, he (Sir J. Pakington) agreed entirely in opinion with the Director of Works that the acquisition of the land proposed to be purchased by the Government was not at this moment a matter of any national importance. It had also been proposed to expend £25,000 in the purchase of land at Keyham, but he had been informed by the Director of Works that in his judgment this purchase was unnecessary. He (Sir J. Pakington) had not yet been able to visit Plymouth, but he had no doubt that had the noble Lord been in his position he would have exercised a similar discretion under similar circumstances by omitting the item from the Estimate. He was informed that the greater part of the land near Keyham which it had been proposed to purchase was a mud flat unfit for the purposes of building, and it was desirable that only a small portion should be brought to facilitate access by railway into Cornwall. After such a statement be thought he was bound to hesitate before he invested £25,000 in the purchase of a mud flat, especially as he was told there were from ten to twenty acres of land attached to the Keyham yard which had not yet been rendered available. He hoped he had satisfied the House that he had not lightly adopted the revised Estimates.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTMy observations were given to the purchase of land at Deptford and Keyham. I was sensible the land for the extension of the docks at Portsmouth and Sheerness as held by the Crown.
MR. T. G. BARINGobserved that the Vote for the purchase of land at Keyham was not a new Vote, but had been sanctioned by the House last year, and the late Board of Admiralty had made some arrangements for effecting the purchase. In the opinion of the late Board of Admiralty it was of great national importance that whenever an opportunity occurred of pur- 1631 chasing land in the neighbourhood of our dockyards, on advantageous terms, it should not be lost. These establishments naturally had the effect of increasing the price of land about them, and the public service had often been greatly inconvenienced, to say nothing of the additional expense incurred, because means had not been taken to buy land at the proper moment. So far from this piece of land being a mud flat, there was a considerable portion of rising ground upon it which might be made useful for the purpose of building barracks for the seamen, if the suggestions which had been made the other night were carried into effect, a mud flat however was not useless, for a great part of the present dockyard at Keyham had originally been a mud flat. The extension of the Cornwall Railway to the dockyard was of great importance, as it would lead to considerable economy of labour, and the only reason why the late Board of Admiralty had delayed the purchase of this land was that they might ascertain at what point the junction could be best made. As the Cornwall Railway would soon be finished it was of importance that this purchase should be made at the earliest possible moment. He was glad to find that the right hon. Baronet intended to retain the Vote for the purchase of land at the Corradino, Malta, but he regretted the omission of the Vote for the extension of the Malta dockyard. At present the space there was very confined, and great difficulty had been experienced there in the construction of machinery for the new dock. The reduction of £4,000 in the Vote relating to the arrangements at the Cape of Good Hope was certainly not a wise reduction, and the same might be said of the reduction of £10,000 for providing lodgings for the men of the Coastguard. Commodore Eden, he knew, was of opinion that £30,000 was not too much, and if the Committee could only see in what boles and corners some of these men had to live this item of expenditure, he was sure, would not be grudged. With regard to the piece of land at Forton, it was of great importance that it should belong to the Government, and he was sorry to hear that the purchase was postponed. The reductions in the Portsmouth and Chatham dockyards, too, were injudicious, for it was always most economical when once works had been determined on to carry them out as quickly as possible.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had 1632 listened to the hon. Gentleman with sincere pleasure, perhaps the more so because he differed from him very little in his premises, although he rather differed in his conclusions. He had himself conveyed an erroneous impression with regard to the deductions, in speaking of Chatham Dockyard when he ought to have spoken of the Docks at Chatham. The money was more than was wanted, and the Docks would be completed with the reduced amount. Very much the same state of things existed with regard to the Docks at Portsmouth. He quite agreed in the importance of finishing these docks, and he was happy to say there would be no delay in consequence of the deductions, as the reduced estimate would be enough to carry out the works during the present year. With regard to the subject of providing lodgings for the coastguard men, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that public service required that it should be done as speedily as possible; but on investigating the Estimates, he was assured that the vote of £30,000 was entirely an arbitrary sum— a mere guess; and this was corroborated by the fact that last year, although a vote of £25,000 was taken for the same purpose, only £4,900 was expended within the year. Commodore Eden had assured him that £20,000 would be amply sufficient for the present year, and he had, therefore, taken off £10,000, and asked only for a Vote of £20,000. With regard to the projected jetties at Portsmouth, be begged to say, that having visited the spot, he now regretted their omission; but as the amount required was so small, he hoped there would be sufficient surplus funds to enable him to carry out the object.