CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 11 July 1859)

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, as the forms of the House prevented him from replying at once to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, he now desired to do so in reference to the gallant Gentleman's observations regarding the execution of the Bounty.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
rose to order. He himself had been called to order by the Speaker at an earlier period of the evening, although he confessed he was not quite clear that he was at the time at all out of order: but the noble Lord was now clearly out of order in raising a discussion upon a subject that was not at all before the Committee. When he (Sir John Pakington) was interrupted he was asking a legitimate question at the right moment of the noble Lord—

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he thought that the right hon. Baronet was now himself out of order.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
With great submission, I am speaking upon a point of order. If the noble Lord raises such a question as he was about to do, I shall have the right of reply.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he merely wished to explain some matters in | deference to his hon. and gallant Friend, whom he wished to set right.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
was at a loss to know where the necessity existed for so many additional clerks. If communications were addressed to the principal officers at Somerset House, instead of going through the present roundabout course, a great many clerks might be saved. Many more letters were written now than there was any occasion for. When he was appointed to command the Baltic fleet it took about ten letters to inform him of it.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he was prepared to defend these Estimates, which were prepared by the late Government. He believed that the short experience of the present Government was sufficient to show them the insufficiency of the present establishment of clerks. Whatever might be the experience of the hon. and gallant Officer opposite as to the manning of the fleet, he (Sir John Pakington) did not think his experience was equally good as to the manning of the Admiralty. The work to be done was enormous, and was still increasing most rapidly. He was afraid that many more clerks would be required.

MR. LINDSAY
objected to the employment of so many clerks. He thought 998 that the business of the country could be much better done by a smaller number of clerks and by paying good men higher salaries.

§ MR. BENTINCK
also deprecated the system of employing such a number of clerks in those offices. The fact was that we had four or five Boards of Admiralty at work at once. There was in the first instance a First Lord of the Admiralty, who generally on his appointment knew nothing about the navy, and a great deal of time was consumed in his endeavours to learn his business. They had then a number of Lords, who had no confidence in their head nor in each other, and issued their own orders in contradiction to their colleagues. Every sort of practical absurdity was going on from day to day. He did not, however, think that this was a moment for reducing the number of the clerks or of tampering with the Navy Estimates.

MR. A. SMITH
called attention to an item of £8,000 for messengers. He wished to know how those messengers were to be selected.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
asked whether those additional clerks were taken into the Government establishments upon the understanding that when their services were no longer required they would be discharged.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
reminded the Committee that this Vote comprised not only the clerks in the Admiralty, but those in Somerset House. The whole number was about 300.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
was not prepared to give a precise answer to the question. He believed there would be a redistribution of clerks.

MR. CORRY
said, those additional clerks were merely employed as temporary clerks.

§ MR. JACKSON
thought that a great portion of the expenditure under this Vote arose from want of concentration in the offices.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that he would not enter into the question of volunteers, because the Secretary to the Admiralty had promised to introduce a Bill before this sum was expended, which would enable the House to discuss fully the important question of the manning of the navy. He wished to know when the Secretary to the Admiralty would introduce that Bill?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
was anxious to introduce it as soon as the subject had been discussed at the Admiralty.

MR. HENLEY
hoped when the Bill came before the House they would have the whole question of the bounty discuss ed, as it bore most materially upon the new scheme for creating a reserve for the navy.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the House would have an opportunity of discussing the bounty before that time, inasmuch as it would be raised in the shape of a simple estimate.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, when they discussed the question of bounty they ought to remember the improvements that had recently been made in the condition of seamen.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
thought the Committee ought clearly to understand that the only question that remained to be discussed was the recent extension of bounty by the present Government to seamen previously serving in the fleet. The Committee had nothing to do with the item for the bounty granted by the late Government, for that item had been already voted. That bounty, which he should be prepared at any time to defend, had been very successful.

