§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,849,477, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for the Building, Repair, and Outfit of the Fleet, the Purchase of Steam Machinery, and for other purposes connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862
MR. LINDSAYmoved that the first item—£949,371 for timber—should be reduced by £300,000, The sum voted last year, he said, was £722,758, and for a long series of years prior to 1859 the average amount did not exceed £350,000, That was a time, moreover, when we built nothing but wooden ships. In 1859, when it was found necessary to reconstruct the navy, the sum asked for was £450,000, and the amount actually expended was about £600,000. Our wooden fleet was now considerably larger than all the navies of the world combined, and it had been resolved that no more wooden line-of-battle ships should be built. Why, then, should Parliament be asked to vote the enormous) sum of nearly £1,000,000 for timber? He hoped it would not be said that the timber had already been contracted for; because if the Government had really ordered the timber without the knowledge or sanction of Parliament, they had interfered with the most important privilege which the House of Commons possessed—that of controlling the public expenditure. But he might be told that it was necessary to have a large stock of timber on hand. In 1859 the stock on hand amounted to 64,000 loads, and the sum which he was willing to vote would enable the Government td purchase a much greater quantity, and thus have a larger stock than on any previous year, even though they had not a single load at the present moment.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, he thought this one of the most objectionable Votes that had been submitted to Parliament for many 31 years. He had himself given notice of his intention to move that the Vote be reduced by £285,000, in order to equalize the sum with that voted by the House last year; but he thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee that he should merge his Amendment in that of the hon. Member for Sunderland, which he, therefore, cordially seconded. As this would probably be the last opportunity they should have of discussing the Naval Estimates, he thought it necessary, before speaking to the particular Vote under consideration, considering the immoderate demands now made on the public purse, to take a survey of the position in which we stood. The discussions which had taken place this Session showed that, so far from our fleet being insufficient, the maritime superiority of this country never was so undoubted or so overwhelming as at the present moment. It had been shown that we possessed more steam line-of-battle ships and more sailing vessels than all the other Powers of Europe put together. Of men and boys serving in the Royal Navy we had more than there were in the whole mercantile marine of France. The merchant ships of England were increasing in every sea, while the mercantile marine of France was steadily falling off at the rate of about 20,000 tons annually. After the discussions that had taken place in that House, hon. Members must have read with surprise the remarks in the French Senate, from which it appeared that our neighbours had begun to be seriously alarmed lest they should not be able to find men for the Imperial Navy. The boasted maritime inscription of France was every year more and more felt as a hardship and oppression; its effect was to deter men from engaging in seafaring pursuits; it weakened rather than strengthened the maritime power of that country. Witnesses who had been examined before the Royal Commissioners asserted that a general ignorance and misapprehension prevailed in this country respecting the great naval preparations going on in France. He had formerly read some extracts from a book published by a gentleman who had visited the naval yards of France, but the noble Lord at the head of the Government attempted to throw ridicule on the statements because they had appeared in a newspaper. Since then, however, the noble Lord the Member for Totnes (Lord Gifford) and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), who had to-night made an ad- 32 mirable practical speech, had visited the great ports of Cherbourg and Toulon, and they told precisely the same thing—that the stories which had frightened so many good people in this country, and to which the Government had given undue encouragement, were mere moonshine. There never was a time when the navy of Great Britain was more thoroughly equipped, or more powerful in proportion to the navies of the other Powers, than at the present moment. In point of fact, we had too many ships. We had a steam reserve in ordinary in the Medway of 69 ships, carrying 1,522 guns, and of 17,558 horse-power; and at Portsmouth of 51 ships, carrying 1,235 guns, with 10,728 horse-power, totally irrespective of the Channel Fleet, the Mediterranean, Pacific, and other squadrons. The French, on the other hand, had no Channel Fleet at all; while, according to the hon. Member for Glasgow, hardly anything was doing at Cherbourg. There might be something mysterious in concealing from the view of Englishmen what was going on, but he at least had failed to discover the formidable phantom squadron which had raised the alarms of so many hon. Members. In such a position, he asked what, in the name of common sense, was the use of voting the large sum now demanded for Naval Stores—£285,000 more than was voted last year? We had so many ships of war that we might station them within two and a half miles of each other all round the coast of Great Britain and Ireland, and yet nearly £1,000,000 was asked for timber this year—£300,000 more than was expended by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich when he reconstructed the British navy. It was one thing to ask the money and another to get the timber. He at first thought there had been some mistake in the estimate for this enormous supply of timber, and he had, therefore, taken up the Report of the Dockyard Commission, where he found some remarkable evidence on the question of the supply of timber. The hon. Member quoted the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker and the hon. Richard Dundas, Storekeeper General of the Navy; the latter of whom, in reply to Question 961 said—
I believe we got every load of timber which any amount of money would have got. If we had had more money we could not have got more timber of the requisite dimensions and quality.And again, in reply to Question 966,If we had had double the sum of money I do 33 not think that we could have got the timber; we have contracts outstanding; we have money provided for timber which will not come because we cannot get it.In 1852–53 the Vote for timber was £270,000; in 1855, it was £451,000; in 1856, £385,000; in 1859, £672,000; and this year—a time of peace—it was no less than £949,000. He thought this demand excessive, and that the Government should not press it when so many Members were absent in consequence of the late recess; but he hoped the Government would learn a lesson from the discussion, and that, now that the defences of the country were admittedly in a satisfactory condition, the Estimates would next year be upon a more moderate scale. He cordially seconded the Amendment of his hon. Friend, who he hoped would take the sense of the Committee upon it.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETadmitted that it did appear rather anomalous that, when the Vote for labour was reduced, the Vote for timber should be increased; but the explanation was to be found in the unprecedented expenditure of timber that had been going on in the dockyards during the last two years. The result had been that the stock of timber had been reduced to a lower point than was thought to be either safe or prudent by those who were most acquainted with the subject; and that it was absolutely necessary that the country should be put upon a better footing in this respect. During the last year the consumption of timber had been more than double the ordinary rate of consumption, having been 80,000 loads, instead of between 30,000 and 40,000 loads. The consequence was that the stock of timber about a month ago was reduced to 51,000 loads—much below the usual quantity kept on hand. The fair and proper establishment of timber used to be considered 60,000 loads. It was proposed this year to purchase 73,000 loads, while the year's consumption was estimated at 42,000 loads—or somewhat more than the usual average expenditure of former years—so that at the end of the financial year it was hoped that the stock of timber would be increased to 82,000 loads, or about two years' consumption. He was bound in candour to say—though under the threat of the serious displeasure of the hon. Member for Sunderland, if the Admiralty should have engaged the country in expenditure before the sanction of the House of Commons had been obtained—that the House was 34 pledged to that expenditure of timber; but, although it might appear objectionable to ask the House of Commons to consider Estimates to which they were already pledged, yet there were particular circumstances which rendered such a course necessary. The hon. Member for Montrose had referred to the evidence of the Storekeeper of the Navy, who had given a complete answer to the objection by saying that there was no possibility of finding more timber in the country, even were a much larger sum voted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had last year made a most important statement about the danger and impolicy of allowing the stock of timber to be reduced to too low an amount, and, impressed by that statement, the Admiralty had taken pains to increase the stock. It might be said, What is the use of coming to the House with Estimates when contracts had been already made for its supply, and the House has no power to reduce them? But an unanswerable argument was afforded in regard to the necessity of taking time by the forelock in making these contracts, in the quotations read by the hon. Member for Montrose from the evidence taken before the Dockyard Commission, showing the difficulty of obtaining the quantities of timber required. The process of getting a quantity of timber of the kind, required in most cases two years, in some three, and in none less than one year. He found, from a report which had been made to the Admiralty, that, of the whole stock of timber, less than one-fourth was English timber; therefore, it was apparent that the great bulk of the timber required for the purposes of the navy had to be fetched from distant countries. Moulmein and Malabar teak could only be obtained after a long interval, and if the Admiralty were compelled to obtain the sanction of Parliament previous to making a contract for that timber, it would be impossible to procure the timber in time for its needs. It was necessary, therefore, to have running contracts for two or three years in advance. What would be the case if the Government did not anticipate the Vote of the House of Commons? They had now a gunboat building by a firm who came lately to the Admiralty to ask them to supply English oak and other kinds of timber, because none could be obtained elsewhere, and they had been supplied, not only with English oak, but Dantzic oak, teak, and other timbers, which they 35 had been unable to purchase in the market. Could this be done if they did not order their timber from the sources from whence it came to this country? The Thames Iron Company, also, who were building the Warrior, said they had no means of getting Dantzic onk plank, and they were supplied by the Admiralty. It was necessary, therefore, that a large stock should be maintained, and it would be perfectly impossible that the great business of the Admiralty Department could be carried on unless they had their contracts out in time. There was generally, however, in these Votes, a margin left to allow of reductions if the House thought fit; but with regard to this item of timber not only was the House pledged to the present amount, but they were pledged also to a considerable sum for next year again. It was not only in the case of timber that contracts were made before the Estimates were submitted to Parliament, but also in the case of steam machinery. The sum which the House was now asked to agree to did not cover the whole contract which the Admiralty had entered into for machinery, but there remained at least one-third that would have to be paid for in a future year. Let him only add that he made these frank statements because he thought it respectful to the Committee that they should be made aware of the amount of all liabilities they had incurred, and he hoped and believed that due confidence would be placed in the department which was responsible for the provision of materials for the navy.