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, there was one item in this vote to which he could not refrain from calling attention, and perhaps the late First Lord (Sir C. Wood) would be able to furnish him with a statement of the facts. He referred to the gunboat slips at Haslar. The total sum estimated was £70,000. The sum voted last year was £40,000, and the amount expended was £51,270. The subject had already been brought before the Committee by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone), and therefore he need not apologise for doing so. He believed he might say that the question whether gunboats should be left afloat, or laid up in slips, was a moot question, but his impression was that the majority of the authorities was in favour of leaving them afloat. He 1633 had been invited by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) to visit the locality, and he had done so. He found that two or three acres of land were excavated to within fifty yards of the edge of the creek; a slip was then made, and the gunboats were hauled up the slips and housed under the sheds. The opinion of the naval authorities on the spot was that, using the utmost diligence, it would be utterly impossible to launch the gunboats at greater speed than five in a fortnight. Thus it would seem that £70,000 had been expended in housing boats which were entirely unavailable in case of an emergency. The tramways upon the slips were made to fit the present gunboats; but if it should hereafter be requisite to build larger gunboats, the money would be wasted, as other slips would be required. He mentioned this to show that if hon. Gentlemen were placed in positions who had no antecedent knowledge of the duties they were to discharge, the result must he a great sacrifice of the public money.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERobserved, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there was great difference of opinion between builders whether these gunboats ought to be afloat or not. There was a mud flat in front of Haslar Hospital which might have been cleared out, and the gunboats might either have been placed afloat or slips might have been built to receive them, so that they might all have been floated at one tide. The sum already voted was £40,000, and he understood that it was in contemplation to construct slips for another range of gunboats opposite to the present slips, which were half a mile from the water. [Several MEMBERS: "No, not a quarter of a mile."] Well, then, a quarter of a mile. If it took six weeks to launch forty of these boats, it would take six weeks more to launch eighty. No one but an Admiralty engineer and a First Lord could have conceived such a plan. There were so many other plans that would have been preferable, that the people who advised this scheme deserved the censure of the House of Commons. He believed that the Surveyor of the Navy disapproved such a mode of disposing of the gunboats, that neither the Admiral at Portsmouth nor the officer at Haslar Hospital approved it, and that the superintending Lord of the Admiralty did not give it his sanction. The late First Lord and the Engineer of the Admiralty were, he had no doubt, the au- 1634 thors of the plan. If these slips were to be made useful, there must be a basin dug, and locks and gates must be constructed to keep the water in the basin, so as to allow the gunboats to be launched. He did not believe it would be possible to make these additions for less than £150,000. He would suggest that competent engineers, not connected with the Admiralty, should be sent down to examine the slips, so that some means might be devised of having the vessels ready as soon as they wore wanted.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, of course he was responsible for the plan which had been adopted, and he thought he could show that it had not been adopted without sufficient reason. It had been admitted that great difference of opinion existed whether a vessel was preserved better in or out of the water. One thing was quite clear, however, that ships ought not to be kept in any place where they were alternately wet or dry; that they ought to be kept entirely in or entirely out of the water. A vessel which had not been launched would last for an indefinitely long period, with hardly any appearance of deterioration or decay after any known lapse of years. It was doubtful whether, when a vessel was once launched, she would keep as long when in the water as when drawn up on land. On the whole, however, it was thought that these gunboats, if thus drawn up and kept perfectly dry, were likely to remain sounder than if they remained afloat. These vessels were built originally, it would be remembered, for service in the Baltic, and were thought not to be calculated for acting except in shoal water near the shore. In the event of any hostilities with this country, it was considered, also, that they would prove most valuable coast defences. At the same time the Committee were aware that they had been sent abroad, and with great success. With reference to the gunboats despatched from this country to China, an hon. Gentleman stated the other night that he thought it unadvisable to bring those vessels back, in consequence of the risks to which they were exposed in the voyage out. Now, he denied that they had been exposed to any risk at all. He would read an extract from a letter written by an officer who commanded a gunboat of forty horse power (one of the smallest class), which had performed the voyage to China. This officer's account of the behaviour of his vessel was, that they had had very 1635 heavy gales, with a great rolling sea; but, he added, "I have no hesitation in