MR. HENLEY
said, he intended not to express any opinion at present, but merely to reserve his right to do so upon the question of how far the bounty already given, and that proposed to be given, would prove a successful plan of forming a reserve for the navy.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
intimated his intention to move, when the question came under consideration, that no bounty be paid to any men serving in any of Her Majesty's ships until the whole of the recommendations of the Commission for Manning the Navy had been carried out.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, the only reserve we had at present consisted of the coast volunteers and the coastguard. The coastguard were composed of seamen who had served a certain number of years in the navy and who were enjoying a sort of retirement, subject to be called into active service in the event of an emergency. In that retirement they naturally acquired shore habits, to some extent adverse to their efficiency. The coast volunteers were mixed up with them in the vote under consideration. Those coast volunteers, if properly managed, would be a very 1000 efficient body of men at some future day; but they did not constitute such a reserve force as the country ought to have. The coastguard and the coast volunteers could only be regarded as the sea militia of the country, and for many reasons it was not possible with the same ease to bring them into equal efficiency with the militia force of the army. He had invariably set his face against having a reserve to man twelve sail of the line, without having twelve sail of the line to put them into. We ought to have ships ready for sea at each of the ports, and the coastguard men and coast volunteers ought to be encouraged to go on board them as much as possible. He would give them a dinner on Sundays after service, to which they might bring their wives, which would be a great inducement to them to go on board. He thought, too, that there ought to be an efficient gunboat attached to each of these ships. He reminded the Committee that during the last war we had a capital corps of Sea Fencibles, who were a very formidable body on the coast. It was an extraordinary thing, that in this great naval country the Admiralty had never had a registry of every seafaring man. He recommended that such a registry should be kept, and that recourse should be had to the system of Sea Fencibles.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
regretted that the whole tenor of the discussion, instead of allaying the feverish agitation of the public mind should tend to excite it. Time we had to mature our preparations antecedent to the pressure of an emergency, and he trusted that the capacity of our resistance to an enemy might soon cease to be matter of debate: he had no fear that England would not be found ready in the event of an attempted invasion, although he did not think invasion at all probable. When they were told that by April 1860, they would have no less a number than sixty of the finest and largest screw line-of-battle ships, and already had thirty efficiently manned or in progress of being so, he asked hon. Members what cause was there for apprehension. With from 160,000 to 180,000 seamen and lads in the Mercantile Marine, it was clear they could send these sixty sail of the line to sea, in the course of two or three months, because there would be no employment for them in commerce, other than in confined extent; and they might rely upon it there was not one of the 160,000, who would not respond to the exigencies of the service in the event of war. If thirty sail 1001 of the line were efficiently manned it would be easy to man thirty more by putting one half new hands and one half trained hands in the ships, and there would then be a fleet equal to any emergency. He deprecated observations which led the country to believe that the service was sadly inefficient and could not be made efficient at a short notice. On board the Arethusa, in the late war of forty years since, which was called "the saucy Arethusa," they had a song, (it was composed by Dibdin) which said:— They swear they'll invade us, these terrible foes, To frighten our children, our women, our beaux, But if e'er their flat bottoms in darkness get o'er, They Britons shall find to receive them on shore. The gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) had shown himself a most meritorious officer throughout his whole career, and the House was justified in listening to his observations with respect, but he thought that a feeling had of late animated the gallant Admiral which he could not comprehend. The gallant Admiral must know that they had most splendid ships, and that the navy of England would preserve the same eminence and glory which had in past times been won. He admitted that ships were useless unless manned by efficient officers, and it was therefore their primary duty to encourage the officers and deal honourably and fairly with the seamen, as the Manning Committee proposed, in increased advantages of many kinds. He wished to revert before he sat down to a statement made by the hon. Member for Lambeth respecting punishments in the service, as he should be sorry if that speech appeared in The Times to-morrow without an answer.

THE CHAIRMAN
interposed, and said the hon. and gallant Member was out of order.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
said, he would take another opportunity.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
Good God, Sir! Does the gallant Admiral suppose that these 160,000 men are in the Thames, or at Bristol, or Liverpool? They are scattered all over the world.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
But you could get 50,000.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
If there were a certainty of invasion to-morrow could he get 20,000.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
I would lay my life I could.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
The merchant service is not so well manned as is 1002 supposed. There are foreigners in it and men not fit for a man-of-war. Does the gallant Admiral mean to tell me that the moment a man is put on board a ship he would be fit to fight?

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
Yes he would.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
I fought an action not long ago and half the crews were undisciplined men, and I saw that those men did not do their duty. I tell the gallant Admiral that if he wants men and sailors to fight and defend these ships they must be regularly disciplined and well-trained. All the gallantry and courage and determination to fight to their very stumps will not enable undisciplined men to meet disciplined men, any more than an undisciplined army can meet a disciplined army.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
I do not want them all efficient; I calculate there would be 30,000 men versed in gunnery, and I should only want men to work the guns and use the ropes of the ship.

