HC Deb 28 April 1863 vol 170 cc898-919
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he rose to move an Address for a Commission to inquire into the best mode of constructing Iron-clad Ships. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, for he should have claimed his support for the Motion, since its object was not only to place our navy on the best footing, but I also to effect a large saving of expenditure. The noble Duke who presided over the Admiralty with so much ability, and had shown himself a laborious public servant, had some time since, in his evidence before the Committee on the Admiralty, stated his opinion that the Members of the Board of Admiralty were overworked, and he had repeated it the other day at Sheffield, when he said that the absence of the Lords of the Admiralty from town for a day or two would greatly increase their work when they got back, and would cause serious embarrassment to the public service. At that moment they were engaged in the third costly reconstruction of the navy within his (Sir James Elphinstone's) time, and that change was not only one of form but of material. The whole responsibility of this enormous change rested on a body which, by the acknowledgment of its chief, was overworked. The evidence given before the Select Committee showed that there was not one officer of the Board who was not overworked, and under these circumstances he asked the House to refer the important question to which he referred to a great council, which, not relieving the Admiralty of its responsibility, would advise them on the results of the various experiments which had recently been made. The first nucleus of their iron fleet were the batteries built after the model of those sent by the Emperor of the French, which acted at Kinburn. From their peculiar square shape, they could not be moved about very easily from one part of the world to another; but he thought that the Admiralty, by putting bows and sterns to them, might have made them capable of being moved from one part of the coast to another, and exceedingly effectual for coast and harbour defences. The importance of iron vessels was then thoroughly proved, bat the Admiralty went on building wooden ships, though it was beyond a doubt that they were little better than floating slaughterhouses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich, in the time of the Earl of Derby's Government, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to build iron sea-going vessels, and he did then very much what it was proposed by his Motion to do—he assembled a council of most able scientific men who, though not a Commission in form, partook of the nature of a Commission in every essential respect. They determined on the form of the Warrior and the Black Prince, and certainly nothing could surpass those vessels as models of naval architecture. He had recently been on board the Black Prince, and had examined every part of her which would be likely to show signs of distress after an eight or nine months' cruise and a good deal of bad weather. Certainly, a more durable structure he had never looked upon; and if it had not been for the discoloration of the paint inside and out, it would have been impossible to perceive that she had gone through such work. Still, her extraordinary length and her limited power of steerage would completely prevent her from being serviceable when she had lost her way in action. He was told that the manœuvre of wearing had been carried out off Lisbon, and that on one occasion, if not on more than one, there was an interval of seven miles between the first and the last ship when they came round. It was impossible in any sea whatever to get these ships round to the wind, and he was given to understand that it had been necessary to apply extra steam power to work the helm. These ships, 400 feet long, were rigged with three masts—those of 90-gun ships. While the size of the ships was enormously increased, the stature of the men remained the same. A ship's company did not average more than 5 ft. 5 in. or 5 ft. 6 in. in height, and they could not furl the sails of such masts or do anything smartly aloft. The ships ought to be masted with four masts, and a just proportion obtained between the size of the rigging and the size of the men. The other ships were more manageable, but he was not at all clear they were not also too large. They were certainly more easily handled, and were more comfortable to work, but he was not sure that they would not be condemned on account of size. There was another objection to the iron fleet, in the diversity of size. The ruling speed of a fleet was the speed of the slowest ship in it; and while vessels like the Warrior could go fifteen or sixteen knots an hour, there were some which, after a few weeks at sea, would scarcely maintain a speed of nine knots. In his opinion, equality of speed should be more rigidly maintained. The House had so lately heard from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty a statement as to the French iron-clad fleet, which he believed was only being strictly worked up to the programme laid down by the French marine policy, that he would say nothing more upon that question. But, with regard to the iron fleet of America, events which had taken place had thrown a strong light upon the subject. In the construction of iron ships the American naval administration had been most completely untrammelled, and it was an extraordinary tiling that with the skill in shipbuilding which the Americans undoubtedly possessed they had not yet succeeded in constructing one serviceable iron-clad ship. The most reliable information as to the American iron fleet to which he had access was contained in a French work, Revue Maritime et Colonials, in which the American ships were minutely described. It appeared that there were eight or ten different classes, that the vessels varied in size from 4,000 tons down to 700, that they were of every variety of speed, and that they had every variety of coating. Yet in the recent attack on Charleston the nine iron-clads were entirely defeated, one being sunk and the others got off with great difficulty. One ship, to which he would beg particularly to call the noble Lord's attention, because she greatly resembled the Warrior in construction, the Ironsides, totally and entirely refused to answer her helm. The Indianola, one of the largest of the iron-clad ships, having lost her way, was attacked by two small gunboats, who punished her to such a degree that they were obliged to run her aground, and she then became a prey to the Confederates or was destroyed. The iron fleet of England was entirely destitute of ships of the description which thus subdued the Indianola. "We had no vessels laid down to carry a single heavy gun and to go at a good rate of speed; so that in the event of a ship like the Warrior being brought to a standstill by an attacking ship, they could fire at those points of infirmity, such as the screw gearing, sternpost, or part below the water line, which would undoubtedly bring the enemy's ship into such a position that her crew must abandon her. It was a pity the paper which contained reflections on the builders of iron ships in private yards had ever been written, and a still greater pity that it had ever been published, he had always said that it would be an imprudent thing for the Government to resort to private yards for wooden ships of war, because the private yards could never have such a large stock of seasoned timber as the Government yards, and, do what they would, could never turn out such ships as the Government. But iron shipbuilding was a totally different thing, and he defied any one to say that the iron ships built in private yards were not the perfection of naval architecture as far as structure was concerned. He thought, however, that as shipwrights were really the best class of workmen for iron ships, and by education and intelligence superior to ordinary blacksmiths, the Government should without delay set about building iron ships in all the dockyards. It was idle to say that there was any difficulty in that; for wherever the tide rose in a river to the height of some twenty feet, the manufacture of iron ships could go on to any extent.