saying that I would as soon be at sea in the heaviest gale in a gunboat as in any ship that ever was built." He was sorry to hear the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman to whom he was referring, because it might be exceedingly distressing to the families of officers employed in these boats; and he thought, therefore, he should be doing a kind action in making this statement. As regarded their return home, however, he had never contemplated that. Ample employment would be found for them in the shallow waters of China or our Australian colonies, and in the narrow channels about the Straits; and in sending them out, therefore, he had never thought of bringing them back. As he had said, there was every reason to suppose that the gunboats would keep for a longer period when drawn up than when left in the water. There was not the slightest appearance of dry rot in the vessels which had thus been drawn up, whereas, in two which had been employed in the Mediterranean, dry rot had developed itself to a very considerable extent. Another consideration had operated in inducing them to draw up these gunboats—namely, the clearance of Portsmouth Harbour from the impediments which they presented to the navigation. With this object, a piece of land was taken near Haslar Lake, which belonged to the Admiralty, and which was very conveniently situated for the purpose. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir C. Napier) first said the boats in this position were half a mile, and then a quarter of a mile, from the water. Now, he (Sir C. Wood) did not believe that they were a quarter of a quarter of a mile from the water, and he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman would do well to be a little more accurate in his statements. As to the question of launching, that was not very material, because he did not believe it would be difficult to launch these boats quite as rapidly as they would be wanted. About thirty gunboats could be launched in a month, even with the present means; but means had been suggested by which the process of launching could be very much accelerated. What the ultimate decision might be with respect to the best mode of launching these gunboats he could not say, but it was absurd to contend that a skilful engineer could not move them over the surplus space of twenty-two yards. A similar experiment had been tried successfully at the Isle of 1636 Wight and other places, and he saw no reason why it should not turn out to be successful in the present instance.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERThere is no water to launch them into.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEremarked that he had asked his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) and the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) to come down and look at these ships, because he thought the invention which had been resorted to for launching these boats was one of the most extraordinary which had ever entered into the mind of man to conceive. It had been attended with very great labour and expense and by the inconvenience resulting from the curtailment of the area of Haslar and the cutting off the water from its wells. If the Committee would bear in mind that £70,000 had to be laid out in digging new wells and constructing a new-cemetery in lieu of that portion of the old one which was taken up by those railway slips, as well as a sum of £1,400 a year for the purpose of watching them, it could not, he thought, fail to come to the conclusion that a very considerable outlay had been incurred for no adequate object. Nor should the Committee lose sight of the fact that the entire scheme had its stability based upon a screw, which was longer than any that had ever been previously constructed, and that if that screw happened to break—a circumstance not unlikely—the whole of those gunboats would be, as it were hermetically sealed, and could not be got into the water in anything like three months without the necessity of cutting away the intervening ground, and heaving them into the water by means of a capstan. After all he really doubted whether these gunboats were worth preserving, as he thought they were not the description of vessels which we require. The ships of which we stood most in need were light vessels that would require only a light draught of water, having an auxiliary screw, sailing well, and fit for service with a small number of men in any part of the world. It was said that those who sailed in the gunboats approved of them, but he did not attach much importance to that circumstance. A man's ship was like his wife, and if he were put on board the greatest "tub" in the world he would give a good report of her. From what he had heard of those gunboats which had gone out to China he could infer that they were scarcely ever dry 1637 from the moment they came within the influence of anything like strong winds; that they rolled about from side to side, and that when they got to China they were never out of the hands of the carpenter.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that as the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) seemed determined to maintain that the distance to which reference had so often been made was only twenty-two yards, while he contended it was a quarter of a mile, he should go down to Portsmouth and measure it, and thus see who was the nearer the mark. There had never, in his opinion, been so wild a scheme set on foot as that connected with the gunboats at Haslar Hospital, and he should very much like to know whether the Surveyor of the Navy, or Sir G. Seymour, or Admiral Berkeley, had been consulted on the matter? The whole plan seemed as if it were the work of some engineer who wished to exercise his ingenuity at the public expense.
