MR. CORRYrose to call the attention of the House to the necessity of increased 468 accommodation for docking Her Majesty's ships of the larger classes at home and abroad. The hon. Gentleman regretted that he had been prevented from bringing forward the Motion for a Select Committee of which he had given notice for the 13th of last month, more especially as his absence from the House on that occasion had been connected with the expression of certain opinions which had been expressed on that (the Opposition) bench with respect to the amount of our Military Estimates. He wished to state that there was not the shadow of a foundation for such a report. The sole and simple cause of his absence was his inability to attend in his place in consequence of a severe cold; and finding that he could not come down to the House, he placed himself in the hands of his friends, who thought that at that already advanced period of the Session the course he was now adopting was the most advisable for him to pursue. He trusted the answer he should now receive from the Government would be satisfactory to those who concurred with him in thinking that the subject was one which deserved the earnest consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers. The question was one in which he had long felt a great interest, having taken an active part in respect of it many years ago, When he served as a Lord of the Admiralty, having the superintendence of the Department of Works, in the Government of Sir Robert Peel; but he was almost afraid, that at a time of financial pressure like the present, and when the opinion of Parliament had been expressed in favour of applying as large a portion as possible of the means available for naval purposes to the construction of an iron-cased fleet, some hon. Gentlemen might think that he had chosen a very inopportune moment for proposing the provision of further dock accommodation, and deem it to be a question of secondary importance which might he considered at a more convenient season. But he was speaking in the presence of many Gentlemen who were practically acquainted with the wants of a steam navy, and more especially of a steam navy built of iron; and he was sure they would agree with him that it was the necessity of increasing our iron-cased navy which invested the question with its most pressing importance, and that unless they took it up in time, the money spent on our gigantic ships of war would be found in the hour of need to be, perhaps, one half of it thrown away. 469 In confirmation of this view he would venture to read to the House the opinion of Admiral Robinson, who, in reply to a question put to him by the Chatham Dockyard Extension Committee, said—
I do not hesitate to say it is a national danger we are incurring in being so badly provided with dock and basin accommodation for our large steamships. After a naval engagement the country that can first repair its ships damaged in action thereby doubles its force. In that case, one ship with proper dock and basin accommodation is equivalent to two.He (Mr. Corry) therefore hoped the House would not think that he was occupying its time upon a matter of little moment. He had no intention whatever of imputing the smallest blame to the present Board of Admiralty. It would be extremely unfair in him to do so, considering that the deficiency in such accommodation had been accumulating for many years, during which, as Admiral Robinson said—Although great efforts have been constantly made to keep pace with the increased size of our ships, yet the magnitude of the ships has gone on so much more rapidly than was anticipated, that the dock and basin accommodation, although it has been year by year increased, falls infinitely below the necessities of the service.He must, however, observe that although the increase in the length of ships of war within the last three years had been greater than during the previous sixty years, yet smaller provision had been made for docks and basins in the three Estimates proposed by the present Government than in any Estimates since the year 1845, when the growth of the steam navy first compelled the Government of Sir Robert Peel to give attention to the subject. Not only had a smaller amount been taken for new works, but a smaller proportion of the sum voted had been applied to the construction of docks and basins. His noble Friend would find, that in 1845, 1846 and 1847, for the two former of which years he had himself moved the Estimates, one-half the money voted for works was expended on docks and basins. In the years 1860, 1861, and 1862, the proportion had been less than one-sixth, and he confessed that this suggested two questions to his mind—first, whether sufficient importance was attached to the subject by the present Board; and, secondly, whether, by postponing works of less pressing importance, as in 1845, a much larger amount might not be applied to the construction of docks, even without any increase in the aggregate amount of the votes for works? His noble Friend 470 might tell him that the present Government had given sufficient proof of the importance they attached to the subject by the plan they had proposed for the enlargement of Chatham Dockyard; but he must say the Admiralty did not appear very eager to give effect to their intentions in that respect, for the Navy Estimates for this year provided only £20,000 towards that work, the entire estimate for which amounted to £900,000. Besides, however important it might be to provide basins and docks at Chatham, it was in the Channel where the want of proper accommodation for the repair of our large ships would be felt the most sensibly in the event of war, and he trusted he should not hear from his noble Friend, that the Admiralty had nothing more comprehensive in their mind in respect of the Channel dockyards than the conversion of two short docks at Devonport into one long dock, and the completion of the north dock out of the steam basin at Portsmouth—which formed part of the original plan, so long ago as the year 1846—for which works provision was made in this year's Estimates. He doubted whether it was generally known how unsuitable to our present navy our dockyards were, even at so recent a period as 1849; from which year he dated the complete success of the screw propeller as applied to the larger classes of ships of war (as instanced in the trials of the Arrogant, 46 gun frigate, and the block ships), and the great increase in their length which had resulted from it. In 1849 the length of our two longest docks was 264 feet, one at Chatham and one at Woolwich. We now had wooden frigates of 280 and 300 feet long; so that in 1849 there was no dock in existence which could contain even the largest wooden frigates of the present day. In that year there were only five docks of 240 feet and upwards in the whole of our dockyards combined, and these were all in the Medway and the Thames. The longest dock at Portsmouth was 228 feet, and at Devonport 234 feet. Since then, iron-plated ships had been built up to 380 and 400 feet, and we now had built, or building, 22 ships of the line, 25 wooden frigates, 17 iron-plated ships, 6 troopships, and 1 yacht, or 71 vessels altogether, which could not have been docked at all at Devonport or Portsmouth in 1849. In short, the reconstruction of our docks ought to have been carried on as 471 energetically as that of the navy itself since that period; but so slack had we been, that at Keyham, where the