HC Deb 27 February 1862 vol 165 cc808-41

House in Committee.

Mr. Massey in the chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £170,832, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that the Vote under consideration was increasing at a very rapid rate; it was upwards of £170,000, and it had increased by £36,000 within the last few years. It was proposed that five new appointments should be made. There was to be a librarian at £150 a year, there was to be an acting constructor at £800, there was to be a Deputy Accountant General at £900, a new chief clerk in the storekeeper's department at £850, and an officer and secretary to con- trol the transport service at £2,000. If once those Votes were passed, they became fixed and could not be got rid of. With regard to the transport service, if the Government really intended to consolidate it, taking in the Colonial and Indian departments also, he would have no objection to the Vote. But if they intended to make no greater change than a separation of the transport from the victualling department, the new appointments would be created without effecting any useful object, and he should oppose the Vote. He did not consider £900 per annum to be too much for a chief constructor; but having that officer and also a constructor, what did they want with an acting constructor, with a salary of £800? Was it intended that the latter should do all the work? He was satisfied that the appointment was totally unnecessary, especially at the present time, when no more wooden ships were being built. Then with regard to the Deputy Accountant General, whose salary was to be £900, he held that new office to be very questionable, as it would divide the responsibility. Great complaints had been made as to the manner in which the accounts of the navy had been kept; and although a Committee had been appointed to consider that subject, nothing whatever had been done to provide a remedy. Therefore before the Committee sanctioned the Vote, he hoped that at all events the noble Lord would state whether anything had been done, or was contemplated, for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Commission on Dockyards with reference to the accounts. The intentions of the Government on that head ought to be known before the staff was increased. With regard to the Admiralty clerks generally, he must remind the Committee that there were no fewer than 460 employés at Somerset House and Whitehall, out of which 160 or 170 were in the Accountant General's office, besides a vast number of clerks, surveyors, and builders at the dockyards. It seemed to him that the Admiralty had servants enough to spend even £24,000,000, instead of £12,000,000; and however unpleasant the task might be, some Member must endeavour to stem, if possible, the torrent of lavish expenditure. The pleas on which Liberal Members had obtained the support of their constituents, as against hon. Gentlemen opposite, had always been retrenchment, economy, and reform. Let them not, then, allow the two first to become as the last had been, a laughingstock on the Treasury benches. He would not divide the Committee against the £2,000 to which he had referred, it being clearly understood that the Indian and Colonial Transport Boards were to be amalgamated with the Admiralty; but he would move that the Vote be reduced by £2,550, namely, £800 for the acting constructor, £900 for the deputy accountant, and £850 for the chief clerk in the store department.

Motion made, That a sum, not exceeding £168,282, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, he thought there was great force in the hon. Member's observations. He hoped that a satisfactory explanation would be given for the appointment of an Acting Constructor. They were about to substitute an iron fleet for a wooden one, and as many of the large iron vessels would be constructed in private yards he did not understand why another officer in the Controlling Department was needed, unless, indeed, that officer was intimately acquainted with the construction of iron ships. With regard to the item for transports, the affair must be a sham if two great Departments were excluded from the arrangement. He thought that the item had better be deferred until the Indian and Colonial Departments consented to form part of the Transport Board. With regard to the Deputy Accountant General, he should not object to the appointment, if it were made a temporary one, only to endure while the accounts were being brought into a proper state, and to cease when that result was attained,

MR. W. WILLIAMS

observed, that the Vote exceeded that of the last year by about £9,700, and unless the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty gave a satisfactory explanation for the augmentation, he should be inclined to move the reduction of the Vote by the whole of that sum. He observed that the Vote included payments for a large number of temporary clerks, but he thought it would be a better; plan for the Admiralty to engage permanently as many clerks as were needed.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to know, whether any means had been devised by which the Members of the Board of Admiralty were brought in more direct contact with the several departments, in order that a distinct responsibility might rest on the shoulders of each individual Member? He was desirous to have a reply to that question, because, unless those who were theoretically responsible were made really so, nothing for the advantage of the public service would have been effected. Who, for instance, was responsible for the expenditure of the navy? or had any change been made which would bring that department of the service under the more distinct control of an individual Lord of the Admiralty, subject to the general superintendence of the First Lord?

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

remarked, that while the sum asked for the purposes of the department in 1852 was £134,000, it had amounted in 1858–9 to £140,000, to which latter sum it had only reached during the Crimean war. In the Estimates before them there was a further increase of more than £30,000. The causes of the great increase under that head within the last five years he attributed in a great measure to the number of clerks, especially temporary clerks, employed in the department. That observation applied to every department of the Admiralty. He hoped that the Government would state that it was their intention to deal with the question. There were 333 persons upon the establishment for the present year, while in 1858 they amounted only to 270. Ten years ago there were only 235. Now, taking into account the temporary clerks, they had a force of 452 persons. There were also probationary clerks, and he should like to know what were the rules in accordance with which the Members of that particular class were appointed—whether by nomination and competition, and whether, when persons were nominated, they came on in their turn? For his own part, he regretted that a larger reduction in the Vote had not been proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, the question of the employment of temporary clerks, alluded by the hon. Member, concerned as well the War Office as the Admiralty. He had moved for returns of the sums expended during the last five years on that class of clerks, and he hoped the House would soon be furnished with the information which those returns would afford. When that information was obtained, it would be seen that the amount was very large—so large as to disturb very much the distribution of the money voted for the Estimates presented to Parliament. The expenditure on the Admiralty Office had for several years been £5,000 or £6,000 above the sum voted by Parliament; and he believed the excess was due to the, large number of temporary clerks employed. The whole subject was one which appeared to him to require consideration. Indeed, when the late Government were in office it had occupied their attention, and it had been taken up by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on his accession to office; and a Committee, of which he had himself been a member, was appointed to consider the question. It was, however, a matter of difficulty in more ways than one. The idea which suggested itself to the gentlemen with whom he was associated was, that there should be a central office, unconnected with the War Office or the Admiralty, which should comprise a regular staff of temporary clerks, and that those clerks should be at the disposal of any of the Government offices which might require their services. He did not mean that the work should be sent out to be done in the central office; but, on the contrary, that the departments which required assistance should send to the central office for any number of clerks they might want. Such an arrangement would not only do justice to both the temporary and the permanent clerks, but would also lead to considerable economy and improvement in the service. The proposal had slept for some time. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was under consideration, and that it would be necessary to consult the heads of departments. He did not know whether the consultation had taken place, but he took that opportunity of mentioning the subject again, because he hoped it would not be altogether forgotten. It was worthy of serious consideration, and he trusted the Government would lose no time in seeing whether anything could be done.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he thought that those hon. Gentlemen who had been remarking upon the increase in the Estimates hardly bore in mind the simultaneous increase in the amount of work to be done, which he believed to be the true answer to the greater part of their criticisms. He was not prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, because he believed that the Secretary to the Admiralty was justified in asking the Committee to grant the additional assistance required by the Accountant General and the Constructor of the Navy. The appointment of an acting constructor was demanded by the increased business, while the appointment of a deputy Accountant General was still more imperatively required. Full justice had been done by the hon. Member for Sunderland to the great acquirements of the Accountant General of the Navy, but the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the health of that officer had broken down under the pressure of the increased business in his department. The increase of the power of the navy had been attended by an increase of accounts, and he believed, moreover, that the proposed appointment of a deputy Accountant General was only the revival of an office which existed at a time when the expenses of the navy, and, consequently the accounts, did not exceed one-half their present amount. There was one entry in the Vote, however, upon which he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would offer some explanation. He referred to the sum of £2,000 for an officer to control the transport service, and a secretary. How was the appearance of that item to be reconciled with the fact, that setting aside the sum required for the transports now on their way home from Canada, the transport Vote stood at a much lower figure than last year?