§ MR. BRISCOEremarked, that the original estimate for the works at Haslar was £70,000. A large portion of that sum — £40,000 — had been voted, but £51,270 bad actually been expended. The Government, therefore, ought to have asked for £11,270, but the Vote which they now proposed amounted to only £5,000. He hoped some explanation would be afforded upon that point. I3ut, after what the Committee had heard from gallant Officers on both sides, he thought the Vote should be postponed for further consideration, and he would accordingly move that it be postponed.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could not move the suspension; he should move the omission of the Vote.
§ MR. BRISCOEsaid, he would in that case move that the Vole be struck out.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERseconded the Motion.
§ LORD LOVAINEsaid, he could assure the Committee that £5,000 was all that was required to meet the expenditure at Haslar, and that if this Vote did not pass, the Committee would place the country in debt.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, there was great difference of opinion as to this system of drawing up the gunboats. The late Marquess of Anglesey's yacht was always considered one of the best in the 1638 Royal Yacht Squadron, yet she was hauled up every winter. It was necessary to take some means to preserve these vessels. The Admiralty was utterly at a loss what to do with them, and it was there this plan was devised. He had suggested last year that a number should be sent to Cuba to act against the slavers, but he was told by the late Admiralty that they were utterly unfitted for such service; yet it now appeared that they had proved most efficient in a similar service in China. He thought they ought to be told on whose authority this plan at Haslar had been selected, and he should be perfectly satisfied if he were told that that stop had been taken upon the authority of Sir Baldwin Walker, than whom a more capable or more deserving officer was not to be found in the service.
MR. T. G. BARINGthought that, if the intention of hon. Gentlemen was to secure better arrangements for launching at Haslar, they would not attain that object by reducing or postponing the present Vote of £5,000, inasmuch as the only purpose of the Vote was the one in question. It had been stated that no more than eight gunboats could be launched at Haslar in a fortnight. Now, he had been informed by Captain Dacres that of the GO-horse power gunboats, thirty could be launched in a month without working at night, and that of the lighter description of vessels, the whole could be launched within the same time.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERasked, if there were only forty boats on the slips now, where the money to prepare a place for the other forty was to come from. He thought the Vote ought to be postponed for inquiry; the whole plan was wrong.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Briscoe) would not persevere with his Motion. He had himself had nothing to do with this gunboat apparatus. It was all constructed under the late Government. Having visited Portsmouth, he found that there was there great difference of opinion as to the merits of the invention, and the facilities for launching. He was informed that for eight days of each fortnight two of these gunboats could be launched each tide; and that if the £5,000 now asked for were judiciously expended, that could be done on every day at neap tides as well as springs. It was true that the original Estimate for this work was £70,000; but all that had already been expended was £51,200; and with the sum now asked for 1639 the total to complete the work would be £56,000. The erection of additional sheds was an entirely separate question, and one upon which the present Board of Admiralty would not decide without careful consideration. Every Member of the Committee must agree that the Government was bound to take proper care of these gunboats, which were applied for from all parts of the world; and the question was whether they would be better in the water or hauled up high and dry. On that he did not presume to give an opinion, nor would he say whether or not there had been an extravagant expenditure upon this launching apparatus. Both at Portsmouth and in that House some of the best judges differed upon that question.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, that if the expenditure of this £5,000 would remedy the defects existing in this apparatus the Committee ought to grant it. If, however, there was any doubt as to the attainment of that result, or any probability that next year they would be called on for the remaining £14,000, he should recommend the postponement of the vote until the right hon. Baronet was better informed upon the subject.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must decline to give an opinion upon the details of an engineering and scientific question; but he was told that a smaller sum than £5,000 would remove the impediments to the launching of these boats. He had reason to believe, and did believe, that the expenditure of this £5,000 was needed to make the work complete, and he, therefore, thought, that it was undesirable that the Committee should refuse the grant of so small a sum.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that before these vessels could he launched at all tides it would be necessary either to deepen the creek, or to construct a basin into which they might be launched. The only way to ascertain how quickly the gunboats could be got into the water would be for the First Lord of the Admiralty to give the signal that they should be launched. It might be that there were demands from all quarters for these vessels, but that only showed the necessity for providing small vessels. He thought, however, that these gunboats would not answer, for they were utterly unfit for sea—the officers and men were worse off than in the old 10-gun brigs, and in hot climates the want of accommodation on board was such as to endanger life.
