SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 19 April 1860)

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
, going into the Estimates in detail, called attention to the great increase of several items over the Estimates of last year, especially for the appointment of additional clerks in dockyards at Chatham and Sheerness. He also remarked that, at Portsmouth and at Devonport, a new officer, called an assistant-superintendent, had been created, each with a salary of £800 a year. At Devon-port, moreover, there was another new officer, called an acting accountant, with £500 a year, and at the Haslar Hospital an Inspector-general. The increase of this Vote altogether for the salaries of different officers in the dockyards, victualling, and medical establishments was not less than £24,700. The waste and extravagance in this Department could never be justified.

MR. CORRY
asked what were the special duties of the assistant superintendents of the dockyards whom it was now proposed to appoint? If they were to' be naval officers he did not think they were the best persons to overlook the work of the shipwrights.

§ SIR MICHAEL SEYMOUR
also wished to know the distinct grounds on which these new appointments were to be made, and whether it was in consequence of any representations from the superior officers who had the control of our dockyards.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, it was true that the officers in charge of Portsmouth and Devonport had not made any strong representations asking for this additional assistance, but we had now nearly double the number of men working in the dockyards that we had some time ago; and there was a corresponding increase of clerks and officers in almost every department, and it was not reasonable to expect that the chief superintendents, whose correspondence was so enormously increased, could now look over the whole of the work and business of the dockyards, as they did before. He was sorry to say also that several very serious cases of embezzlement had lately occurred; but he was persuaded that if the superintendents, and the officers under them, were not so excessively pressed with an increase of work, they would be better able to ascertain what was going on. It was, therefore, the opinion of the Admiralty, that it would be a piece of good economy to appoint these additional superintendents. But they were about to have a regular inquiry into the dockyards, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle; an inquiry, which as he trusted, would be conducted by persons of high position, and would embrace the whole consideration of these important matters. It was, therefore, intended not to appoint these officers, until the inquiry should have taken place to see whether it was absolutely necessary or not. He proposed that the amount allotted for their salaries should stand on the Estimates in the meantime. As for the number of additional clerks employed it arose from the extraordinary amount of shipbuilding and other work that had been going on, and if that were to be continued the establishments must be enormously increased; but he trusted it would not always be necessary to make such great exertions in our dockyards, and that the present state of; things would prove to be merely exceptional. The Admiralty had, therefore, preferred to provide for it by the employment of temporary clerks.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
expressed his opinion that amongst the half-pay Naval officers who were on shore unemployed the Admiralty could select very competent persons for assistant superintendents of dockyards.

§ MR. BRISTOW
urged that the sum of £1,600 for the salaries of those two officers should be withdrawn from the Vote, if it were not intended to appoint them now.

§ MR. JACKSON
also supported the recommendation to reduce the Vote by that amount.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
also, appealed to the noble Lord to strike out this item. He did not see why there should be such an extraordinary amount of work just now in our dockyards, for we were told that we had ships enough, and only wanted men.

§ MR. BENTINCK
should be glad to know the number of men discharged from Portsmouth since the commencement of the financial year.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the total number of persons employed in the dockyards on the 1st of March was 20,032; but in the Estimates of 1860–61, the number was only 16,071. The number of shipwrights on the establishment on the 1st of March was 4,057; but the number proposed in the Estimates was 4,000. Of hired shipwrights the number on the 1st of March was 3,632; but in the present Estimates the number was only 1,950.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
asked how it was, seeing that a number of men had been discharged in the dockyards, that the charges for clerks was £1,872 more than last year?

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
wished to know the number of the new officers appointed under this Estimate, and the amount of the salaries they were entitled to receive? Would they be entitled to superannuation? Because if they were, and if, after two or three years, the office was found not to answer, the country might be saddled with the officer for life.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the only new offices created were those of two assistant-superintendents, and as they would be naval officers, there would be no superannuation allowance attached to the appointment. The other additions were made under Vote 11, by which a sum was taken for the whole staff of the Director of the Works, each dockyard having its own. There were a number of additional temporary clerks.

§ SIR HENRY LEEKE
said, that hon. Members seemed to forget that the work in the dockyards and in every department of the service had more than trebled within the last two or three years, and he thought it was an excellent plan to appoint assistants to the superintendents.

MR. LYGON
said, the business of the dockyards generally had considerably increased, and it was necessary to place 2015 Deptford and Pembroke dockyards on the same footing as those of Sheerness and Chatham.

§ Mr. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
asked, whether there was any intelligible principle in the appointment or dismissal of the shipwrights? A great many extra men had been engaged, but some of them were dismissed. He wished to know whether the principle of seniority prevailed in respect to this. It was rumoured that private interests were brought to bear in regard to those officers. He hoped that such a rumour was unfounded.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the persons responsible for the discharge of shipwrights were the superintendents of the yard, who invariably retained the best workmen, provided they were not near the age of thirty-five, after which they were not allowed to be placed upon the establishment.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
said, there was a general impression abroad that there was a great advantage in obtaining the influence of a Member of Parliament in procuring appointments in those dockyards; and that an application by a Member to the Board of Admiralty was frequently successful in obtaining a situation in those places. It was alleged that private influence was often successful in obtaining those appointments without due consideration of the merits of the individuals selected. He thought that no persons should be appointed over those dockyards who were not shown to be fully competent for the office, and who did not understand the building of ships. He wished for some explanation as to the repeated changes that had taken place lately amongst the superintendents of dockyards.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the hon. Baronet did not quite understand the various duties which a superintendent had to perform. If the works of the dockyards were confined to the building of ships it was evident that the individual appointed as superintendent should be thoroughly acquainted with the mode of constructing ships. But ships were not only to be built in those places but also to be rigged and turned out fit for sea. He admitted that in consequence of a chapter of accidents there had been many changes made amongst the superintendents of the dockyards, but those changes were wholly unavoidable. He could assure the hon. Baronet that political influence had not now, nor had it under the late Board of 2016 Admiralty, anything to do with dockyard appointments. He believed that those appointments of late years, at all events, depended substantially upon the merits of the individuals themselves.

