§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked the 627 right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), If it was his intention to move for the re-appointment of the Admiralty Committee? As he would not have an opportunity of speaking to one or two points with regard to the Navy Estimates when they should come on for discussion, he would take this opportunity of doing so. He regretted to see that the Navy Estimates did not contain any provision for basins and docks at Portsmouth, the want of which in that central position in the Channel was a blot on our navy. We were surrounding Portsmouth with fortifications, the outer circle of which was nine miles in diameter, the inner circle having a diameter of five miles, but what ought to form the object of these defences was still wanted. He understood that the Commissioners had reported that the present lines of Portsmouth and Portsea were perfectly useless, and that they were to be rased to the ground, which would give the Government command of 160 acres of land in a position which would be of the greatest possible advantage for carrying out the works necessary to make Portsmouth a complete naval arsenal. We were now multiplying our iron ships. These ships, instead of being of the same length as the old three-deckers, 210 feet, were 400 feet long. To supply the proper accommodation it was therefore necessary to have docks of double the former length. This was the main blot, in his opinion, upon the Navy Estimates. There was another blot in them. It was, he understood, intended to increase the number of boys in the service to 9,000. The noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) in a speech to his constituents at Deal, had declared that the recommendations of the Navy Commissioners had been carried out to the letter. The recommendations of the Navy Commissioners on that point were these:—They recommended that a Naval Reserve should be created; and in three paragraphs they disposed of the means of doing so. They then proceeded to sketch a plan for its future supply; and the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) would corroborate this statement, because it was to him and to Captain Brown, the Registrar General, that the country were indebted for this great and successful plan. Their plan, which had been only half carried into effect, was to provide the means of educating boys in all the seaports of the United Kingdom, by stationing schoolships in those ports. It was supposed 628 that the assistance of the shipowners would be thus secured, and that the merchant service and the navy would be brought into contact. It was intended that ships should be placed in twelve of the principal ports in the kingdom, each to contain 250 boys, who were to go through a course of training, and then enter the Reserve; and when they went to sea, the owner whose service they joined, in addition to their private pay, was to pay £1 a year towards the Reserve Fund, which, being carried on by the boys, would be sufficient to afford them at fifty years of age a pension of £16 a year. But adults introduced into the service could not pay to the Reserve Fund long enough to be entitled to anything like an adequate allowance in their old age, the consequence of which would be, that the sequel of the plan could not be carried into operation, and that the Reserve would fall to the ground, simply because the expectations that had been excited could not be fulfilled. In this great maritime country we had military colleges of every description; the naval youth were educated in a hulk. If he established a school for pauper children, he could not open it, under the rules of the Privy Council on Education, unless the rooms in which the children were educated were fifteen feet high; but the youths in the navy were educated in apartments which were not six feet high under the beam, and were subject to every description of discomfort. The only place where they were educated was in the Britannia. She had been stationed at Portsmouth. She had been removed to Portland, for what reason he was not aware. It had been said that her position at Portsmouth was not a very good one. Doubtless, it might have been better; but at Portsmouth the boys had a playground, which was not the case now. A ship was not the place for the education of youths. They wee in air that was detrimental to health, and they were unduly restrained from exercise. Every naval officer knew that to land 250 boys was a matter of some difficulty; and the consequence was, that the boys had, while at Portsmouth, only gone ashore twice a week on their half-holidays. But at Portland their confinement was greatly increased. On many days the weather was so gusty that they could not land at all. But was there any branch of naval education that could not be taught as well at college on shore as in 629 a ship, necessarily badly ventilated? If the noble Lord would allow the accommodation provided for the education of those boys on board