MR. LINDSAY
said, it was presumed that one-third of the seamen in the merchant service were always in this country. In such a dreadful emergency as invasion there would be no difficulty whatever in finding sufficient men at a moment's notice to man the fleet. With regard to the Vote before the Committee, he wished the noble Lord would fix a day when the important question of manning the navy could be fully discussed.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he doubted that men would be found in an emergency so readily as was presumed by the hon. Member for Sunderland. In the Russian war seamen in the merchant service did not come forward in any numbers. From October, 1853, to December, 1854, only 153, and in the year 1855 only 258 men entered. He had been abused for speaking the truth, but he would maintain that there never was a British fleet sent to sea so infamously manned as the fleet he commanded in the Baltic. There were men in it who had never been aloft in their lives. He gave the word to anchor in a not very heavy gale of wind and the sails were not furled until four in the morning. If it had come on to blow they would not have been furled at all. He hoped the Admiralty, in case of another war, would not man the navy as they manned his fleet, with all the tinkers, tailors, butcher-boys, and cabmen they could pick up out of the streets of London. He was accused of alarming the country. He admitted that 1003 he wanted to alarm the country. Let the Admiralty give their Admirals men to command, and not men they were ashamed of.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he believed that the Committee on Dockyard Expenditure had completed their Report, in which, with one exception they had been unanimous. He wished to ask the noble Lord when that Report would be presented to the House, and what was the reason it had not been laid upon the table as soon as it had been made to the Admiralty. He believed it had been signed and sent in some time ago.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he was as anxious to lay this Report upon the table as the hon. Member could be to see it. True it was the Report was given in, but it was not yet printed, or, to speak more accurately, it was not yet corrected. It was usual to give these Reports to the Members of the Committees in order that they might make the necessary corrections. This process was not yet completed, but when the Report was so corrected it would be brought to the Admiralty. His impression was that the Board of Admiralty would consider it fair to allow the heads of some of the principal departments who might be desirous to make some remarks upon the Report to do so. He believed that the Surveyor of the Navy and one or two other officers of departments wished to offer some observations on some of the details of that Report. The same thing was done on the report upon steam engines, when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) gave an opportunity to the heads of departments to add some observations to the Report. As soon as these reports were made the Report of the Dockyard Commission would be laid upon the table.

MR. LINDSAY
was afraid it would be the object of certain parties to keep this Report back as long as possible, so that the House might not have it this Session. He trusted the noble Lord would see that there was no unnecessary delay in presenting the Report. It was very desirable the House should see it at once.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
wished to have some explanation relative to the increase of £100,000 on this Vote over the Estimate of the late Government. He announced that the late Government determined to add from 1,300 to 1,400 shipwrights to the Royal dockyards, and they took a sufficient grant of money to employ them for six months—namely, until next October. That was done upon the recommendation of the Surveyor of the Navy, who thought in the month of May that if these additional hands were employed for six months all the paddlewheel frigates might be repaired, and the steam reserve might be brought into that state in which the vessels might be put into commission. In addition to these repairs he had hoped that by adding these 1,300 men to the dockyards they would be able to convert two more line-of-battle ships, making 17 line-of-battle ships, instead of the 15 he had promised. He trusted that in deciding to double the Vote for these men the Government had consulted the Surveyor of the Navy. He hoped, also, that the noble Lord had himself looked into the matter, and had satisfied himself that the public service required the additional outlay. It was well to be on the safe side, and if the matter were even doubtful he would not oppose the grant.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
thought there must have been a misunderstanding between the right hon. Baronet and the Surveyor of the Navy on this point. The explanation given by the Surveyor of the Navy—and he was sure he would not state what he did not believe—was, that when the right hon. Baronet proposed an increase in the dockyards, and in the beginning of May last asked him what number of men should be taken on in order to carry out certain works, he did not contemplate that these men would be discharged at the end of six months. There might have been a misunderstanding, but the Surveyor of the Navy stated that from the first moment the subject was mentioned to him he thought it was absolutely necessary that the men should be taken on until the end of the financial year. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would think that the Admiralty had looked narrowly into the matter before they proposed the Vote.

MR. CORRY
said, his recollection was that the Surveyor was asked what number of men would be necessary to complete certain works in six months, and his an- 1005 swer was given in reference to that question. He was glad, however, that these men were to be kept on, for he thought no exertions should be spared to place the navy in a state of efficiency. There was, however, considerable difficulty in procuring the necessary timber, and he regretted that this want of timber imposed a limit to the efforts which could be made in the yards. At the commencement of the year there were 70,000 loads in store; while the quantity which it was estimated would be used was 60,000, instead of 35,000 loads in the previous year. After drawing upon every market in the world, all the supply they could look for was 53,000 loads; so that the shipwrights whom the late Admiralty proposed to enter for the year would have used 7,000 more loads of timber than could be obtained for the supply of the dockyards. He wished to know how this difficulty was to be met?