MR. CORRY
wished to know what the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) meant by saying that political influence was used in respect of appointments.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
said, that the right hon. Gentleman would find it stated in a Report of a Committee of the House that "corrupt expedients" had been used in the obtainment of contracts.

MR. CORRY
would remind the hon. Baronet that the "corrupt expedients" were not charged by the Committee against the Admiralty or to the late Government, but against a gentleman who had obtained a contract. The Committee to which the hon. Baronet referred was that on steam-packet and telegraph contracts; but neither it nor the Committee which had during the present Session inquired into the petition against the return for Dovor accused the late Government of corrupt expedients.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
thought it would be advisable when a Rear-Admiral who was superintendent of the dockyard was promoted, to allow him to continue his five years in office.

§ MR. FREELAND
said, he had bad an application made to him with regard to a situation in one of the yards, and he was glad to say that on mating inquiries he found that any interference on his part would be rather injurious than otherwise to the person on whose behalf he had been requested to exert himself. He hoped the House would assist the Admiralty in putting a stop to political interference with the dockyards.

§ MR. JACKSON
agreed that it was absurd to remove a superintendent as soon as he had learnt his business.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
found in the Votes, items of £120 per year for Roman Catholic Chaplains in some ports, while in two others he believed the amount was somewhat more. There was also a place fitted up for Roman Catholic worship in some of those ports. The Presbyterians in the navy were ten to one to the Roman Catholics, yet the only item he saw down for a clergyman for the Presbyterians was a sum of £20 paid at Woolwich.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the question of making any increase to the stipends allowed to clergymen was a very serious one. If the Presbyterians in any 2017 port made an application to the Admiralty it should receive due consideration.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, there was an increase of £2,870 on the Vote; though he could not see that any additional work was done.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the increase was not so large as was supposed by his hon. Friend. An increase had been made in the salaries of the medical officers; and the salary of the Director of Works had been transferred from Vote No. 11 to this Vote.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that unless a satisfactory explanation was given of a statement contained in the Report of the Dockyard Committee which sat last year, he should feel it necessary to move a considerable reduction of this important Vote. In the first place the Committee pointed out the remarkable variation in the charge for wages in different yards, it was stated that the cost of labour for building certain ships at Chatham had been £5 8s. per ton, whereas at Woolwich the cost had been £8 16s. It was moreover stated by four of the members of the Dockyard Committee that the sum expended by private builders in labour would not have been more than £2 12s. per ton—that was, not more than a third that was paid by the Royal Navy.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he would endeavour to show the Committee the reason why the discrepancy existed in the cost of building ships in different dockyards. There was great difference in the price of a vessel built at Chatham and the cost of two others which had been built at Woolwich. It should be observed, however, that these vessels were built in the midst and, he might add, during the confusion of the Russian war. He would state the reason why the vessel built at Chatham (the Cadmus) cost so much less 2018 per ton than the vessels built at Woolwich (the Pearl and the Scout). At Chatham there happened to be plenty of timber lying in the yard, which at a very small expense could be converted into the frame of a corvette. At Woolwich, where two similar vessels (corvettes) were built, there was no timber proper for the particular purpose, and old timber, which had originally been prepared for other vessels, had to be altered at considerable expense into the frames of the two vessels. Another circumstance should be taken into consideration, and that was that Chatham was not a fitting yard, whereas Woolwich was; consequently, the vessel at Chatham could be built without interruption, while at Woolwich, where there was a great amount of shipfitting done, the artificers on the two corvettes were continually withdrawn from their work to do something else which it was necessary to do in a hurry. These interruptions necessarily entailed expense. Another cause of the differeuce of expense was that at the different yards, there was a different system of calculating when a ship was properly prepared; and consequently less money would, of course, have been spent on the less forward vessels, though equally styled "prepared." It appeared, also, that at the time the vessels were built there was such an excess of duty in the dockyard at Woolwich that certain clerks were appointed to value the expenditure on timber and stores, and, to make a long story short, the account referred to by the hon. Gentleman was not a correct one. The Controller had sent down an experienced officer, and a strict investigation was going on respecting some other vessels mentioned by the Committee which had been alluded to, and the Admiralty were most anxious to improve the system of taking the accounts of vessels.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that the statement was satisfactory as far as it went; but though the noble Lord had answered his question with regard to the difference in the price of shipbuilding in Woolwich and Chatham dockyards, but not as to the discrepancy in price between the Government and private yards. But besides that difference of 173s. to 52s. there must be added to the former all the interest in the capital which was sunk in the public yards, inasmuch as every private builder took into his estimate the interest upon the capital engaged in his business. So that the comparison would really stand, not as 52s. against 173s., but as 52s. against 173s. 2019 plus another figure, which would perhaps bring it up to 200s. He repeated that he had received no answer to this important question.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, that even this did not represent the whole case, because the private shipbuilder had rent to pay for his yard, and local taxes, from which the Government were exempt, so that the comparison was extremely favourable to the Government. He had had considerable correspondence with individuals employed in dockyards upon this subject, and was told by one holding a high official position, that every Commission and Committee yet appointed on this subject had been thoroughly humbugged by the dockyard authorities; and, looking at the small results which had accrued from these inquiries, he was inclined to think so too. As a man of business, he felt confident that if the same system were pursued by a manufacturer or a private builder as was maintained in the Royal yards, bankruptcy must very speedily ensue, and not one penny in the pound would be left to pay the creditors. It was a system rotten to the core, and ought to be at once put a stop to.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
read a letter from Mr. Pitcher, the builder of the vessels which were said to have been constructed so extremely cheap. It was dated Northfleet, July 1, 1859, and the writer contradicted a statement which he had seen in The Times, declaring that the expense for building a vessel of war in the merchant yards did not exceed the sum of £2 8s. per ton for shipwrights' labour. Mr. Pitcher said,— It should be understood that the ships alluded to were mere shells when sent to Her Majesty's yard at Chatham to be fitted as might be required, as the cost of such fittings would depend very much upon the service they were intended for. I am of opinion that the vessels built for the Government in private yards, when compared with those built in the Royal dockyards, according to the evidence published, amounts to very near the same sum for the total completion of the hull; for instance, in the labour for building about 13,500 tons of the gun-vessels at Northfleet, they cost on an average, complete, about £6 per ton.