SIR, FREDERIC SMITHasked, why Government, if the money was already spent, did not at once take a larger Vote?—for it must be remembered that not only was the money spent in the present year, but the House was committed to expenditure for future years also. He considered the House of Commons ought distinctly to know the extent and nature of the contracts into which Government had entered. At present the House was treated with contempt. He wished to know if the whole of the Vote of last year was spent? and if it had not been spent, because the timber could not be procured, where was the necessity of asking for a larger sum now? He also wished to know if it was the same with respect to hemp, canvas, metal articles, coal and fuel, as with respect to timber, and that the supply was purchased for Some years in anticipation, and if, when they had purchased it, they were to hand it over to private firms?
§ MR. FINLAYsaid, that timber was an article that required to be seasoned, and, therefore, it was necessary to have a large supply of it in store. But if it was necessary to look ahead, these contracts should have been entered into last year, in which case the Government would have been able to consult the House of Commons. The largo sum of £1,000,000 now asked for was said to be equivalent only to a two years' supply; but that supply was estimated on the old scale of consumption, when we were building none but wooden ships, whereas iron ships were now superseding the use of wooden ones. He could not concur altogether in the opinions expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. Baxter) as to the present efficiency of the navy. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) on a former occasion made a speech to show that in any naval engagement iron ships would destroy wooden ones very easily. If that were so, he doubted whether our navy could be considered equal even to the navy of France. He considered, however, that the Government had not acted in a very constitutional manner in entering into these contracts, and incurring such large pecuniary liabilities without the knowledge and concurrence of Parliament.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was extremely sorry to see the state of the House whilst this subject was discussed. There were some hon. Members who sat below the gangway present; but behind the Government he saw nobody, and behind the Opposition but very few hon. Members; and he did not think that it was to the credit of the House that when they were discussing a subject of so much, importance, both financially and in reference to the defence of the country, there should be so thin a House. He must also regret that when the noble Lord was forming his Government he did not send the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to the Admiralty, for if he had been a Member of the Board they would have been spared several of these discussions. The hon. Member had rather ungenerously attacked him in reference to the cost of the iron-cased ships. He (Sir John Pakington), however, had never concealed from the House what the cost of those ships would be; and, indeed, in proposing the building of such ships, he had stated distinctly that they would be the most costly vessels ever built.
MR. LINDSAYexplained, that he had 37 not attacked the right hon. Baronet—he had only said what the cost would be, and expressed his opinion that the science of the age should have been brought to bear upon the matter.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONAnd the science of the age was brought to bear to the utmost extent possible. His opinion was that there were much higher questions at stake than, whether they would vote the amount asked by the noble Lord for timber, and that the real question was whether or not England was to remain the first naval power in the world? If the House wished that we should maintain this position they must not indulge in these hot and cold fits about expense; because a great and increasing cost was an indispensable condition of that supremacy. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had referred to him directly in reference to the supply of timber, and had alluded especially to the course which he took two years ago. The hon. Member stated that even during the endeavours made by the Government of which he was a member to increase the strength of the navy he only asked for £672,000 for timber, whilst the present Government asked for £1,000,000. He was bound to state that that item of the Estimates of 1859 was not limited with any reference whatever to money, but solely by the belief at that time as to the possibility of obtaining timber. The Government of that day were deeply impressed with the absolute necessity of obtaining the greatest supply of timber which they could obtain, and they were sending to all parts of the world for it. And even after they had made that Estimate and presented it to Parliament, an unforeseen opportunity of obtaining a large quantity of teak presented itself, and the Government immediately bought the wood. Nothing struck him more when he entered into office in 1858–9 than the deficient supply of timber in the dockyards. When he came to draw upon that stock in order to increase the navy, it proved to be utterly insufficient, and the consequence—the unavoidable consequence—was that unseasoned timber had to be used. The deficient stock of timber left the Admiralty no alternative. Now what was the motive which instigated the Government of 1859 in increasing our navy? There was no use in concealing the fact that it was our feebleness in comparison with France. He found not only that Trance was going ahead of us in the building of 38 ships, but that every yard in France was amply supplied with a stock of timber. He thanked the present Board of Admiralty for the efforts which they were making to increase the stock of timber, and he hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay) would reconsider his Amendment, and that he would believe that, in endeavouring to increase our stock of timber for the supply of our dockyards, the Government were doing no more than it was their bounden duty to do. He had spoken strongly upon this matter because he was convinced that the Admiralty were perfectly right.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThe right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) has expressed his regret at two circumstances—the thinness of the House and the small interest which appears to be felt in this matter. I also regret another circumstance—that two hon. Gentlemen who I know are most anxious for the prosperity, the welfare, and the honour of the country, and who are peculiarly conversant with the great importance of the maritime trade of the country to our political existence, should come down here with a Motion tending to cripple that navy, on the existence and the power of which, I will not say our prosperity, but our very national existence depends; for, after all, the question is not whether we shall spend £600,000 or £900,000 on timber; the bottom, the marrow, the tendency, and the effect of the Motion is whether we shall have a navy at all? ("Oh, oh !") I say it is so, because, if you deprive the Admiralty of the means of constructing ships, you deprive the country of a navy. My noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty has stated that even if the supply of timber is obtained which we now ask for, we shall only have two years' consumption in our stores; and I remember when this question was discussed last year it was maintained that we ought at least to have three years' consumption on hand. It is now said that iron ships only ought to be built; but hon. Gentlemen appear to run away with the idea that iron ships are built entirely of iron. My two hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment, must, I am sure, be perfectly aware that an iron ship has a vast quantity of wood in its construction, and it is absurd to say that, because iron ships are to be built, you will not require a stock of timber. Then it is said, yon ought to take example from France, who has abandoned all idea of rivalling us in 39 our navy; and that it is absurd for us to have the stock of timber which this Vote would enable us to obtain, seeing the total abstinence of France from anything like an attempt to rival our Navy. But do hon. Gentlemen know what is the amount of timber now in stock in the French arsenals? This Vote would give us a supply of 80,000 loads; but the French, with a smaller navy, and smaller demands for timber, have 160,000 loads in stock—just double that which we should have if this Vote be granted. The reasons given by my noble Friend, and supported by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), for making contracts when opportunity offers, are unanswerable. You cannot go into the market and order a supply of timber like a supply of coals, or any other article of which the supply is ready and general. It is well known that timber fit for certain purposes grows only in certain positions, and if when an opportunity offers for making contracts you do not take advantage of it, other people step in, and you are left without the material necessary for the maintenance of your navy. Under these circumstances I hope the House will see that no reason has been shown for diminishing this Vote, or for blaming the Admiralty for making contracts for the material necessary to the maintenance of that navy, without which the country would be utterly ruined. Only imagine for a moment the condition in which we should be placed if any foreign Power, or any combination of foreign Powers, were to obtain complete command of the sea. What would become of those imports upon which our commercial industries depend? What would become of those exports without which our industries would be employed without fruit? What would become of all those elements of our national existence for the maintenance of which it is absolutely necessary that we should have free command of the great highway of nations? Independently of all considerations of internal defence and the means which an enemy would have of attacking our shores if we had not power to resist him by sea, I am sure the two hon. Gentlemen who are so well acquainted with all our various commercial interests, cannot seriously wish that our navy should be deprived of the means which are essential for the maintenance of its efficiency. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, that he thought the 40 Committee, whatever they might think of the Motion of his hon. Friends, would admit that if the Vote was five times as great as it was, the speech of the noble Lord would have been equally applicable. The noble Lord had not condescended to go into any figures, and he would excuse him for saying that he did not place the slightest reliance upon his opinion. The noble Lord told them that the French had 160,000 loads of timber in their yards; he (Mr. Bright) could not contradict him, but remembering how often the noble Lord had misled the House by exaggerated statements with regard to the French navy, without something more satisfactory he would not be disposed to vote an extravagant sum of money for this item simply on account of the noble Lord's statement. Members of that House, who had recently been in the French dockyards, and who were the best authorities on this subject, had not seen there that stock of timber which the noble Lord described, and he had no doubt that, if the matter were inquired into, it would be found that just as before the noble Lord had talked before of a phantom French fleet, so now he was bringing forward phantom stocks of timber. The noble Lord had spoken of the danger to our commercial marine by refusing this Vote. But he would venture to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had twenty times as much property on the water as the noble Lord—and, therefore, he did not think that his hon. Friend would not do anything to make that property less secure, nor, with regard to the country, that he would be less patriotic than, the noble Lord himself. The question before the House was a simple one for any person who knew anything of figures. He did not expect the Admiralty to know anything of figures, for they admitted they did not. Turning, however, to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, who ought to know something of the matter, he appeared with regard to this Vote to be proceeding upon a manifest error; for he asked how they could carry on the great business of the Admiralty without this Vote? Well, if he regarded the great business of the Admiralty as a permanent business at the rate at which it had been carried on for the last two years, or since the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) did so much to create a panic with regard to the state of the navy 41 —if the noble Lord imagined that to be a permanent condition of affairs at the Admiralty, he (Mr. Bright) had not very much to say about it, for upon that supposition they were evidently getting into a condition of expenditure which would not be pulled up by any arguments in that House, but only by some action in the country which would bring the Government and the House to their senses. It was evident from what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord that there had been an expenditure exceeding that of former years. The question was whether that expenditure was to be maintained or diminished? It had been stated, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not denied it—that this country had more ships of every class than all the rest of the world together, and if this were so, it could not be thought by any man outside a lunatic asylum that they were to go on during the next five or six years increasing their navy as they had done during the last two. And if not, how could they ask the House for a Vote for timber of more than £200,000 in excess of the Vote of last year, which was itself greater than that of any former year? Mr. Dundas, the Storekeeper General, who was spoken of as an authority whenever he was quoted by the Government, said, that he contemplated that in the year now going on the consumption of timber would be reduced one-half. Well, when they were reducing the consumption of timber one-half for this year, and he presumed for several succeeding years, what could be the necessity for increasing so largely the Vote for timber? Mr. Dundas said that 60,000 loads was the usual stock considered necessary for the navy, and that at the commencement of this year the stock was about 50,000 loads—which was 10,000 loads less, or in consequence of the extraordinary consumption of those years. But then Mr. Dundas proposed by this Vote—which he was careful to say he did not recommend himself—what he said was, that he knew what was desired by the Board on the subject—what would be necessary for the purchase of 70,000 loads, which with the stock on hand made 120,000 loads. Now, as only one-half the usual consumption was to be used this year, it was evident that at the end of the year the stock would be greatly above what was ordinarily required in the navy. He had not the least reason to suppose, from what the noble Lord at the head of 42 the Government said—for he was in a very "Rule Britannia" mood to-night—that the Vote next year would be lees; for all his arguments were in favour of a larger Vote next year, especially if there should be a good harvest, and if the export trade should be increased. Still, with the views of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he (Mr. Bright) had the drawing up of those Estimates, and if he wished to raise the stock from 50,000 to 60,000, or even 70,000 or 80,000 loads, the best course would be to propose a moderate sum this year and a moderate sum the next to make a gradual increase, and thus replenish the stock, without coming down in that particular Session with so enormous a Vote; because it was quite clear upon all the evidence, and upon all the facts stated by the hon. Members for Sunderland and Montrose, there could be no reason for the extravagant Vote submitted to the Committee. The fact was that the business of the Admiralty was perhaps the most extraordinary in the way of extravagant and reckless expenditure that any legislative Chamber had ever had to consider. It was clear from all the evidence brought before the Commission that there was not a particle of substantial control over the expenditure of the Admiralty. There were a good man me of business there—he would not put the question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who had a supreme contempt for any matter like that, or he would not have addressed such observations as he had done to the Committee—but suppose they took the level of the largest class of business firms of Lancashire or Yorkshire, they would find that £100,000 a year might be set down as their average expenditure in raw material, repairs, wages, &c. A million of money would give ten of those firms, and £12,000,000 would stand for 120 of them. And how were these firms managed? There were 120, or more probably 240 managers of those firms—men who thoroughly understood their business—they had the greatest-possible interest in its success; they rose at six o'clock in the morning, and continued at their task until six o'clock in the evening—and, in short they were incessantly employed in the management of their business transactions many of which had a good deal of what might be called routine in them, for there were steam-engines at work, cotton to put in and take out, but not a great deal of 43 change; and yet all that labour was gone through that at the end of the year there might be a profitable result. But what had they here? An expenditure of £12,000,000; and managed by whom? Why, the other day the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) was the President, presiding genius, general manager, and controller of the expenditure of £12,000,000 in the Department, of which—speaking without offence—he knew literally nothing. The right hon. Baronet knew just as much as he (Mr. Bright) knew, as the average of the Members of that House knew, and no more. Well, now they had a noble Duke in the other House of Parliament who knew no more than the right hon. Baronet did—little accustomed, probably, to extensive bookkeeping, and not at all to ship-building. If they were to go back many years, and take all the First Lords of the Admiralty, and put them to manage one of the business firms which he had alluded to, in all probability in the course of two or three years they would find them very anxious to get out of them. But here they had this great business of £12,000,000, which Was managed, not by First Lords only, but by civil Lords and sea Lords—as they were called—who did not agree well together either as to what they should do and what they should leave undone. And then they had the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty who sat in that House, but who, it was said, had no great authority at the Board, and was often driven to the painful necessity of defending in that House things which his own judgment would not recommend, and of abstaining from