His object in moving for the Commission was not to interfere with the construction of those ships which it had been the pleasure of Parliament to sanction. It was with regard to the fleet of the future that he wished inquiry should take place; and that when the ships were completed, which he thought had been erroneously sanctioned, they should fall into an intelligible rule and obtain vessels of a more serviceable nature. He would express no opinion as to the comparative merits of broadsides and turret ships. He left that matter to be disposed of by the Commission. But the Admiralty would fail altogether in their duty if they laid down another ship without making allowance for the adoption of an invention almost, if not quite, perfected, which could alone overcome the fault of unwieldiness through length; he meant the invention of the double screw. He had the pleasure of witnessing on Saturday the trial of a vessel called the Hebe, an account of which many hon. Members had seen in The Times newspaper. The Hebe was fitted with two engines and two screws working entirely independent of one another. She possessed the same advantage over a ship having but one screw that a two-armed man might be supposed to have over a man with only one arm. If one of her screws were disabled, she could go three-quarter speed with the other. With one screw going ahead and the other reversed, she was able to turn on her axis, and in twenty seconds she could bring her guns to bear on any object. The two engines weighed little more than half the weight of one single direct screw engine; and from having those engines in the lower part of the ship they were enabled to put her coal bunkers up to protect her boilers from shot. The great advantage, however, of her construction was the power of manœuvring—the power of going ahead or astern and of turning round—which it gave her; a desideratum in warfare which it was impossible to overrate, and which the Achilles, the Warrior, and the Black Prince did not possess.

He wished next to observe that the Iron Committee, over which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) presided, had now, in his opinion, proceeded so far in its inquiry as to have rendered the subject ripe for the consideration of such a council as that which he proposed. He should also press upon the Government the necessity of finishing those ships which were intended for the navy, of making trials of them, and of placing themselves in a position to refer to authentic reports emanating from the captains of ships new in commission. The re- suit of such reports, if laid before the Commission, would, he felt assured, be completely to put an end to those unwieldy structures, which it was as impossible to manœuvre in action as to render capable of being controlled by their crews. The great object of the Admiralty had, it appeared to him, for some time past been to wait until they could construct ships which would be practically invulnerable; but the principle of action would, he apprehended, be in all future warfare much the same as it was in the days of our ancestors. The great reason why speed was desirable was, that a ship might be able to close with the enemy; and having done so, he saw only one thing which a naval officer, following the example of those who fought under Nelson, had to do, and that was to lay himself as near to the enemy as possible and batter him till he surrendered. One shot-hole, he might add, never destroyed a ship. In the action before Port Constantine, for instance, the Sanspareil, a wooden vessel, was exposed for five hours to an exceedingly severe fire. She was struck by twenty-four shells and nine round shots, and what was the effect? Why, that the first blow tore off her skin, and laid open her timbers for a space of from ten feet long to one foot four inches broad. Other shots laid open her timbers to a like extent; her funnel was broken, and her rigging set on fire; yet she not only continued in action till the end, but when the signal to discontinue was made, at five o'clock in the afternoon, she was enabled to get away, was eventually repaired, came home to England, and was still in the service, There was a circumstance took place in the case in question to which he did not think the attention of the Admiralty had been sufficiently directed, and that was that the smoke and vapour from the fighting decks of the vessel descended into her engine-room so as almost entirely to put out her fires and to prevent the generation of steam; so that when the signal was made to discontinue the action, she could only make a knot and a half until the vapour had cleared away. It was the opinion of the officer who had charge of the engine-room, who now occupied a high official position at Portsmouth dockyard, that after ten minutes of close action the whole of the ships might be brought to a standstill from that cause. In that ease the small gunboats to which he had referred might deliver from their 100-pounder guns with impunity a fire which would disable those ships and compel their crews to quit them.