MR. LINDSAY
said, it was no answer to him to read a letter written a month before the Committee made their Report.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, that the work in a private yard differed entirely from that executed in a Royal dockyard, and you got in the former a much worse article for the money you expended. As far as his experience Went, contract vessels were 2020 notoriously bad in every instance. He knew nothing more difficult than to keep contractors to the fair terms of their contract. We had seen ships handed over to the Government from private yards which were in a most disgraceful state from incomplete workmanship, which was concealed by several coats of paint. In his opinion, it was far better to pay £8 per ton for a good article than £4 for a bad one.

MR. LINDSAY
observed, that he had advanced no charges against the Royal yards, but had merely quoted a statement made by the Committee appointed by the Government themselves, four out of five of the members being officers in those very yards. It was said that ships built under contract were badly built; but did Her Majesty's ships never stand in need of repairs? Were they not, when at sea, constantly putting into port to be refitted? Did we hear of one of the Cunard or the Peninsular and Oriental Company's boats putting back in every press of wind and requiring large repairs? There were, of course, failings in all establishments, but he questioned very much whether there were so many defects in ships of the first class built in private yards as there were in vessels constructed in the Royal yards at a much higher cost to the country.

§ LORD LOVAINE
referred to some instances of defective workmanship in vessels built by contract.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, that what the noble Lord had stated as to the defects in ships from private yards was perfectly true. It was only the other day that he saw a basket of copper bolts intended for Her Majesty's ship Caroline, which ought to have been eleven inches long, and were only five. Some of the ships built by contract during the last war had since come in for repairs, and it was then found that the planks which ought to have been bent round the bows by the aid of steam had been sawn half way through to facilitate warping. He left the Committee to consider what would be the fate of these vessels in a gale of wind.

§ MR. JACKSON
would like to know what kind of superintendence there could be for such things to be permitted? Three-fourths of the business of this country was done by contract; and he believed there were as honest men in the contracting world as there were noble Lords in the kingdom.

§ LORD LOVAINE
would only say this, 2021 that his experience in the navy had not been very long, but his impression decidedly was that there was a great disposition on the part of contractors to give very short measure indeed. Their work required the constant supervision of a most careful eye; and he appealed to any hon. Member acquainted with the subject to confirm his statement. The question of the damages sustained by the navy was an evasion of the original question, which related simply to the imperfection of the original work.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, the noble Lord had not answered the question as to who attended to see whether the work was properly executed or not. If the pay—£400 or £500 a year—of the present superintendents was not sufficient, they ought to give more to get honest men—men who were above being bribed.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, that the gallant Admiral's remarks had confirmed his statement in every respect.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that the gallant Admiral had intimated that it was impossible to get an honest man for £500 a year. But the fact was, he had never heard of a man who ever trusted a contractor. This was not a question of impugning the honesty of the contractor; it was their way of transacting business; and the real defect was the want of proper superintendence at the Admiralty. He believed that the work was better done in the dockyards than anywhere else, and that the country got more for their money. He was, however, very much struck with the comparison instituted by the hon. Member for Sunderland between the wear-and-tear of ships in the navy and those on the lines of packet service. There could be no comparison between the two services in this respect.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
referred to the different cost of vessels in different yards, and said that there was great anxiety to get new ships laid down at certain yards; it was even made a matter of political influence. Looking at the money wasted in times past, the Government ought now to practise economy.