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, this was a very serious question. Having had something to do with the supply of timber for Indian railways, he knew there was very great difficulty in obtaining timber for any purpose where scantling was required; and he would recommend that some of the unemployed artificers in the navy should be sent to the different ports on the African and Australian coasts, where vast and unexplored forests existed, for the purpose of procuring a supply. Every year the quantity of suitable timber was becoming less and less, and the subject was one which the Admiralty would do well to grapple with at once.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, that although with all the predilections of an old soldier, he looked upon the navy as the natural defence of this country, and was willing to contribute what was necessary towards rendering it equal, not to the navy of one Power alone, but of all other Powers combined. He thought, however, that the results ought to be commensurate with the means employed—that was, to the money voted by the House—but when he looked at the enormous sums of money expended in our dockyards this did not seem to be the case. Since 1835 the Estimates had increased 200 per cent, having risen from £4,200,000 to £12,600,000 in the present year, and it might therefore be supposed that since that time we had three times the number of ships and of men. Nothing of the sort. Last year in the dockyards 10,850 workmen were employed, and among them 4,000 shipwrights. The noble Lord 1006 had stated that 1,000 shipwrights could build eight ships of 1,000 tons per annum; and according to this calculation, therefore, thirty-two such ships should have been built; whereas only 19,159 tons of shipping had really been built, the cost of which he calculated to be £50 9s. per ton, supposing all the men to be employed on new work. Allowing, however, that three-fourths of the men had been employed in repairs, the vessels turned out would still have cost £12 7s. 3d. per ton. Now, the hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay) had pointed out that ships built in private yards cost only £2 10s. or £2 15s. per ton, and if such magnificent vessels as those of Mr. Green, who had a navy of his own, could be constructed at this rate, there must surely be something lamentably wrong in our dockyard expenditure. The noble Lord thought we should next year produce 46,284 tons of shipping, but even that amount of tonnage, according to the increased Estimates, would cost £33 a ton, or, with only one fourth of the hands in the yards employed on building, about £8 5s. per ton—an expenditure infinitely greater than that incurred in the most extravagant private yards. Under these circumstances, he could not but congratulate the country upon the thorough reform in our dockyards which had been promised by the noble Lord. With regard to gunboats, he would ask the noble Lord whether his attention had been called to a letter written by Mr. Laird, of Liverpool, who suggested that there were in the Mersey many steamboats adapted to carry a heavy gun, and that by a small annual allowance and an arrangement with the owners these boats might be made available for gunboats. This seemed a valuable suggestion, and the same rule would apply to all the large rivers in the kingdom, so that means of defence could thus be afforded without the enormous outlay which would otherwise be necessary. He would suggest also that in each dockyard there should be a scientific head to direct operations. No doubt the master shipwright was a man of practical experience and good sense, but what was wanted was a man of sound mathematical know* ledge, acquainted with the dynamics of shipbuilding, and grievous errors, opposed to acknowledged principles, might thus be avoided.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, the dockyard battalions had been abolished by the Government which succeeded the first 1007 Administration of Lord De by, and, in his opinion, very properly, inasmuch as the full services of the men were required as shipwrights.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
called the attention of the Secretary of the Admiralty to the case of the seamen riggers, who, he said, had very hazardous and important duties to perform, while the wages of each were not more than 19s. &d. per week. That amount of remuneration he regarded as inadequate, especially when compared with that which other naval artificers received, and he therefore trusted the Government would take the expediency of increasing the pay of those men into their consideration.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
concurred in the testimony given by the hon. Member for Portsmouth in behalf of the Seamen Riggers and pronounced them to he a most valuable and meritorious class of men, and he ventured the recommendation to the Secretary of the Admiralty that the Board would take their Memorial into consideration.