MR. LAIRD

said, he should support the Vote. The officers to whom it was proposed to give assistance had been much overworked for many years, and he could state from personal experience and observation that they were gentlemen of the highest character and ability. He could not see how the appointment of a deputy Accountant General could be objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They wanted, in future, an accurate and detailed account of the cost of each ship, including, of course, a statement of the wages paid and the prices of materials, and also a proportionate share of the expenses of each dockyard. Such an account could be obtained, but it must double the number of clerks and lead to a large increase in the business of the Accountant General, as well as necessitate a thorough revision of his system. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very fond of contrasting the cost of ships built under contract with that of vessels constructed in the Government dockyards. So far from it being true that ships of war could be built for £15 or £20 a ton, he believed they must cost at least £30 per ton; and he trusted the country would not allow itself to be led away with the idea that the ships built in the Government dockyards cost 30 or 50 per cent more than they really did.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he was glad to hear the voice of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, and hoped he would often give them the benefit of his knowledge and experience in naval matters. If his hon. friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had been in his place on Monday, he would have heard him (Lord Clarence Paget) distinctly state what was going on in the dockyards as to the rectification of the accounts. He would not trouble the Committee with a repetition of that statement; but he might say generally, that the Accountant General expressed his expectation of being able to render the general accounts as perfect as the personal accounts of the seamen. His hon. Friend said he disapproved of the deputy Accountant General. He (Lord Clarence Paget) could assure his hon. Friend that the Accountant General could not do the work that was assigned to him. No amount of industry would enable a man to get through it. It was simply impossible, owing to the great increase in the navy which had taken place of late years. The Accountant General must under the new system of accounts visit the dockyards for the purpose of examining and checking the accounts; but how was he to do that and attend to his daily business at Somerset House as well? An additional officer was imperatively required, more especially when all desired to see more correct and detailed accounts of everything connected with naval expenditure. So with respect to the appointment of an acting constructor. The Admiralty had over and over again been found fault with because the Controller of the Navy sat in his office at Whitehall and did not inspect the dockyards; but the simple answer was that he could not visit the dockyards unless he could leave an officer behind him at Whitehall to carry on the daily business there. It had been said that they were building ships by contract, but the fact that the work was being done in private yards, was an additional reason why it should be properly inspected and checked by a Government officer. The appointment of au additional first-class clerk, to which the hon. Member for Sunderland bad objected, was more a matter of rank than of emolument, and did not involve any increase of expense. He had been asked to state what was the responsibility of the Lords of the Admiralty—whether it was individual or general. That was a very large question, but it had been carefully considered by the Duke of Somerset, who had done his best to give a defined responsibility to each member of the Board. It was confidently expected that one result of bringing together all the navy departments under one roof, would be to place the principal officers in more frequent and more convenient communication with the Lords of the Admiralty. An inquiry had also been made with respect to the probationary clerks. They were gentlemen who had received appointments as paymasters' clerks, and who, before being appointed to ships, underwent instruction at Somerset House, under the direction of the Accountant General. He would not express any opinion upon the plan sketched out by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), but would state the course which the Duke of Somerset had pursued with regard to the temporary clerks at the Admiralty. Formerly permanent clerkships were looked upon as entirely separate from temporary ones. Now, however, when a vacancy occurred in the department, the Duke of Somerset sent up three of those gentlemen to compete for it. They underwent an examination; the successful candidate became a temporary clerk, and the temporary clerks filled up any vacancies in the ranks of the permanent ones. The appointments to which the hon. Member had objected were in part designed to secure the more perfect keeping of the accounts in the dockyards, and he therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, his vote would be determined by the answer which the noble Lord might give to the following question:—What had been the previous pursuits and the course of education of the gentleman appointed as acting constructor? It was of the highest importance in the new order of things with regard to shipbuilding, that the Constructor should be a gentleman of great practical experience. They all knew that Sir Baldwin Walker, the Comptroller of the Navy, had advised that the whole of the joints of the Warrior should be tongued. Now, every practical man knew that in so doing, Sir Baldwin Walker not only weakened the plates, but he did something worse, for he rendered it necessary, if any damage occurred to a single plate, before it could be repaired, to remove all the plates above it. Such was the present condition of the Warrior. It was necessary that the man appointed to the proposed office should be a man of thorough practical knowledge and not a mere theorist.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he feared that some of the opponents of the Vote conceived retrenchment and economy to be convertible terms, but they were not so in all cases. If the people knew what an amount of money had been wasted under the name of economy, they would be perfectly startled. Nothing was so productive of injury as being short-handed. The real ground in the present discussion was that of responsibility, the main difficulty in dealing with anything connected with the Admiralty being to determine with whom the responsibility lay. But that was the fault of the constitution of the department, not of those who at present filled its offices; and until the House was ready to remedy the root of the evil—the constitution of the Board—they were bound to leave the decision of all these details of expenditure to the Board as it at present existed. He should for these reasons give his support to the Vote.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that though he quite agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) that retrenchment was not always economy, he would venture to remind the House that expenditure was not always efficiency. He also thought that if the balance was struck between the loss arising from what was spent unnecessarily and that arising from mistaken retrenchment, the balance would be against the former. He was perfectly satisfied with the proposed appointments, and with the explanations given by the noble Lord respecting them. He believed that the increased expense of keeping the accounts would be amply compensated for by their improved efficiency.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