MR. HENLEY
wished to know whether it was true that a vessel going out with Admiral Keppel was obliged to put in at Portsmouth, and to be docked for repairs: was that vessel an old or a new vessel; and was it built by contract or otherwise?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
replied, 2022 she was a vessel built at one of Her Majesty's dockyards. She was going a very long distance, and it was desirable that she should be made as perfect as possible; therefore, when a slight leak was discovered in her stern, which would otherwise have scarcely been important enough for such treatment, the vessel was immediately taken into Portsmouth and examined.

MR. HENLEY
asked again, was she a new or an old vessel?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, she was quite new. It had been said by various hon. Members that sufficient superintendence was not applied by the Admiralty. There were sometimes as many as a hundred vessels under repair or building at the same time, and if the Admiralty had to supply a superintendent for every bolt it would be found an impossibility to comply with such a requisition.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
pointed attention to a discrepancy in the cost of shipbuilding at Woolwich as compared with Sheerness, adding that there was a growing impression abroad that great waste prevailed in the Government dockyards, and that though Parliament voted the money it had nothing like an effective control over the economical expenditure of it.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, an inquiry was now pending as to the difference in cost.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
believed the discrepancies in question were partly due to the different mode of measuring the work done in the various yards, and would be found not so great as they appeared to be. He adverted to the manifest superiority of the workmanship in Her Majesty's as compared with that in private dockyards, citing in proof of that the case of the Agamemnon, which on her return to Plymouth from her memorable voyage on laying the Atlantic telegraph cable, in which she was exposed to a terrific storm under circumstances altogether peculiar, and which would have resulted in the certain destruction of any ordinary ship, was found to require only a few trivial repairs.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
wished for further information as to the ships said to be of equal size but of unequal cost. Inquiry would probably show that there was much more work in some than in others. He thought an improved method of keeping the accounts desirable.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that the Admiralty had had eight months to consider the charges in the report of the Committee to 2023 which such frequent reference had been made. Under these circumstances he should move that this Vote be reduced by £100,000; he ought to move that it be reduced by two-thirds.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
said, vessels should be able to keep company if they were to be of any service to each other in a fleet, and therefore it was most important they should be made both to sail and steam, and capable of bearing rough or fair weather with equal results.

§ LORD LOVAINE
referred to the gunboats built by contract, and quoted the opinion of a private builder to the effect that the cost was much the same in Government dockyards and in private yards. So far from the cost in private yards being only 48s per ton, it was nearly £6 per ton, including all the fittings.

MR. LYGON
also spoke of the economy of the Government yards.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
complained that no answer had yet been given by any Member of the Government to the discrepancy which had been pointed out between expenditure relatively in Government and private dockyards.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) were pressed to a division, he should be unable to support it, as he was unwilling, in the present state of public affairs, to withhold from the Government any sum of money which they declared to be necessary in order to carry out the proposed alterations and additions in the navy. At the same time he could not refrain from expressing regret that the Government were not disposed to pay more attention to the Report of the Dockyard Committee appointed by the late Board of Admiralty, which had deservedly attracted Considerable notice. In his opinion, the Gentlemen composing that Committee were entitled to the gratitude of the country for the ability and public spirit with which they had conducted their inquiries, and he was sorry that their proceedings should have been ignored in so unaccountable a manner, and that they themselves had been treated with such disregard by the present Board of Admiralty. The only official notice taken of their labours that he had seen consisted of a memorandum written by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and from its tone of discourtesy and sarcasm towards the Members of that Committee he was induced to think the noble Duke must rather have had in his mind the fact 2024 that the Committee had been appointed by his predecessors than any regard to the contents of their Report. He could account in no other way for the course pursued by the Board of Admiralty, who had entered into no explanations, but had continued to act just as if the Committee had never sat, or as if those startling statements which the House had heard that night had never been put forward. Entire disregard of such a document came with peculiarly bad grace from the noble Lord who now held the office of Secretary to the Admiralty, because no one had made such sweeping charges against extravagance in the dockyards as fell from him in the course of last year. He it was who was then loud in his complaints, and who told the House that in the course of the last eleven years £5,000,000 had been wasted by successive Boards of Admiralty. At the time he stated that the noble Lord was bound to sustain the charges which he had made, and he had given notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a Committee, before which the noble Lord could have come face to face with the parties against whom he brought the charges, and would have been compelled either to prove or to withdraw them. But just at that moment the change of Government took place, and the accusation in consequence was merely dealt with by an answer from the Surveyor of the Navy, Sir Baldwin Walker; though, in the absence of closer disproof, he must, in justice to the Committee, say that Sir Baldwin Walker's report entirely negatived the wild and loose assertions of the noble Lord. From the general and well-deserved character for fairness and plain dealing enjoyed by the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget), he expected that he would have had the generosity to state that on reflection he found those charges could not be substantiated; but instead of this, he had merely declared in general terms that he adhered to his former statement. He must say he thought the able and zealous labours of the Committee, which tended to throw great light on the important question of dockyard expenditure, had been but ill-requited.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he was desirous of doing all that was possible to reduce the expenditure, but he could not support the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be pressed to a division.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he could not allow the remarks of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) to 2025 pass unnoticed. So far from the Report of the Committee having been wholly ignored, it had received the careful attention of the Board of Admiralty, and many of their recommendations either had been, or were about to be, carried out. The right hon. Baronet had deprecated the tone of the Memorandum of the noble Duke now at the head of the Admiralty; but he was bound to say that the tone of the Report itself was somewhat offensive to the officers of the dockyards, against whom a very grave accusation was preferred. The Commissioners attributed many of the evils which they stated in detail "to the want of zeal and activity on the part of the officers of the yards." On going over the evidence he had been unable to discover upon what evidence they based this decision, and they themselves admitted that many of their recommendations were unsupported by evidence. The weight attaching to their Report was further shaken by the fact that one of the Commissioners refused to sign it. Then, with regard to the proposal for the appointment of a Committee and his meeting Sir Baldwin Walker face to face, everybody who knew him was aware that, though he would not shrink from it if it was thought proper, he had no desire to enter into any such encounter. This was a very adroit method of turning certain representations which he had made condemnatory of the system into an attack on one individual. It was a very old dodge, but fortunately it would not go down with the House of Commons. He distinctly denied that he had ever attacked Sir Baldwin Walker, and he was surprised that any Member should have imputed such a thing to him. He stated so last year when he was called upon to make the amende honorable to Sir Baldwin Walker. He declined to do so, simply because he had never made any attack or imputation against him. He had last year called the attention of the House to the great cost of shipbuilding, and to the total absence of anything like a detailed account of the expenditure under the Votes 8, 9, and 10. To ascertain the real cost was the great object of his Motion last year, and the present Board of Admiralty, as might be seen by a Return on the table, had done all in their power to promote that end.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, Sir Baldwin Walker had not only been attacked by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, but he had written an answer 2026 to those attacks. He (Sir Charles Napier) read to the House the attacks of the noble Lord, and he also read Sir Baldwin Walker's answers to them, from which it appeared that not one of the vessels referred to by the noble Lord had been altered by Sir Baldwin. He stated that only two vessels had been altered—the reasons for which he gave—and showed that the cost was not more than £500. The noble Lord spoke of £6,000,000 as unaccounted for; but Sir Baldwin Walker, in his reply, accounted for the whole of that sum, with the exception of £6,000. The noble Lord now thought proper to say that he had made no charges against Sir Baldwin Walker. Whom, then, did he attack? Sir Baldwin Walker, as Surveyor of the Navy, was the person responsible, and the charges could apply to no other. That gallant officer had done more for the navy, and the improvement of ships than any other person. The noble Lord ought to make an apology to Sir Baldwin Walker, and it would have been an honourable thing on the part of the noble Lord had he done so.