MR. LINDSAY
took occasion to quote from a published paper facts to the effect that the Admiralty anchors had been manufactured by the same firm since 1841; that the price paid by them for those which weighed fifteen tons was at the rate of £44 10s. per ton, and for those which weighed five tons at the rate of £73 per ton, while the market price of anchors manufactured by the most eminent firms was £20 10s. per ton for anchors of twenty tons, and £30 per ton for anchors of five tons weight. Now he should like to learn from his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty whether those statements were correct, and if so, why such a state of things was permitted to exist? Why should £73 be paid for what could be obtained for £30 from most eminent makers? He also wanted to know why no notice had been taken of the report of the Commission appointed seven years ago to inquire into the best description of anchor. They reported that of all the anchors submitted to them the Admiralty anchor was the worst. Mr. Trotman offered to submit his anchors, weighing 50 cwt., costing £90, to be tested against anchors of five tons, the contract value of which was £365. Then, 1008 again, in the Supplementary Vote there was an estimate for steam engines, the charge for which was increasing and therefore an important item. Up to a recent period the manufacture of Government engines had been confined to one or two firms, while there were other firms equally eminent willing to make them. He did not advocate an indiscriminate acceptance of terms; but there were great establishments whose offers ought to be entertained. He wished to know whether the door had been opened at all, so as to permit other firms to tender, and, if so, to what extent?

MR. RIDLEY
drew attention to the Report of a Committee appointed to investigate the subject of steam coals for the Royal navy. Last year, according to instructions issued by the Admiralty, investigations were made as to Welsh and north country coals. The results were various, and Mr. Taplin, of Woolwich, was requested to draw up a new report on the subject. He reported, recommending the Government to undertake further experiments independent of all private parties; and he (Mr. Ridley) asked whether the Board of Admiralty had acted on the recommendation. The French Government had lately been buying coals largely in this country. He understood that they purchased any coals on the Admiralty list; and it was neccessary that that Hat should be drawn up with the greatest possible accuracy. Another important subject of investigation was the consumption of smoke, which many experiments had shown to be possible, and which had a great bearing upon the relative value of different coals.

§ LORD LOVAINE
remarked that the consumption of smoke could be carried out so as to effect a considerable saving in the quantity of coals, and consequently in the expense. Attention, then, ought to be paid to the subject. Another matter to which he wished to draw the attention of the Admiralty was the system-of superheating steam, which promised enormous saving. Attention was also required as to the best means of coaling vessels in the navy. And on this and other analogous points it would be well for the present to follow the example of the late Board of Admiralty in entrusting the examination of different points of doubt to a scientific Board.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that the question raised with regard to anchors was one of great importance. It was not a question of one person's anchor over another's; but 1009 as regarded the best description being obtained for the navy. A Committee had reported in 1852 in favour of six different kinds of anchors, all superior to those used by the Admiralty—why had no notice been taken of the report of that Committee? why had it not been acted on? They were now told of a person who offered to produce anchors as efficient as the Admiralty anchors at one-third the cost, and weighing half the weight; why had he not been allowed a trial, in order to prove whether his assertions were correct or not? Still he thought it was not right to press the noble Lord on a point which concerned all the Boards of Admiralty for the last seven years. He would invite the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Droitwich, Carlisle, Halifax, and Portsmouth, who had held office in that time, to give a distinct answer to the question why the Report of the Committee had been disregarded, and why Mr. Trotman's anchors had not been at least tried in the navy.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, there were perfect forests of anchors lying in all the dockyards, and the amount of capital wasted in them was perfectly incredible. It would be well to know by whose orders these anchors were constantly accumulating in every port. He also directed attention to the boats lying in Portsmouth dockyard, which in some tides were wet and in others dry. Why were these boats left to rot? He hoped that some steps would be adopted to take these boats a little higher up out of the water. There was an item for building gunboats by contract. He believed there was a great mistake in all the gunboats built. It was not chiefly gunboats that were wanted for service in the Baltic, but mortar vessels which would throw shells. The only use of gunboats was to protect the mortar vessels. Whether Armstrong's guns were superior to mortars he could not tell; but he had had experience of mortars at the siege of Martinique. Mortars were collected from every island in the West Indies, and the tremendous fort there was captured by mortars and mortars alone. Had there been mortars in the Baltic during the late war, not only Sweaborg but Cronstadt would have been annihilated. If there was war with France it would be with mortars, not with gunboats, that they would attack Cherbourg. Before the report of these Estimates passed he would insist on being told the history of these anchors; also on receiving an account 1010 of the condition of our gunboats, and how many of them could be launched at the present moment.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
could only answer for himself as to what had occurred regarding Trotman's anchors when he was at the Admiralty. He, of course, knew nothing of the quality of these anchors from his own personal knowledge, but on consulting practical naval officers the reply he received was that they did not in their experience find them to answer. He was told that Trotman's anchor, when once it could be got to hold, was a good one, but that officers could not rely on its taking hold. Now, of course, if it did not hold, the most valuable quality of an anchor was wanting. His hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) asked why they had not given Trotman's anchor a fair trial. In reply, he might state that one of his last acts before leaving the Board of Admiralty was to issue directions for giving the anchor a further trial. With regard to the hon. and gallant Admiral's question about the gunboats which they proposed to build, he had to state that it was proposed to build eighteen, which would be of a much larger size than the ordinary gunboats, that the latter could only carry their guns along the coast, whereas these new boats would be able to carry their guns all over the world.