remarked, that he also thought increased efficiency would be the result of the Vote, and he should therefore support it. He approved of the present form of presenting the estimates, as tending to a more watchful supervision of naval works.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, there were two great sources of expenditure—wages and materials—with regard to which the Accountant General's duty was merely to see, in one case, that the authorized rates were not exceeded, and, in the other, that the charges were in accordance with the terms of the contracts accepted by the Board. For the information of the Committee, he would shortly state his own practice. When he went to the Accountant General's office, he found there the accounts to be passed; and as it was impossible for any one with other duties to go through them all in detail, it was the duty of the Accountant General to raise any point as to which there could be doubt, or which was not authorized by distinct practice. If his attention were not called to anything specially, it was his practice to pass the accounts, reserving only some few, chosen at hazard, to be carefully scrutinized in detail. It was the duty of the Accountant General to call attention to any point, however small, requiring explanation; and whenever doubt arose, or where there was a payment likely to be drawn into a precedent for further expenditure, to refer the matter to the superintending Lord. He could not quite agree with the answer given by the Accountant General to the Committee, that he had only to procure the initials of the superintending Lord to relieve himself from responsibility, because it must he obvious that, although his advice might be acted on, he was responsible for any advice which he gave. For his own part, he did not believe that the system worked inefficiently or badly.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, that on questions of wages it was sufficiently plain sailing; but when they came to deal with that portion of the Votes which was expended on materials for the Dockyards, he believed there was no real responsibility chargeable on any one at the Admiralty Department. He had no doubt of the necessity of the other appointments, but with regard to the increase of £2,000 for the heads of a Transport Board no explanation whatever had been given.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the point had been so fully discussed on a recent occasion that he had not thought it necessary to refer to it. The appointments which the sum of £2,000 was intended to cover had been made in consequence of proceedings before the Transport Committee of last year. The naval officer and his secretary were intended to form the nucleus of a Transport Board, which at present was to manage the transport of troops to all our colonies except India, but might ultimately embrace that dependency within its sphere of operations. He was bound to add, that although last year a great many reasons were given why the shipping business of the Emigration Office should be placed under a Transport Board, he had since heard strong grounds urged against such a change at present. It was proposed to make the Transport Department independent of the Controller of the Victualling; otherwise, if the country were engaged in hostilities, great confusion and needless expenditure might ensue. The acting constructor was a well known man, possessed of great intelligence, and perfectly capable of giving an opinion on the construction of iron ships.

In reply to Sir MORTON PETO,

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the officer to be appointed was Mr. Abethell, one of the master shipwrights in the dockyards.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that his objections to the appointment of an acting constructor had not been removed by what had fallen from the noble Lord. What, he would ask, would the chief constructor and constructor have to do when this acting constructor was appointed? In every dockyard there was a master shipwright, receiving a salary of £600, and two assistants, receiving salaries of £400 per annum; therefore there was no want of hands to conduct the works. If they had too many heads, there would be divided responsibility, and when anything was wrong, they would be unable to place their finger on the person who bad committed the error. He should press his amendment to deduct £2,550 from the Vote. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), he would observe that it was stated that the building of ships at Deptford cost £37 a ton. No one knew better than the hon. Member that the hull of a ship under 1,000 tons would not cost one-half the sum of £37 per ton.

MR. CORRY

said, that, in explanation of the statement of the Royal Commission as to the cost of constructing ships at Deptford, he might observe that a great many of the ships built there had been built originally as sailing vessels, and afterwards converted into screw ships. Besides, the expense of repairing a 36-gun frigate had been included in the charges for building at Deptford.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

asked, whether the gentleman proposed to be appointed as acting constructor was not an old man, beyond the age at which the Government could force him to take a retiring pension.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that he was a most zealous and active officer.

Motion made, and Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 114: Majority 92.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) £297,602, Coast Guard Service, &c.

MR. R. HODGSON

said, he wished to ask the Secretary for the Admiralty whether any scale of remuneration for shipping masters had been settled?

SIR MICHAEL SEYMOUR

said, he wished to know whether the opportunity of entering the Royal Naval Reserve was to be extended to the Channel Islands. There was a valuable body of seamen both in Guernsey and Jersey, who ought to have an opportunity of volunteering for the Royal Naval Reserve.

MR. LINDSAY

said, it was scarcely possible to overrate the services rendered by the shipping masters at the various ports in the formation of the Royal Naval Reserve. He trusted the Admiralty would deal with them liberally, and consider whether they might not receive some distinguishing badge or honorary rank.

MR. LAIRD

said, the noble Lord would do well to make some arrangement by which the crews of steamers, boatmen, lightermen, and others of that class, might be drilled so as to be available for the defence of their several ports. If a large number of men who were unwilling to enter for foreign service joined together for the defence of the ports, a greater number of others would become free for foreign service, and this would add very greatly to our naval resources.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, they were called upon to give great credit to the shipping masters for the position in which the Naval Reserve then stood. They had performed an amount of labour which it would be well for the country to recognise. He did not think that the officers of the merchant service deserved all the praise which had been given them. They were at first as much opposed to the Royal Naval Reserve as the men; but as light dawned upon one it fell upon the other, and he believed that in the future progress of the Reserve the officers of the merchant service would be of very great assistance. He quite agreed with the lion. Member for Tynemouth that the shipping masters were entitled to some honorary distinction, and it was only right that they should be paid for the extra time which they devoted to the business of the Reserve, and which took up one-third of their time. He was quite prepared to second a proposition that the shipping masters should receive substantial rank as paymasters of the reserve, and that that distinction should be accompanied by due remuneration. With regard to the maintenance of the Reserve, he would urge the Government to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Naval Commission in regard to school ships, because unless they provided for the admission of boys as well as adults to the force, the scheme must break down. Each boy in the Royal Navy, before he was reckoned as an ordinary seaman, cost the country £123, whereas under the schoolship system he would only cost £38. He would then pass to the merchant service, and the shipping master at the port would be able to enlist him in the Naval Reserve.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, he wished to inquire whether any commissions had as yet been issued to the officers of the mercantile marine who had joined the Naval Reserve?

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he desired to know whether any alteration had been made in the rates of payment for the officers of the Naval Reserve?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he was happy to inform his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Alderman Salomons) that they had made a commencement in granting appointments to officers of the Naval Reserve, and that the first commission had been conferred on Mr. Judkins, the officer who with so much ability had commanded the steamer that carried our troops up the St. Lawrence. Mr. Judkins had passed the age for active service, but he had been made an honorary lieutenant, to mark the sense which the Government entertained of his services. The item of £5,000 for lieutenants and sub-lieutenants of the Naval Reserve was to reimburse them for travelling expenses, board, and so on, when they were away from their vessels undergoing instruction —the lieutenants to receive 10s. a day, and the sub-lieutenants 5s. He could not go quite so far as the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James El- phinstone), that to the shipping masters alone they owed the present efficient state of the Naval Reserve. In his opinion, Captain Browne, the registrar-general of seamen, was the man to whom they were most indebted for his services in that respect, and next to him the naval officers of the several depots. There was no doubt, however, that they were greatly indebted to the shipping masters also. A new scale of pay had been just arranged between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade with regard to the salaries of the shipping masters, who, he begged to state, were no longer shipping masters, but were henceforward to be called "Registrars of the Royal Naval Reserve." These gentlemen would for the future be paid according to the number of men they were instrumental in enrolling, and also to the amount of correspondence they had to carry on on account of the Naval Reserve. They would thus receive a very substantial addition to the allowances which they already received. The highest amount for the past year that had been received by any of those gentlemen was £180. No doubt, as the Reserve increased, the work which the registrars had to perform would also increase, and so would their pay.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he thought that "Paymasters of the Royal Naval Reserve" would have been a better title. He wished to know whether the £180 went to the deputy registrars, or was it to be divided among their clerks?