doing things which his own judgment Would have led him to do. If they were to go down to the dockyards they would find confusion from beginning to end, and it was nothing but the love for labour of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, which nothing could surpass, that could have induced him or any other man to plunge into these inquiries with the idea of disentangling this chaos into which the finances of the country were brought by the present extravagant and reckless expenditure. Yet if a Member of that House, representing a large constituency oppressed with taxes, rose in his place to complain of this enormous expenditure, he was told by the noble Viscount that he was not patriotic, and he did not care a farthing about the supremacy of his country at sea. The noble Viscount had 44 even the effrontery to say that Gentlemen whose great transactions were upon the sea were not even careful about the security of their own property; and that he was the man to take care that they were not ruined by their economic fancies. He said the noble Viscount was not treating this subject as he ought to treat it in his eminent and responsible position, and probably, ere long, the noble Viscount would find that £70,000,000 a year of taxes was much more than the people of this country ought or could pay. The noble Viscount would allow him—and with no unfriendly feeling—to tell him that he had placed his Chancellor of the Exchequer last year and this year in whatever difficulties he had found himself in contesting his policy with his opponents in that House. If last year the noble Viscount had had the good sense not to go beyond the extravagant expenditure of his predecessors, and if this year he had with a firm hand cut off some of these extravagant Votes, such as that which had been objected to by his hon. Friend that night, he would have left the finances of the country in that condition that all the ingenious and intense hostility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer manifested on the other side of the House would have found itself wholly baffled in the attempt to have found any fault worth listening to with the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman either in this or last Session of Parliament. He (Mr. Bright) was quite sure that there was no more honest Friend to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, than the Member of that House, whether he sat on the benches below the gangway or the benches behind him, who told him that he did not sufficiently care for the extravagant expenditure of the country, and was not sufficiently conscious of the fact that every hundred pounds which was expended more than was absolutely necessary, whether it be brought about through a wrong policy abroad, or through a reckless management at home, came out of some man's labour, some man's sweat, and was itself the purchase money of the sufferings and misery of some portion of the people. He (Mr. Bright) had not meddled much of late in this matter, because he found that the House was not well disposed to listen to arguments in favour of economy; but he must indeed be a blind, an ignorant, and a foolish man, who did not see that the time was coming when the expenditure would have to be diminished, and when the taxes 45 would have to be more reduced than was even now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or there would be a contest between the people of this country and its Government, such as the noble Viscount did not wish to see, and such as he (Mr. Bright) would be as unwilling to see as the noble Viscount himself.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that as he had taken some part in a former debate on this subject, he trusted he should be excused if he offered a few observations at the present moment. He should not attempt to follow the lion. Member for Birmingham in his somewhat discursive speech, because it really was a speech on the general expenditure of the country rather than on this particular Vote. If there were those 120 separate heads of Admiralty management of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, each coming for a separate Vote, with 120 responsibilities, they would have to refer again to a Committee upstairs to see how they could contrive to get through the public business. Probably the hon. Member only used it for an illustration, and did not wish to throw the Admiralty into the hands of 120 people, although his speech certainly went in that direction. The immediate question before the Committee was that of timber. Now, upon this point he was of opinion that if there were any one question on which the Admiralty would have no difficulty in defending itself, it was upon this of keeping in hand a sufficient stock of timber. He did not think there was any man—he did not care who he was—but who, on looking at what the consumption of timber had been for the last ten or twelve years, at what had been the orders of the respective Boards of Admiralty, and at what work had not been executed, must see that what was called the establishment of timber was wholly insufficient. Timber, such as we required, ought to be two or three years in store, and if it was not it was unseasoned and unfit for use. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) was looking into his Report; but that Report did not begin at the beginning, and hardly touched upon the question of timber at all. It was gone into at great length by the Committee on Dockyard Economy, and these facts were distinctly brought out—that for ten or twelve years past the consumption of timber in the navy had been ranging at something like 25,000 or 30,000 loads a year; that the Admiralty had been ordering a certain number of vessels, which 46 were not completed; that two-thirds only of the work ordered had been done; and that, consequently, two-thirds only of the timber which would otherwise have been consumed was consumed. There had been no provision during those ten or twelve years for that accruing deficiency, and, therefore, when at the end of ten years there was a sort of spasmodic effort made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) to fill up the gap, and to get ten ships of the line and a number of frigates which they ought to have had, but had not, the store of timber broke down. It was said that it was a great feature in Sir Baldwin Walker's character that he found out there was no timber in the dockyards. Sir Baldwin "Walker might have known that by asking any person who chose to look into the stock of timber and the amount of work ordered by this House. With the Report of the Dockyard Committee, showing how many loads of timber each ship would take, it became as clear as the sun at noonday that they must build with unseasoned timber. It was so apparent to him that he thought it right to call the attention of the House to it. A good deal of unseasoned timber had been put into these ships, and they would require a great deal of repair in consequence. What occurred with the gunboats? They had had to pull them to pieces and do them up again, and did they suppose that these ships of the line would not come into the same category? To put a hot boiler next to unseasoned wood was a safe receipt to produce rot. Whatever expense might be thus occasioned ought to be saved. Whether the French had 50,000 or 100,000 loads was nothing to us. It was the duty of our Government to keep our arsenals full of good timber, so that if the occasion should come there would be the timber ready for use. English oak was not fit for use until it had been three years in the dockyards, and those yards were now cleaned out. There was a very low stock of timber in the dockyards, and it was a first duty of the Government to get that stock up again. He did not want to go into general matters further than to remark, upon the observation of the hon. Member for Birmingham as to the amount of property at sea, that property at sea could be insured, but the honour of the country could not be insured except by proper ships and armaments. They might go to Lloyd's and insure property at sea, and it might be even better to get money instead of goods, but the honour of the 47 country could not be insured except by stout ships and good men in them. He did not believe that any one who had looked into the question, and knew that unseasoned timber was used, would blame the Government for buying any quantity of good timber upon which they could lay hands. As to whether they would hereafter have iron ships, it was an uncertain matter, and the repairs of the ships which they now had during the next eight or ten years would take a large quantity of timber. In one respect he agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham. He did not think that the country would go on standing £70,000,000 a year of taxes. The hot fit had gone on for a long while. He had seen cold fits, and he thought a cold fit would come again. He believed that the Government—he did not care who they were—had been behind rather than before the country in the matter of expenditure, and that no Government could, have held their hands, so determined was the feeling to be satisfied that the national defences were in a proper condition. He thought, however, that before long the pleasure of paying £70,000,000 a year for it would make people think somewhat differently, and there would be a great necessity for a reduction of expense. It was his firm conviction, however, that the Vote for timber was an absolute necessity and an economical expenditure of money, and he should, therefore, cordially support the Government in the Tote.