to be examined by the Inspectors employed by the Privy Council on Education, he had no doubt it would be condemned. In 1832, when so many sweeping reforms took place, and it was thought there could never be half reform enough, the Royal Naval College was swept away. It would have been well, however, if it had been maintained. All the best officers in the navy, at the present moment, had been educated at; the Naval College. What reason was there why a Naval College should not be established now? We had established a Naval Reserve, by which it was desired to bring the officers of the navy and the officers of the merchant service into contact. Why not establish a system by which they could be brought together in education, and which would enable a naval officer to fall back on the merchant service should the navy not suit him? Again, the appointment of boys to the ship had become a matter of political jobbing; but why should the country be at the expense of educating the boys of parents who could themselves afford to pay for their education? It was a great boon to a man with a large family to have a son taken from him and educated at the public expense; but although unfit for the service of the country, the country never got rid of him. He said, Build a Naval College on a large scale, with every appliance to qualify youths for the very highest branch of the profession. But into that college he would throw the officers of the subsidized service. He would make every officer pass through that college. He would enable every officer to learn the whole of his profession, from the laying of the keelson of a ship to the highest branches of machinery, and the highest problem in naval mathematics. With the land which they had at Portsmouth, such a college could be combined with basins, with barracks, storehouses, docks, on such a scale as would enable them to repair their fleet if a great battle were fought in the Channel—the only place in which, in his opinion, a great naval battle would be fought. "Why was the question of barracks left out of sight? Because, he was told, it was intended to turn the Convict Barrack into one for seamen. But if he was rightly informed, this barrack was not well qualified for that purpose. He wished to know what was the meaning of this re- 630 duction of men? An order had gone down to almost all the ships in commission to I land some sixteen of their guns. That he believed was absolutely necessary. Admiral Fremantle had reported so of the Channel Fleet; but if the noble Lord had substituted 10-inch guns for the previous armament, how could he account for the reduction of the complement? The large frigates were overmasted and undermanned; but it was not by altering the calibre of the maindeck guns, and landing those guns which were useless, that the defect could be remedied. He would ask the noble Lord whether the Report (page 682, of the Proceedings of the Board of Admiralty Committee), presented by Admiral Elliot to Admiral Fremantle, had been acted upon; whether the magazines had been put into a more satisfactory position; whether the orlop decks had been cleared; whether the masts had been reduced in size, or the fore and main masts equalized; whether the rigging of those ships had been altered in conformity with the recommendations—in short, whether the recommendations of the Report had been carried into effect? In asking the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) the question of which he had given notice, he felt pretty sure what the answer would be, and he would therefore take the liberty of making some remarks in respect to that matter. The Committee of last year had the advantage of having four First Lords of the Admiralty upon it. The Committee went through an immense mass of evidence, and then reported to the House; and now he was told that the feeling of the House was, that such had been the activity of the noble Lord in the late matter of the Trent, that the re-appointment of the Committee was unnecessary; and the matter would be left where it was, because, forsooth, the noble Lord had telegraphed to the Mediterranean for the Mediterranean fleet, and had laid hands on the Channel fleet, in the hopes of getting sufficient crews to enable him to man three frigates and a few sloops, and had then sent those vessels in a most disgraceful state to sea. That was the plea upon which the noble Lord expected to avoid an inquiry—a most vital inquiry, as he considered it, with regard both to the honour and the resources of the country. He (Sir James Elphinstone) would be prepared to prove, that so far from the ships being in a fit state to meet the enemy, not one of the ships had 631 arrived at Nova Scotia without its being necessary to refit them.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, In what manner the surplus from the last year's Estimates had been disposed of; and to what extent, if at all, it had been applied to the increase of the fleet consequent upon the late differences with America?