He next came to that which was the most material part of the observations which he had to address to the House—he meant the dock and basin accommodation which it was necessary they should provide for their iron fleet in different quarters of the world. It was a most remarkable fact, that while they had a navy which penetrated every sea, the Government had out of England but one dock in which they could dock an old line-of-battle ship, and that was at Bombay. At Quebec and Halifax they had no dock of the kind. The same might be said of Bermuda and of Port Royal; while in the whole British American possessions there was no dock in which they could dock a frigate. At the Mauritius there was a mercantile dock 300 feet long, another 318, and a third 378. At Singapore a dock was being constructed, while at Calcutta the Government dockyard was for sale; the dockyard at Bombay being for sale also, if he was rightly informed. Now, if a war were to take place, the number of iron transports in their employ would keep the private mercantile docks constantly engaged, and there would therefore be no space available for Government vessels. An iron man-of-war could not keep the sea unless her bottom could be cleaned at short intervals. The zoophytes which attached themselves in tropical climates dropped off as soon as the ship got into fresh water, but the crustaceous mollusca could not be got rid of except by scraping. The fish died in fresh water, but the shells still adhered to the iron. He himself had seen chain cables rendered useless from such incrustations. He thought that he had shown ample reasons for the inquiry for which he was seeking; and believing that it was his duty as an independent Member to protest against further action being taken with regard to iron ships building without the consultation of the greatest authorities of the country upon the matters which had come under the observation of scientific men during the last year or two, he would move an Address to Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the best mode of construction and form of the Iron-clad Ships which are to compose the future Navy of England; to report upon the Ships presently built and building, and the amount of Dock and Basin ac- commodation required for their use at Home and Abroad.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the best mode of construction and form of the Iron-clad Ships which are to compose the future Navy of England; to report upon the Ships presently built and building, and the amount of Dock and Basin accommodation required for their use at Home and Abroad.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that it had been generally confessed that there was a fault somewhere in the Admiralty; and that the tendency of a great many of the speeches in that House, during the Session, had been to show that the country did not get value for the money it had expended; he thought therefore that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had only given expression to the general opinion of the House, and of the country, when he complained of the mistakes which were made in the construction of ships. Money was completely frittered away in dockyards; ships were constantly altered while in course of construction, at the whim of successive projectors; when the frames had been put up, they were often taken down to be altered in form; when the hull had been finished, it was frequently cut in half to be lengthened; and after ships had been constructed at vast expense, they were sometimes never sent to sea, but ultimately sold as old stores. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had said, the other night, that the fate of the country might depend upon the issue of a single naval combat. How important was it, then, that ships should be well built; for if, in a squadron of vessels, a large proportion of them proved to be slow sailers, the vessels that came up first might be overpowered, and the fleet defeated in detail. If, on the other hand, we had a powerful navy, we could afford to look on, and husband our resources while other nations were weakening themselves by war; and then, at the last, we could step in, as the arbiters of the difference, and the balance of Power, in Europe. While, however, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the grievance, he could not but distrust the remedy which he had suggested. If the hon. Baronet had proposed, as from his speech he had appeared to desire, that there should be a permanent council to advise the Admiralty, he would have concurred with him. What he had moved for, however, was a Commission. Now, a Commission was expensive; it sat for many years, did but little work, and if it came to any conclusion, that conclusion was shelved in a blue-book, and never acted upon. The remedy proposed was, moreover, transitory and ephemeral. The Commission was to sit for two or three years to examine the ships being built at that time; in this its effects would not extend beyond the present moment. It was, however, also to consider the best mode of construction and form of iron-clad ships. If they had on the Commission no one who knew enough of naval architecture to lay down the law upon the subject, the Commissioners would sit merely as students of that science. What he desired to see was a permanent benefit from a self-supporting institution, such as had existed in France for many years, with great success. He looked for the establishment of a body of naval engineers. In order to explain this institution, he would adopt that division of the naval administration which was current in France. First, there was the Political Division, which regarded the connection of the navy with the Foreign and Colonial departments, as well as the patronage which it involved. Secondly, there was what was called, by the French, the "Personelle," which concerned the supply of men; and thirdly, the "Construction," which had reference to the supply of ships, and the construction of the fleet. With the first and second divisions he would not interfere; he would eliminate them altogether, and apply himself to the consideration of the third. In this country 9,000 men were employed in the construction of ships. These were divided into thirty-two or thirty-three trades: of these, sixteen or seventeen were unvarying, or stationary in their application; such as joiners, painters, smiths, &c.; and the remainder, which had reference to the building of ships, varied in their requirements; because no two ships were ever built precisely alike. It was with the latter class of trades alone that he desired to interfere. He would eliminate the former, and deal with the shipwrights' trades