MR. CORRY

observed, that there was an increase of 150 men in the number of the coast-guard on land service, though he should have thought that since the establishment of the Naval Reserve the importance of the coast-guard would have diminished.

SIR MICHAEL SEYMOUR

said, he wished to learn the number out of the 10,000 men in the reserve that might be immediately available for service if required?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

stated, that £180 was the highest amount that any of the registrars had received. Of course, certain clerks were to be paid, but that was to be done before, and the £180 was a substantial addition to the income of the registrars. As to the number out of the 10,000 reserves that might be immediately available, their present position was this:—According to the la test returns in last December, the number of reserves on long voyages was 669, on short voyages 2,359, and the number in the coasting trade and at home was 4,756; but since that return there had been a considerable increase in the force.

SIR MICHAEL SEYMOUR

inquired, how far the arrangements with regard to the Naval Reserve extended to the Channel Islands?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

replied, that the seamen of the Channel Islands were as much interested in the reserve as the seamen in the home ports. Several of them had been already enrolled.

In reply to Mr LINDSAY,

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the fees of the shipping masters were £2,000.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £68,045, Scientific Departments of the Navy.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he wished to call attention to the excess of expenditure in past years over the sums voted under this head. In 1859 they voted £61,000, and £68,000 were expended; in 1860 they voted £64,000, and £73,000 were expended. Would there be any objection to a return giving a list or index of the charts published by the hydrographical department during the last ten years?

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, it would be useful to know what progress was made in the coast surveys. The Astronomer Royal, one of the most able mathematicians and astronomers in England or the world, had never had an increase of his pay. It was only £1,000 a year; and for a man of his science and attainments an augmentation was desirable.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he did not think that it would be easy to make an index of the charts of all the surveys of the world; but if the hon. Gentleman would move for an index of all the published charts, there probably would be no objection raised to the Motion. As to the Astronomer Royal, he was an excellent officer, and he might add that that year the Admiralty had somewhat improved the position of some of his assistants.

Vote agreed, to.

(4.) £176,624, Naval Establishments at Home.

MR. LINDSAY

said, they had given up building wooden ships, except those of small size. The pay of master shipwrights was £650 per annum, and of master smiths £250 per annum. The increase of iron ships would throw extra work upon the master smiths, and he sug- gested that their pay should he increased, while in all future appointments the pay of master shipwrights should be reduced.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

expressed his full concurrence in the observations made relative to the master smiths, but he did not think it advisable that the salaries of the master shipwrights should be reduced.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £33,610, Naval Establishments Abroad.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to call attention to the great disproportion between the expenditure for the superintending staff and the number of men at the Malta establishment. The item in the Votes for that establishment amounted to £7,819, and he dared say the salary and emoluments of the Admiral Superintendent would probably swell the amount to £10,000. That appeared an extravagant sum to pay for the superintendence of only 487 men, whose yearly wages scarcely exceeded £22,000.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

remarked, that he could only say that the Malta station was of great importance in respect to the Mediterranean service, and, besides being a great store and victualling depot, and therefore requiring a smaller proportion of artificers, large works were going on there. Malta, therefore, could not be considered, as regards officers and men, in the same light as the home dockyards.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £1,147,678, Wages to Artificers, Labourers, &c, at Home.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, he wished to call attention to the position of the hand-sawyers in the dockyards, who, for the last thirteen years, had been at job and task work. In the mean while the wages of other mechanics, who were paid by the day, had increased 3d., 4d., and 6d. per day. The sawyers were now being put on day work at the same wages as they had been paid up to the time they were put on task and job work, which was thirteen years ago, instead of being paid at the advanced rates of the present day. They were, moreover, obliged to find their own tools. That appeared to be an unjust arrangement, as it affected not only their daily pay but their superannuation allowance.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he wished to have some explanation with respect to a paper placed on the table, entitled "An account, showing the expenses incurred on Her Majesty's ships—building, converting, repairing, fitting, &c.—during the financial year 1860–61." The ship Howe was there stated to have cost £192,877; and the expenditure for the Victoria was put down at £187,129. What he wished to know was, whether this paper of accounts was trustworthy, and whether any Member in that House might safely rely on the figures given in it? He did not put these questions idly, for he had reason to believe that the accounts were not of that accurate character on which a deliberative assembly could rely in discussing financial matters. It was said that a change was to be made which would show the exact amount expended on each ship, and that this system was to be commenced on the Achilles, now building at Chatham. He should like to hear from the noble Lord whether that was to be construed into an acknowledgment that the present accounts were not to be relied on?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the defect of the present system of expense accounts was that large sums were attributed in them to one service which, in truth, belonged to another. For instance, in the account items were put down under the head of "Docks," cranes, and various matters connected with the dockyard, which ought to be attributed to the ship which was being built. The hon. Baronet, however, was aware that it was those very defects which the Admiralty were in process of remedying, and for the future to every individual ship would be credited under the new system every particular item which belonged to it. Thus, by a system of double entry, the exact cost of each ship would be shown. By that time next year the returns probably would show accurately the exact cost of every one of Her Majesty's ships.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, he wished to know whether the timber was charged in the returns at cost price, or whether any addition was made to the expense of the ship on account of the length of time it had been in the yard?

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wanted some explanation with respect to the statement regarding the Vote, to the effect that it was intended to reduce the number as vacancies occurred to 9,261.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that it was intended to reduce the number of permanent men in the dockyards to the extent laid down in an Order in Council in 1850; therefore when any additional work was necessary, they adopted the plan of hiring men instead of adding to the permanent staff.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that if the accounts of the expenditure of the navy were to be presented in detail they ought to show the whole cost of each ship. Was anything, for instance, taken into consideration for depreciation, or insurance, or losses? He could not but complain of the unsatisfactory and confused manner in which the accounts were presented to the House. He should like also to know whether there was any alteration made in the system of task and job-work.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, he would admit that the accounts, as they then stood, did not show the whole debtor and creditor account; but an improved system was in operation, and he trusted that next year the fullest details of the cost of every ship would be given. There was no task I or job-work then going on in the dock-yards,

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, that he understood that there was a system of measurement in operation under which, if a man did not do an amount of work reaching a certain standard, he was paid less than the average wages; while if he did an amount beyond the standard, he was not paid more than his regular earnings.