§ MR. H. A. BRUCE
contended that the system adopted by the Admiralty for procuring coal led to their receiving not the best, but a very inferior description of coal. The mode was this,—there was a list of a great many different kinds of coal made out, those varying in price to the extent of 25 per cent. The Admiralty issued an offer to receive tenders for a supply of coal, and the persons who made the tender were free to supply the Admiralty with any of these kinds of coal. The tender was made, and the Admiralty almost invariably got the worst of the coal. He spoke from his own knowledge when he said that the owners of the best coal never thought of tendering to the Admiralty. The large steamboat companies obtained the best article, and the owners who supplied them with coal never supplied the Admiralty. He would suggest that the Admiralty should either reduce the list and strike off the inferior quality of coal, or that they should send agents to the coal districts to inquire into the nature of the coal, with the view of getting the very best article, 1011 as the Peninsular and Oriental and c other large companies did.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he had on a former occasion asked the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) why the Report of the Committee of 1852 had not been adopted, and the answer was that the report of a body of naval officers was at variance with the Report of the Committee, and was unfavourable to Trot-man's anchors. Now, great injustice would be done to Mr. Trotman if such a statement remained uncorrected, and he therefore felt it right to say that there had been no report unfavourable to Trotman's anchors from any officer in Her Majesty's service. His noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Clarence Paget) shook his head, but the Report applied to Porter's, and not to Trotman's anchors. He had perused all the reports which had been presented to the Admiralty up to this time last year, and he could state that none of them were unfavourable to Mr. Trotman. He still wished that some better information were afforded to the House as to why the Report of 1852 had not been acted upon, and why Mr. Trotman was refused the trial for which he asked. With regard to the new gunboats, he hoped they would be perfectly efficient craft, and that they would not come within the grasp of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood), whose mode of dealing with vessels of that class did not seem, from the discussions which took place last year, to have been attended with very fortunate results.

§ MR. CLAY
was glad that the Admiralty were disposed to give Trotman's anchors a further trial, but this was a question between the Admiralty anchor and the six other descriptions of anchors, and he thought the House ought to know whether the same defect which was attributed to Trotman's anchor was attributed to all the others.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
hoped the attention of the Government would be directed to the number of vessels of war in ordinary at Hamoaze, in the Medway, and at Portsmouth, which were decreasing in value day by day, and which it would require great expenditure to render serviceable.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
feared that he could not give a very satisfactory answer to some of the questions which had been put to him. The subject of anchors was one with which the Admiralty had 1012 great difficulty in dealing. He professed to be a naval reformer, and he was for reform in every case in which it was consistent with efficiency; but wherever the best anchor could be obtained he would never be disposed to object to its cost if it were really serviceable. There was, however, the greatest difference of opinion among naval men with respect to anchors, and if they saw fifteen or sixteen ships of war in a line the probability was that as many different descriptions of anchors would be used. Captains of ships of war were allowed great latitude in the choice of anchors, and there were various and very opposite opinions with regard to the merits of Trotman's anchors. He could not say that he approved them himself, but he was ready to promise that Mr. Trotman, as well as other inventors, should have fair play. He had been asked whether there was to be any alteration in the navy contracts for coals used for steam engines ashore or afloat. At the present moment the subject was undergoing a thorough investigation at Woolwich. If the question were merely whether, as a matter of simple economy, north country coal or Welsh coal should be used, it would admit of easy adjustment; but a great number of collateral questions were involved. Experiments were in progress with regard to the super-heating of steam and the consumption of smoke, but it was of course desirable that these objects should be accomplished with the utmost possible economy. One third of the supply of coal for the navy, which was chiefly consumed at Sheerness and Woolwich, was obtained from the north, while the remaining two-thirds were obtained from Wales, and were used principally at Devonport and on the southern const; but if it should be found that north country coal was equally serviceable it would, no doubt, be used in a much larger proportion. The hon. Gentleman took an extreme view of the cost of navy engines over those used by private firms. It was true that the engines for men-of-war cost more than those for merchant ships, but there were a variety of reasons for this with which he need not trouble the Committee, and a Select Committee which sat upon this subject reported that there was no reason for supposing that the Government had paid a higher price for engines and boilers than private individuals.