alone. They comprised 4,000 men, who had over them 152 officers—namely, a First Constructor of the Navy, with a salary of £900; two second constructors, seven master shipwrights, seven timber inspectors, nine master shipwrights' assistants, thirty-two foremen of the yard, seven first converters, five second converters, twenty-two measurers, seventeen first-class inspectors of shipwrights, and forty-three second-class inspectors at salaries of £125 each. The wages of the men varied from 6s. to 7s. 6d. a day. The officers rose from the ranks, promotions being governed by fixed rules. First, let the House consider the age which a man would attain before he could become Chief Constructor. He must pass all the grades before he could get to the top; not to do so would be a violation of the rules. By these rules it was specified that he must serve seven years before he could become an artificer, three years as second leading man, three years as leading man, three years as a writer; and then three years for each of the officers' grades—in all twenty-seven years, making a total of forty-three years as the shortest period within which a man could rise to the highest grade. If, therefore, he entered the service at sixteen or eighteen years of age, he would be over sixty before he became Chief Constructor. Secondly, without wishing to disparage this body, he must call the House to their standard of education. What knowledge of the science of naval architecture, involving the highest mathematical science, could be possessed by men whoso whole time was absorbed in severe manual labour. In fact, it was only the few remaining pupils of the old school of naval architecture who had any knowledge of the science, or were fit to design a ship. This source, the House was aware, had long since been dried up. The Government, having felt this difficulty, had upon a recent occasion broken through their rules; they had gone outside the body to find a Constructor; and had appointed Mr. Reed. And why? Because they had not an abler man than Mr. Reed in their service. He thought that the Government were right in doing so. They were in a difficulty, and could not act otherwise. His point was this: that they had not, within the service, as able men as could be found outside. This should not be so. In France things were managed differently. There, for the construction of the navy, there was an institution called the Génie Maritime. It comprised a chief equal to our Controller of the Navy, and 123 officers, who were called Ingénieurs Constructeurs de la Marine. First, with regard to their education. Those officers passed three years at the Ecole Polytechniqne. The Polytechnique was a feeder to all the highest branches of the service; it supplied the Artillery, the Engineers, the Staff, and the Génie Maritime. It was, in fact, a superior kind of Woolwich College. Afterwards they spent three years in special education at a naval college, working at the ship's side in summer, and studying naval science in winter. They then became Engineers of Naval Constructions. Mr. Scott Russell had recently delivered a lecture, at the Institute of Naval Architects, from which he (Lord Robert Montagu) had derived much information. After stating (p. 7) that the preliminary college, the Polytechnique, contained youths from all parts of the world; who, by favour of the Emperor, had been allowed to learn shipbuilding in France, he said— And what is the highest ambition to which these educated youths aspire? It is to be admitted by competition into the School of Naval Architecture. They pass into the School of Naval Architecture on full pay, they remain for three years students of the school—students in winter only, for all the summer they are workmen in the dockyards practising their craft. Secondly, with regard to the functions of this body. It was to officers trained thus that the French Government looked for everything relating to the construction, preservation, and arming of ships. They tried the value of new guns and the quality of iron. In fact, it was this body of men which was reponsible for the whole department called the "Construction." Mr. Scott Russell stated, as a result of that mode of training, that such was the demand for naval architects so trained that they could hardly be permitted to complete their third year's course before they were invited to undertake important duties in private yards; in fact, all the great shipbuilding and engineering establishments of France were under their control and management. Mr. Scott Russell used these words (p. 3)— To show the result of this school, and the manner in which its pupils are appreciated in France, I have only to say, that so great is the demand for these trained naval architects, and so highly are they valued, that they can hardly be permitted to complete their third year of instruction… The best pupils are to be found managing the largest and most prosperous engineering and shipbuilding establishments in France. …. I ask you to turn once more and look at the ruinous state of professional affairs in England. …. Although the sailors of England are better than the sailors of any other country, the ships of England are in every respect their inferiors. He need not remind the House that recently they had seen the Government of this country appealing in an official do- cument, to a French authority upon a question of naval construction. The French system, too, was superior to the English in point of economy. Now, why were these things so? Because they had a trained body of men equal to any emergency, while the English draughtsmen were very imperfectly taught. But the most extraordinary result was that the French were gradually dispossessing England of the carrying monopoly which hitherto she had enjoyed. The Peninsular and Oriental Company had been deprived of nearly all the coasting trade in the Mediterranean by a powerful rival in France, the heads of which were pupils of this Naval School, and whose ships and machinery had been constructed by them. The West India Mail Company had to contend for the trade of Brazil with vessels built by the officers he had described; and the direct transit of the Peninsular and Oriental Company was also subject to similar competition. "And thus" (to use the words of Mr. Scott Russell) "by sheer force of talent and skill, appreciated and fostered, France is snatching from us some of the valuable trades we had fancied were exclusively our own." He thought he had made out his case for the necessity of providing the service with a permanent staff of naval architects equal to the investigation of the scientific problems of the day, and to give advice and assistance in the councils