MR. WHITBREAD

observed, that the system was known as the "check-day pay," and answered very well. It simply insured a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(7.) £66,801 Wages to Artificers and Labourers Abroad.

(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,741,181, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Naval Stores, for the Building, Repair, and Out fit of the Fleet, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863.

CAPTAIN JERVIS

said, he wished to ask what steps had been taken by the Admiralty to remedy the evils complained of by the chief engineer of Chatham Dockyard before the Dockyard Inquiry; Committee, respecting the deteriorated quality of copper obtained for copper sheathing in the navy? He also desired to be informed whether there was any intention on the part of the Admiralty to manufacture their own plates in any of the dockyards? Such a proceeding, he thought, would be a mistake.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he had always heard that the deteriorated quality of modern copper was to be attributed to its admixture with foreign ore. His noble Friend would acquit him in his remarks of all desire to use captious language, or introduce party feeling. It was really for the purpose of obtaining information that he wished to refer to some particular items in the Vote. One of the most important questions of the day was the respective merits of the various descriptions of iron plates for sheathing vessels; in fact, the naval supremacy of this country was to some extent dependent on the goodness of those plates. He had heard within the last few days rumours in certain influential quarters which, if they had any foundation, ought to be brought to the notice of the Admiralty; but which, if they were not correct, ought to receive an authoritative contradiction from the Minister in his place in Parliament. He had heard that all the experiments tried went to prove that hammered plates were vastly superior to rolled plates; that the experiments tried on the target constructed like the side of the Warrior showed very strongly the superiority of the hammered plates. Then, again, he was told that it was the intention of the Government to fit the Royal Oak, the Achilles, and the Black Prince with rolled plates. That was a very serious question indeed, for unless the Admiralty were thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the rolled over the hammered plates, it would be one of the greatest pieces of folly in the world to cover the sides of those ships with the rolled plates. If sufficient experiments had not been made upon hammered and rolled plates, further experiments ought to be made regardless of expense, so as to set the question of the relative merits of the two at rest. It would be much better economy to spend a certain number of thousands of pounds in experiments than to build iron-plated vessels concerning which the authorities of the Admiralty might entertain doubts. As the maritime supremacy of the country really depended on the superiority of the iron plates employed for their ships, he asked the noble Lord to give them his best opinion on this point. Another question he had to put was with regard to the contractors. He had been informed on good authority that the contractors for building the large iron frigates had in several instances failed to complete their contracts. He wished to know if that were the fact, and, if so, whether the penalties to which the contractors were liable had been enforced? He had been told that the contractors for the Valiant, the Black Prince, the Defence, and the Resistance were in the position he had mentioned. There would appear to be some ambition to obtain these Admiralty contracts, which was not on account of the pecuniary advantages resulting from them. It was well known that when the contractors failed to fulfil their contracts, great pecuniary loss was entailed on the Government, as they were compelled to obtain additional assistance to complete the work. Sufficient inquiry, he thought, was not made into the solvency of persons who tendered for the contracts, and the practice of not enforcing the penalties was a premium to unqualified persons to tender for contracts. The next point he wished to touch upon was with regard to Trotman's anchors. He wished to know whether, recently, when one of those anchors was tested at Woolwich, Mr. Trotman desired to have a double test, and the authorities declined without a special order from the Admiralty, as the machinery might be injured; and that on Mr. Trotman offering to bear any expense, he was unable to obtain the sanction of the Admiralty? The last point to which he wished to direct attention was the coaling of Her Majesty's ships. That was a most important question. He had been told that the means of coaling both at Plymouth and Portsmouth were not what they ought to be in the case of an emergency, when it might require to be done with great rapidity; and, if they were not of that opinion, he (Mr. Bentinck) wished to know whether they intended to propose any improvement.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he would ask whether the small vessels, corvettes, and gunboats the Government intended to be built, were to be built of wood or iron?

MR. LAIRD

said, it appeared to him a question, after the discussion that took place on a former evening, whether it was desirable to go on building large ships of wood and iron combined. He doubted, also, whether they ought to carry out the "plan entertained of converting several wooden-built ships into iron-plated vessels without a previous experiment to test their efficiency when so converted. The addi- tion of the weight of the iron plates, for which they were not originally laid down, would make them unseaworthy and dangerous if they carried their full complement of guns. He believed that the addition of 800 tons of iron plates above the whole weight these vessels were intended to carry, would soon shake them to pieces if sent to sea. He hoped therefore no further progress would be made with the five wooden ships to be converted, till some more experiments had been made as to their fitness. At least, the Government might finish one and send her to sea, as a trial. He believed that the ships the French Government had built of wood and plated with iron had shown signs of weakness. It was quite clear, as the hon. Member for Finsbury stated the other night, that for large ships there was no material but iron. Let them look at the ships of the Cunard Company, of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and the vessels of other private companies; they would not think of building their ships of wood. The wear and tear of wooden vessels were so great that no private company could make them pay. Some companies, who long adhered to the wooden-built ships, had at last been compelled to give them up. He knew that some of the largest shipowners in the country, who long adhered to wood as the material, had now adopted iron. By using iron the cost of the wear and tear of the ships was greatly reduced. It was with that view that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood), in spite of prejudice, introduced iron as a material of construction into the navy, and the vessel that was then built was still in existence. He would also name his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Corry), the late Lord Herbert, and Sir George Cockburn, who, in 1843, came to the conviction that iron was the best material for ships of war. But in that case, as in so many others, the force of prejudice and of various interests was opposed to the change they commenced; and the consequence was that the adoption of iron was thrown back for many years. He believed, from his experience of twenty-five or thirty years as a shipbuilder and shipowner, that till the Government adopted iron generally, and not merely for large ships, and followed the example of other Governments that were building gunboats of iron, they would never see the present large Navy Estimates reduced.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) whether the Vote for timber had reference to the building small vessels and gunboats, he had to state that up to that time they had not found any good substitute for wood in the construction of small vessels. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) was probably better acquainted with the comparative merits of wood and iron than most people; but the service required of mercantile vessels was a very different thing from that required of men-of-war. Men-of-war ships had to be sent to all parts of the world, and they remained abroad for three or four years, and had often to lie in ports for months together, whereas merchant ships merely made the voyage out and home, and it was well known that vessels constantly moving fouled their bottoms less than stationary vessels. Every practical sailor knew that a vessel with a foul bottom would neither steam nor sail, and became utterly use less as a man-of-war. We had not yet got over that difficulty in iron vessels. That it would be eventually overcome he had no doubt, but as long as it existed it would be unwise for the Government suddenly to abandon the building of our smaller ships in wood. Copper-bottomed vessels were good for two or three years without going into dock. That would not be the case with iron ships. He believed that with iron ships they would require docks all over the world; and, upon the whole, he thought they could not do better than continue the construction of small wooden vessels. An hon. Gentleman had said that the Admiralty had done wrong in cutting down fine wooden line-of-battle ships and turning them into iron-cased vessels. He admitted that these vessels would not be so strong as iron ones, although great pains had been taken to strengthen them in every possible way; but what would hon. Gentlemen, particularly those who grumbled at the amount of the Estimates, have said if, instead of taking advantage of vessels already in existence, the Admiralty had asked the House for £380,000 or £400,000 each for five iron ships? The whole question was, in fact, one of time and expediency.