MR. CORRY
said, that Trotman's and 1013 Porter's anchors were identical in principle; and as a proof of the efficacy of the Admiralty anchor, reminded the Committee of what occurred at Balaklava, where, when the Prince went down and twenty-two merchant vessels were lost, not one of the vessels of war went ashore,

§ MR. BENTINCK
regretted that the hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, had fallen into the mistake of confounding Trotman's with Porter's anchor as being the same in principle. Mr. Trotman himself protested against it as an injustice, for it was not the same in principle, and it was admitted by the Admiralty to be 35 per cent better in the efficacy of its hold.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
expressed his approval of the gunboats which had been built by contract. Some time ago he visited Haslar, where he found the greater part of the old gunboats under repair, and he exhibited some fragments from their bottoms, which showed the injury they had sustained from being alternately wet and dry. Their launching depended upon the longest and finest screw of the sort which had ever been constructed, and if anything happened to it they could not be got to sea. He had been of the same opinion as the hon. Member for Sunderland with regard to the cost of machinery for the navy, until he read the Report of the Committee on marine engines and boilers. The hon. Gentleman read a copious extract from the Report of the Committee, showing that the mistakes which had in former times been committed with respect to naval machinery had been discovered and remedied.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
called attention to an item of £50,000 for the purchase of a site for coal stores at the head of the great harbour at Malta. In 1858 a sum of £23,000 was proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) for the purchase of this very property, having fifteen or sixteen tenements upon it, and that amount was then regarded as a very liberal estimate of its value. The exorbitant feature was certain 1014 stores erected by a person named Casolani, Bishop of Mauricastro, and son of the late collector of land revenue. These were estimated at £15,000. The last valuer, who was official, estimated them at £25,841, adding £5,168 for jus luendi. Casolani came to England on the business, and made a very modest demand of £123,000, which the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) afterwards cut down to £50,000. Mr. Victor Houlton being called in to fix a price, instead of the naval authorities, named £60,000 for Casolani. If a Committee of Inquiry into this matter were granted, it would be proved that this was one of the most monstrous extortions ever practised upon a credulous Government. The charge in the present Estimate was double the amount fixed upon in 1858. Correspondence that he (Mr. Kinnaird) had had on the subject with persons resident at Malta, convinced him that the country had been imposed upon in this business to the extent of £25,000. He would ask, was there not, among the archives of the Admiralty, a protest against these exactions on the part of the naval authorities of the island? and he would appeal to the noble Lord, as a naval reformer, whether the interests of this country had been sufficiently watched when so monstrous a price had been given for this property. It was by transactions of this kind that the Estimates were inordinately swelled. He wished also to ask, whether there was not some talk of an expenditure of £200,000 for enlarging the port of Valetta, to meet the wants of the Royal Navy, and at the same time to enlarge the commercial port: but in which it is to be feared an inordinate demand will be made on the Imperial exchequer, unless the expenditure is fixed and limited in the same manner as the island proportion has been fixed by the Council of Government of Malta. This was a point of great importance: or the consequence would be that instead of £100,000 the Government would find themselves committed to meet an expenditure of three to four hundred thousand pounds. He must caution the noble Lord against sanctioning any such charge upon the Imperial resources. Objecting so strongly as he did to the item to which he had referred, he had no alternative but now to move the omission from the Vote of the sum of £50,000 for the purchase of this property at Malta. The House should distinctly understand that the original vote taken by Sir Charles Wood was 1015 for this property inclusive, with some fifteen or sixteen tenements attached to it. Now £50,000 was about to be paid for one of these tenements only, whose real ascertained cost was £15,000 only.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
wished, as far as he was concerned, to deal with this question with perfect frankness. He could now only repeat what he told the House in the month of March, when he had to move a Supplementary Estimate, that it was quite an accidental circumstance that this item came before Parliament in the Estimates for the present year. The House ought to understand, especially after the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend, that this was only a re-vote. He had never been at Malta, and therefore was not acquainted with the land in question; but the decided opinion of all the naval officers with whom he had communication, including Sir Richard Dundas, now the senior Lord of the Admiralty, was, that it was absolutely necessary for the public service that it should he in the hands of the Government. The House could not make a greater mistake than to repudiate the bargain. In the Estimates of 1858, framed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), there was a Vote of £23,000 for the purchase of the land; but that was a purely conjectural Estimate, for the Government valuator at Malta valued the property at £31,000, while the owner thought it was worth £120,000. Subsequently, however, he agreed to split the difference, and take £76,000 for the laud, which the Colonial Secretary at Malta valued at £60,000. Under these circumstances the late Government offered £50,000, and as the proprietor was willing to accept that sum, the Admiralty should be authorized to complete the bargain at once.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