§ MR. KIRKsaid, that there appeared to have been a sum of £11,270 expended beyond the £40,000 voted, and he wished to know from what source it had been obtained.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had expected that the late First Lord of the Admiralty would have answered this question, because the transaction to which it referred happened in his time. He believed, however, that the answer was that the Treasury authorized the expenditure of the money before it was voted by Parliament.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the greater part of the money had been spent in providing means of hauling up the gunboats. He was glad to find that upon the whole the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty agreed with him. The gunboats were better preserved when hauled up than when left in the water. The only question appeared to be as to the means of launching, and he thought there could be little doubt that the engineers of the present day would find little difficulty in providing for that proceeding. They had all been drawn up by the help of this machinery, and to say that they could not be drawn down again in the same way did seem to him to be an extraordinary notion. Captain Dacres assured him that with the present means thirty boats could be launched per month, and that with an outlay of £8,000 that number could be increased to forty. The question was whether, after the money which had been spent, and, as he believed, was admitted, usefully spent, the Committee were prepared to vote £5,000 more to effect further improvements in the launching. He also wished to refer to one or two points upon which observation had been made. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark had asked for the production of the order for the discharge of the continuous-service men, and stated that he (Sir C. Wood) had said there was no such order. He could not have been so absurd as to say such a thing, because he issued the order; but what he did say was that there was no order issued cancelling the first order, as none was required. Another hon. Member (Sir G. Pechell) had referred to the expediency of sending gunboats to Cuba, and be (Sir C. Wood) had said there were objections; but, in fact, he had sent four, and he had received a letter from the commodore on the station, regretting that they had not yet succeeded in capturing 1641 any slavers. With respect to what had been said about doing away with gunboats altogether, he could not agree with that view; but, as the First Lord had said, a class of small cruisers was much required, and a short time since he had ordered the construction of some vessels which he hoped were now nearly completed.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHthought they ought to be satisfied of' the effectiveness of these boats before they spent this £5,000 in providing facilities for hauling them up.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERexplained, that he had asked for the production of the order for the discharge of the continuous-service men, and also for the order cancelling the first order; to which the right hon. Baronet replied, there were no such orders. It was said, the gunboats were better kept hauled up; if so, why were not the mortar-boats also hauled up?
§ MR. BRISCOEsaid, he must express his regret that, notwithstanding the appeal which had been made to him to withdraw his Motion, he felt that he could not, consistently with his duty, comply with that request; for the further the discussion proceeded, the greater reason, he felt, existed for dividing the Committee upon the question.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to explain that his statement with regard to the gunboats had been misunderstood by an hon. Gentleman opposite. What he said was, that it would take a fortnight to launch eight of them; and, in making that observation, he rested his opinion upon the first professional authority. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) seemed to think that the money expended for hauling up the gunboats had been wisely spent. The discussion that had taken place hardly bore out that assertion. In order to be useful, gunboats should be available upon an emergency; but, then, why was £70,000 spent in order to make them unavailable? He (Mr. Bentinck) had not said that engineers would be unable to launch the gunboats; but he did complain that vessels, whose greatest merit was represented to he in their being readily available, should he placed in such a position as to call for the exercise of engineering ability before they could he rendered available. Then, as to the relief of Portsmouth Harbour, be was certain that 1642 500 gunboats might be easily berthed there. He thought the Committee were entitled to know who was responsible for the arrangement, be it good or bad; and he trusted that they would receive information on that subject from the late First Lord of the Admiralty. If it was to be understood that no further sum than the £5,000 would be asked for the purpose stated in the Estimates, he should vote for that amount; but if there was to be no such understanding, he should vole against it.