The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) had called his attention to the report of the chief engineer at Chatham with respect to the quality of our copper. It was true that the chief engineer had stated to the Dockyard Commissioners that our copper had of late very much deteriorated in quality, and that it did not last so long as formerly. The Admiralty had taken specimens of; various kinds of copper from all the ships that had recently come home, and had sent them to Dr. Percy, who was with Sir R. Murchison at the head of the Museum of Economic Geology, with a request to test them in every possible way, and to state the results in a report. It was a curious fact that the; purest copper was not the most lasting; on the contrary, it was rather soft, and was not so durable as other kinds. Of course, the Admiralty could do nothing until they had ascertained the result of the experiments made by Dr. Percy; but he could assure the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich that they had no intention of establishing smelting works at Chatham any more than of purchasing a copper mine.

The first question of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) related to the comparison between hammered and rolled iron. There was a great controversy going on as to the respective merits of these two methods of preparing armour-plates. He was bound to say that his own opinion was that the superiority, if any, was as yet on the side of the rolled; plating. Rolled plating had resisted the effects of shot better than hammered I plating. He admitted, at the same time, that there had been a specimen of hammered plating prepared by the Thames Iron Ship Company, which showed a great superiority over all the other kinds of plating that had been tried. That, however, was a single specimen, and upon the whole, the balance of advantage was rather in favour of rolled plates. There was no appreciable difference with respect to cost. Under these circumstances, the Admiralty had no other course to pursue than to take the best material they could get, and he could assure the Committee they had adopted even excessive precautions for that purpose. Every contractor who tendered to supply plates, and whose tender was accepted, sent his plates and the officers of the Admiralty chose out of the lot one or more to be experimented upon. If the plates offered a proper resistance, the Admiralty accepted them; if they failed, they rejected them. He thought the hon. Member for Norfolk had been mis- led by the result of an experiment made last year at Shoeburyness with a section of the Warrior. The plates were hammered, and they resisted a vast force of projectiles thrown against them; but the Admiralty had no reason for believing that rolled plates would not hare been equally successful under the same conditions. The hon. Member for Norfolk had also asked a question with respect to the terms upon which private builders should be allowed to contract for our large iron vessels, and had stated that there was a report in circulation to the effect that several contractors had altogether failed in their engagements, and that the Admiralty had abstained from enforcing the penalties provided for such cases. He could assure the hon. Member that the only case in which as yet a contractor had altogether failed in performing his contract was that of the Valiant. During the progress of that vessel the contractor became involved in great pecuniary difficulties. He stated that the cost of the ship would be much more than he had anticipated, and, in fact, sued the Admiralty in formâ pauperis, to be released from his engagement. It was obviously the duty of the Admiralty, when large iron vessels were greatly wanted, to do everything in their power to carry on the construction of the Valiant. They had consequently no other alternative than to take the vessel out of the hands of the contractor, to make him a certain allowance for the work already performed, and to place the ship in other hands. That, he repeated, was the only case in which a contractor had altogether failed; but partial failures had occurred in other instances. Some contractors, for example, had failed in delivering the vessels at the stipulated time. He must say, however, that the contractors as a body deserved a great deal of indulgence. There had been an earnest desire on their part to fulfil their engagements, but they really had not known what they were undertaking, and their difficulties had been great. Perhaps the new system with regard to contracts would be a better one than that hitherto pursued. First of all, smaller penalties would be fixed, so that they could be practically enforced; and it was the determination of the Admiralty in all future cases that there should be a full infliction of the penalties to which the contractors rendered themselves liable. The very novel subject of Mr. Trotman's anchor had also been adverted to. He had not heard that they had refused to give Mr. Trotman's anchor an extra trial at Woolwich; but this he knew, that the Admiralty had some months ago ordered an anchor of Mr. Trotman, and he was not aware that it was yet supplied.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, that the noble Lord's answer raised a question of grave importance. He announced it to be the intention of the Government to build these smaller vessels of wood, as they could not as yet see their way to the use of iron. His hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, had adverted to the use of iron gunboats in the Indian navy; and he himself could state that when, some years ago, he raised the question of the use of iron for gunboats, he referred to the evidence of the commanders of the East Indian boats, who came forward and testified to their being in every particular superior to wood. Captain Hall, of the Nemesis, spoke decidedly at to the superiority of iron gunboats when pierced with shot, or, having struck upon a rock, the damage being more easily repaired. He summed up in these words "I should give the preference to iron over wooden vessels, as a commander, under every circumstance." Captain Charlwood gave the preference to iron, and said that his vessel never received an injury which the engineer on board could not repair with an iron plate and a few bolts. Captains Proctor, of the Harpy, and Filden of the Lizard, gave similar testimony With regard to cleaning the bottoms o iron ships, no doubt there were grave difficulties in the case of large ships; but with respect to small vessels, his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland could be a witness to the facility with which they were cleaned in any part of the world. Hi repeated, the question was of great gravity as the country would not go on spending twelve millions a year on the navy. Hi could not understand how it was, that with the number of vessels they had out on contract, the labour in the royal yards we constantly increasing; but what he wished principally to call attention to was, that eight years we had spent £29,000,000 in these yards, and allowing £8,000,000 for the addition to the navy at the averag cost per gun, there remained an averag of nearly £3,000,000 a year, principally for repairing the wooden fleet. He argued for iron gunboats on the ground of economy. Wooden gunboats could not be relied on for any time if laid up but iron vessels would be as good if taken out at the end of twenty years as when first built. What he wanted to press on the Admiralty was, that they should not continue building wooden vessels, but that the noble Lord should pledge himself to a careful inquiry into the comparative merits of the two materials before he built any more of these vessels. He did not contemplate armour plates, but iron vessels of ⅞ plates, which Sir Howard Douglas had said were sufficiently strong to resist shell.