congratulated the hon. Gentleman on so quickly assuming the Government tone in defending a job. The fact was Signor Casolani paid only £15,000 for this land, for which £50,000 had been offered by the Government. This remind- 1016 ed him of the English chapel in Paris, which Lord Cowley agreed to buy, but the House of Commons repudiated the bargain, and the country was thereby rid of a burden. Was it not the fact that the Admiralty authorities at Malta had protested against this purchase?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he could not tell all the original details of this affair. He himself knew Malta well; he could say this land would be very useful, but he did also think that they were to pay a great deal too much for it. He was afraid, however, that if Government did not buy it, there would be no subscription to buy it, as in the case of the chapel alluded to. Moreover, the good faith of the country was pledged to the purchase.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, it was exceedingly desirable that the land should he purchased. It was very important to have the harbour of Malta placed in the best possible military state.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that Parliament had assented to the purchase of land at Malta at a price of £50,000, and to repudiate the Vote now would be to present the sight of one Parliament undoing the act of another.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
complained, that of £11,000,000 voted for the Navy Estimates a trifle only was spent in Ireland, in violation of repeated pledges from various Governments that Ireland should have a fair share in the public expenditure. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to call the attention of the Government to the capabilities of Cork Harbour.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
complained of a plan, which he said had been drawn up by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, but without the approval of the other Lords, for disposing of old naval officers.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, the question alluded to by the hon. and gallant Admiral was one of the most difficult questions connected with the whole interests of the naval service, and he suggested that that was not an hour (twenty minutes past twelve) at which the Committee should enter upon its discussion. He entirely protested against the plan alluded to being discussed in the House of Commons. It was perfectly true that he did prepare a plan which, if he had remained in office, he should certainly have endeavoured to carry into effect. But that plan was not shown to any one except in confidence, and it was never finally adopted or promulgated. He therefore must protest against the right of the gallant Admiral to come down to the House of Commons and pretend to give a description of what he had no right to know anything.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
The plan was not communicated to me in confidence. It was mentioned to several officers by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who gave the plan to them, and I think that as it was shown to me, and my opinion was asked upon it, and my name signed to a petition to the Queen against its adoption, I was at perfect liberty to mention it in this House. I tell the right hon. Baronet that I do not believe he could have put that plan in force. It was entirely objected to by his own Board.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
The hon. and gallant Admiral has taken a most irregular and disorderly course. His last statement is not correct. The whole of the Board of Admiralty were not opposed to that plan; but I deny the right of the hon. and gallant Admiral to bring on a discussion in this House of a paper that was never finally adopted. I never did show that plan to any one except in confidence. I do not deny that some one may have given him a copy of it; but I tell him, that inasmuch as it bore the word "confidential" at the head of it, he had no right to make a public use of it. I could give no better proof of the unfairness, injustice, and impropriety of his making a public use of it than by telling him that one of the last things I did before leaving the Admiralty was to draw up a modification of that paper.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
I beg to deny that it was a confidential paper. It was no such thing. It was shown to the whole of the Admirals resident in London, who signed a petition to Her Majesty against it. Now, if that can be called a confidential paper I do not know what confidential papers are. The civil Lord of the Admiralty, I believe, said very little about the plan. I believe the Dovor Lord did not make any great objection to it; but all the old sailors who were on the Board did object to it.

MR. LINDSAY
I was one of the number that received this document. It was printed, and had not been revised. It was marked in the corner of it "Confidential." Seeing it thus marked I certainly would never think of naming its contents out of this House, much less in this House. It was with the view of that plan being fully discussed on a future evening, at a more suitable hour, that I moved that the Chairman should report progress.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
My hon. Friend may have supposed that this was a confidential paper, but I put it to the House whether a paper that has been shown to all the old Admirals residing in London, and with respect to which a petition to the Queen has been signed, can be called a confidential paper or not.