MR. HENLEY, in reply to the question of the gallant officer the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), stated that he was not one of the parties who originally moved for the appointment of the Committee referred to, and it certainly was not his intention to take any part in moving for its re-appointment.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYhoped, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would state if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to move for the re-appointment of the Committee. One thing was quite clear, and that was, that the Committee last year was most unfairly treated in the work it had thrown upon it. He hoped the noble Lord would explain the position of the finance of the Navy. The noble Lord two or three years ago startled the House by the statement that £5,000,000 had not been accounted for in regard to the Navy. That statement created a considerable sensation. The noble Lord, however, was partially right and partially wrong, as the half of the amount was found in a lumped sum among certain other figures in the Navy papers. Now he (Sir H. Willoughby) had no doubt in his own mind that the finance of the Navy was still in a most unsatisfactory position, and what he wanted to know was, why the noble Lord did not improve that system? A most distinguished Accountant General, Sir Richard Bromley, who had many years held that office, had distinctly stated in his evidence that which was perfectly true, that there was no definite responsibility whatever that could be brought home to any manager in the Admiralty in respect of these matters and he illustrated that by his own position, for in a certain number of years he had had ninety-seven masters. Now, if by the reappointment of the Committee they could find out what the constitution of the Board of Admiralty was, and bring to bear on the First Lord and other officials a defined responsibility, so that they might really know what "My Lords"—for that was the expression—which now meant nothing, ought to mean, something would be ac- 632 complished. If the House had any doubt about that matter, let them only peruse the Navy Estimates that were on the table for this year. He would ask whether the papers that had been placed on the table were one whit better than they had been for years past. Would any paper therein show what any given ship would cost? It appeared that "My Lords" of the Admiralty spent what they pleased, and then sent a note to "My Lords" of the Treasury, "Please pay."
§ MR. BENTINCKbelieved, that the appointment of the Committee referred to was brought about by a general feeling that there was something objectionable in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, rendering the efficient performance of its duties impracticable. When the Committee was moved for, the noble Lord observed that the Admiralty was about to be put on its trial; but how, he would ask, was it sought to carry out that view? By placing on the Committee so large a number of Members who either were or had been officials as to constitute it a tribunal which was both judge and jury in its own case. He (Mr. Bentinck) had opposed the composition of the Committee, but the House overruled his Motion on the subject. He had always been of opinion that this was a question rather for the House to deal with than a Committee. A Committee took evidence and made a Report, which was laid on the table and there remained. No result followed. The appointment of a Committee, therefore, was entirely useless. He was himself a Member of the Committee last year for several months, but he became so convinced of the utter inutility of sitting on it that he respectfully asked leave to retire, convinced that the inquiry was an utter waste of time, and that no practical result would follow. He trusted, therefore, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reappoint the Committee this year. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), considering the enormous amount it would require to place Portsmouth in an adequate state of defence, he would suggest that it would be better to select some other locality for the principal dockyard of the country.
§ SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, that the Britannia was certainly not suited to the purposes to which she was now applied—that of a training school. He could 633 speak strongly to that point, having once commanded the ship. He greatly regretted, as a Member of the Committee, that those results which the navy expected would flow from its labours had not been realized. With respect to the question of the armament of the fleet, which had been adverted to by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, he could not help thinking that English ships were not, as a general rule, overgunned. In days long gone by such was well known to be the case with French vessels, as was proved by the fact, that some of them which had been captured and had their original armaments replaced by those used on board our ships; had become, in consequence, better sailers, and had in some instances been taken as models by us. He was, notwithstanding, prepared to maintain that the reduction of the number of guns in a ship was a point which should be dealt with very cautiously. It would be seen, therefore, that the question of armament was not one to be hastily or easily determined. The present position of the navy was, on the whole, satisfactory. He was glad to see from the Estimates that, while there was to be no attempt to impair the efficiency of the navy, we had reached the turning point of expenditure, and might expect a moderate reduction. At all times our navy had derived great assistance from the mercantile marine, and the country had witnessed with pleasure the adoption of measures calculated to draw the two services still closer together. He would take that opportunity of expressing a hope that the Channel fleet would be permanently maintained, and that we should never again be left without such a force.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he had carefully examined the Estimates, and it was a satisfaction to him to be able to state that he could conscientiously support every item. He regretted, however, that, owing to the manner in which the Estimates had been prepared, it was impossible to ascertain the cost of any one ship in the navy. At present they had not the means of knowing how much had been expended on any particular ship—for instance, the Warrior or the Black Prince; and the House, in the absence of that detailed information, could not exercise that perfect control which it was necessary they should have over the naval expenditure of the country. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would inform the House what the Warrior and the Black Prince 634 had cost, and also whether it was intended to build other ships of the same gigantic size? It was reported that the armament of our ships was to be reduced. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain the reason why. Was it necessary to give more space to the guns, or would our ships not carry the guns for which they were originally intended? That brought him to the subject of the tonnage of the several vessels and the proportionate number of guns which they were to carry. He found that upon that matter no uniform rule seemed to be adopted. One vessel had been laid down to carry 131 guns, and yet had not as large a tonnage as another which was to carry only 40 guns. Hence it seemed to him there must be a great waste of power and an unnecessary expenditure. Again, it appeared from a recent return that the Albion had only 30 tons per gun; the Wellington only 29 tons per gun; the Frederick William only 38 tons per gun; and the Royal Sovereign only 29 tons per gun; while among our new vessels the Orlando had 75 tons per gun; the Galatea 124 tons per gun; and the Warrior and the Black Prince had each as much as 152 tons per gun. But what struck him as very remarkable was that the Achilles, now building at Chatham, would only have 121 tons per gun, showing an increase, instead of a decrease, of armament in proportion to her tonnage. If one of our ships were to engage an enemy's vessel of the same size, but with double the number of guns, the result might be very unfortunate for us. It was, likewise, said that we were going to reduce the number of men on board each ship. Boarding could not be carried on without a large number of men. He hoped, therefore, that the question of reducing the crews and almost disarming the vessels would be seriously considered before being carried into effect. It has been alleged that the new vessels are seriously strained in gales of wind, and that it is on this account that the Admiralty are desirous of reducing the number of guns to lighten the weight. Surely this is a dangerous proceeding, and it would be better to give these ships increased stability even at some diminution of their speed. Some objection had been taken to the composition of the Committee on the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He believed it was composed of the very best men, who were all well acquainted with the working of the various departments. 635 There was not one member who wished to shirk inquiry, or throw a veil over their proceedings. He hoped the Committee would be reappointed, and that it would consist as nearly as possible of the same Members. The inquiry had been only half gone into; and it should be fairly completed. He hoped some Report would then be made which would be acted upon for the benefit of the public service. The removal of the Britannia from Portsmouth to Portland had been objected to; but for his part he thought the old Naval College was much better as a school of instruction for the cadets than that vessel. It was most desirable, at all events, that their school of instruction should be placed in immediate connection with some dockyard—Devonport, Portsmouth, or Chatham, for instance. It was a great thing for cadets to be enabled constantly to go ashore into the dockyard, under the superintendence of their officers, to see everything in the shape of machinery actually carried on. But if they were pent up on board for five days in the week, and then allowed to go on shore, they would not go to the smithy but to the cricket-field. "With regard to the Warrior, he hoped the noble Lord had received some official report of the doings of that ship outward to the Mediterranean, and would inform the House as to the result.
§ SIR MORTON PETOwished to know from the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty what were the views of the Government with regard to floating basins and docks to receive the large iron-sheathed vessels they were building and must continue to build? He had in former Sessions called the attention of the House to this question, particularly with reference to Portsmouth. They must have some other great naval depot in the Channel for steam ships. It would be impossible ever to make Portsmouth as secure as the great central depot of the Channel ought to be if we were to provide for the maintenance of our power on the seas. If he had been correctly informed, the Warrior could not be taken out of Portsmouth on more than five days in each month; and it was doubtful if it would be possible, from the continued accumulation of shingle, to maintain a deep-water entrance in that harbour. He wished to know what were the views of Her Majesty's Government upon that point, and whether they proposed to maintain Portsmouth Dockyard as a depot for our iron-sheathed 636 ships? In his opinion, their depot should not be within the range of five or six miles of an attacking force. The present enormous expenditure on Portsmouth, and all that was doing on the hill immediately above the town, would be practically useless; it was protecting a place no longer suitable for the purposes for which it was intended. The question they had to grapple with was the reorganization of the whole naval establishments. The cheapest thing would be to abolish some of those places altogether. Let them sell the whole establishment of Portsmouth for what it would fetch, and take some other place more suitable for the new character of the vessels of war they were building.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI do not intend to enter into any of the subjects which have been adverted to by hon. Members on either side of the House with reference to the statement we are about to hear from the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. I think it not only fair, but usual, to await the statement of the noble Lord, and then to make such comments on it as may appear necessary. I shall therefore only follow up what has been said on one subject so far as this, contenting myself with expressing my hope that in the statement he is about to make the noble Lord will give a full explanation as to the intention of the Government to diminish the armament and men on board our ships, which has excited some surprise out of doors. With regard to the reappointment of the Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, considering the very imperfect state in which that inquiry was left by the evidence given last year, I certainly had expected that at the commencement of the present Session some Motion would have been made