§ MR. JACKSON
, in justice to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, explained that he had done everything in his power to give him facilities for bringing forward his Motion for a Commission to inquire into the expenditure of the dockyards, though as yet he had not been able to bring the Motion before the House.

§ MR. MONSELL
wished to ask how it was that there was a large amount for wages to be spent in every harbour except that of Haulbowline, which was admirably adapted to make a good harbour, and which would, no doubt, have been much improved if it had been in England, instead of Ireland.

§ MR. BENTINCK
thought that the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) had unnecessarily attacked the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, he recollected perfectly well, had stated in the speech in question that he had no intention to attack Sir Baldwin Walker.

COLONEL DICKSON
remarked that this naval expenditure was growing frightful to contemplate, although he believed shipbuilding was carried on better in the Royal dockyards than in private yards. By way of coming to some practical conclusion on the matter, he should vote for the reduction of the Vote as proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He also concurred in the complaint of his 2027 right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) respecting the small amount of money expended on Haulbowline, which he thought was utterly disproportioned to the large amount of taxation contributed by Ireland, and the unrivalled natural capabilities of some of her harbours.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
objected to an in-crease of £3,010 for the establishment at Hong Kong.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, it was obvious that the additional outlay was rendered necessary by the continuance of the Chinese war.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, an additional outlay upon the dockyard at Hong Kong necessitated the increased Vote.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he wished to say a few words in answer to a very interesting statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), made on a former evening, with respect to the supply of timber in the dockyards. The allegation of the right hon. Gentleman amounted, he thought, to this—that, whereas it was usual in former days to keep a three years' stock of shipbuilding timber on hand for seasoning, successive Boards of Admiralty had neglected their duty in not keeping up that stock, and had reduced their three years' stock to a two years' stock, and that within the last year or two it had been reduced to even less than that. He might say, in the first place, that this was rather an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman's own colleague (Sir J. Pakington), because it would, he believed, be found that in the Estimates of the late Administration no more money was taken for timber than was necessary to keep up a two years' stock at the ordinary consumption. He was, however, prepared to contend that a two years' stock was ample. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the evidence taken before the Committee on Dockyard Econo- 2028 my, in which certain dockyard authorities had complained that green timber was employed, and that certain ships were built of timber that had not been properly seasoned. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn the inference there from that the dockyard authorities themselves were of opinion that the Government did not keep up a proper stock of timber. If the right hon. Gentleman accused the Board of Admiralty of not keeping up an establishment of timber commensurate with the wants of the year, the answer must be that if the Admiralty went on building ships at the same rate as at present it would be manifestly necessary to increase the present establishment of timber. The expenditure of timber expected to take place during the present year was 60,000 loads, and the amount of stock at the commencement of this year was about the same amount—namely, 59,000 loads. In expectation that the consumption this year would be 60,000 loads, the Government had taken a sum of £500,000; so that at the end of this year there would still be two years' stock in hand for ordinary consumption, namely, about 30,000 loads. It might be necessary to explain that circumstances had very much changed since the days when three years' stock was required. The hard foreign woods now used were then comparatively unknown. The English oak was then principally used, and it required greater seasoning than foreign wood. It was cut and purchased, upon the spot, and was brought to the dockyards without loss of time; while Italian oak, for example, was cut in a hot climate, the voyage took a certain time, and it was partly seasoned on its way. Two-thirds of the shipbuilding wood now used in the dockyards did not require seasoning; it was foreign timber, like African oak, teak, and mahogany, and therefore no comparison could be made between the stocks formerly in hand and the stocks kept at present. The right hon. Gentleman said that the officers of the dockyard declared that timber ought to be kept three years in stock. [Mr. HENLEY: Some say four.] Well, there was a difference of opinion on that subject. A gentleman, who was an eminent shipbuilder and owner, Mr. Green, who had 30,000 