§ COLONEL SYKESdenied that for the last fifty years the naval supremacy of this country had ever been in doubt. Even when the Navy Estimates were as low as £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 per annum our naval supremacy was as high as ever it was, and at present we had an armament equal to the navies of the whole world. He could not, moreover, admit that our naval supremacy depended on our having these 80,000 loads of timber in our yards. It is stated that an average of 50,000 loads are sufficient to meet all the ordinary requirements, the difference therefore, might be struck off the Vote, as the hon. Member for Sunderland proposed. In respect to other charges, it appears that in the last year's Estimates there were £15,000 for yachts and furniture of superintendents' houses, and £7,943 for boats. Were there, he asked, similar sums in the present Estimates? It seemed from the want of method in our dockyard that it was impossible to determine the exact 48 cost of a ship. In India a system existed which insured an accurate knowledge of the outlay for any particular purpose. Stores were only issued upon induct and against each article issued in a parallel column, the price or cost was attached and the simple addition of this column, gave the total cost for whatever purpose the stores were issued. Could not that be done in the British Navy? Another question he asked of the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget)—had he turned his attention to the machinery which had recently been invented, and by which a boat 33 feet long could be made in ten hours?
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that the proceedings of the Admiralty in past years showed that they did not pay due attention to the discoveries of science, or take advantage of results which had been clearly seen by others. Year after year they had demanded large Votes for timber, and then, when they had got a wooden fleet greater than the fleet of all the world, they were startled by the announcement that France was ahead of them in iron steamers of a size and power that would blow all their ships out of the water. A revolution had taken place in ship building; iron was substituted for wood, and the result was that Government now came down and demanded a larger Vote for timber than ever they had done before. Could anything be more illogical? He trusted that the hon. Member for Sunderland would test the sense of the Committee on the subject, and if he did he should certainly give him his support.
§ MR. CHILDERScomplained of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty telling the House they had no alternative but to agree to this Vote. He thought the French Government, however despotic, had proceeded in a much more regular way with their naval budget. He wished to know whether, when he stated that the French supply of timber amounted to 160,000 loads, he meant English or French loads? If French, he believed, the amount would be about 90,000 English loads. He hardly thought the French Government could, as a commercial operation, have procured the quantity of timber in the time.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the load of timber in France was 40 cubic feet, and those were the loads which had been referred to. The grounds upon which his noble Friend at the head of the Go- 49 vernment had stated that there were 160,000 loads of timber in the Trench dockyards were that, according to the last accounts received by the Government, there were at Cherbourg 29,000 loads; at Brest, 30,000; at Toulon, 37,000; at Rochefort, 26,000; and at L'Orient, 25,000, and 7,500 ordered. Hon. Gentlemen asked what would be the result of this Vote. He trusted that if the Vote was agreed to we should probably have at the end of the year a stock of 82,000 loads. At the rate of expenditure which prevailed last year, that would give us one year's, or at the usual rate two years' stock in hand. It had frequently been said that our navy outnumbered the united navies of the world. Hon. Gentlemen were very much in error if they supposed that any such great superiority of force existed on the part of this country. He had received accounts of what was doing in the French dockyards, which showed that the Government was not only justified from time to time in keeping up the stock of timber, but that they were imperatively called upon to consider what further exertions were to be made in the preparation of iron-plated ships. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) might very possibly be incredulous, but he could give not alone the names of every ship which had been laid down in the French dockyards, but the date of her being put upon the stocks, as well as her, present condition. Since he had the honour of laying the Estimates on the Table of the House nine iron-cased frigates had been either laid down or were being laid down in France. In addition to the six iron-cased ships whose names were given in a former debate, the Provence had been laid down at Toulon in the present month; her model being an improvement on that of La Gloire. The Savoie had been laid down this month, also at Toulon. At Brest, the Revanche was laid down in March, the Magnanime in May, and the Gauloise and Valeureuse at the same port. The Heroine and the Surveillante had been laid down at L'Orient; and there was another iron-cased vessel, whose name was as yet unknown; completing the number which he had stated. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland might laugh; but he did not believe he would do so if he shared the responsibility devolving on Her Majesty's Government. His noble Friend at the head of the Government had been charged with an inclination to sing 50 "Rule, Britannia!" but he did not believe either the hon. Member for Birmingham or the hon. Member for Sunderland would be averse to join in the chorus As the intelligence relating to the construction of these ships in France rested on the very best authority, the Government would be neglecting their duty to the country if they neglected to make corresponding preparations.
§ MR. DALGLISHsaid, much stress had been laid on the fact that timber required to be seasoned. But of the £700,000 worth of timber bought last year, £200,000 were expended on teak timber, which it was well known did not require seasoning. English oak was one of the most expensive kinds, but as the large class of ships for which it was principally used were less in favour now than heretofore, he thought a considerable saving might be effected under this head. Unless we were to continue the "spasmodic effort" referred to by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he could not conceive on what grounds this Vote could be asked for.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he could not understand the strong opposition to the proposed Vote for timber, of which less would be required in future years if a large quantity were now purchased, the only question being whether the Government should have it in store or not. It might be against the mercantile interest of the timber dealers that Government should have the power of laying in a large stock at a cheap rate, but it certainly must prove beneficial to the country. A case occurred not long since when timber could be bought for 4½d. a foot; but as soon as it was known that Government was in the market, the price rose to 7d. He thought the Government would do well to provide for laying in a large stock, by entering into contracts extending over a considerable period. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman ought not to be looked at as one dealing simply with timber; it formed part of a general scheme to cut down the Navy Estimates by one-third.
MR. WHITEsaid, that this was the first time this Session he had taken any part in the discussion on the Estimates, because he found that a vast amount of time was consumed without any good result. He was confirmed in the opinion he had previously entertained of the hopelessness of attempting to effect a reduction in the national expenditure, by the statement contained in the admirable work of the accomplish- 51 ed gentleman (Mr. Erskine May), who sat by the side of the chairman, that
With a few exceptions, so trifling as to be almost ridiculous, it will be found that the annual Estimates have been voted without deduction.And it is statedThat in 1858 the only instance of a successful Motion of an economical character was afforded by the notable case to which the House eliminated from the Estimates the travelling expenses of the Fine Arts Collector of the Royal Academy.He grounded his objections to the Vote on the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) himself, who said that contracts had already been made for timber to the full amount asked for. He should be sorry to use harsh language towards the noble Lord, or to say that this seemed like raising money on false pretences; but he put it to the candour and fairness of the noble Lord, whether he ought to submit an Estimate to a Committee for nearly a million sterling, founded upon contracts already made, without placing those eon-tracts before the House. He thought, too, it was something like a false pretence not very creditable to Government that they should pretend to give these Estimates with the minute accuracy of odd figures, "Why, Sir, instead of asking for exactly £949,371, did not the noble Lord say at once that the Government wanted a million to pay for timber which they had entered into contracts to purchase? He did not wish to obstruct public business, or he would have moved that "the Chairman do report Progress," in order that those contracts might be produced before the money was voted. Under any circumstances, he could not see that the honour and glory and supremacy of the country depended upon the House voting the whole amount now asked for timber, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
§ MR. MITCHELLsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down ought, as a man of business, to have known that contracts for timber, to be of any use at all, must be entered into early in the year. It might be the fault of the Government, though the House was also to blame, that the Estimates were postponed till this time; but if the contracts were delayed till the month of June the consequence would be that no timber would be obtained this year at all. On the general question he might state, as having some knowledge of the timber trade, that the Government could not possibly have selected a better year than the present to make purchases 52 in. The general tendency of the price of timber was to advance, because every year they had to go further into the forests to obtain it; but this tendency was corrected in the present year by the low rate of freights, and the general disorganization of trade.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) say that this year, of all others, was the best for laying in a large stock of timber. The average price of teak was from £10 to £11 a load; this year it was from £16 to £17. This was surely no evidence of the present being a favourable season foe the contract. He wished, however, to narrow the discussion. He would not go into the question of the number of French war ships or the quantity of timber in the French stores, though he suspected that there was some mistake in respect to them. But what he wished to fix the attention of the House on was the supply of timber to our own yards for the present year. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty said that this million of money would purchase 73,000 loads of timber, and that we should thus hare 80,000 loads of timber in store. Taking the ten years from 1848 to 1858, he found that the greatest quantity stored in any one of those years was 40,000 loads, and the least 18,000 loads. If those quantities were sufficient when we were building nothing but wooden ships, what did we require with a stock of 124,000 loads—the sum of the 51,000 now in stock, and the 73,000 proposed to be purchased—at a time when the Admiralty admitted that it was not desirable to build wooden ships of a large class, and that we must go with iron vessels? He asked the Committee to take £300,000 off the £1,000,000, and if they did so they would still leave the Admiralty much beyond the amount expended in an average of ten years during which wooden ships alone were being built.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That the item of £949,371, for Timber, Mast Deals, &c. be reduced by the sum of £300,000.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 66: Majority 36.