works were begun in 1845, one half of the north basin remained to this moment incomplete; and the Estimates for this year contained provision for a dock at Portsmouth, which formed part of the plan in connection with the steam basin adopted sixteen years ago. Before the introduction of the screw navy we had twenty-one docks for our two largest classes of vessels, thirteen for line-of-battle ships, and eight for frigates. Now we had built, building, and enlarging, nine docks of 300 feet and upwards, and one of 280 feet, the size of the Defence, which was the smallest of our sea-going iron ships. Out of these ten, four were unfinished; and it must be borne in mind, that not half of these docks would be available for the repair of casualties, such as those to which Admiral Robinson's evidence referred, as a large proportion of the docks was required for vessels undergoing thorough repairs, which frequently occupied from twelve to eighteen months, or even a longer period. The pressure of these thorough repairs had not as yet been felt in the case of our ships of the larger classes, because they were nearly all new ships; but the time was fast approaching when they would require to be repaired far more frequently, and more extensively, than the ships of our old sailing navy, because the wear and tear of steam ships was far greater than of sailing ships, and the heat of the engine rooms was known to occasion premature decay. Even iron ships were often in dock for six months at a time, undergoing extensive repairs. In respect of casualties in time of peace, the calculation was that a sailing ship would run five or six years without being docked, but that steam ships required, on the average, to be docked once a year, and iron ships once in every eight months; so that the demand for the repair of casualties also would be much greater than in former times. Only two days ago, in Portsmouth dockyard, he saw a troop-ship which had been fitted for sea only a few months ago, and had made only one voyage, and that to Ireland, yet she was now in dock and required repairs which he was informed it would take three weeks to complete. If these considerations were calculated to lead to the conclusion that our accommodation for docking our larger classes of ships was inadequate, he did not think we should have more reason to be satisfied 472 with it on a comparison with the resources in that respect of France. He found that in France the area of the dockyard basins was 80 acres, chiefly accessible to the largest ships at their load draught at all tides; while in England the area of the dockyard basins was only 40 acres, chiefly inaccessible to the largest ships even at spring tides. The number of docks in France, including those in progress, was 22, of which only 7 were under 280ft. in length. In England the number was 32, of which no fewer than 22 were under 280ft. Of docks measuring 400ft. and upwards there were in France 8, in England 4; 350ft. to 400ft., in France 2, in England 2; 300ft. to 350ft., in France 4, in England 3; 280ft. to 300ft., in France 1, in England 1. Total of 280ft. and upwards, in France 15; in England 10. Of docks, with 27ft. water and upwards over the sills at spring tides, there were in France 12; in England 6. France, with half our navy, had double our area of basins, twice the number of deep docks, and one-third more long docks. France, therefore, must have been unduly extravagant in respect of docks, or we unduly parsimonious. He should not institute particular comparisons, except as between Portsmouth and Cherbourg dockyards, the position of which invested them with peculiar importance for the defence or attack of this country. In Portsmouth there were two basins of 11 acres, with 25 feet 6 inches of water over the sills at high water, spring tides; in Cherbourg there were three basins of 50 acres, with 30ft. over sills at high water, neap tides, or basins deep enough every day in the year for the largest ships loaded. In Portsmouth there were 3 docks of 300ft. in length and upwards; in Cherbourg there were 6. In Portsmouth there were 2 docks with 27ft. water over the sills at high water, spring tides; in Cherbourg there were eight with 27ft. and upwards. Cherbourg, therefore, had five times the area of basins, twice as many long docks, and four times as many deep docks. Surely that was a state of things which could not be considered satisfactory, and he thought that when we were charging posterity with millions for the defence of the dockyards, we should, at least, hand down to it dockyards which should be worth defending. His noble Friend might, perhaps, say that in future iron-cased ships would not be built of such great length as the Warrior. That might be the case with re- 473 spect to ships intended for coast or harbour defence, but the great bulk of our navy must, as heretofore, consist of seagoing ships, fit to be sent wherever their services might be required, and combining all the conditions essential to the efficiency of a man-of-war. One of those conditions was speed, and as the enormous weight iron-cased ships had to carry required great area of midship section, the fineness of lines necessary to speed could not be obtained without great length, and it did not therefore appear to him that any great diminution in the length of our seagoing iron-plated ships was to be expected. But even if, at a great sacrifice of speed, we contented ourselves with vessels of the Defence class, of the length of only 280ft., or 100ft. shorter than the Warrior, that would not affect his argument in any way, for, in the enumeration he had made, he had included docks of 280ft. long; and he contended, that whether we built ships of the length of 280ft. or of 380ft., additional accommodation for keeping them in repair would be imperatively necessary.With respect to the necessity of providing docks on our distant naval stations, he should not trouble the House with any remarks of his own, as he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, whose opinion would carry with it so much greater weight, would state his views respecting it before the discussion concluded. It was perfectly clear, that if we were to employ on those stations iron ships requiring to be docked at least once a year, the necessary accommodation for that purpose would be indispensable. He had endeavoured to answer by anticipation some of the objections with which he might be met; but he had no doubt that the great objection which would be made to the extension of the dock and basin accommodation he thought necessary would be one of a financial character. He did not think he would be told that our present dock accommodation was sufficient, but he would, in all probability, be asked, Where was the money for its increase to come from? In reply to such a question he would ask if additional docks were necessary for the maintenance of the efficiency of our fleet, and if an efficient fleet was indispensable to the safety of the country, had we come to such a pass that we could not afford the small additional outlay necessary to provide them? His hon. Friends who sat near him, and who had commented on the great in- 474 crease in the amount of the Military Estimates, had declared, at the same time, that whatever was necessary to the safety of the country ought, at whatever cost, to be provided; and he would remark, that the annual Vote for works had not participated in the general increase of the Navy Estimates. Comparing a period