MR. MACARTHYsaid, he thought the prudent course for the Committee, as the guardians of the public purse, when they heard such contrary opinions on this subject, was to refuse to pass the Vote at present, and insist on its being postponed till they had further information.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the orders were given on a Report of the Board of Admiralty; and when he went down to the spot to make inquiries, no objection was made to the matter.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that additional slips were to be made. It was intended to make the existing slips available. He understood that an expenditure of about £3,000 would effect that object, and the remaining sum would be expended on removing mud from the creek, so that boats might be launched any day. He could not give any positive information on the point; but he had every reason to suppose that £5,000 would complete whatever was to be done.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that as the question stood, the Committee had got into a queer position, for they were told that forty gunboats were hauled up, and that if they did not grant this sum, those boats could not be launched. Hon. Members who were now going into details on the subject of this £5,000, had made no objection whatever when the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty come down and asked for a round sum of £2,000,000.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERbegged to inform the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty that it was quite a mistake to suppose that, for a sum of £2,000, the creek could be so cleared as to admit of boats being launched every day. To put the creek in such a position, it should be cleared from end to end, and to do that £50,000 would b required.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, he was inclined to think that the hon. Member for Surrey 1643 ought not to divide on this question, though, when naval authorities were so unanimous in objecting to the Estimate, it was difficult for the Committee to assent to it. They were told that nothing could be more efficient than the manner in which these boats had been housed. It appeared, indeed, that they had been housed only too efficiently. The late Admiralty had housed them so well that the present Admiralty could not unhouse them. The present Board was engaged undoing what the late Board had done so extremely well, and for this purpose it required a further sum of money. What he objected to principally was, that they had no guarantee that next year they would not be called upon for a still larger amount than was now asked for this purpose.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he must express his regret that no answer had been given to his question by the right hon. Baronet the late First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ Motion made and Question put, "That the item ' Gunboat Ships (Haslar) £5,000' be omitted from the Vote "
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 224: Majority 198.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £30,000, to complete the sum for Medicines and Naval Stores.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the First Lord the situation of the Medical Department of the Navy. He had felt it his duty on several former occasions to advocate the cause of the assistant surgeons in the Navy, and he could not have succeeded in his efforts but for the powerful co-operation of the right hon. Member for Halifax, the late First Lord. To that right hon. Gentleman the assistant surgeons of the Navy were solely indebted for the improved position they now held on board-ship—a position to which they were entitled alike by rank and education. That valuable branch of the service had, however, other claims on the country. Their pay was inadequate. Formerly an assistant surgeon in the army received 7s. 6d. a day, while an assistant surgeon in the navy received 8s. a day, by which a slight preference was given to the Navy. Now, however, the pay of the same class of officers in the army had been raised to 10s. a day, while that of the navy assistant surgeons remained as before, which threw the preference on the side of the army. He thought it was important that the navy should be in a position to draw to its service the best qualified 1644 men, because, being sent on long voyages, they were more left to themselves than the army surgeons wore. And he wished to remind the Committee that the army was not the only competitor for the service of surgeons. The East India Company were extremely liberal to the surgeons they employed, and allowed them to take private practice, from which they often realised large sums. In the merchant service, also, there were many large ships almost equal to men-of-war, which carried numerous first-class passengers, and the surgeons engaged for them received remarkably good pay, and were treated as gentlemen. Unless, therefore, the assistant surgeons of the navy were paid as well as their brethren of the army, there was a danger of an insufficiency of duly qualified practitioners for the service. Another grievance which this class laboured under was that on being made full surgeons they were put upon half-pay; and from this cause they spent on an average ten years of their life ashore, which did not count in their applications for a retiring pension, while the service of the military surgeon was continuous, and he could therefore retire ten years sooner. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would take this matter into his serious consideration, for it was a matter of deep importance to the interests of the navy.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he entirely concurred with the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the importance of appointing duly qualified medical men to the navy, and he would consider the alteration suggested by him.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £41,470, to complete the sum for Naval Miscellaneous Services.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that this Vote contained an item of £12,066 for compensation for damage done by Her Majesty's ships to private ships, and a large item for compensation for damage to ships in the Baltic, the Black, and the Azoph Seas, which he presumed was occasioned by the illegal capture of ships during the Russian war. If so, deductions ought to be made from the prize money of those officers who had captured vessels illegally to compensate the aggrieved parties. He wished to have an explanation of these items.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that with regard to the first item, it was to afford compensation for damage done unavoidably by Her Majesty's ships to private 1645 ships; and with regard to the second, that the capture of certain vessels on the seas mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, gave rise to questions of law. The legality of their capture being questionable, it would not be just to make the capturers responsible for the damage.