§ Original Question again proposed,
MR. LINDSAYmoved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. An important constitutional question was involved in what the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) had stated regarding voting on these items. He de- 53 sired that a copy of the contracts which had been entered into by the Government should be laid on the table of the House. It was a sheer waste of time for him to come down night after night to discuss these questions, and for the House to consider them, if they were to be told that the Government stood pledged to these votes, and that the House must how to them.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was sure the House would be ready to hear the arguments which any Gentleman wished to urge upon this question. The particular Vote before them had been already well discussed on both sides, and he hoped that the hon. Member would not persist in the Motion which he had made.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONconfessed, that he had been much struck by the very unusual language of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. He had supported the Government upon the merits of this question, but he was surprised to hear an argument put forth the tendency of which the House could not but regard with jealousy. The effect of the statement made by the noble Lord was that the House had no option but to agree to a Vote in any case in which the Government had entered into a contract. Of course it must be necessary for the Government occasionally to enter into contracts, but such contracts should be made subject to the approval of Parliament; and, at all events, the argument employed by the noble Lord was not one that ought to be used in that House.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was absolutely necessary to purchase the timber from year to year, and to give the contracts from one to three years in advance—undoubtedly, all contracts were subject to the approval of the House; but it was perfectly clear that they should never find timber contractors willing to go to the expense of sending out ships for a supply of timber if they were told that their contracts would not be binding until it received the approval of Parliament next year. If a plan could be suggested to meet that difficulty, Government would be very happy to consider it. He hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lindsay) would not press the Motion.
§ MR. BRIGHTasked if there would be any objection to place on the table the particular contracts to which the noble 54 Lord had referred? He did not know that there was any special mystery in the timber trade. Contracts for spirits and other articles were made public, and he did not understand why an exception should be made in the case of timber. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) could tell the House if there did exist any particular mystery about the timber trade, seeing that he had already stated several things which hon. Members had previously been quite ignorant of. He did not see any reason why they should not get the particulars they required in regard to timber. He did not like to say he disbelieved anything that was said on the Treasury bench, but he thought it possible that the contract might not include the whole sum named in the Vote. A million of money for timber was a very considerable sum, and the House ought to be furnished with the fullest information regarding it.
§ MR. BASSasked if the noble Lord would give the exact price on which the contracts for the timber were made?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETheld in his hand a statement of the cost of each class and article of timber that was to be provided under the Vote. It was possible that certain portions of the timber might not arrive within the time proposed, owing to ships being lost and other causes.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that last year they were told they were bound to fulfil a contract made by the Admiralty. The House of Commons, however, on that occasion decided by a considerable majority that it was not bound by that eon? tract. It was essential for the House to know how long these contracts had been entered into. He doubted whether the Departments ought to enter into large contracts without the sanction of the House of Commons.
§ MR. BAXTERwished to know in respect to what other items in the Estimates the Government had entered into contracts? If there were any more contracts, the proceedings of the Committee were almost a farce.
§ MR. MITCHELLsaid, that so far as he knew, there was no reason why every contract should not be laid on the table. It would, however, be better that the returns should have a more extended shape, and include all the contracts for transport during the last ten years. If the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) would move for such a return he should cordially second the Motion.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, he did not complain that the Government had made contracts for moderate and usual supplies, but that they had ordered an unusual quantity of timber under circumstances that did not justify such extensive contracts. He hoped the noble Lord would consent to the return; but, as it would be better to confine themselves ad rem, he saw no reason for gratifying the antiquarian researches of the hon. Member for Bridport.
§ COLONEL SYKESthought it was not necessary to enter into contracts without the consent of the House when they sat seven months in the year.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had been asked for the date of these contracts. He regretted to have to mention the date of one of them, because it was made when the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) was at the Admiralty, and anticipated the Parliamentary Vote by two years. There were two contrasts for English timber—one for oak, dated January 28th, 1859, and the other for elm, dated January 16th, 1861. The contracts for Italian oak, African timber, and Spanish and Mexican woods, had been taken at various periods, from 1859, to 1861. He had no objection to lay the dates of contracts on the table; but as to the prices he was not sure, without inquiry, whether it would be advantageous that they should be published.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had found no fault with the Government for entering into these contracts; what he said was that it was very unusual that that House should be told that they had no option about passing a particular Vote because the contracts had been already entered into by the Government. He hoped he should never hear such an expression again.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the item of £271,757, for Metals and Metal Articles, be reduced by £71,757.
MR. LINDSAYmoved that the item of £271,757 for metals be reduced by £71,757. Much of this metal consisted of bolts and knees for wooden ships, and, as it was not considered advisable to go on building large wooden ships, these bolts, &c, would not be wanted. Another charge under this item was for anchors. He would not enter upon the controversy between Mr. Trotman and the Admiralty 56 further than to say it was now ten years since he sat upon a Commission appointed to inquire into the merits of the different anchors. Six of the Members of that Commission were well known and large owners of vessels in the merchant service, comprising Mr. Duncan Dunbar, Mr. G. Marshall, and other eminent shipowners, and the other six were gentlemen connected with the Admiralty, including Admiral Stopford, Admiral Hope, and other competent judges. The Commission took three months to test the various anchors, and the conclusion to which they unanimously came was, that the Admiralty anchor was the worst of the lot. Since that time the Admiralty continued using the condemned anchor and no other, and the manufacture of anchors had never been submitted to public competition. For twenty years one firm had held the contract at the price fixed twenty years ago, though every one knew that Nasmyth's hammer and other inventions had materially reduced the cost of fabrication. For seventeen anchors the Government paid to the contractors £3,434 '17s. 6d.; whereas the market price for such anchors made by the most eminent firms was only £1,428. Such being the case in regard to the cost of anchors, there was reason to conclude that the cost of other articles was also much too great, and he hoped the Committee would not consider him unreasonable in now moving that the present item be reduced by £71,000.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYthought some explanation should be given of the reason why Mr. Trotman's anchors were not adopted. It was stated that an anchor of Trotman's, weighing 15 cwt., and costing £90, was equal in every respect to an Admiralty anchor costing £365. He understood that the Admiralty were endeavouring to transform some anchors of Porter's into Trotman's anchors. He thought it would be very much better to discard all the anchors now in use instead of attempting to convert them, and to substitute anchors on Trotman's principle.