for the re-appointment of that Committee; and I cannot help thinking the feeling of the Government will be that so important an inquiry as that, having been left in so very unsatisfactory a state, ought properly to be proceeded with. But, whatever the opinion of the Government as to the re-appointment of that Committee with regard to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, I beg to remind the Government and the House that another question of very great interest was referred to that Committee—I mean the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy. If I remember rightly, the noble 637 Lord at the head of the Government was very distinct in the pledge he gave, that that matter should not be evaded, but that the inquiry would in that respect be fairly carried out. It is a subject to which the profession look with the greatest interest, and therefore I hope, whatever views may be entertained with regard to the more general inquiry, at all events this portion of it will be fully investigated.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich for alluding to the difficulties I am placed in by having to answer a variety of questions concerning the navy before I have the honour of making my statement on introducing the Estimates. I trust hon. Gentlemen will not think it disrespectful to them if I request them to allow me to make my statement in the first instance, as I believe they will then be put in possession of much of the information they desire to obtain. Before proceeding to answer the Questions on the paper, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) on the fact, that the reports he has heard of the bad health of the cadets on board the Britannia, at Portland, are quite unfounded. I am sure he will be happy to hear that their health is very satisfactory. There was a report in one of the journals to-day that the cadets were suffering very much; we sent a telegram down, and we found that the whole number of cadets on the sick list was fourteen—at this time of the year not an unusual number. Well, the first Question put to me was by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott). He asks whether the Royal Marines sent to act in conjunction with the troops of France and Spain upon service in Mexico were supplied with tents and field artillery? In answer to that question I may state that they have not been supplied with tents, nor with any other field artillery than that which ships of war usually have on board. It is not the intention of the Government that they should leave the neighbourhood of their own ships, and therefore there will be no great need of tents for them. The Government are fully alive to the necessity of removing these troops before the unhealthy season arrives. The next Question which has been put to me is in what manner the surplus stated by me to have 638 existed from the last year's Estimates has been disposed of, and to what extent, if at all, it has been applied to the increase of the fleet consequent upon the late difference with America? The surplus to which I alluded was about £100,000. The House must understand that when the Admiralty asked last summer for the £250,000 for iron-cased ships they did not intend to appropriate any part of that sum for any other purpose than the one for which it was voted. It had so happened that the contractors were behindhand with the work, and that many of the plates were rejected, the consequence of which is that a certain portion of this money has not been expended. That, however, is not the fault of the Admiralty. That £100,000 will lapse into the Exchequer at the end of the financial year, but I apprehend that it will go towards the diminution of the charge for the hostilities in China. This is more a question for the Treasury than for the Admiralty, but I believe the ultimate destination of the surplus will be as I have stated. With respect to the Select Committee to which reference has been made, the Government do not desire that that Committee should not go on. On the contrary, they are perfectly willing that it should sit. Certainly, if I consulted my own personal convenience I should be glad if it did not go on, because it would take up a great deal of my time. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) has insinuated that the Admiralty are anxious to evade this inquiry. That is not so. They are quite ready to agree to its resumption, if such should be the pleasure of the House. It is not, indeed, the province of the Government themselves to propose the reappointment of the Committee; but if any hon. Gentleman will make that Motion, all I can say is that they will not oppose it. I turn next to the very important matter touched upon by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby). He says that the dockyard accounts are in a very unsatisfactory state, and assumes that the Government have been taking no steps for their rectification.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYI merely asked what steps had been taken.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETWill the House permit me shortly to describe what has taken place in this matter on the authority of the Accountant General of the 639 Navy? The Accountant General states that he has personally visited the yards, and formed at each yard an Admiralty Audit Office, out of the clerks employed in the yards, at a very trifling additional expense. He has confined his change in the present year to a verification of the accuracy of the existing accounts, and to an exact subdivision at the expense incurred for building the iron-cased ship Achilles, at Chatham, which, upon recent investigation, is shown to be more exact and complete in detail than the accounts kept by private firms. Steps are also being taken by him for revising the forms and books of accounts for the expense of ships, steam factories, manufacturing shops, and conversion of stores and timber; so that, from the commencement of the ensuing financial year, amended accounts will be kept on a more simple, and, at the same time, comprehensive system, whereby a clearer record will likewise be kept of the dockyard expenditure in double-entry books in the department of the Accountant General of the Navy, and the audited results will be laid before Parliament. I conceive that nothing could be more complete than that proposal of the Accountant General, by which, from the beginning of the next financial year, we shall be able to know the exact cost of every ship. I hope that thenceforward the dockyard accounts will be kept as satisfactorily as the personal accounts of the navy, which are well known to be the pattern accounts of all the Departments.