of comparatively low expenditure with the present, he found that in 1845–6–7–8 the average of the annual Estimates was £7,522,000; the gross sum voted in those four years was £30,088,000. The sum voted for works in the same period was £2,200,000, or more than 7 per cent of the whole amount. In 1859–60–1–2, the average of the annual Navy Estimates was £13,000,000. The gross sum voted in these four years was £52,000,000. The amount voted for works was £2,024,000, or less than 4 per cent of the gross amount of the Estimates, and actually £176,000 less than the sum voted for works in the years from 1845 to 1848 when the entire amount of the Navy Estimates was so much smaller. The disproportion would have been greater but for the Estimate for works in the year 1859, proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), which was £188,000 more than the average of the last three years. If the Government would only revert to the Estimates for 1859, and apply the £188,000 thus to be obtained to the construction of docks and basins, in addition to the sum of £70,000, which had been the average so applied in the last three years, we should have upwards of £250,000 a year available for these works, which he thought would meet the necessities of the case. He was by no means an advocate for an extravagant extension of the dockyards. He had seen plans for an extension of the works at Keyham, providing three docks and ten acres of basins, the estimate for which was £500,000; a plan for the extension of Portsmouth, giving four docks and twenty-six acres of basins, estimated to cost £750,000; and another alternative plan for works in Southampton Water, estimated at £500,000. A sum of £1,500,000 would probably provide for all he considered absolutely necessary at Devonport and Portsmouth, and at an annual expenditure of £250,000 the works might be completed in six years. When the Navy Estimates were £12,000,000 a year, surely it was absurd to say they could not afford that small addition to the amount, when it was required to give full efficiency 475 to the navy. He had drawn attention to the subject from a conviction of its deep importance; and he was satisfied, that if r were more generally understood, the public voice would be as loud in demanding additional docks as in the demand for additional iron-cased ships. The more we increased the latter, the greater would the necessity for the former become; and he hoped to hear from his noble Friend that the subject would be dealt with in a comprehensive spirit in future Estimates. He concluded by asking, what were the intentions of the Government as to the dock accommodation for the navy?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was glad to find that his right hon. Friend had made upon this occasion a much more moderate proposal than that of which he originally gave notice; but, nevertheless, the present proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would involve a great increase in the public expenditure. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's observations, he (Lord C. Paget) believed he could show, that though the present dock accommodation might not be so extensive as many persons considered requisite, yet, on a calm review, there was no cause for alarm as to any evil results to the efficiency of their fleet in time of war from a want of such accommodation. His right hon. Friend had referred both to the dock and basin accommodation, and of course he had drawn comparisons between the extent of that accommodation in England and France. He (Lord C. Paget) was perfectly willing to admit that the French had gone to an enormous expenditure in the construction of their dockyards, but he denied that we ought necessarily to imitate the policy which might have induced the French Government to create works of such magnitude. It might have had reasons for employing large bodies of men in its seaports as a question of public policy, quite independent of considerations of the real requirements of their navy. The French Government went to a much greater expenditure on public buildings of every kind than we did in this country. That might or might not be an advantage to France; but he believed the course adopted in England was the wisest—they only constructed great public buildings when absolutely required. Instead of creating great public establishments with a view to future wants, they were satisfied to create them according to the wants of the day. However desirable it might be 476 to increase the dock and basin accommodation in the dockyards hereafter, he begged the House to consider the enormous expense of the navy in every branch, and to be satisfied to confine their wants to the necessity of the moment. In comparing England with France, his right hon. Friend had omitted to notice a most important point—that nature had provided for England what she had not provided for France—namely, that in England we had a number of great ports which were themselves natural basins. The dockyard of Portsmouth was a natural basin, in which they could lay ships alongside the yard, at all times and in all seasons, perfectly safe from the weather. Again, at Devonport we had a beautiful natural basin, in which ships could lie alongside the dockyard at all times. There was scarcely a single dockyard in France in which this could be done. Cherbourg, no doubt, was a magnificent port, but ships could not lie alongside the port itself, and artificial basins had to be constructed for the purpose. In Brest and Toulon it was the same. He was not at all prepared to say that it was not a matter deserving of consideration whether we should not further increase our basin accommodation. Her Majesty's Government had not lost sight of so important a subject; and he might mention, as a proof of the attention they had bestowed upon it, the fact that in this year's Estimates they had proposed a sum for the enlargement of the basin at Keyham. His right hon. Friend was not satisfied with the progress that was being made at Chatham; but certain legal proceedings and preparations had to be gone through before those works could be proceeded with at much greater speed. The Admiralty had under their consideration a proposal made by a distinguished officer at Portsmouth dockyard for increasing the basin accommodation by the simple process of creating within the harbour a certain amount of floating wharf accommodation, somewhat similar to what was now done at Liverpool, by means of which vessels could be repaired. Considering, therefore, that France had few natural basins, and that the public works of France to supply this deficiency were on a scale much greater than was necessary for a country possessing fine natural basins like those of England, he thought it would be very unwise in the Government to bring forward any new proposal in respect of basin accommodation which 477 would involve any considerable expenditure beyond that adverted to. So much for the question of basin accommodation. He would next pass to a consideration of the question of docks. He readily admitted that no one was better entitled to offer an opinion upon that subject than his right hon. Friend, who had throughout his whole political life been connected with the navy, and who might fairly be called the father of many of the great works in our dockyards. His right hon. Friend was a great advocate for brick and mortar works in our dockyards; but he would remind his right hon. Friend that the moment people began to tamper with brick and mortar they never knew where their labour and their expenditure would end. His right hon. Friend had quoted Admiral Robinson to show that the country that could soonest repair its iron-cased ships after an action would conquer the seas. He had the highest respect for this opinion; but when officers like Admiral Robinson were examined before Committees, they were asked for their opinion on some particular want of the service, and not on the general question of economy or relative expenditure. If the question had been put to Admiral Robinson, whether, with Estimates of the present magnitude, it would be right to propose an addition of £1,250,000 for docks, his answer might have been different. That was a question for the House of Commons to consider. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that steam ships required docking and repairs much oftener than sailing ships. It was also true, no doubt, that owing to the destructive character of modern ordnance, a fleet would require much more extensive repairs than was formerly the case after an engagement. He would admit, moreover, that iron-cased ships would require docking much oftener than wooden vessels. He would now proceed to state to the House the exact amount of our dock accommodation, and in doing so would confine his observations to the larger class of vessels. The right hon. Gentleman had given a list of iron-cased ships, and of the docks for their reception, but he had omitted to include the docks that were building. [Mr. CORRY: No.] Then the right hon. Gentleman had made a great error in his figures. We had, irrespective of the intended enlarged dockyard at Chatham, either built or building in our dockyards, four of the largest docks, which would take in the largest class of ships. There was in addition at Chatham a dock 478 in which the Achilles, one of the largest class of vessels, was actually being built, but which he would not include, because there was not water in the dock to float that vessel when she was loaded. But would his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) tell him that he could not repair his ship after an action in a dock with 23 feet 6 inches of water because she drew 26 feet of water? Why, his hon. and gallant Friend would take out his guns and stores, and, having lightened his ship, would repair her in the dock. [Sir JOHN HAY: At a great loss of time and much expense.] He did not assert it would be done without inconvenience; but he thought he should astonish his naval friends when he told them the extent of our dock accommodation. There were three iron-cased vessels of the Agincourt class, 400 feet long, built or building, and three of the Warrior class, making six vessels of the first-class. There were either built or building four docks, which would take in these vessels when loaded, or nearly so, besides the dock at Chatham, which would take them in after lightening. If it were said that four docks of this size were not enough, he would ask whether it was not worthy of consideration whether the Admiralty were to go on building an indefinite number of vessels of such extreme length and difficulty of handling? This was a question that he would not enter upon at present, but he would take our whole iron-cased fleet, which he would put at twenty-five ships. Well, there were now built or building seventeen docks, which would take in these twenty-five ships, including all the classes of iron-cased ships now building or already built. [Mr. CORRY said, that the noble Lord had included the floating batteries.] If the right hon. Gentleman excluded the floating batteries from the calculation, the proportion of dock accommodation to the number of vessels was so much the greater. The question, then, was whether, looking to the present wants of the navy, these seventeen docks were not enough. At Chatham there were two docks which would take in vessels of the Royal Sovereign or the Prince Albert class. His right hon. Friend had told them that at Sheerness there was nothing; but at that place there were two docks, which would take in either the Royal Sovereign class or the Prince Albert class.
MR. COREYexplained that he had particularly referred to iron-plated seagoing ships, such as the Defence and vessels of that class. The Royal Sovereign, cut down to the water's edge, could not be called a sea-going vessel.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETconsidered that ships of the Royal Sovereign class were perfectly fit to go to sea, and so were those of the Prince Albert class; and the right hon. Gentleman, if he came back to the Admiralty, and told the officers in command of those ships that their vessels were not able to go to sea, would greatly surprise them. He was perfectly willing to admit that those ships did not carry stores and coals suitable for service across the Atlantic; but for the purpose of going out and fighting a battle in the Channel they were just as fit as any ships in the Royal Navy. He had figures in his hand, furnished to him by the authorities at the dockyards; but, in order not to detain the House, he would only repeat that there were seventeen docks, built and building, for the general purposes of iron-cased ships. This was in addition to the new dockyard to which he had alluded, and to which the House had already agreed, at Chatham, or rather, the extension of that dockyard, in which, he believed, would be contained something like four docks. These, though they could not be counted as docks just yet, were, nevertheless, authorized by Parliament. His right hon. Friend made a great case of the usual comparison with the French docks. No doubt the French had a vast amount of dock accommodation; but, with respect to the Atlantic seaboard, the French were very little better off than the English. In their Atlantic ports the French had altogether sixteen docks. He was referring to the larger class of French docks. His right hon. Friend had told the House that the French ships could actually go into their docks at all times of the tide; but, in reality, the French had, at the present moment, only one dock in their Atlantic ports, and that was at Brest, into which their large-sized vessels could go, except at spring tides. At Havre, which was a mercantile port, he believed that additional dock accommodation was preparing. Such was the present state of the French; and, let him add, that the English were actually in the same position, for there was but one port—at Devonport—which would take in a first-class iron- 480 cased ship at high water in neap tides. These were matters of detail which he was obliged to go through; for, when the right hon. Gentleman alarmed the House by stating that this country was totally unprepared for anything like a European war, he thought he was bound, on the part of the Government, which had carefully considered these matters, to show that such was not the case. In considering the question of dock accommodation, and in comparing the amount possessed by this country with the amount possessed by France, the great advantage to be derived from the English commercial ports ought not to be overlooked. If the French fleets were disabled, it had nothing to fall back upon but the Government dockyards alone, for there did not exist in France great commercial ports which might be used in aid of the Government dockyards. Of all the commercial ports along the whole coast of France, it was actually only at Havre that there