of the Admiralty, he was aware that there were objections that would be raised to his plan. Probably he should be met with the preliminary objection that vested interests would be interfered with, but he contended that it need interfere very little with those interests. That, however, was a difficulty which he had left to the Admiralty to solve; he had avoided it in his Resolution. Out of the 4,000 men employed in the dockyards only one-fourth had even a chance of becoming one of the 152 officers. Those therefore who could surfer would be very few in number. One third of this number might be introduced every year to undergo such a training as, in the end, would enable them, by degrees, to supersede the present staff. He might also be told, that if such a school were established as he should desire, as soon as men became competent they would leave the service and enter private yards. That he regarded as an argument in his favour, because it would prove their superiority as shipbuilders. Yet even that danger might be prevented by very simple means. They never heard of officers of the army or navy running away when they had learnt their business. Why was that? Because they had a certain rank and position which they valued. The same rule might apply to naval architects. They might receive rank; and instead of buying commissions, as in the army and navy, they might be required to deposit £500 on receiving their commission, the money to be returned upon completion of a certain term of service. He would suggest that an apprentice should rank as a military cadet. After five years of service and passing an examination they might rank as lieutenants of artillery; and after two years' voluntary sea service to learn seamanship, they might be ranked as captains. A third objection might be raised, on the ground of expense. He would not advert to the amount of patronage at the disposal of the minister as an equivalent for the expenditure But he must remind the House that a boon would be conferred on the community; there would be an opening for younger sons; there would be a means of attaining rank and position. Why was it that officers of the army or navy, or that barristers, or, above all, that the clergy chose a profession where they had hard work and bad pay, instead of entering some of the lucrative trades and employments? Merely for the sake of the station which they acquired. Here also, then, a boon would be conferred; and a return might be expected. Upon first entering, they should pass a preliminary examination, in order to acquire a status; and then during the first two or three years they should not receive any pay. In the Diplomatic Service no pay was given until after four years of service. When they were qualified to become sub-inspectors of shipwrights, they should be allowed pay at the rate of £90 per annum instead of £125, as at present paid to those officers. For £90 is the pay in the lowest grade of the Civil Service. The system which he advocated would thus be self-supporting, and would moreover effect a saving in many items which now burdened the Estimates. Nay, more; it would be economical, for they would get more for their money. In the lowest grades there would be scientific men; in the highest, men who would still be young; and in every case, men who would use their heads. There would not only be less waste of material in consequence, but there would be an improved system of inspection. At Sheerness a partial émeute had taken place, owing in some degree to the fact, that as the inspector of shipwrights had risen from among the men, he had not proper moral influence over the gangs. Such occurrences would be less likely to take place if the men were superintended by others in the position of officers. The Constructor of the Navy would also be supported by a body of scientific men, some of whom could be stationed at Columbia, Australia, Hongkong, the Cape, or at other points. It would be attended with this further beneficial effect, that scientific inventions, like Captain Cowper Coles' cupola ships, would not be east aside by the Government for nine years, until the Merrimac had sunk wooden line-of-battle ships, and the Monitor had scared nations from their proprieties. All inventions would at once be submitted to proper scientific investigation. He did not wish to make quotations from the blue-books, though their contents fully warranted and proved his assertions, but he might refer to one passage in the evidence of Sir James Graham, given before the Dockyard Commission, in which he said— I have been very much blamed for it [abolishing the School of Naval Architecture], and I am not sure, looking back, whether, if it were to be done again, I would advise it. What had been stated on the subject by Mr. Lang, master shipwright at Chatham? The following question was put to him:— You have no doubt, that with a view to the supply of good candidates for the higher class of offices in the dockyards of this kingdom, it would be desirable that there should be some establishment of that kind [a school of naval architecture]? Mr. Lang replied— I have no doubt whatever of it; it is absolutely necessary. It is the same principle as that on which you officer your army and navy. The fact is, that there is no supply of that class now rising up?—None whatever. We are not feeling the effect of it so much at the present moment, because nearly the whole of the senior officers of my rank have been educated at the School of Naval Architecture. And Mr. Abethell, after asserting that there is a want of an institution like the School of Naval Architecture, gives as his reason— I think that there is scarcely sufficient provision for a scientific instruction at present;".… "a higher class of education is desirable than any which is now obtained in the dockyard. His object in moving the Amendment was not to press upon an unwilling House a matter which had not yet received sufficient investigation; but rather to throw out hints worthy of its consideration. In doing so he was not speaking the language of theory, but had been uttering the doctrines of experience. In France a system of the kind had been established more than a hundred years ago, and with slight modifications had been maintained to the present day. In consequence, the vessels of their navy were not only better than those of England, and the economy of the French Admiralty was greater than that of the English, but there was this further result, that ships built in private yards in France were actually superior to British vessels, and were driving them out of trades of which we had enjoyed until now a monopoly. The noble Lord concluded by moving an Amendment to the Motion.