MR. LINDSAYwished to make a few remarks upon certain new Votes in these Estimates which were likely to become permanent. There was an item of £150 for a librarian. He did not object to there being a library for the navy, but he hoped it would contain some volumes teaching the art of book-keeping upon a more intelligible principle than was now followed in that department. The hon. Member was proceeding to comment upon the item for salaries of naval instructors, when—
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was irregular to refer in detail to the separate Votes, on the Question that the House do go into Committee.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would confine himself to the general question. Our naval expenditure had enormously increased of late years. When the present Government acceded to office, they asked for upwards of £12,000,000 for the navy; 640 and as they declared that that sum was necessary to enable them to complete the changes and improvements begun by their predecessors, the House did not refuse to grant it them. The House did not suppose, when they voted that large sum, that the increased Estimates were to continue, and that they were pledging the country to a continued outlay of £12,000,000 a year after the navy had been brought into an efficient state. He would not insist that we should go back to the scale of 1835, but that we might now be well content with the Estimates of 1856, which did not exceed £8,000,000. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had told them last year that it was impossible to decide what should be our force in men and ships without reference to the forces of other Powers, and especially referred to France. He (Mr. Lindsay) agreed in the opinion, rigid economist as he was, that it was absolutely necessary to maintain our maritime supremacy let it cost what it might, and that we should have a navy equal not only to that of France, but equal to the naval forces of France and any other maritime Power combined. The noble Lord told them also that France was then building two powerful iron-clad ships of fifty-two guns each, four others of from thirty-six to forty guns each, four batteries mounting fourteen guns each, and five gunboats, partially cased with armour, and all which could be afloat in a short period of time. Upon the faith of that statement the House voted the large sum then asked for. In July last, just before the prorogation, the noble Lord came again, and asked for £250,000 as an instalment of two millions and a half for building six iron ships larger than the Warrior; but he (Mr. Lindsay) thought that the cost of those vessels would, most probably, be at least four millions. The noble Lord then stated as the reason for his demand that since his previous Estimate other nations had been adding largely to their iron-clad navy, and he urged the necessity of further exertions to keep pace with foreign powers. He (Mr. Lindsay) then warned the Government not to be led away by the reports of Admiral Elliot (upon which the reports of the Admiralty were to a great extent founded), who had made a flying visit to the French dockyards, of great preparations which a friend of his (Mr. Lindsay's) who had also visited the French dockyards, had been unable to see, or to the alarm which had affected the right hon. Member for 641 Droitwich on this subject. On the next occasion the noble Lord at the head of the Government stated that they knew that France had then afloat six iron vessels, that the keels of ten others had been laid down, that they knew the names of the vessels and the ports at which they were being built, and that, if exertions were made, they could all be completed within eighteen months; and that the Government also knew that in addition to these sixteen vessels France had eleven floating batteries. two of which were powerful, sea-going vessels; making in all twenty-seven iron ships, which could be afloat and fit for sea at the end of two years. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty also gave the names of the vessels and the places at which they were being built. He (Mr. Lindsay) was so staggered with that statement of his noble Friend that he could not, oppose any request that we should place ourselves on an equal footing with France as to iron ships, although he never had the most remote idea that the Emperor of the French had intended to invade our shores. He was too sensible a man for that; his safety and happiness depended too much in maintaining peaceful relations with England. It was also suggested by many of these alarmists that when England should be engaged in trouble with another Power, France would seize that opportunity to harass us; but recent events showed how baseless that suspicion was. When we were likely to be engaged in hostilities with a powerful nation across the Atlantic, the Emperor of the French, against whom we were building all these iron ships, was our best friend; and although the