§ SIB JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, there were two things which the hon. Member for Sunderland had not told the House-one was, what principle guided him in the reduction of £71,757 which he had fixed upon; the other was, what was the reason why the Commission to which he had alluded considered the Admiralty anchor the worst of the five. The relative merits of these anchors was not a subject upon 57 which a landsman could form a very good opinion. He (Sir John Pakington) had frequently asked different naval officers as to the respective merits of the anchors, and they had invariably told him that Trot-man's anchors when once they took hold of the ground were the best; but that they could not rely on their biting; and that, therefore, upon the whole the Admiralty anchor was the safest, because they could always depend upon it taking the ground.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that Captain Denman spoke very highly of Trotman's anchor, and so also did the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, whose opinion he (Sir John Trelawny) had before him in a pamphlet.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that Captain Denman's opinion was formed on his experience while in command of the Royal yacht the Victoria and Albert; but, as they all knew, the Victoria and Albert was never exposed to very heavy weather.
§ MR. CONINGHAMwished to know why the contract for these anchors was not thrown open to public competition?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETwas an advocate for opening all contracts as far as possible, but the last contract he would put up to public competition was that for anchors, because the anchor was an article on which the sailor should be able to depend. There ought not to be any risk on an article so important. There was always an annual dispute about anchors in that House, and some hon. Gentleman always described the Admiralty anchor as the dearest and worst. In point of fact, however, Trotman's was really the dearest. Trotman had never made anchors for the navy above the class of from 30 to 49 cwt. The Admiralty anchor cost £2 3s. the cwt.; Rogers' anchor, £2 4s.; Porter's, £2 8s.; and Trotman's, £2 10s;. per cwt; though Mr. Trotman would probably write a letter to the newspapers to-morrow denying the statement. With regard to the question of converting the anchor now in use, Government had in the dockyards a lot of Porter's anchors, which were very similar to Trotman's, and a certain number were being converted into Trotman's anchors. He had little doubt, however, that the Report on them would be that they had certain advantages and certain defects; but that, upon the whole, the defects outweighed the advantages. If an anchor did not bite at once the ship would drive throe or four cables' length, and 58 for anchoring in line of battle they were obliged to have an anchor that would bite at once.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, a Commission had reported ten years ago that the Admiralty anchor was the worst, and that Trotman's stood highest. Trotman's anchors did not require to be so heavy as others, and, therefore, they were the cheapest, though they might cost more per cwt. One reason why he asked for a reduction of the Vote was because he had reason to know that anchors were manufactured at a much cheaper rate by private makers than by the Government contractors. Believing that there were many other points upon which the Vote might be reduced, he should take the sense of the Committee.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he had found Trotman's anchors both convenient and efficient, and never observed that they were slow in biting.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he was afraid the Committee were not very competent to decide this controversy. Had he correctly understood the hon. Member for Sunderland to observe that not only were there Admiralty contracts for anchors running twenty years, but that the price charged was the same as that charged twenty years ago?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was not the fact that the price of anchors remained always the same, because they depended on the market price of iron, and the price lists of Messrs. Brown and Lennox were revised from time to time. He also explained that it was owing to more ships being in commission that there was some increase in the Votes.
MR. LINDSAYwished to ask, whether it was the fact that seventeen anchors, which had cost the country £3,434, could be obtained of the trade at £1,428?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGEThad never heard of any such charge; and he might add, that the Admiralty were always open to tenders from the trade.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, the reason the noble Lord had given of the increase in this Vote was because more ships were in commission; but in a subsequent Vote he had asked £50,000 less for coal; and coal was dearer this year than last.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETexplained that the Chinese expedition had greatly increased the charges for coal in the last Estimates.
§ Question put,
59§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 76: Majority, 44.
§ Original Question again proposed.
MR. LINDSAYmoved the omission of the item of £100,000 for iron for an iron-cased ship to be built at Chatham Dockyard. He had no desire to stop the building of iron-cased ships; but he objected to the Government undertaking the work, because private firms could do it better and for less money, and the workmen in Her Majesty's yards were wholly inexperienced in the art of constructing vessels of iron; and he objected to the selection of Chatham, on account of the difficulty of the navigation of the Medway, and because there were no facilities there for the construction, of iron-cased ships. It was impossible to say where the expenditure at Chatham would end if once commenced, for the dockyard would have to be extended and improved, new plant for the building of iron-cased ships would have to be provided, and the sum of £100,000 included in the present Vote could only be regarded as a third or fourth part of the cost of constructing a single ship. He also agreed with the Dockyard Commissioners in thinking that the building of iron-cased ships should not be carried on in any of Her Majesty's dockyards under the existing system of accounts.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the item of £100,000, for Iron for an Iron-cased Ship to be built at Chatham, be omitted from the proposed Vote.
§ MR. CONINGHAMseconded the Motion. The Government were the worst manufacturers in the world, and the work performed by them ought at once to be placed in the hands of private traders. He had seen plans of a proposed extension of Chatham Dockyard, the ultimate cost of which would not be much below £1,000,000. While the Government were insisting on a larger expenditure on timber, they called on the Committee to launch into this new expenditure for making a gigantic dockyard, and for iron ship building at Chatham. He protested against it. He had the strongest conviction that the whole was a most abominable job, if they could only get at the bottom of it.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHobserved that the proposed extension of the dockyard at Chatham had been recommended by the late Mr. Rennie many years ago, and had nothing whatever to do with the construction of iron ships. Mr. Rennie's object was to increase the floating surface in the yard 60 which is at present very insufficient. There was great space for effecting this means of working economically, and advantages of every kind. The work would be performed by convict labour; and he only objected to the time that would be occupied in completing it. The great value of Chatham Dockyard was in its position, for by reason of its distance from the coast, and the protection afforded by the defences of Sheerness, it was secure against the sudden attack of an enemy's fleet. He thought it most desirable to have one iron vessel built in a Government yard, if only to test of the resources of the public establishments in these matters, and to experiment on the various modes of construction. Any one who has read the correspondence with the builders of the Warrior must be convinced of the advantage that would arise from this. There was no end to the alterations which had to be made, the whole thing being an experiment. There was no reason why an iron vessel might not be as well and economically built at Chatham as in any private dockyard. The Commissioners had stated that the present system of accounts would not enable the Government to form any test of the prices charged by private builders; but they had the assurance of the noble Lord that the system of accounts would be immediately altered, and everything in that respect would be placed on a more satisfactory footing.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham was scarcely an impartial counsellor in this matter. Possibly if he had been Member for some other constituency a film might have fallen from his eyes, and he might have agreed with the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay). As for the argument about this being a test of expenditure, everybody knew that the building of a first ship was no test of expenditure. The cost of a first ship, a first steam engine, or anything of the kind for which a model was required, was half as much again as any subsequent construction. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might as well set to make his own coat, and having ascertained the cost, think he could better judge whether his tailor imposed on him. This was the most flimsy argument he (Mr. Bright) had ever heard. This Vote reminded him of that which was proposed some years ago for the dock at Key-ham. That Vote remained on the Estimates for nearly twenty years; and at the end of that time, after a million of money 61 had been spent, a Committee of the House reported that the whole scheme was a mistake, and they would not recommend the House to spend another sixpence had it not been for the previous outlay. They did, however, recommend throwing more good money after bad; and what the result was he (Mr. Bright) did not know. He wished to know whose scheme this, was of building an iron ship at Chatham? Who recommended it? Was it the noble Lord or the noble Duke? What were the views of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) on the subject? All that the Committee knew was who would have to pay for it. He thought the matter should be referred to a Committee, upon which he should be happy to see the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Frederic Smith) who might represent the interests of his constituents in the matter—and it would be found whether or not the Government had a good case for going on with the scheme.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETobserved that the Vote had no connection with the proposed dock at Chatham. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. He was bound to say that part of this iron had been ordered. It had been decided by the Government as a matter of urgency that an iron vessel should be built in a Government yard, and Chatham was chosen, for various reasons, as being the most eligible dockyard in which to commence such a vessel. It was not solely with a view to make comparisons of cost that the Admiralty were building this iron vessel, but to enable them to carry out certain experiments and make any alterations which might become nessary in consequence of the extrardinary problems which were in process of solution in regard to the power of artillery, and the resistance of iron plates during its construction. Chatham was chosen because there happened to be a very large dock finished, all but the gates, and the building of such a vessel in a dock would be attended with important facilities.