tons of shipping of his own, said, that two years were quite sufficient to season English oak timber, and that it deteriorated after that period. If this were so it was a strong argument for not keep- 2029 ing a stock for more than two years' consumption in hand. The right hon. Gentleman talked as if the Government had only to ask the House for an additional £100,000 and to buy so many thousand more loads of timber. But if they asked Parliament for a larger sum they would not get the timber. The stock of timber was restricted, and the Government could not get above a certain quantity. No doubt, if circumstances were pressing and the Government were obliged to purchase without regard to price, they might obtain an addition to the present supply; but it was no easy matter to increase the quantity of such timber as they required. He admitted that it would be a very great thing if the Government had the means of keeping up a larger supply of timber. It would be unwise for him to state exactly what the Admiralty were doing in this respect, but they were using every possible endeavour to get a more regular and better supply of timber from abroad. Injustice to the dockyards, he ought to state that when hon. Members heard of the green wood employed, it was generally confined to one particular timber in a ship which it was very difficult to find at all of a sufficient size, much less of seasoned timber—he referred to rudder pieces. Take a first-rate for example, of which the Admiralty were building a good many. The rudder-piece of a first-rate must be a piece of English oak. It must be 26 feet long and 28 inches square. It had happened lately that as many as six of these rudder pieces were cut up and found defective, for the trees being necessarily of great age were found rotten at the heart. Of teak there was a very large supply, which required no seasoning. One reason why it was not desirable to increase the stock of timber was that we were now building four iron-cased ships; and though he was not prepared to say whether they would fulfil all that was anticipated from them, yet, if they were successful, probably not so many line-of-battle ships would be required, and it was the line-of-battle ships which required the large establishments of timber, for there never was any difficulty in finding timber for frigates, corvettes, and vessels of a smaller class. If these iron-cased ships succeeded, it would be unwise to do what the right hon. Gentleman wished—to increase our establishments of timber merely because we had consumed more than our ordinary quantity within the last two years. He had often heard 2030 it stated that the Admiralty did not go to work properly to get their timber cheaply; that they confined themselves to one or two contractors, who charged their own prices. No doubt from the necessity of the case, the contracts did come into the hands of two or three great contractors, who might meet and arrange about the price; but if any landed proprietor or other person of respectability, having a large quantity of proper timber on his estate, or for sale, were to come and make an offer to the Admiralty, they would be very glad to enter into a bargain with him.

MR. HENLEY
said, he had given no opinion as to the time timber took to season; he only quoted that of certain officers of Her Majesty's dockyards, and he was quite willing to leave it to be settled between them and the private authorities the noble Lord had quoted, whether it took two years or four years to season oak timber of the largest dimensions. He had not blamed any Board of Admiralty, but had expressly guarded himself from doing so, for he had read the statement of the Storekeeper General as to the enormous difficulty of getting timber, and he could not put it stronger than he had done. What he complained of, however, was that the First Lord should have put it on record that 60,000 loads was a sufficient quantity to keep in stock. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty stated most distinctly that we ought to keep two years' consumption in stock; but 60,000 loads would not suffice for that. Sir Baldwin Walker had stated that the proper yearly addition to the navy was three ships of the line, three frigates, and four small vessels, the construction of which would take 32,000 loads of timber; adding to that 10,000 loads for necessary repairs, they would have the total yearly consumption of timber at 42,000 loads; and, as according to the statement of the noble Lord, it would require two years' consumption in stock, it was plain that 60,000 loads was not sufficient. The noble Lord would not find any indication in his speech that three or four years' seasoning was necessary for all kind of timber. African oak, teak, and mahogany, perhaps, he knew could be used almost as soon as imported, and the Italian and Sardinian oak required less seasoning than the English oak; but every master shipwright would tell them that English oak required three or four years' seasoning, nor would ny of them venture to say that large 15-inch square timber 2031 would be ready to use in two years. The noble Lord admitted that it would be very desirable to obtain as large a stock of timber as possible for the navy, which was all that he (Mr. Henley) contended for, and he was glad to find that their views did not differ on the real point, though they might as to the actual supply.