conduct of Her Majesty's Government had done much to bring about the release of Messrs. Slidell and Mason, there could also be no doubt that the masterly despatch of M. Thouvenel had as much to do with that result as the powerful fleets we were despatching to those shores. But would the noble Lord now tell the House whether Franco had the large number of vessels of which he spoke now at sea. He (Mr. Lindsay) had that morning received an account of the French navy on which he could place reliance, which showed what was the real state of their iron navy. The Gloire was afloat and at sea. The Invincible and the Normandie had made trial trips. The Couronne would have a trial trip in the course of this week. The Magenta and the Solferino would not be ready for three months yet. But where were 642 the ton vessels that were to be launched last year, on the faith of which we had agreed to a vast expenditure? Not one of them would be launched in the present year. Now, what was our force at the present time? We had two large iron vessels afloat—the Black Prince and the Warrior. We had two smaller vessels—the Defence and the Resistance—afloat. Two others were building, of a size between the Warrior and the Defence. We had laid down the Achilles at Chatham. There were also five line-of-battle ships being plated with iron, for which the money was Voted in the Estimates of last year. Six others, of a size larger than the Warrior, were to be built, on account of which £250,000 was voted in July last. Thus altogether we had built or building iron vessels of an aggregate burden of about 86,000 tons; while France, when she had all her iron vessels afloat, would only have about 50,000 tons. We had now four iron-sides afloat, of 19,000 tons, against four French iron-sides of 12,000; so that we were at present superior to France in this respect. Then what was the noble Lord going to do with the £12,000,000 which he asked for this year? Of wooden vessels it was admitted that we had enough; and what was to be the limit to the expenditure upon iron ships? When would the noble Lord be able to close his capital stock, and only build ships to replace those which were away or were lost? Although last year £1,000,000 was voted in order to keep a proper stock of timber in reserve, yet now the noble Lord asked for £600,000 more. What could it be for? Leaving points of detail to be dealt with in Committee of Supply, he must enter his protest against the large expenditure now proposed, although there was not the most remote hope of cutting down a single sixpence of it. We were now spending some £20 or £25 every minute upon our navy, and he could not but think that so large an expenditure at a time of peace, and at a time also of such distress at home, was quite unnecessary.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, that he entirely I concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) that at a time like the present, when they were at peace with all the world, it became the duty of hon. Members, in justice to their constituents, to ask the Government to give them very cogent reasons for demanding such an expenditure as 643 £12,000,000 on the navy—being between £2,500,000 and £3,000,000 more than it was two or three years ago. Having carefully studied the subject, and having no sympathy with the views advocated by any Peace Society, he must say he was at a loss to discover a just and sufficient reason for laying an Estimate to this extent upon the table of the House of Commons. One could very well comprehend the reason of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) asking for an increase of the Navy Estimates, because, during the year he was in office, to use his own words, "the navy had to be reconstructed." They were now, however, in a very different situation. Since then, he freely admitted, there had been such a feeling in the country—caused, he had no doubt, by grossly exaggerated statements—with regard to the naval preparations of France, that the Government, considering and liking their places on the Treasury bench, could not very well afford to reduce the expenditure. But now that they had an abundance of line-of-battle ships, and they were all agreed there was no danger of invasion from France, he asked why, in these altered circumstances, they should not return to the ordinary average rate of expenditure before the existence of such disturbing causes? He was no advocate of false economy. He should deprecate, for instance, going back to the expenditure of the year 1835, and should regret seeing the Navy of England at any future time brought to such a low ebb. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sunderland that the navy ought to be maintained in such a state of efficiency as would enable this country to protect its commerce and to vindicate the honour of its flag. Our insular position, the number and extent of our colonies, and our immensely increasing trade, rendered it imperative on our part to keep up a navy not only greatly superior to that of any other country, but a navy superior to that of any two leading Powers combined. But though he desired to see the navy placed on this footing, still there was a point beyond which liberality became extravagance; and he must say he saw no reason, either in the position of this country or in its relations with foreign Powers, for now spending on the navy £12,000,000, whereas they only spent £9,000,000 in 1857–8. The hon. Member for Sunderland referred to the discussions that took 644 place on this subject in the course of last Session. When the Navy Estimates were brought forward in March, he (Mr. Baxter) endeavoured to show that the preparations which were said to be going on in the naval arsenals and dockyards of France were greatly exaggerated. He then maintained three points, and he was prepared to maintain them still. The first was, that in round numbers England had double the number of ships possessed by France, whether sailing vessels or steamers. This country possessed 73 line-of-battle ships, while France had 37. Last year England had 67 frigates of more than 20 guns, and France 38. His next point was, that there were then more men and boys in the Royal Navy of England than in the entire mercantile marine of France; and his third point was, that so far from their having been any wonderful activity displayed in the naval arsenals and dockyards of France, the true state of the matter was the very reverse. At a very late period of the evening, when the House was getting very impatient, the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) made a, "Rule Britannia" sort of speech, in the course of which the noble Lord laughed at the statistics which he (Mr. Baxter) had given, but he did not venture to refer to any statistics in detail. But one remarkable statement the noble Lord did make, and that was that the French Government had ordered the construction of ten vessels of the size of La Gloire. On the second discussion that took place upon the Navy Estimates the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty stated, that since he had laid the Estimates before the House, nine iron-cased ships had been laid down in France in addition to the six iron-eased ships the names of which he had given. As the continued great preparations of their illustrious neighbour were really the only reason why the naval expenditure was kept up to three or four millions beyond the average, and the only reason why they were to be called on in Committee to vote what were really war estimates, he (Mr. Baxter) had now risen for the purpose of backing up the appeal made by the hon. Member for. Sunderland to Her Majesty's Government for some information upon this subject. He hoped the noble Lord would that night, or on some early occasion, tell the House if the Government had any new light on this matter. He should like to hear from the noble Lord what had been the performance 645 of La Gloire and of the two vessels which he stated would be at sea in a few months—namely, the Magenta and the Solferino; and also, how many more of these terrible vessels of war were to be launched this year? He also wished the noble Lord would tell the House whether, according to the information in possession of the Government, the same gigantic preparations were being made at the arsenals and dockyards of Cherbourg, L'Orient, and Toulon? All he could say was, that gentlemen thoroughly acquainted with France, and on whose capacity and judgment he relied—though they might possibly be the victims of Imperial cunning—had told him that La Gloire was unseaworthy, and that the few vessels the French Government were building progressed very slowly, and he was credibly informed of the still more remarkable facts, to which he had ventured to allude last year, that the maritime inscription in France, so far from being successful, was every year becoming more bitterly disliked by the people and more difficult to enforce, and that the French mercantile marine, to which they had always looked to recruit their navy, steadily and continually decreased, and had been decreasing for many years, He had been also told that in the Mediterranean, of which hon Gentlemen had often spoken as a French lake, there were actually more British ships than there were French; and France, that was supposed to be about to invade these shores, had no fleet whatever in the British Channel. He would not vouch for any of these facts, he had only related what others had seen with their own eyes; but recollecting the speech of the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) last year, he hoped some Member of the Government would take an early opportunity of informing the House how the case at present stood. Were he satisfied he had been misled, and that great naval preparations by France were still going on, he should be the last man to offer any opposition to the Navy Estimates proposed by Her Majesty's Government.
§ Motion agreed to.