§ MR. FAGANsaid, the Vote contained an item for Sailors Homes, and he should like to know on what principle the money was distributed, because nothing was contributed by the Government for the support of the Sailors Home at Cork, whore many seamen of Her Majesty's Navy were received.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, that as Ireland had now to pay the same taxes as England, it was not fair that millions should be expended in fortifying the coasts of England and Scotland, while not a farthing was laid out on the Irish coast. Even for imperial purposes such a harbour as that of Cork, which at any water could be entered by the Leviathan itself, ought to be made a naval station. It presented the greatest facilities for repairing even the largest ships in the navy.
§ MR. BAGWELLsaid, that as a resident at Queenstown, could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). Every First Lord of the Admiralty for the last twenty-five years had promised to consider the case of Cork harbour, but nothing had been done. One improvement had certainly been made, and that was the erection of a pier, and so great was the advantage derived from it that he might state that he himself saw one of the largest steamers lying alongside of it, and a regiment of cavalry was marched down there to embark for the Crimea, and they actually walked their horses on board. The harbour of Cork was the great western harbour of the United Kingdom.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he must remind the hon. Member that he was speaking to a Vote which had already passed.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would strongly recommend the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to go to Cork harbour, which was one of the most beautiful in the world. He wished to explain the grounds of the restriction in the charitable contributions of the Admiralty complained of by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Fagan). There had been such a number of demands made on the sum in question from places which had ostensibly a right to apply, that it was thought best to confine the contributions 1646 to places where there were actually naval stations.
§ SIR JOHN PAK1NGTONsaid, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman did not tally with the statement of the hon. Member for Cork, who said that a considerable part of the sum in question was unappropriated. He was not acquainted with the condition of the fund, and he did not know whether the arrangement mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman was not a judicious one, but he would take care to inform himself on the subject, and if he found any injustice existing he would endeavour to remedy it.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £394,148, to complete the sum for Half Pay.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he had observed with great pleasure the manner in which the First Lord of the Admiralty had commenced the performance of the duties of his office, and particularly he would express his gratification at the right hon. Gentleman's having taken measures to inquire into the case of a very deserving class of men, the worn-out officers of Greenwich Hospital, and for having given them their half-pay, of which they had been for so many years deprived. This step had given so much satisfaction, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give their half-pay to others on the list who were in the same position. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would not m the distribution of patronage with reference to this Vote, confine it to a small clique and to particular families. It was a subject of remark, that out of the small number of rear-admirals now employed, two of them bore the same name, and were connected with each other. If there was one class of officers who deserved more consideration than others, it was that of retired officers with the rank of captain, who had seen active service. He had never asked for additional relief for these officers without stating where the fund was to conic from to pay them; and he thought a saving might be made in coal on board steam-ships, not only in vessels on service but in the ports. He had also suggested before, that the money paid for shipping-bullion to this country from foreign ports, to the admirals on their stations, was a great abuse. He hoped the First Lord would enable these half-pay officers to enjoy the additional privileges to which he bad alluded.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, the hon. 1647 and gallant Gentleman had alluded to two gallant Friends of his who were now employed; and he would venture to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, though the number of rear admirals employed was so limited, and unfortunately two of them bore the same name, they were among the most scientific and able officers in the service; and when he stated that they bore the name of Grey, it would be a proof that they were not officers who had thrown away their time. They devoted their whole time to the service, and no more energetic or scientific officers were to be found.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTAt first sight a Vote of £694,148 for half-pay and retirement to officers of the Royal Navy and Marines may appear a considerable charge upon the revenues of the country. I need not, however, remind the House that it is the inevitable entail of a war, which between the years 1792 and 1815 was carried on against France, Spain, Russia, Denmark, Turkey, and the United States of America, and at times against combined nations. At one period we had upwards of 1,000 sail in commission to furnish blockading fleets off Toulon, Cadiz, Ferrol. Brest, Texel, and in the Baltic, and on the sea board of America, as well as for the protection of our scattered colonies, and for the convoy of a vast commerce. The officers, who then devoted their youth and prime of their life to the service of this country, cannot be deprived of their frugal maintenance in their age, or on this involuntary and compulsory retirement from the active duties of this profession. It is a debt of honour contracted by the nation. Every day it is in course of being lessened, and within a few years will be largely cancelled by the hand of death.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to draw attention to the extraordinary system of promotion to the rank of admiral. In 1840, there were only 143, and now they numbered 349. The Committee ought to express its disapprobation of this reckless system of promotion. When in 1846, 200 old captains were placed on the list of retired admirals, it was understood that the number of admirals would gradually be decreased; but, instead of that, it had gradually increased. There had, within a very short time, been recently added to the list no less than twenty-nine admirals. He believed that there was about an admiral and a half to every vessel in the navy.