was at present in preparation a dock available for the great iron ships of the French navy. But what was the case in respect to England? The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) could tell the House that at Liverpool there were built and building at the present moment docks, together with other facilities, which would really count for resources to this country in the case of emergency. At Southampton there was a dock capable of taking in the Warrior. At Cork there was capacious dock accommodation; and also at other ports round the coast, besides those he had mentioned, amounting to something like fourteen or fifteen more in number. Now, let the House compare this state of things with the dock accommodation possessed by the country in former times. He did not mean to say, that if the building of these great ships should be largely developed, it might not be necessary to increase the dock accommodation, but he maintained that they now possessed both docks and ships, and there was nothing the country needed to be alarmed at. He should like to give the House a notion of what their forefathers thought requisite for the docking of their fleets. He would refer to the year 1815, because in that year the country probably had more pendants flying and ships afloat than at any other period of English history. At that time this country had 219 line-of-battle ships, and only fourteen docks capable of taking in those 219 ships, or one dock for 481 about every fifteen ships. He thought, then that he had shown that though at the present day the wants of the country might be greater, the Government had not neglected those wants. In conclusion, he desired to mention that there was at present a very serious question before the Government in regard to dock accommodation. At this moment they had no means of docking a vessel at Bermuda; and he thought it wise to consider of the best mode of effecting this object, and to determine whether there should be formed one of those floating docks which were deemed advantageous in places where there was little rise or fall of tide. He believed that in the colonies generally there existed no great want of docks. At Malta there was a dock which could take in the Warrior, though he believed that it required some alterations for the purpose. There was also under consideration the question of a second dock connected with great improvements at Malta. The other night the hon. Member for Birkenhead told the House that they ought to construct docks all over the world. The fact was that for this they must trust to their colonial industry, and the colonies had generally got docks. In Australia there were two docks which, though they would not take in the heaviest class of ships, were very fit for vessels of twenty feet draught of water. At Bombay there were two fine docks for vessels of a light draught, and there existed likewise docks at Singapore, Hong-Kong, Amoy, and at various other points on the coast of China, which might not, indeed, be sufficient to receive such vessels as the Achilles or Warrior, but were nevertheless large enough to take in the smaller-sized vessels. It was right that the House should be informed of these things, and also that large sums of money were being laid out at mercantile ports in enlarging dock accommodation, though the public service might not be proceeding to so great an extent, perhaps, as his right hon. Friend would wish; for the right hon. Gentleman's time at the Admiralty was looked on as the golden age, when he was the Palladio of that establishment. The right hon. Gentleman used then to go down to the Board and propose gigantic works; and in going the round of the yards, if a person asked who constructed this or that great work, he was sure to be answered "Mr. Corry." His right hon. Friend had left his mark upon all the dockyards. He 482 gave his right hon. Friend credit for his exertions; but he asked him now to sit down contentedly, satisfied that succeeding Governments would take pains to increase the dock accommodation wherever it might be required, and not to alarm the House by statements that this country was unfit, in the case of emergency, to assume her proper station.
§ MR. LAIRDsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty now admitted that Government were constructing a dock at Bermuda, and a second dock at Malta, though he turned into ridicule the suggestions which he (Mr. Laird) had made upon the subject of docks on a former occasion. [Lord C. PAGET: Not at all.] It was not he, but the noble Lord himself that talked of building docks all over the world. His own observations were confined to our stations abroad. As the noble Lord had made that statement, he (Mr. Laird) supposed that his representations had produced some effect, and he should not go into details upon which he should otherwise have entered. There was one point in particular to which he wished to call attention, and his views upon the subject were confirmed by those of the responsible officers of the Admiralty—the want of basin accommodation. That want had caused a great increase of cost to the country in the management of the navy, for when a ship was obliged to refit in the stream, as the men were obliged to go backwards and forwards in boats, and all the stores had to be taken out, a great part of the time was lost. So greatly were the advantages of basin accommodation valued by the merchant service, that docks had been constructed in the Thames on both sides of the river. In the evidence which Captain Washington and Admiral Robinson gave before the Chatham Dockyard Committee, they stated that the want of basin accommodation was very demoralizing to the men employed, who lost 20 per cent of their time going backwards and forwards; it added to the expense, and created great difficulty in carrying on the work. The whole basin accommodation now in all the Government dockyards was only about forty acres. And yet an enormous sum of money had been spent on those dockyards, into which they constantly saw that vessels could not enter. About £1,500,000 within a few years had been spent in patching and altering the docks. Would it not be better to see at once whether, by a judicious construction of docks, 483 the cost of the necessary outlay would not be repaid? He had no doubt that a proper addition to the basin accommodation, if it did not repay the whole cost in a few years, would at any rate pay a very large interest on the outlay. There were plenty of docks in the country long and wide enough, but the draught of water was not sufficient. It might be sufficient if they took the stores out—[Lord C. PAGET: Hear, hear!]