HC Deb 11 July 1859 vol 154 cc989-92
MR. WILLIAMS

said, that having devoted some time to the consideration of the Navy Estimates he was anxious to offer a few observations on them. They were above those of any year of peace for the last forty years. He would not compare them with those for 1835 or any year about that time; he would take as a comparison those of 1852, the year before we commenced preparations for the Russian war. In 1852 the Navy Estimates amounted to £5,668,000; this year they were £12,862,000, being an increase of £7,200,000. They were told that the increase of the Navy Estimates was owing to the introduction of a new element into naval warfare by the invention of the screw. The screw was introduced in 1851. In 1852 we had five screw line-of-battle ships. Franco had two for that year. From the close of 1852 the Government of this country and that of France had run a race in building screw-line-of-battle ships. What was the result? It appeared that this country and France were, as regarded line-of-battle ships, at the present time on an equality, each country having twenty-nine; whilst France, as regarded frigates, had eight more. They were informed by the late First Lord and by the present Secretary to the Admiralty that next year this country would have fifty line-of-battle ships, and France only forty: but as she would have four iron-cased vessels, and this country only two, and France would have nine more screw frigates, there would in reality be scarcely any difference. But France had got her screw navy at a much smaller cost than we had. The cost to England of her screw navy was, the last eight years, £86,746,000; while that of France cost only £46,306,000. Last year we expended on our navy £9,962,000, being £800,000 more than had been voted for the purpose. France in the same period expended only £4,607,000. Our estimated expenditure for the navy for this year was £12,862,000, while that of France was only £4,920,000. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. W. S. Lindsay) had stated a fact which would in some degree account for this excessive expenditure. He stated that the Russian Government had ordered some men-of-war to be built by private builders in the Thames, the estimated expenditure on them for wages was £2 12s. per ton, whereas the expenditure on wages in one of the Government yards was £8 13s. 11d. a ton. The most curious feature was the difference between the various yards. In one dockyard the cost in proportion to the work done was double what it was in another. This difference required explanation, as the men received the same rate. If the Estimates were properly examined by a Committee of the House this could not occur. The number of men voted this year was 72,000, whilst the highest number during the Russian war was only 70,000. He did not complain of this increase of the navy. He would repeat what he had often stated, that he had the deepest desire to see the navy placed in a position which would enable the country to meet any hostile combination which could possibly be made against her. But unless some change took place in the administration of the Department that result could never be secured. What he complained of was that the vast amount of public money voted by the House was not applied judiciously, economically, and carefully, to the objects for which it was granted. On referring to the last report of the Audit Commissioners, he found that last year the expenditure exceeded the amount voted by £800,000, and that by a system of transfer the money voted for one purpose was expended on another. Among other strange items he found "Transferred out of the Vote on account of the extraordinary expenses of the Russian war £100,000." "Trans- ferred out of the Vote of £400,000 for the extraordinary expenses, naval and military) of the war in China, £556,000," rather a curious transfer. Now, with regard to manning the navy, the bounty of £10 for able seamen had been now offered for three or four months, but only 1,400 men had joined, although the hon. Member for Sunderland had informed them that owing to the depression in the mercantile marine crowds of these men were wandering about the streets: why did they not enter the navy? The cause, he believed, was to be found in the existence of the degrading system of flogging which existed in the navy. This system was a disgrace to the nation as well as to humanity, for, while in the army a soldier could only be subjected to corporal punishment by the sentence of a court martial, in the navy this punishment might be inflicted at the will of one man. He found that on board one ship, the Princess Royal, during the year before last, fifty-three men were flogged, who received 2,141 lashes; while he was proud to say that some ships were mentioned in the return on board which punishments of this nature had been very few, and others in which no flogging had taken place. This difference could not be produced by any difference in the character of the men, but it must be owing to the difference in the character of the captains; some were humane beings, others were heartless tyrants. Such a man as the captain of the Princess Royal would not get his ship manned in a lifetime, if his character was known: such were not men of first-rate pluck; humanity and courage always went together. The Admiralty ought to keep their eye upon such officers. From the army returns it appeared in one year 112 men were flogged, and the number of lashes inflicted 5,200; but in the navy in 1854 the number was 1214, and the number of lashes 35,000—of these only 196 were inflicted by sentence of a court martial: in 1855 the number of lashes inflicted was 42,000, of which only 406 were by order of court martial; in 1856 the number was 44,000, of which only 618 were by sentence of a court; in 1857, the last year for which there was a return, the number was 35,800, of which 334 were ordered by courts-martial. He was convinced this was the great impediment to the entry of men; if it were necessary to maintain the system of flogging, let the army rule be introduced, that the punishment can only be inflicted by the sentence of a court-martial. It was stated that the crew of the American frigate Constitution, which took the Java, the first capture made in the war of 1814, was composed of men who had been in the British navy, and every one of whom had been flogged. He had seen Commodore Stewart, the commander of the Constitution, at Philadelphia, and he told him that he had been so informed. To get men for the navy of this country it would be absolutely necessary to alter the system of punishment. He was anxious to see the navy in such a state as would remove the apprehension of even the most nervous person in this country, and therefore would not oppose any of the proposed Votes.