§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he rose to move for a copy of letters from Sir 300 Baldwin Walker, on the state of the Navy, to the Admiralty or the First Lord of the Admiralty, from March, 1858, to the end of the year.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the documents in question were confidential papers presented to the Admiralty, and it would be neither in accordance with precedent nor beneficial to the public service to produce them. He had already communicated the substance of them to the House in the statement he had made on introducing the Estimates.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, it was quite true that the First Lord of the Admiralty read some extracts from Sir Baldwin Walker's letters; but he did not want extracts, he wanted the actual letters themselves. It appeared that Sir Baldwin Walker was obliged to write three times to the First Lord of the Admiralty before he would take any notice of his suggestions —once in March, again in May, and again, he believed, in July. The time was when a First Lord of the Admiralty would have been impeached for leaving the British navy only one ship ahead of that of France. It was admitted that the navy was in a most unsatisfactory state; and the question was, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty had remedied those evils as soon as he came into office. The present Board, when they came into office, reduced the Estimates as far as the dockyards were concerned; and now an immense number of shipwrights were entered to bring the navy into a proper state. If that had been done last March we should now be in a different position. He thought great blame was due to the present Board as well as to the late Boards, for the present Board had not made all the exertions they ought to have made to put the navy in a proper state. He trusted the House would support him in endeavouring to get these papers.
MR. CORRYsaid, that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was the last person who ought to be accused of neglecting the navy. The hon. and gallant Officer stated that nothing had been done till lately for the purpose of increasing the naval force of the country. The present Board only came into office on the 9th of last March, and in the month of May the whole of the artificers in the dockyards were put on task and job work, and were continued so during the whole summer. Afterwards his right hon. Friend, when the state of the French navy was 301 brought under his consideration, took measures in July which resulted in the addition of four screw ships of the line to the navy. They were already converted. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: The engines are not in.] The engines were not in because, as the gallant Admiral well knew, they could not be put in till the vessels were launched, but they would be afloat in the course of a month or two. He must say that to accuse the present Board of Admiralty of neglecting the navy when they had proposed measures to add fifteen screw ships of the line and nine screw frigates to the British navy in the course of the year was to make as unjustifiable an attack as be had ever heard. With respect to the special Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer, he earnestly trusted the House would not support it, for it was contrary to all precedent that the confidential advice given by subordinate officers to the various departments should be laid before Parliament.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he conceived that when the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the production of these papers would be inconvenient to the public service the [louse ought to be satisfied with that assurance, but he must add that he thought it rather out of the usual course that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have rend extracts from such papers. He would not now enter upon the question whether or not, when the late Board of Admiralty left office, the navy of the country was in an unsatisfactory condition. At another time that question would be entered into by one more competent than himself to do justice to the late Board, and he was confident that it would be shown that when the late Board left office in the beginning of 1858 the navy of this country was, as regarded France or any other Power, in such a condition as the House and the country ought to be satisfied with. There was only one remark in the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Corry's) speech that he felt bound to remonstrate with, and that was with reference to the suggestions that had been made by Sir Baldwin Walker to the Board of Admiralty. The gallant Admiral had referred to some of these letters, and he mentioned that the first suggestion was made in March. After that date the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) made his financial statement, in which he recommended that the Naval Estimates should he reduced from those prepared by the late Board. It was therefore scarcely to have been expected 302 that, after controverting the statements of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, the right hon. Gentleman should urge the necessity of pushing on the building of line of-battle ships, he could not allow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) to go forth without saying in what point he thought it unsatisfactory and insufficient.