—but there was no time for that. He maintained, that in order to work the navy economically, this country ought to have basins where all the necessary stores could be put on board, and where the ships could be taken in or out without lightening them. He had communicated with every public and private dockowner in the country, and he had no hesitation in saying that at this moment there were only two private graving docks in the country that would take in the Warrior, or any vessel of that class. There was one at Birkenhead, a private one, that would take in the Warrior with all her stores on board, and there was another at Southampton. On the Liverpool side of the Mersey there was one large entrance to a dock, or rather it was a lock, that the Warrior could be taken into; but she could not lie there without stopping the commerce requiring to pass into and out of the dock. He did not deny that, in case of emergency, the vessel could be placed there to be examined. He had often done this himself; but vessels could not be allowed to lie there, or else the whole trade of the port would be stopped. The entrance to the Huskisson dock at Liverpool was another of the same kind; but as for regular graving docks to receive the Warrior, there were but two in the country. Now, with regard to the question of cost for additional basin accommodation, it would not be enormous if it were gone properly about. The graving dock at Birkenhead that he had spoken of cost about £25,000, and the one at Southampton £60,000. Taking the floating basins and docks at Birkenhead as a guide, he believed that the necessary additional basin accommodation for the navy could be constructed for £25,000 to £30,000 an acre; so that a sum of £1,000,000 or £1,200,000 ought to be sufficient to double the present dock accommodation. But if they were to go on as they had done, spending £1,500,000 in patching and altering, they would be very little better off than they were at present. Looking at the change from sail- 484 ing to steam-vessels, and from a wooden navy to an iron one, he would still maintain that we should require a much larger extent of basin and graving dock accommodation than we had now. If we must maintain our naval superiority, as all admitted that we must, then we must also provide dock accommodation. It was what any man would do in his own business—that was the test; and what was economical for commercial men was economical for the country. He was glad to hear that a dock was to be built at Bermuda and another at Halifax, because if we were to have war with America, it would not do to bring our vessels for repairs across the Atlantic to this country. And the same remarks would apply, in case of war with France, to the convenience of docks at Malta, where we were to have two. If docks were not provided now in time of peace, the result would be that we should go into the matter when there was war, and in our haste we should spend three or four times as much money as would be necessary at present. He believed that an expenditure of £200,000 a year for five or six years, would put the country in a safe condition as regarded the Channel fleet.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the Government had entirely altered their tone since last year with respect to the necessity for additional docks and basins. The noble Lord had spoken more like a Chancellor of the Exchequer than a Secretary to the Admiralty, and had, by confounding the two subjects of docks and basins, completely mystified the debate. In the Committee on Chatham Docks last year, of which he (Sir James Elphinstone) was a member, Admiral Robinson was asked whether he considered there was sufficient dockyard accommodation for the existing fleet; and he said certainly there was not, and added that he did not hesitate to say that the want of sufficient docks and basins was attended with national danger. The growth of ships, he said, far exceeded the growth of docks and basins, although great efforts during the last ten years had been made to keep pace with it. He also stated that the creation of a steam fleet rendered an immense amount of dock accommodation indispensable. Admiral Robinson was then asked a question as to the extent of the basin and dockyard accommodation in France; and he said the docks and basins in that country exceeded 485 two hundred and twenty acres, as opposed to forty acres of docks and basins in England, which, included a basin at Deptford, and another at Woolwich, which were worthless for the purposes of large ships. At Cherbourg alone there was a floating dock of fifty acres, and the whole harbour at Brest was a floating basin. The opinion of the Surveyor of the Navy, and the evidence of Captain Washington, was in favour of an increase in dock accommodation; and upon their evidence the Committee of last year recommended that the docks at Chatham should be enlarged;—and in his view of the case, the new works there would cost the country £1,000,000 before they were completed. Now, what was the position of Chatham in reference to this question? It was the opinion of every sea-faring man, that if the fate of the country should ever come to depend upon the issue of a naval battle, that battle must take place in the Channel, and in that case they ought to have a place near in which they could repair the ships which might be disabled. Now, supposing six or eight of our ships to be disabled, what would be the use of our basins at Chatham? Actions in the present day would not be like the actions of former days, for with the improved artillery, two wooden vessels in close action would not last for many minutes; and in the event of iron ships suffering, harbours for their reception ought to be very near at hand. He would look at this question from the point of view of a shipowner, and he would say that anything more reckless or disgraceful than the system pursued by the admiralty in the management of the dockyards could not be. In 1794 the East India Company were so impressed with the disadvantages of fitting in the stream, that the East India Docks were constructed, and in 1805 the West India Docks were made; and a great saving had resulted to all those shipowners who had resorted to them—an improvement which had since been followed by every mercantile community in the kingdom. As to repairing ships in the Hamoaze, it was well known that in some weathers the men could not get off the shore, or from the hulks in which they lived; and as to hulks, every Commission or Committee which had sat on the subject of the dockyards and their accommodation had denounced the system of hulks, and had recommended barracks instead, and had also strongly recom- 486 mended basins, in which the ships might be refitted. If the ships could be docked, the men employed would be able to live near their friends, and would learn habits of sobriety and good conduct, and be weaned from those irregularities and vices to which seamen were prone; and if this country had more dock room, there would not be the necessity which now existed for sending their ships and men to Lisbon in winter, to spend their money in a foreign country. He could not allow the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to ride off upon the platitudes and generalities with which he had overlaid this subject during this debate, without making some observations against the course pursued by the Admiralty. With regard to the Colonies, he found there was no dock room at Calcutta larger than would dock the Pylades, which he believed was a 22-gun ship. At Hong-Kong and Whampoa there was no dock, and at Bombay there was the dock in which all the old wooden ships had been built. Then at Sydney there was not dock room for a ship of more than 1,500 tons. There was not, as he had been informed, a single dock in India or New South Wales which could take in the flag-ship on the station if required. The noble Lord admitted there was no dock at Malta, Bermuda, or at Halifax, sufficient to take in the Warrior. Then where were those docks of which he had spoken? He (Sir James Elphinstone) did not know; and that being the state of the case, he should support the Motion of his right hon. Friend, and he trusted the House would hear from another Member of the Government a more satisfactory account than the noble Lord had given them.
CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he considered the question before the House not only one of efficiency, but of economy; because, by a judicious expenditure of money in providing dock and basin accommodation, a large amount would be saved to the public. The present system of fitting, arming, provisioning, and storing our ships in the stream was utterly absurd; and the sooner it was put an end to the better, which could only be done by having large and deep floating basins, with ample quay accommodation. When he looked across the Channel, he found that France had seen the necessity of abolishing the system; and the mercantile marine of this country had also given, it up, in consequence of the very large ex- 487 pense it involved. He would suppose the case—one which, he said was not unlikely to occur—of the Channel fleet comprising ten or a dozen Warriors, after cruising for a certain time, requiring to be refitted and re-coaled, and anchoring at Spithead for the purpose. What organization, he should wish to know, was provided to admit of the object being carried into effect? The probability was that the ships would have to wait for a considerable time for high water to take them into Portsmouth Harbour, where no adequate means were provided for placing coals or provisions on board. The consequence would be that the fleet would have to be divided and the ships sent, some to Plymouth, some to Chatham, others elsewhere, after a haphazard fashion, which he thought entirely inconsistent with the due maintenance of our naval power. He thought the House ought to enter into the discussion of the subject with enlarged and clear views; they should consider a proper and sufficient system for the accommodation of the navy to be a matter which touched the honour and dignity of this country, especially as they had been told, on the authority of Rear Admiral Robinson, the Comptroller of the Navy, "that with proper dock and basin accommodation, one ship would do the duty of two," and also "that the nation that could first repair its damaged ships after an action, would thereby at once double its force." He could not but admire the policy that had been adopted in France. The French had long been impressed with the great importance of this subject, and had for many years, and again quite recently, made large additions to their dock and basin accommodation; and he was afraid that our exertions in that direction could not for a moment be compared to theirs. He was glad to hear, however, that the Government had, to some extent, carried out the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) last Session. In regard to foreign stations a good deal of money would be saved in the end, and efficiency secured, by our having small establishments abroad where our ships could be refitted in the shortest possible space of time. By sending them home for repair we lost their services during many months, and, in addition, risked their being taken by the enemy in time of war. In his opinion, the great fault of the Admiralty for years past had 488 been the adoption of a patchwork and shifty system. The time had come when we must look ahead, and see whether we could not devise a large and comprehensive plan capable of extension to keep pace with the requirements of the service. All now admitted the necessity for additional dock and basin accommodation—the question for consideration was, where that accommodation should be provided. He was not prepared to express any very definite opinion upon that point; but, at the same time, he confessed he was surprised at the conclusion to which the Royal Commissioners had come. No one could doubt, of course, that there should be some dock and basin accommodation at Chatham; but he thought it would be unwise to spend any very large sum of money at that place. Chatham was reached through the most difficult part of the Channel, and the Medway was a narrow and tortuous river, presenting serious obstacles to the progress of large ships; and a part of the plan approved of by the Commission was to expend £45,000 in dredging that river—a sum, in his opinion, much more useful if used for the deepening of the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour. Our docks and basins should be constructed where our ships were most likely to be employed, and where they could be got ready for sea with the least possible delay. The French had constructed Cherbourg almost solely with the intention of making it a fitting dock. After an engagement in the Channel their fleet would be able to enter Cherbourg at all times of the tide, and when refitted it would be ready at once to go to sea. Our fleet, on the contrary, would have to be dispersed all over the island, and would thus be liable to be taken in detail. He trusted that no reasonable expense would be grudged for improving our position in this respect. Both efficiency and economy would be gained by a wise and liberal expenditure of money in the construction of new docks and basins.
§ MR. WHITBREADdid not intend to follow the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) through the whole of his speech, nor would he say more of the alarming picture he had drawn of the frightful and disgraceful state of demoralization into which the British navy had fallen, owing to the practice of fitting out vessels in the stream than that he did not believe it to be accurate. The hon. 489 Baronet, having settled the precise spot where the naval action big with the fate of England was to be fought, had informed the House that, in consequence of the improvements made in modern artillery, a combat between a British ship and one belonging to the enemy would be so decisive that for one of the vessels dock accommodation would be perfectly useless, while for the other it would not be required. He had also stated that the tone of the Government had undergone a change in regard to the increase of dock accommodation since the publication of the Report of the Select Committee. He would like to know in what respect it was different. It would be recollected that the recommendation of the Committee was, that if more dock and basin accommodation were required, there was no place where it could be better provided than at Chatham. The Government did not delay to act upon that suggestion, but, on the contrary, submitted to the House a vote which would enable it to construct such an establishment at Chatham as would not only be superior to the best existing dock in England, but equal to anything of the kind in France. Moreover, the House had already sanctioned an extension of the basin at Keyham, which it was intended to make large enough to admit vessels of the Warrior class; and in the Estimates for the present year provision had been made for the construction of two more docks at Portsmouth, for the accommodation of the largest ships. He might state, further, that plans were now under consideration for providing a large extent of additional quay accommodation at Portsmouth, which, for all purposes of fitting out vessels, would be quite equal to basins. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) had complained that for several years past the Admiralty had been patching up existing establishments, with the view of rendering them capable of accommodating large vessels. Surely the House would not join with the hon. Member in censuring the Admiralty for pursuing so wise a policy. The last instance of the kind was at Keyham, and in this year's Estimates they had taken the sum of;£6,000 for a further increase of those docks. If the Admiralty had not taken the course of proposing the enlargement of the existing docks, but had proposed to construct new ones, and for that they must have found new Bites, and built new 490 factories, and provided new accommodation for the workmen and the staff. The expense of that would be enormous; whereas the cost of altering existing docks—such, for instance, as the dock at Keyham—so as to enable them to accommodate ships of the largest class, would be comparatively trifling. Something had been said by the last speaker against the selection of Chatham. That question was considered before the present Government came into office, arid the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had recorded his opinion that Chatham was the best place which could be chosen as the site of large docks and basins for the refitting of ships. It seemed to be taken for granted that the decisive action must be fought just outside the Isle of Wight. But, many years ago we had a large fleet in the Baltic. We might have a fleet there again, and he submitted that for ships coming home from the Baltic Chatham was, at least, as convenient a port as Portsmouth, or any other place in the Channel. A complaint had been made that the Government had not taken a sufficient Vote for the works at Chatham. He assured the House that the amount of work was not to be measured, in the first instance at any rate, by the sum put down in the Estimates. For some time to come the work at Chatham would consist almost exclusively of excavation, and he need hardly say that it would be done by convicts.