MR. CORRYsaid, that what the hon. 1648 Gentleman called reckless promotion, since 1846, had been productive of more good to the service than anything that had ever been done. There were 343 admirals on the list, but they were not meant to be for active service. There were only 100 on the active service list; and the retired list was introduced for the purpose of obtaining younger men in the rank of admiral. At present, the number of years' service of the senior captain was only eighteen years, while in 1846 it was thirty-eight; so that supposing a man to have the good fortune to become a captain at thirty years of age, he could not become an admiral until seventy. In fact, a man might become an admiral at forty-eight. The result was, that we had now admirals in the prime of life, and in the full enjoyment of health and activity. The whole cost attendant on obtaining such an advantage was £22,000, and the whole expense of the half-pay lift in the last ten years had been diminished by £38,000.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERcomplained that the reduced list of admirals had exceeded the prescribed number of 350. He objected to their limiting the admirals to certain families. If only five rear-admirals were required, two ought not to belong to one family. He wanted to see a little more fair play in the appointment of officers. When a new First Lord came into office he always professed to look only at merit; but they all knew that that was all humbug. A gallant Admiral opposite, and there was no more efficient officer, had almost gone on his knees to the Board for employment—[Admiral WALCOTT: I did.] —but it was of no use; he had no Parliamentary influence.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, no measure had been more beneficial to the efficiency of the navy than that relating to the reserved list, which was begun in 1846 and completed in 1851. If we were to have young admirals, there must be some means of disposing of the old ones, and the expense of a reserved list was trifling in comparison with the advantage gained. As to the reserved list of captains, provision had been made some years ago that the list should be reduced to 350, and it was now in course of gradual reduction to that point. At present it was 356. With regard to the two gallant officers whose names had been mentioned, he certainly had given them appointments, but only in their regular order. Sir Michael Seymour's services in the Baltic fully entitled 1649 him to his promotion, and Sir George Seymour's services were equally meritorious. With respect to his relatives, their promotion took place upon a principle which he was ready to explain to the Committee. He promoted according to seniority those officers who distinguished themselves in the Crimean war. During that time Sir Frederick Grey commanded the Hannibal, and both his and Admiral George Grey's services, in taking care of the transport of troops, had greatly contributed to the success of our operations against Sebastopol; and he had in his hand a letter from Lord Lyons, thanking Admiral George Grey for his services at Gibraltar.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he had not questioned the appointment of Sir Michael Seymour; indeed he (Sir C. Napier) would have been the first to recommend that gallant officer to the command in the Chinese seas; but what he objected to was family influence. He referred to the two Admirals Grey; he did not believe that they would have been appointed but for the fact that they were brothers-in-law to the late First Lord.
§ SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that he was answerable in some degree for the creation of the retired list of admirals, and he thought it had worked well. It was he who had appointed Admiral Sir George Seymour to the American station, and he had done so solely on account of his services. He would remind the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) that the proposition for putting officers upon the retired list came originally from the late Mr. Hume, who would not have sanctioned anything prodigal.
§ Vote agreed to; as were the following Votes: —
§ (5.)£280,061, to complete the sum for Military Pensions and Allowances.
§ (6.)£90,481, Do. Civil Do.
§ (7.)£160,500, Do. Freight of Ships, &c.
§ (8.)£588,488, Do. Packet Service.
§ Upon a Vote of £121,957, for the Department of the Commander in Chief,
§ Motion made and Question put, "That 1650 the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 36; Noes 163: Majority 127.
THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the House had sat so late during the week, that he would recommend his right hon. Friend (General Peel) not to press another Vote. The House seemed, indeed, quite in the humour to adjourn.
§ House resumed; Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.