§ MR. BENTINCK
had already stated that in his opinion the work done in the dockyards was better than that which was done elsewhere, and that we got our money's worth out of those establishments; but he wished to call attention to an item that related to work done out of dockyard by contract—he meant the anchors and chain cables. If he was rightly informed the Admiralty paid a very much larger sum for those articles than they ought to pay. Although there had been a great diminution in the price of iron, there had been no deduction in that paid by the Admiralty to the contractor. He quite admitted that the articles supplied were of the best quality, but that was no reason for paying a much larger sum than they were called on to pay. Great improvements had been made in the machinery used in the construction; but, inasmuch as the Admiralty had obtained no advantage whatever from that circumstance an unnecessary and therefore an objectionable expenditure of money had prevailed in this department. He wished to refer to a Return he had moved for, not with a view of advocating Mr. Trotman's anchors, but to show the price at which the best anchors could be manufactured in the best yards by the best firms. He found that the cost of seventeen anchors of various sizes, made of the best material, was £1,428; while the contract price for the same weight of anchors supplied to the Admiralty, and which were in no way superior, was £3,434, or nearly treble the amount. Amongst other things there was a tender advertised to supply to Her Majesty's navy iron chain-cables and anchors thereto. It was stated that parties intending to make a tender were requested to take notice that the whole supply would not be given to any one firm, but the contract would be equally divided amongst three firms. Now, he was given to understand that so far from that arrangement being carried out, the whole of the contracts had been given to the one and the same firm since 1841 up to the present time, in direct contradiction to the wording of the tenders asked for from the public, and inviting persons to come forward. He be- 2032 lieved a discrepancy also existed as to the prices of anchors and chains, between those furnished to the Admiralty and to private yards. He wanted to know whether his information was correct as to those facts.

MR. RIDLEY
thought it would be a fault on the part of the Government to incur the expense of providing too large a stock of timber for building line-of-battle ships, when the more powerful means of destruction which modern science provided might soon render ships built of timber no longer available for war. They should consider the advantage of building iron ships to meet the improved gunnery of the present day. He wished to know whether the item of £722,000 for timber was for the sole purpose of building line-of-battle ships of timber?

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
, referring to the sum of £798,500 for steam machinery, suggested that the ships' bunkers should be furnished with some apparatus for taking in water, when the stock of coal was consumed, in order that the ship might not become so extremely light as to be unable to remain in the proper position. It would not be difficult to provide some apparatus for doing this, and he had experienced the disadvantage of not doing so when he came home in the Duke of Wellington, from the Baltic.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
called attention to another item of considerable magnitude for the building of iron-cased ships, steam vessels, and gun-boats by contract. The noble Lord had said that four iron-cased ships were now building. Did they include all under that head? The Vote taken for that item last year, including the Supplementary Estimate, was £500,000. In the present year it was £640,000, making no less in the two years than £1,140,000. Now, those iron-cased ships had never been tried in actual war: the sum was, therefore, a large one to expend for a mere experiment. He viewed those experiments with no feeling of satisfaction. He thought that they were very apt to make great mistakes in those experiments upon ships as well as upon fortifications. He looked upon the national defences of the country as being best supplied by highly-trained seamen and soldiers. We could not have too many of them. Now the noble Lord ought to consider in what way those experiments of iron-cased ships were to be tested. He knew that France was building ships of that description; but that was not a reason why we 2033 should embark in any blind system merely for the purpose of coping with France. He wanted to know the number of those iron-cased ships that had been or were to be built, how many steam vessels, and whether there were to be any gun-boats in addition?

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, it was the opinion of scientific men that the new inventions in gunnery would alter the whole system of ship-building. He wished to impress on the Government the importance of keeping in view those improvements, in order to guard against not only a useless expenditure of the public money, but also the sacrifice of their seamen's lives by the sinking of a vessel in consequence of a shot through her timbers.