MR. BENTINCK

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "with a view to provide for the economical construction of Ships for the Royal Navy of the most suitable forms and materials, the Board of Admiralty should be empowered by Parliament to introduce into the Public Service a class of persons equal in education and position to the Military Cadets of Woolwich, who (subject to certain regulations and conditions to be made by or with the sanction of the Comptroller of the Navy) may ultimately fulfil the duties of Royal Naval Architects, —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. LINDSAY

said, he thought that the noble Lord was under some misapprehension in regard to some of the points to which he had referred. No doubt, the School of Naval Architecture in France had done much to produce a certain class of vessels superior to those of this country, but he was also certain that the French ships of war produced in the French dockyards were of a lower class than those of this country. He concurred with the noble Lord as to the greater economy observed in the administration of the French navy than that which marked the administration of the British navy, but he differed entirely from him on the question of the merits of the respective ships. There was not the smallest doubt but the iron-clad ships built in England were vastly superior to those of France. The School of Naval Archi- tecture in France had nothing whatever to do with the loss of trade suffered by England through the spread of French ocean lines of steamers in many cases where the former had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly. That result arose simply from the great increase of trade generally, and the excessive subsidies granted to French companies. The Brazil Company, for example, received from the French Government a subsidy four times greater than was granted to the West India Mail Company; and the Messageries Impériales, which superseded the Peninsular and Oriental Company in the trade referred to, received a subsidy four times greater than that given to the former. The greatest steam company in France—namely, the Transatlantic Company—had just contracted for eight ships of about 4,000 tons each. All those, however, were being constructed by a Scotch house; three of them were building in Greenock, and five others in France, but under the direction of Mr. Scott. And for these ships so building in France the contractors received 10 per cent more than for those being built in Scotland. That fact afforded the best proof that we could compete successfully either with the iron or timber shipbuilders of France. At the present cost, notwithstanding that by the laws of that country a duty of 10 per cent was levied on all foreign vessels registered in France, she was obliged to come to this market for a great number of steamships. In introducing the Original Motion, the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth was hardly as consistent in his arguments as usual; for though he condemned wooden line-of-battle ships, he referred to the Sanspareil as having come successfully out of action. The hon. Baronet condemned shipbuilding in the Government dockyards, and yet he recommended the House to enforce the necessity of paving the way for the construction of iron ships in the Government dockyards, which seemed to indicate that the hon. Baronet had an eye to the interests of his constituents. It was only fair towards private establishments to remember in what splendid condition the Warrior had been turned out. He had examined her carefully, and had no hesitation in saying she was the finest man-of-war afloat. At first, some doubts were expressed as to her capacity for steering. Curiously enough, he had that day received a letter from Captain Cochrane in which he said— You will be glad to hear that we shall be ready for sea in a few days. We have been fitted with an hydraulic steering gear, by which, among other advantages, one person will be enabled to steer the ship and put the helm over with the same facility at full steam as at slow, and we shall be able to turn a complete circle in six minutes, which will be a feat never yet accomplished with a vessel of this size. During the recess he had inspected the cupola of Captain Coles, and his impression was that it was a much more effective ship than the port-sided ship; but it struck him that there was one defect—namely, the liability of the gun to get jammed when the ship listed, and so to render the ship unserviceable. In the attack upon Charleston it appeared, that though the shots from the forts did not go through the turret towers of the Federal Monitors, yet that the force of the shot was such as to jam them against the pivots, and so to render them as unserviceable as if they had been totally destroyed. He did not think that much could be learned from the attack on Charleston, because the vessels in action were vastly inferior in strength to our own. Still, the resistance of those inferior ships to heavy shot showed the advantage of armour-plating, one having received as many as ninety shots, and yet she came out of action. He believed their own armour-plated ships were superior to any in the world, and the only complaint he had to make was that they cost a great deal of mony. He was not disposed to support the Motion; and whilst admitting that there was much in the Amendment, what he would recommend was that there should be a board of five or six competent men, to whom all matters connected with ship-building should be referred, and who should report to the Controller of the Navy for his guidance and that of the Admiralty. It was almost impossible for one man to keep himself acquainted with all the changes and improvements that were being constantly effected.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