§ MR. DALGLISHobserved that the noble Lord, when out of office, found great fault with the Admiralty; but now, when he was in office, his views were quite changed. The ironworks at Chatham consisted of a mere wreck of a smithery—a perfect disgrace to a dockyard—and yet the Admiralty now declared that that yard was best fitted for such works as were proposed. He should support the Amendment, and he hoped the hon. Member 62 would take the sense of the Committee upon it.
§ MR. FINLAYthought that experience had shown that the dockyards could not compete with private builders. At present we contracted for steam machinery, and he could not understand why we should not contract for iron ships. If once machinery was created in the dockyard for building iron ships there would be a continual demand for fresh outlay, lest what had been spent should remain useless.
CAPTAIN JERVISwished to know whether it would be attempted to make wrought-iron plates in the dockyards?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the iron skins of ships would be made at Chatham, but the armour plates would be made elsewhere; he believed by the Butterley Company.
MR. HENLEYthought the Committee should have some information of what the whole expense of new machinery in the yard would be when they were asked to agree to the adoption of a new sort of manufacture. It was said that the plan should be tried for two reasons; first, that the Government should have an opportunity of making changes and experiments; and next, that they might know what the real cost was. But it was desirable that the Committee should not come to any decision until they knew what would be the whole expenditure in the dockyard. If the factory at Chatham was the wreck it was said to be, it was quite clear that other sums would be wanted to make it fit for the operations which were intended to be carried on there.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked whether the Achilles was only in contemplation of being built or whether the keel had actually been laid?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the keel of the Achilles was not yet laid, but a great deal of ironwork intended for that ship had been done. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, he had to say that when last year the Admiralty decided to build the Achilles at Chatham, an application was made to the Treasury for its sanction to expend £4,000 in erecting machinery, and the correspondence upon the subject was printed with the Estimates. Having spent £4,000, they now required £2,800 for further machinery.
§ SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURthought the question was whether, as our fleet 63 was about to become an iron fleet, we should have the means of repairing the ships in the national dockyards. He regarded this commencement at Chatham as a proper experiment to ascertain whether iron ships could be built and repaired in the dockyards, instead of in private establishments.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEconsidered this was a very important question, involving not a few thousands only, but no less than £1,000,000. No doubt contract work was sometimes cheaper than Government work; but then in shipbuilding in private yards there was never any absolute security for the quality of the article produced. Hitherto the principle adopted had been to incur the greater expense of building in the Royal yards instead of having ships which might be cheaper, but upon which you could not depend when the pinch came; and the gunboats built at the time of the Crimean war were an, unfortunate instance of the latter case. The question now was whether they ought not in common prudence to compete in the Royal yards with private builders in the construction of iron ships. He doubted the wisdom of trusting entirely to the contract system. As he understood it, these were not purely iron ships, but wooden ships covered with iron casing. Then, again, there was as much difference in the quality of the iron supplied as there was in the quality of timber. He was prepared to vote with the Government on this question, thinking that, on the whole, the course they proposed was the more prudent one.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, no doubt there was as great a difference in the quality of iron plates as there was in the quality of timber, and he feared they should find that the moment the Government embarked in this kind of business they would discover that it was absolutely necessary to begin the manufacture of the iron plates. By sanctioning this Vote, therefore, the Committee would be really establishing another large business. His hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) had shown from the Report that ships cost 50 per cent more in Government than in private yards; but even this calculation did not include the interest of money sunk in plant, and if this were taken into account it would probably be found that a ship cost double in Government what it did in private yards. This would, no doubt, hold good of iron as well as of wooden ships. The factories which would be necessary at Chatham 64 would be of the most expensive character—and, in fact, the House of Commons would be doing in the future what they were continually lamenting having done in the past. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), who had served on the Commission, and who knew all the circumstances, told the Committee that nothing could be more unadvisable than such an expenditure; and they would be embarking in it without any inquiry and without any information beyond the very hesitating and ambiguous information furnished by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. He warned the Committee that this Vote was but an ambuscade, and that year after year they would be led into enormous Votes, until they found that they had spent a million of money, as at Keyham, with unnecessary and reckless waste. No one but the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had shown himself enthusiastic about this expenditure, and he thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government might therefore very well suspend the Vote and allow an inquiry, which, if the Government were right, would only confirm the scheme they had propounded.
§ MR. ROEBUCKI hope the House will consider whether it is wise to build these iron ships at all. A constituent of mine recently called upon me and told me that he had offered the First Lord of the Admiralty to build a gun at his own expense which would throw 1,000 lbs. of shot; and remarked, "What do you think he said to me?" I replied, "God forbid I should attempt to fathom the wisdom of a Lord of the Admiralty." He then said the answer he got was, "It is not in my department." My constituent made the same offer to the War Office; and he said, "Do you know what answer I got?" I replied, "If I were unable to divine the wisdom of a First Lord of the Admiralty, do not fancy I am bold enough to attempt to fathom the wisdom of a Secretary of State." He then said the answer he got was, that if he submitted his plan they would consider whether it was worthy of being accepted. I asked what would be the effect of his gun, and he said it would go through the sides of the Warrior as easily as through blotting-paper. If that statement were true, there would be little wisdom in building vessels like the Warrior.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in replying to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), denied that the smithery at 65 Chatham was a ruin, and said that it was quite as good a smithery as any in the other dockyards. With regard to the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), if it were even true that a 1,000 lb. shot could be easily sent through the sides of the Warrior, that would not alter the merits of iron-cased ships as compared with wooden ones. If they had only shot to deal with the superiority of the former might not be so marked, but unfortunately they had to deal with shell, and especially with a new kind of shell, filled with liquid iron, which was very murderous, and very destructive to wooden ships. The main superiority of the iron-cased ships was that they were safe against shell.
§ Question put,
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 66: Majority 35.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would make an appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He had given notice that he should move various other reductions; but he did not want to take any step which might appear factious, or uselessly to take up the time of the House. The principle of three of his Amendments had been already discussed, and therefore he did not propose that it should be discussed over again. He was ready to yield these points, provided the noble Lord would consent to postpone the Vote of £140,000 for two troop ships and £60,000 for machinery for those ships until the report of a Committee of which he was Chairman, which would be made in a fortnight, had been laid on the Table.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, at that hour of the night he could not resist the postponement of the Vote till to-morrow, but he could not consent to the postponement till a Report of a Committee was laid on the Table, as that might be postponing it for an indefinite period.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolution to be reported this day.
§ Committee also report Progress.
§ Report to be received To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again this day.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.