§ SIR MORTON PETO, in calling attention to the administration of the Naval affairs of the country by the Board of Admiralty, desired to press upon the Government the duty of earnestly considering the question of a reconstitution of the Board during the recess. The defects of the constitution of the Board, and the various delays, inconveniences, and blunders which necessarily arose out of such constitution, made it stand condemned before the country. During the last thirty years we had had seventeen First Lords, so that the average term of office was under two years; and the changes among the junior Lords were still more frequent. Under such circumstances, it was impossible that they could acquire a sufficient knowledge of their duties; and if they did, they had no time to carry their views into practical effect. The facts with regard to the Royal Sovereign which the last few days had brought to light were extremely curious. An hon. Member was informed some time ago, that although the invention of Captain Cowper Coles would be adopted, he would not be consulted with regard to the vessel upon which the cupola was to be placed. Captain Coles was only to be responsible for the cupola. The Admiralty was to be responsible for the ship. The result was that a first-rate ship had been so altered as to be valueless, and the guns were so placed that an attacking vessel within a certain distance would be out of the line of fire. The iron ship which had been ordered of Mr. Samuda would be equally defective, and for those defects the Admiralty and not Mr. Samuda was to blame. With regard to promotions and appointments, there was a settled feeling throughout the navy that gross injustice was inflicted; and an eminent officer in the employ of the Board of Trade said in his evidence, that men without family or 1145 political influence could not, as a general rule, rise in the service. There was, in short, a deep-seated feeling of dissatisfaction in the navy as to the way in which promotion was administered. Again, enormous sums had been spent during the last few years in the dockyards without any adequate result. This contrasted strongly with the administration of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), who had certainly given them value for the money he spent. For the £12,000,000 which the Government had expended in the dockyards little could be shown. It had pledged itself not to build any more wooden ships, and yet it was now organizing a large establishment for the construction of that very class of vessels. The result would inevitably be, that instead of having an effective iron fleet, we should find ourselves in the possession of a number of vessels which would require to be renewed every twelve or fourteen years. He also complained that the Admiralty had placed the construction of some of their ships in the hands of contractors who had no capital, whereas by employing men of skill and means they might lessen the number and expense of their enormous establishments. The noble Lord at the head of the Government professed to love his country, and desired to see her strong and respected. It was not by a vast expenditure ill-directed that he could attain his object, but by a careful, well-considered, and judicious economy. Early next Session the noble Lord should introduce a measure for the reconstruction of the Admiralty, upon a basis which commercial men could appreciate, and which would command the confidence of the country.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Baronet, which was a repetition of that which was cut short the other night by a count-out; but he had not heard practical advice by which the Admiralty could profit. The hon. Baronet attributed the alleged inefficiency of the Board of Admiralty to the constant changes which were taking place among its members. The reply he had to make was, that the Admiralty did not want any more changes; they would be quite satisfied if things were allowed to remain as at present. So far he entirely agreed with him. Committees and Commissions had undertaken to point out how the Admiralty should be reformed; but, after all, 1146 when hon. Members came to apply themselves to the Reports of those inquiries, they found, that although there might be defects in it, as in all human institutions, it would be very difficult to find a substitute for it so far as the practical working of the government of the navy was concerned. It was said by some to be advisable to get rid of what was called a Board; but whether it was called a Board or a Council, the Admiralty had the great advantage of having a responsible Minister, assisted by professional advisers. That, upon the whole, he thought the most advantageous mode of governing the navy. He defied the hon. Gentleman—he defied any man to say that the Duke of Somerset had shown any unfairness or partiality in his administration; he was guided solely by merit in promotions and appointments in the service. Captain Sullivan himself, whose evidence the hon. Gentleman quoted on this point, was a proof how untrue were all such assertions of partiality and favouritism. With regard to ships, the hon. Gentleman had told the House that the Warrior and Black Prince were the only efficiently-built iron ships in the navy; but opinions differed on that subject. If he consulted practical men, he would find the opinion generally was that much smaller ships would be better. Ships of the Defence and Resistance class, with the conditions they were intended to fulfil, would be preferable. The hon. Gentleman said we had nothing to show for the money spent. Why, we had nineteen iron-plated ships—or would have very soon. Such assertions were not fair or just; they did great damage in the country, and ought not to be made by Gentlemen who had the means of knowing better. The hon. Gentleman said, "Reform the Admiralty." Why, the Admiralty was daily reforming. It had been said that before he was at the Admiralty he had attacked the Board; but he never attacked the Admiralty, except for want of accurate accounts as to the cost of ships, and he would in the course of a day or two place on the table a Return showing the exact cost of every article manufactured for the navy. He had already given a similar Return of the cost of ships, and these important Returns, made up by the Accountant General, would be delivered annually. It was next charged against the Admiralty that they had had differences with their contractors; but he maintained they were 1147 justified in keeping them to their contracts, and the system of contract was very advantageous to the service. These perpetual attacks on the Admiralty were most injudicious and unjust. The present Board had produced a reserve of 12,000 men; they now manned their ships in a week; they had grappled with the question of naval discipline, and introduced a system by which corporal punishment would be, he hoped, gradually got rid of by means of classification. These were reforms for which the present Board deserved credit. His hon. Friend had alluded to Captain Coles and his cupola. Captain Coles, a clever and ingenious officer, was, he was glad to say, in constant communication with the Admiralty; but it should be remembered that it was the Admiralty who were responsible for the construction of a ship, and not Captain Coles. He would not now pursue this subject any further, but should be perfectly ready at any time to answer his hon. Friend, if he would bring any one specific and distinct matter of complaint before the House. All these vague charges he could only meet with a positive denial.