Sir, I think it would be very unadvisable to intrust the department of ship-building to such a Board as my hon. Friend recommends. We have already got the Controller of the Navy, with a staff of able assistants to test and report upon all improvements and inventions, who has charge of this department. This debate is a fair illustration of the difficulties attendant upon ship-building, and ought to convince the House that the proposal of the hon. Baronet ought not to be agreed to by this House. I am quite aware that upon many definite and abstract questions, such as the pay of the navy, the manning of the navy, or harbours of refuge, the labours of a Royal Commission are exceedingly valuable. But what Commission could make a Report of any value on the construction of ships, seeing that their form is altering daily? During the Admiralty administration of my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) the question of ship-building occupied a great deal of attention, and the Government appointed a body of gentlemen of high talent, of whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) was one. That Committee, which was very like a Commission, made inquiry into the subject of ship-building. They compared the French navy with that of England; they compared the French dockyards with ours; and they came to the Government with a proposal for what was called the reconstruction of the navy. I mean to impute no blame to my right hon. Friend, but according to the lights we now possess the sums then expended in line-of-battle ships would have been better expended in iron-cased ships. That vast expenditure was entered into by the Government of which my right hon. Friend was a Member, and continued by the Government that followed it, very much in consequence of the Report of this Committee; and to-morrow, if a Committee or Commission were appointed, before they could get intelligence or evidence on which they could found a Report, it might turn out worthless, because from day to day the changes in naval constructions are going on. Only yesterday an experiment was tried, which, if it should turn out in all respects successful, may alter the construction or rather the framework—the upper works—of our armour-plated ships. Take another example: any Commission appointed a few months ago would have recommended us to build turret ships, but what is the news we get from Charleston? We have nothing official as yet, but such information as we have is rather against turret ships. It is therefore quite impossible for any inquiry to do justice to the subject, or for a Commission to make any Report that would be of any assistance to the Admiralty. We are all of the same mind; we want to construct a navy of the greatest possible efficiency, and worthy of the power and dignity of this country. But there are not two people who agree either as to the class, the form, or the armament of ships. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir J. Elphinstone) would say, for example, of the Warrior that she is too long and too big, and that she would be damaged by smaller and handier ships constructed at much less expense. We are now ascertaining what is the smallest class of vessels to which armour-plating can be applied. Indeed, with regard to armour-plated ships the Government are engaged in carrying on experiments in every direction. We have got an Armour-plate Committee—a most valuable body, upon a most important branch of the business, and one which requires the undivided attention of scientific men, because upon the iron plates, their capability of resistance, and their fastening, the whole of the efficiency of our armour-plated vessels depends. I could not discover in my hon. Friend's observations any real grounds of complaint against the Admiralty; nevertheless, I have no doubt that these discussions are extremely useful, because they call the attention of the Government and the public to the various improvements that may be made in the construction of our vessels. One matter has been alluded to which may turn out to be of great importance,—namely, the construction of twin screws. My hon. Friend assumes that a construction of that kind has no defects. My own belief is that in some class of vessels it may prove to be a very valuable invention. But the Admiralty do not think it advisable to order vessels of that construction without awaiting the result of the full trial of the ships which are now constructed upon that principle. With regard to the old floating batteries, my opinion is, if you were to lengthen them, you would make a very bad job; because, in the first place, their state of repair is not very satisfactory; and in the next, I would defy any practical naval man to make anything worth the expense out of them. My hon. Friend asks us to put more than three masts into the very long ships, but I think he might have learned at Portsmouth that we are putting five masts into the Northumberland, and vessels of that class. Again he says, "Build your iron ships in your own dockyards." When he said that, I looked towards my hon. Friend on this side of the House (Mr. Lindsay), and also to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird); but neither of those hon. Gentlemen appeared to agree in that proposition. For my own part, I should be sorry that the Admiralty should never employ any of the great shipbuilding establishments of the country. We do not think it at all advisable that our dockyards should be considered as the only places where we could build armour-plated ships; or, on the other hand, that the Government should be thrown entirely into the hands of contractors. There is a juste milieu. It has been said that it was matter for regret that the Achilles should have been built at Chatham. But I challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland—now that we have got our dockyard accounts in as good a state as his own can be, for they are no longer under the Controller of the Navy, who is a spending officer, but under the Accountant General—to show that our ships built in the dockyards are so expensive as he alleges. He says the Achilles will be found to have cost vastly more than any of the armour-plated ships built in the merchant yards. Now, we will remember that when the accounts for that ship are closed, and we shall see whether it is so or