MR. R. W. DUFF

said, that practical experience enabled him to corroborate what had fallen from the noble Lord. Iron boats were good for home, but certainly not for foreign service. He had been on the South American station for five years, and during that time there were two iron gunboats attached to the squadron. One of them, the Harpy, was, when she came out, an efficient vessel; but after five years she could not move two knots an hour through the water. There were no means of docking her out there, and she took 110 days to come home; in fact, every one thought she was lost. She had to consume her own bulkheads and everything wooden on board to keep the engines going. The other, the Trident, took three months for the homeward voyage. He himself came passenger, whilst a friend who came home in a merchant vessel made the passage in three weeks. Therefore, until further experiments had been tried, he I hoped the noble Lord would not build our vessels entirely of iron. For purely fighting purposes iron, which would keep out shells, was no doubt desirable, and iron frigates ought to take the place of wooden line-of battle ships; but he did not think that the day had arrived for replacing wooden by iron ships on foreign stations.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he wished to point out, that if iron vessels were sent to distant stations where there were no docks, they would in course of a little time become unserviceable. It was on that account that so few iron merchant ships were employed in the Indian trade. He saw there was a reduction in the amount asked for paint. There was a general complaint in the navy that no sufficient allowance of paint for ship use was made, and first lieutenants had often to put their hands into their own pockets in order to keep their vessel in good order. He would ask why the Vote was reduced?

MR. CORRY

said, he had examined the Report of the Commissioners as to the cost of building ships at Pembroke Dockyard, and he found it was a mistake to put the cost at £37 per ton. The cost, in fact, was £33 3s. 3d. per ton.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that he could state from his own experience that he had found no difficulty in cleaning the bottoms of iron ships in any of the chief ports of the world. As to durability, there was no comparison between iron and wooden vessels. He was just opening out an iron vessel which had been built for ten years, and the iron was as good as on the day when the ship was built. He need hardly say it would not have been so with a wooden vessel. He would probably have found the dry rot in her, and been only too glad to close her up again and sell her as soon as possible. There was one item in the Vote upon which he should certainly take the opinion of the Committee. The Vote for timber upon an average was, before last year, about £400,000. Last year £940,000 was voted, upon the ground that it was wanted to replenish the stock of timber. This year, although they had given up building wooden line-of-battle ships, the amount asked for was £160,000 above the average. He should move to reduce the Vote by £100,000. He also wished to ask whether one firm continued to enjoy the monopoly of supplying anchors and chains to the navy? There were surely more firms than one in the country whose manufacture could be depended upon, and a little competition might produce economy without impairing efficiency. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100,000.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he doubted very much whether there existed on many foreign stations those facilities for cleaning iron ships which his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland imagined. His hon. Friend had said that an iron vessel was much more durable than a wooden one, but that maxim was not of universal application. If an iron vessel went ashore upon a sandbank, she would hang on there a long time; but if she went upon a stony or rocky shore, she would go to pieces like brown paper. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell them whether it was true, as reported recently, a gunboat had run into the bows of a line-of-battle ship—the Defence, he believed—and stove in a plate. He ventured to say that no gunboat would ever have gone through the bows of one of the old line-of-battle ships. He was very glad to hear that the Admiralty had resolved on exacting for the future the full amount of the penalties from defaulting contractors. He believed that that resolution, by causing the fulfilment of contractors' engagements would lead to a considerable saving of public money. He was also convinced it would be a source of great saving if the Board of Admiralty would devote a good round sum of money to experiments upon the relative qualities of hammered and rolled iron to resist shot, before proceeding further in the building of iron-cased vessels.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he wished to ask whether the Admiralty authorities had turned their attention to any of the patents for diminishing the consumption of coal used for marine steam-engines?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that in the second section of the Vote he had taken a sum for making experiments upon iron plates. With regard to the modern processes for economizing fuel in steam-vessels, the Admiralty were fully sensible of the importance of those improvements, and were submitting them to a practical test on board of some of their vessels.

Motion made, and Question put, That the item of £560,713, for Timber, Masts, Deals, &c., be reduced by the sum of £100,000.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 21: Noes 39: Majority 18.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(9.) £1,453,561, Steam Machinery, &c.

CAPTAIN JERVIS

said, he desired to ask for information as to the probable cost of the three vessels ordered during the last year. Having himself last Session stated the cost of the large iron-cased ships at half a million sterling apiece, he had been told that he had alarmed the country, and that the actual cost would only be £300,000. Now the Warrior had cost £354,000, and the increased size of these vessels would bring the outlay to nearly £400,000 for each of them before the masts and rigging were put up. If their cost would be so great, it became a serious question how many such vessels they ought to build. With the improved armament now put on board our ships, a much smaller class of vessels would suffice. The experiments made at Eastbourne proved that the Armstrong gun produced an effect nearly three times as great as that of the old armament. In other words, a vessel of 10 guns was now as powerful as one of 30 guns used to be.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he could not give the exact cost of the vessels. He must defer any precise statement on that point till next year, when the vessels would be completed.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £464,170, New Works, Improvements, &c.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he wished to know whether the items in the Vote for new machinery in several of the yards were intended as the commencement of plant for the building of iron ships? He had opposed the Vote last year for iron shipbuilding at Chatham. It was, he believed, a great mistake.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, the reason of the increase was to provide machinery at five of the yards for bending iron plates to the requisite form for building, the plates themselves being manufactured outside the yards in question.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he observed that £10,000 was taken for dredging the bar of Portsmouth harbour. He wished to know whether the dredging operations hitherto carried out had not produced three feet additional water on the bar; whether any line-of-battle ship could not go in and out of the harbour at any time; and whether the Defence did not, last Saturday, pass in there drawing one foot less than the Warrior, at dead neap tide; also whether the harbour was not accessible, on any day of the year, to ships of the line at high water; and whether the £10,000 worth of dredging proposed would not enable ships to pass in and out of the harbour two hours before or after neap tides?

MR. BENTINCK

asked, whether any Vote would be proposed for facilitating the coaling of men-of-war at Plymouth Sound?

MR. LAIRD

said, he was rather surprised, looking at the increased size of the ships now building, and the very inadequate number of graving docks, that a larger sum was not taken to remedy the existing state of things. There was scarcely any graving dock that could take those vessels in. At Portsmouth there was only one, and he wished to know what steps were to be taken to provide the requisite accommodation.