§ MR. FREELAND
inquired, whether at those ports at which the fleet might be expected to rendezvous, such as Milford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Sheerness, arrangements had been made for improving our coal depôts, and for getting the coal on board, in case of an emergency, with the least possible delay? He understood that at Portland great efforts had been made to effect these objects. He had, however, been informed that what had been done at Portland must still be regarded as an experiment—that it was still a question whether it was best and most economical that the great ships should go to the coal, or that the coal should be brought to the great ships. He wished to know whether the subject was engaging the attention of the Government? No doubt the question of expense was a serious matter; but it was rumoured that large sums were about to be spent on fortifications, some of which were said to be of questionable value. In the event of war our wooden walls would have to bear the brunt of battle before our stone walls could be required for defence, and he would respectfully submit it to the consideration of the Government whether a portion of the sum to be expended on fortifications might not be advantageously applied to the improvement of our means of getting coals shipped, in case of emergency, with the least possible delay.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) with regard to the putting coals on board men-of-war, said that they had not made any great progress with regard to the mechanical contrivances for the hoisting of coal on board our ships. Our men of war, however, had naturally a large crew on board, and it was marvellous 2034 the amount of coals they were capable of conveying into the ship within a very short space of time. They had at Woolwich a very clever machine, which lifted the coal by steam power, and dropped it into the ship. There was one also on board a coal depot at Portland. With respect to the anchors and chains, it was quite true that the Admiralty had but one manufacturer, the firm of Brown and Lennox; but the reason was that the prices which that firm charged for anchors were lower than those of other manufacturers who had offered their anchors for sale to the Admiralty. The others he would refer to were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Trotman. The price charged by Brown and Lennox for an anchor suitable for a 90-gun ship was £2 16s. 6d. per cwt., whereas Mr. Rogers charged £2 18s., and Mr. Porter £3 5s. Anchors of a smaller class were sold by Messrs. Brown and Lennox at £2 3s., and by Mr. Rogers at £2 4s., while Mr. Porter charged £2 8s., and Mr. Trotman £2 10s. This showed that the anchors which were purchased of Brown and Lennox were of the cheapest quality. He did not mean to say, however, that it would be unadvisable to consider the propriety of opening this contract. The hon. Member for Sunderland, however, when he said the other night that, taking the average of four different classes of anchors, the Admiralty were paying 180s. per cwt., made a great mistake. He added the prices of the four different classes together, in order to take the average, but he forgot to divide the amount again by four, so that he made the result four times as great as it really was. The real average, instead of being 180s., was 45s., which made rather an important difference. With regard to the question that was put by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir W. Jolliffe), who asked what was the cost of these enormous ships that were being built, there were four iron-cased ships that would cost £734,325, and their engines would cost £210,075; making a total of £944,400, merely for the hull and machinery of the four vessels. Then there were 6 sloops of 200 horse power, which would cost £88,574, and their engines £60,000. There were 12 gun-vessels of 80 horse power, which would cost £119,255 for the hulls, and £48,960 for the machinery; and there were 10 gun-boats of 60 horse power each, costing £62,383, and their engines £32,235; making a total of 6 ships, 12 gun-vessels, and 10 gun-boats, 2035 costing £271,000, and £141,000 for their engines and machinery; and the grand total of the vessels building by contract, including their engines, but exclusive of fitments, was a cost of £1,355,875. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ridley) asked what wooden vessels they were building? There were 11 line-of-battle ships, 5 corvettes, 15 sloops, and 23 gun-vessels and gun-boats.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, the evidence produced before the Select Committee over which, he had lately presided showed that as far as anchors and cables were concerned, the Royal Navy was admirably served, He wished to know whether it was proposed that the navy should be supplied with apparatus for the consumption of smoke. He believed that machinery for the perfect attainment of that object could now be obtained.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he had the same objection to this Vote that he had to some of the others, namely, that they did not get full value for their money. They paid for their anchors 94s. per cwt., and he believed that was 100 per cent more than they could get anchors and cables of equal quality for. Until he called the attention of the House two years ago to the subject, he believed the Admiralty were under the impression that there were only two firms in England who could construct steam-engines for ships; but now there were a dozen firms tendering, and he believed that the same result would follow if they wanted the leading firms to tender for the supply of anchors and cables.

§ LORD LOVAINE
asked, whether it was intended to introduce into the navy the use of super-heated steam?

§ MR. H. A. BRUCE
asked what course was taken with regard to the tenders for coals. It was well known that from the same pit, coals of various qualities were obtained, and the great steam-packet companies had agents to see that they got the coal from the vein they wanted it from. Government ought to adopt the same course. He did not think, however, that public tender was the best mode of obtaining coal. It was perfectly notorious that the best coal was not supplied to Her Majesty's navy.

MR. CORRY
agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that 60,000 loads of timber were not a sufficient establishment for the dockyards. Although it was true, as stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty, that foreign 2036 timber did not require seasoning to the same degree as English timber, yet, as our supply from abroad might be interrupted at any time, care ought to be taken to have a large stock always on hand.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that a great discrepancy existed between the statement he had made on a former occasion with regard to the price of anchors and the answer of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. He understood the noble Lord to say that the prices under the Admiralty contract were lower than those offered by other parties. In 1841 the prices of anchors offered to be supplied to the Admiralty appeared from a list he had in his hand to be 20s. per cwt., while the price of the Admiralty contract was 44s. per cwt., or rather more than double.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the case was so in 1841, but since then the contract prices had been greatly reduced. Three frigates were now being fitted with engines with an apparatus for superheating steam. An engineer had recently been appointed to inspect every cargo of coal put on board a ship, and ascertain that the coal was of the denomination specified in the contract, was properly screened, and was free from dust. He made a weekly report, and since his appointment there had been no complaints of the coal supplied to the fleet. The Admiralty were willing to adopt any economical plan for consuming smoke, and at the present moment several vessels were fitted with various descriptions of smoke-consuming apparatus.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
observed that about £400,000 was to be expended on coal in the ensuing yean He thought that stringent orders should be given that ships should not use steam except when compelled to do so; for, besides the economy, it would be of great advantage both to officers and men to have a little more practice under canvass.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
wished for some further information with respect to the four iron steam-vessels ordered by the Admiralty. The first of these vessels was ordered by the late Government, and he understood the second was to be of the same class, size, and character. He had been informed, however, that the two others were to be different in size and character, and he wished to know what would be their tonnage and the strength of their iron coating. He should also be glad to hear when these vessels would be finished.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said that he should be glad to see at the Admiralty any firms prepared to make proposals with respect to anchors and chains. With respect to the iron-cased ships the one ordered by the right hon. Baronet ought to have been launched by this time; but some delay had occurred in consequence of the novel construction of the sternpost, the one which was first put in not proving strong enough. He believed that she would be launched in the beginning of July. With regard to the others, he was not prepared to say when they would be ready, but all of them were contracted for. The tonnage of the Warrior and the Black Prince was 6,035 tons each; and of the Resistance and the Defence 3,668 tons each. The Warrior and the Black Prince would carry thirty-six guns, and the two smaller ones, the Resistance and the Defence, would carry sixteen guns. Their scantling was the same, and there was the same thickness in the iron plates.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
complained that the engineers in the navy set their faces against smoke-consuming apparatus, and hence inventors did not get fair play.