not. My belief is that she will be found not to have cost much more, if any more. My hon. and gallant Friend proposes that we should go to a large expense in docks and basins. Well, I must say I admire his modesty in not having alluded to Portsmouth, because I think he must have been disappointed that the Government had not commenced a basin there. The remarks which have been made about the want of dock accommodation in foreign stations are quite true. In the East and West Indies, China, and North America, there is a great want of dock accommodation; but Her Majesty's Government have not lost sight of that. We have not thought fit to propose to Parliament the construction a dock at Hongkong; but a very intelligent and enterprising gentleman has undertaken to build one which will contain the Warrior, upon obtaining an advance of money from the Government upon certain fair conditions; and my belief is that we shall have a dock constructed there available for the Warrior. In like manner, at Bermuda, where one of those docks is wanted; I have very little doubt, should I continue to sit on this bench, that it will be my duty to propose to Parliament to vote a sum for that purpose. But we have taken a very large sum—no less than £104,000—this year for docks and basins, for two docks at Ports- mouth, one at Devonport, for enlarging the basin there, for the Chatham basin, and the Malta dock. We hope to have the dock at Malta on cheap terms, because the Maltese Government are going to share the expense. I think the House will see that it would be very unadvisable for any Commission to take away from the Government the responsibility of keeping this country at all times in a proper position as a great maritime Power. That is our constant business, it is for that we are paid and for which we are responsible, and I do trust that the House will not now or at any future period do anything to set aside the responsibility of the Government upon this point.

The observations which have been made by the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu) upon the former School of Naval Architecture were worthy of attention. That was a most valuable institution. A great class of young naval architects was trained there; and when they had finished their education, it was found that the Government had not the moans of employing them all upon high wages—for they would not accept any but high salaries. The result was, that when they had completed their training at the public expense, they were spread about the world, and it was thought that the Government would not be justified in keeping up that expenditure. The school was afterwards revived on much the same plan, but again fell to the ground. My noble Friend the Duke of Somerset has felt very much the want of some satisfactory arrangement by which we should obtain scientific architects for the benefit of the public service. Various proposals with that object have been put before him. The right hon. Member for Droitwich was good enough to call upon my noble Friend and make proposals, when I believe he was received in the most, friendly manner, and assured that any really tangible scheme submitted to him would be attentively considered. In whatever way the end in view may best be attained, whether by the establishment of a public school for the benefit of the ship-building interest generally, to which some assistance might be given by the Government, whether by founding scholarships at one of the Universities, or by any other means, we are fully sensible that a great want exists in this respect, and any scheme which promises real and permanent success will meet with our earnest attention. With that assurance I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. As to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think it would be very unadvisable that the subject which it embraces should be referred to any Commission. The Government have the means of obtaining information from all quarters as to the best contrivances for the building, masting, or arming of ships; and as they are responsible to the House and the country, I sincerely hope the matter will be left in their hands.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, he rose to ask his hon. and gallant Friend not to press his proposition for a Commission, because it would not be the best way of constructing our navy. At the same time, he was not satisfied with the assurances of the noble Lord, who had travelled over a wide field without coming to the real question—namely, how they were to go on for the future. No doubt, changes took place very rapidly, but why could not the Government bring their master shipwrights and some of the most experienced naval officers together, and let them form a committee for considering the best plan for constructing ships? By that means they would obtain that scientific and practical knowledge which could not be obtained at the Admiralty. That was the rule followed in the army, where questions of gunnery were submitted to officers of artillery. Why should not an analogous practice be adopted in regard to the navy? The heads of the leading ship-building firms of the country should also be invited to give the assistance of their advice and opinion. He believed the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty desired to do what was right; but unless some reform was made, he should advise his hon. and gallant Friend to bring the matter again before the House.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

, in reply, maintained his opinion that the ships which had been referred to were exceedingly ill-masted; and as to dockyards, it had been admitted that there was great deficiency of accommodation of that kind. He still thought that the proper solution of the question would be found in a reference of the whole matter to a Committee or a Commission of the most scientific men in the country, but he should content himself with leaving the public to draw their own inferences from the debate, and would withdraw his Motion.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.