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought the object his right hon. Friend had in view in raising this question would be sufficiently answered if he had reason to believe and hope that the serious attention of the Government would be directed to the subject, although he confessed he wished his right hon. Friend had been able to elicit still more distinctly something like an intention to carry out this great object hereafter. He was sorry, however, to say, that although he hoped the hon. Gentleman who spoke last was alive to the importance of the subject, the tone of the noble Lord's speech was rather more evasive than he liked to hear. If he were to render that speech into briefer and plainer English, it would amount to something like this:—"We do not deny the importance of the question, we do not deny that the subject is pressing; we acknowledge that what you propose ought to be done. But 491 England cannot afford to do it." Now, that was a question which the present Government ought well to consider; for if there was any financial difficulty, he could only observe that it arose from the reckless manner in which they had thrown away a portion of the resources of the country. It was for the House of Commons to take care that our great naval arm should not be weakened by improvidence of that kind. The noble Lord appeared rather to evade the merits of the question, and imputed to his right hon. Friend a desire to promote extravagance; he even ventured to insinuate that his right hon. Friend had been guilty of extravagance in former days with reference to Keyham dockyard. Now, he thought the country much indebted to his right hon. Friend for having, when in office some years ago, originated the great improvements which had been carried out at Keyham. His noble Friend would admit that it was impossible to refer to a higher authority on such a subject than the late Sir James Graham. Now, in the first instance, when his right hon. Friend brought forward the plan for enlarging Keyham dockyard, Sir James Graham was strongly opposed to it; but at a subsequent period, when Sir James Graham was again at the head of the Admiralty, he complimented his right hon. Friend, acknowledged his original error, and said the country were greatly indebted to him for what he had done; and Sir James Graham himself proceeded to add to Keyham dockyard and enlarge the basins there. The noble Lord had taunted his right hon. Friend with being the Palladio of the dockyards, and indulging his taste with colonnades and pilasters; but the fact was, his right hon. Friend had nothing to do with the colonnades and pilasters at Keyham, to which the noble Lord referred; these were added by a subsequent Board of Admiralty. But, after all, the real question was whether they ought not to provide dock and basin accommodation according to the proportions of the ships that were being built. That was a question of common sense. Who would think of buying a horse when he had no stable, or a handsome carriage when he had no coach-house? No doubt, a stable or coach-house might be hired; but the requisite dock and basin accommodation could not be hired. That accommodation, he repeated, should be according to the proportions of the ships 492 being built. His noble Friend rather tried to mystify the House in his statement as to the extent of dock accommodation the country at present possessed. Now, here, was the Return which had been made on the subject, and what did it show? There were two columns. The first showed what was the present dock accommodation, and the second what it would be when the proposed alterations were carried out. The test laid down was the docks which would admit the Warrior, and the number of days in each month in which that vessel could be docked at each of the Government yards. He found it ran thus—Deptford, not at all; Woolwich, not at all; Chatham, not at all; and so on. Going down the column of Dockyards till he came to Portsmouth, he found that was the only dockyard where at present the Warrior could be docked at full tide on six days during the month. At Pembroke there were twenty-four feet of water, but the Warrior drew twenty-seven feet; and when lightened, her guns and stores being removed, he believed they could not reduce her to draw only twenty-two feet, so as to get her into that dock. Now, the Warrior was afloat, the Black Prince was afloat, and they were adding to the navy as speedily as they could four other vessels of that class. The question then arose what docks had they to put them in? and it appeared that at the present moment we had but one dock capable of receiving our largest iron-plated ships. This consideration alone was enough to justify his right hon. Friend's remarks. Then as to the other column, which related to the accommodation we should have when the proposed alterations were carriedout— taking all the docks in England there would be only four, one of these being a second dock at Portsmouth, in respect to which there was a somewhat important limitation in the words noted in the Return, "any day when in the basin or when entering the basin." Thus even the prospective dock accommodation was reduced to three instead of four. Then as to basin accommodation, it should not be forgotten that we were not standing still, but retrograding. While increasing the size of our ships we were not only not increasing, but actually diminishing, our available basin accommodation. Our basin accommodation, which a few years ago at Portsmouth would take in eight of our large ships, would now, from the increased size pf our ships, only accommodate four. 493 He did hope that the Government would seriously take this subject into their consideration, and not be deterred by the necessary expenditure it would involve. His noble Friend had tried to alarm, the House with an exaggerated idea of that expenditure. His right hon. Friend, indeed, had mentioned the sum of £1,250,000, but it was right to point out that that expenditure would be spread over six or eight years, Mid would not add more than £200,000 to the annual Estimates.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that as the noble Lord had referred to him, he would just state to the House what had actually occurred within his experience. During the Crimean war the Black Sea fleet had to be repaired at Malta. They all had to be docked, and the necessity of docks was greatly increased by the use of steam power. The dock at Malta was one of those docks to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) so well alluded. The dock had been constructed with twenty-one feet of water over the sill, and was just long enough to take in the largest ships that were then employed in the Mediterranean. Shortly after it was constructed, it was found that steam-ships required much more dock accommodation, and it was therefore decided that the dock should be lengthened. It was lengthened accordingly, but the sill was not deepened; and the inner part of the dock being made ten feet deeper than the outer part, there was no possible means of getting ships through the shallow outer dock into the deeper inner one. The ship that he had the honour to command required to be docked at Malta in order to be repaired; and as she drew twenty-seven feet of water, it was necessary to lighten her to twenty-two feet, by taking out all her guns, her coals, her stores, her top-gallant masts, and part of her engines and machinery. The preparations for getting her into dock took a week, while the repairs she had to undergo when they did get her into the dock only occupied three hours. If that dock had been large enough, and the sill as deep as the inner part, the whole of the Mediterranean fleet could have been docked in two days. It had been said that we had 219 line-of-battle ships in 1815. But at that time line-of-battle ships did not necessarily require to be docked in order to be repaired, but it was now indispensable. An old line-of-battle ship could be hove down and repaired wherever it might be, but our 494 modern steam-ships were placed under totally different conditions. The only way of having those ships refitted, with convenience, economy, and despatch, was to have docks into which they could be taken while fully equipped for war.
§ MR. J. H. PHILIPPSsaid, the Committee which sat last year on the extension of Chatham dockyard had confined themselves to the subject referred to them, and were not deserving of censure for not going beyond their instructions.
MR. G. L. PHILLIPShoped that the Government would give due attention to the capabilities of Pembroke, which was most favourably situated for works of this description.
§ MR. R. W. DUFFcould not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) on the time he had chosen for bringing forward a proposal to spend a million and a quarter on dock accommodation.