§ LORD LOVAINEsaid, that it must be recollected at the time his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty brought this subject before the House he was introducing to their notice a claim on the expenditure of the public funds to a very large amount, which obliged him to refer to the Report of Sir Baldwin Walker. He hoped, therefore, the House would consider the extraordinary circumstances under which those extracts were road, and not insist on the whole of the letters being laid upon the table. In March last the Government found a very large increased estimate for labour in the dockyards, and this the right hon. Gentleman was naturally loth to accept without a further knowledge of the subject; but at the same time when in May the Government received information from Sir Baldwin Walker of the necessity of the case, the whole of the artificers in the dockyards were put on task work, and the loss of time was fully compensated by the extra exertions which followed. He trusted from what had already been stated that the House would refuse to sanction the Motion of the gallant Admiral.
§ MR. LINDSAYsaid, that if any charge wore made against the present Government in conducting the affairs of the Admiralty he was not prepared to endorse it. The present Board of Admiralty had been unwearied in their exertions to put the navy in an efficient state; but he was sorry to say the navy was not in the state which he could wish, considering the enormous sums which had been spent upon it. With regard to the Motion before the House, if the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker were confidential he should be the last man to ask for its production; but they would remember the First Lord of the Admiralty referred to and read extracts from it, clearly showing that the letter was not of a confidential nature. He therefore thought it ought to be laid upon the table, especially at a time like this, when there was a growing feeling throughout the country that there was something wrong about the administration of the Navy.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, that he should also vote for the production of the letters, for if the Government were justified in reading extracts from them this year to support a larger Vote, they had not satisfactorily accounted for their withholding them last year when they proposed a smaller Vote.
§ MR. HUDSONsaid, he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from the gallant Admiral, and he was very much surprised at the manner in which he had described the condition of the British navy. All he could say was, that when the time of trial came the British navy would do all that was required of it. Whatever its condition it would be abundantly answerable to any demands made upon it. He did not care how inefficient the navy was— but he was surprised the gallant Admiral should attempt to lower the British power in any part of the world he certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would continue the mode he bad taken to increase the efficiency of the British navy.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that if there was one Member of the House who might be supposed anxious for the production of the letters it was himself; but he would never allow personal considerations to interfere with public duties. The right hon. Baronet had said it would be inconvenient to lay the letters on the table, and he, (Sir Charles Wood) should, therefore, vote against the Motion. At the same time he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Sunderland, that the British navy had never been incompetent to the task of defending our shores, and he hoped on a fitting occasion to show that during his administration at least it had been perfectly efficient for any purpose for which it could be required.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER, in reply, observed that the Secretary to the Admiralty had made a very extraordinary statement, which he was sorry to say was not an unusual thing for him to do. He said that eighteen sail of the line—
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, I rise to order. The gallant Admiral has both spoken on the introduction of his Motion and has subsequently replied.
§ MR. SPEAKERWhat took place was this: the gallant Admiral said a few words on proposing his Motion, and the First Lord of the Admiralty immediately rose before the Question was put. Therefore since the putting of the Question, I think 304 the gallant Admiral ought to be heard in reply.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) had made a most extraordinary statement, which he was sorry to say was not unusual for him. He said that the present Board had added eighteen sail of the line and fifteen frigates to the fleet. ["No, no!"] Well, then, fifteen sail of the line and eighteen frigates. But the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) himself bad stated that we had in all thirty-three sail, and the French thirty-two. How, then, could the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) account for the addition of fifteen sail of the line and eighteen frigates. The Secretary to the Admiralty had, on a previous occasion, made another very remarkable statement. He had told the House that it would cost £ 164,000 to replace the old and inefficient coastguard ships with the efficient ships which he said were ready. That he (Sir Charles Napier) knew to be incorrect. The change could be made in eight-and-forty hours, and he would leave the House to see what accuracy there could be in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Any naval officer would tell him that he was quite wrong; but though the right hon. Gentleman had twice been Secretary to the Admiralty he still knew nothing about it.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he trusted, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was of opinion that the production of these papers would be detrimental to the public service, his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Charles Napier) would not press for a division.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid he should persist in his Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of Letters from Sir Baldwin Walker, on the state of the Navy, to the Admiralty or the First Lord of the Admiralty, from March, 1858, to the end of the year."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 177: Majority 154.
§ House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.