MR. CORRY

observed, that it was stated in the House a few nights since that the water on Portsmouth Bar was so shallow that large ships could not enter the harbour, and it had been even suggested that in consequence of this Portsmouth ought to be abandoned as our first naval arsenal. In the course of the last two years, how- ever, at an expense of about £28,000, the water on the bar at the entrance to Portsmouth had been raised to the depth of nearly 27 feet at neap tides and 30 at spring tides, so as in smooth water to admit the largest ship in the navy; and he thought that they might for another £28,000 or £30,000 nearly double the depth already obtained. Having obtained an addition of 5 feet, they might by the expenditure of a similar sum deepen to the extent of 10 feet; which would be two or three feet more than would admit the largest ship in the world at neap tides. There was no reason, therefore, to abandon Portsmouth as our great naval arsenal. At the same time he thought it very important to increase the dock accommodation there as much as possible. From the enormous length of our new iron ships there was hardly a dock that could hold them. Between 1841 and 1844, when Sir Robert Peel was in power, they had plans for a great dock at Portsmouth of 400 feet long, which would have been constructed if the Admiralty had continued in office; but, from motives of economy, the plan was abandoned by the succeeding Board. At Cherbourg, a great naval arsenal exactly opposite Portsmouth, there was great accommodation for large vessels. There were no less than seven docks with a depth of 27 feet over the sill. At Portsmouth, however, there was only one such dock, and it was necessary that that state of things should be altered. He therefore wished to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the question. It was absolutely necessary that it should be looked at in a large spirit, with the view of obtaining additional dock accommodation for large ships either at Portsmouth or elsewhere. At Portsmouth there existed all the means of obtaining the accommodation required. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty said that in 1864 there would be sixteen large iron-cased frigates ready for sea, and there were only two docks at Portsmouth which would contain vessels of that size, and as iron ships fouled so rapidly, more accommodation was absolutely necessary. He was glad that the Admiralty had adopted a plan which he recommended in 1844, and that they were constructing extensive docks and basins at Chatham; but Chatham, although a good place for the repair of the fleet in reference to operations in the Baltic and North Sea, was inconveniently situated for general purposes. He should be glad to see £100,000 voted next year for docks at Portsmouth, and about £900,000 or £1,000,000 subsequently to complete the works.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, there bad been an absolute gain all over the bar at Portsmouth of a good four feet. He believed it was nearer five feet But the Admiralty wished to wait and see whether the depth would be maintained, or whether the excavation or bar would fill up, before they expended any more money at Portsmouth. By the last soundings it appeared that there had been a little filling up on the western side, but the bar had extended itself a little to the eastward, and there was no loss at present. Further soundings would be taken in April, and if they were satisfactory, the Admiralty would deepen the entrance further with the money which he hoped the Committee would rote in the Estimate. Before doing anything to extend the establishments at Portsmouth, they ought to be certain that the entrance would be efficiently maintained; and the Committee must remember, that if they made a large basin at the end of the dockyard, it would detract to some extent from the tidal water, and lessen the scour out of the harbour. The hon. Gentleman had rather understated the accommodation which they would have in 1864. They were making a dock at Portsmouth known as the North Inlet Dock, and they were lengthening No. 8 Dock at Portsmouth. At the end of the present year one dock at Devonport would be finished, and they were extending and deepening the lock into the basin at Key-ham, and also lengthening one of the docks at Keyham; so that by 1864 there would be five docks capable of containing vessels of the largest size, those at Key-ham and Devonport receiving them at any high water on any day in the year. With regard to the works at Chatham, for the next year or two they would consist mainly of excavations and piling, for which convict labour was admirably adapted, and therefore the amount of money voted would not represent the full amount of progress which would be made. As to the question put by the hon. Member for Norfolk with respect to the coaling, it was a most important matter, and would not be lost sight of. One of the best plans seemed to be to coal from barges on either side. That was a plan largely adopted by merchant steamers, and he did not see why the Admiralty should not resort to it.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, that as the water flowed two hours later out of Langstone harbour than out of Portsmouth harbour, it would be easy to direct any amount of scour out of the latter, even if the dock which he proposed was made. He therefore considered that if the Government applied steam power in dredging at Portsmouth, they would be able to remove all the obstructions, although the bottom of the harbour was one of a rocky character. An impression prevailed that vessels could only enter Portsmouth harbour at certain seasons, but he had information that there was no time of the year when vessels could not enter Portsmouth harbour with anything like a favourable wind. Last week the Defence entered Portsmouth harbour at neap tide, and she drew only one foot less than the Warrior. The Trafalgar, drawing twenty-seven feet, went out at the dead of the neap, at eight o'clock on Saturday morning. There was no difficulty in dredging away the difference of level between the Spit Buoy and the gullet of the harbour.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, that notwithstanding the information of the very highest authority which had been given to the Committee, he was still of opinion that, if they removed the bar at Portsmouth, the travelling shingle would fill it up again. He (Sir Morton Peto) adhered to what be had said before, that there were not above five days in the month when the Warrior could cross the bar of Portsmouth harbour.

MR. CORRY

said, he had received reliable information that the Warrior could go over the bar in Portsmouth harbour for twenty days in the month. With regard to the harbour itself, if it was possible to deepen it five feet at a cost of £28,000, a fortiori it must be easier to maintain that depth, and the outlay requisite for that purpose would be economy itself compared with the expense of removing the whole establishment to another place.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he wished to know why the Government did not make their own gas at all the dockyards, as it would be economical to do so? He found that while they expended for gas at Deptford only £250 where they had their own works, they paid for gas at Woolwich, £1,138; at Chatham, £900; at Sheer- ness, £700; and at Portsmouth, £1,650 a year. If gas works had been erected at those places, there would have been a considerable saving to the country, and he hoped the re-echoing of the question would in the end have the desired effect at the Admiralty.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—

(11.) £66,000, Medicines and Medical Stores.

(12.) £98,708, Naval Miscellaneous Services.

(13.) £702,308, Half-Pay, &c.

(14.) £194,282, Civil Pensions and Allowances.

(15.) £481,036, Military Pensions and Allowances.

(16.) £188,650, Freight of Ships.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he would again take occasion to express his belief that the possession of a larger number of troop-ships would conduce to the benefit of the public service, and would be productive of true economy. Cases would likewise occur where, with hired transport ships, very awkward consequences might ensue; the captain of a merchant vessel might object to land troops under fire, alleging that by so doing he would peril his insurance.

MR. LINDSAY

denied, that the owners of a merchant vessel would suffer if the ship were lost under the circumstances supposed by the hon. Member for Norfolk. He was convinced that in the last resort the Government would take care that they should not be losers. With regard to the alleged expediency of constructing additional transports, he might refer to the evidence given by Sir Alexander Milne, one of the ablest public servants of the Admiralty, who showed conclusively that hired merchant vessels cost exactly half as much as Government troop-ships. He therefore thought it was sound policy to keep as many troop-ships as would be required in time of peace, and in time of war to depend on the merchant service. These Estimates had been got through with a speed and at a period of the Session unparalleled in his experience. Knowing the many burdens to which the country was exposed, he could not bring himself to believe that voting away £12,000,000 in two nights was a course likely to commend itself to general approbation.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he must maintain, with all deference to Sir Alexander Milne, that the country ought to have ten more troop-ships. Vessels had been taken up and chartered as transports which ought never to have been sent to sea if they had better ones to put in their places. As for the alleged economy of employing merchant vessels, he knew that when he was carrying troops for the Indian service years ago the charge was at the rate of £15 per man. He observed that £15 per man had recently been paid for sending them to Halifax.

Vote agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.