SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 26 February 1863)

MR. LINDSAY
said, he desired to offer a few remarks in regard to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, in which there was something wrong—perhaps more so than in any other department of the State. Hon. Members might not be aware what a vast machine the Admiralty was; certainly a large proportion of the public were not aware of the gigantic nature of its duties. The Admiralty was by far the greatest shipbuilder in the world, and there was evidence that they were the most expensive, if not the most extravagant, shipbuilder in the world. They were the greatest buyers of timber and ship stores. They were blacksmiths upon a gigantic scale. They were manufacturers of anchors, and a Committee had decided that the Admiralty anchors were the worst of any. They were constructors of boats and 819 masts, and sails, and blocks, and ropes, and of innumerable other articles. They were great engineers, both civil and military. They were in one sense landowners, as they had the control and charge of the beds of all navigable rivers. They were great carriers by sea; and during the Crimean war the Department expended no less than £16,000,000 sterling in the transport of troops and stores. The Admiralty were also bakers upon a large scale. They were meat-curers—in fact, they were great provision merchants. They were, at the same time, iron-founders, joiners, builders, and architects. They constructed their own buildings and excavated their own docks. They had the largest shipping office in the world. They were also bankers, for they received deposits from seamen, and paid them by monthly orders to the seamen's wives, relations, and friends. In fact, the Admiralty was a most gigantic department, and therefore it behoved the Committee, before voting the money for its maintenance, to know how it was conducted. It was managed by a First Lord, four Lords who were always naval men, and one Lord who was usually a civilian, and by a Parliamentary and a Permanent Secretary. There were, besides, a Comptroller of the Navy, an Accountant General, a Storekeeper General, a Comptroller of Victualling, and the Director General of the Medical Department. All these were subordinate to the Board, though some of them received a larger remuneration than any member of it, save and except the First Lord. The question was whether such a constitution was best adapted to the management of these various matters. As a man of business he should say not. He had read the evidence taken before the late Committee and also the Royal Commission of 1861, and the conclusion he had arrived at was, that if unfortunately this country should suddenly be thrown into a great war with any European Power, the machine which controlled those great establishments would fall to pieces. Practically there was no one upon whom they could fix responsibility if things went wrong in any particular department. The Admiralty were only known as a Board, and although the duties might be subdivided there, they all knew how shadowy the responsibility of a Board was. There was no great department of the State in this or in any other country in Europe which was governed as the Admiralty was; and after careful 820 consideration and study of the Reports of Committees he threw out as suggestions, whether they ought not to have one head at the Admiralty, just as they had one head for the Colonial, the Home, the War Departments, and for India. That head might be called the Minister of Marine; he should be a Secretary of State, and responsible to that House and to the country. He should have the appointment of six gentlemen — whether civilians or naval men would not matter, provided they were the best men who could be found. The first should be Controller of the Navy, whose duty it would be to superintend everything connected with the construction of ships, with hulls and spars complete. Under him, again, there should be some able men to analyse all the inventions which appeared available. Then would come a Storekeeper General, invested with control over all provisions, stores, and medical comforts. Next would come some person doing the duties of the present Sea Lord, to man the ships. The next officer would be a Director of Engineering and Works, who would be responsible for the construction of docks, &c.; the next would be an Accountant General, who would have the control of the finance and accounts; and, last of all, there would be an officer who should have the control of all matters which did not fall within the scope of the duties of the other five, such as the enforcement of foreshore rights, the protection of navigable rivers, &c. The Secretaries would remain as at present—one Parliamentary and the other Permanent—and they, together with the six members of this Committee or Council, would be subject to the Minister somewhat in the same way in which the members of the Indian Council were now subject to the Secretary of State for India. He would extend the system to the dockyards, the Admiral Superintendents of which had at present no power and no stimulus to induce them to study economy, and would also carry it out with regard to the Estimates. Although the form of the Estimates had been greatly improved since the noble Lord had become Secretary to the Admiralty, it was still far from perfect. Those Estimates were now presented to the Committee under seventeen heads. If his plan was carried out, as there would be six departments of the Admiralty, so there would be six heads of the Estimates, under each of which there would be divi- 821 sions and subdivisions. The adoption of such a system would, he was sure, increase the control of the House over the Admiralty, and lead to increased economy and efficiency in that branch of the public service, while it would fix the responsibility upon one head.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
said, that though he must decline to commit himself to details, he could not but agree with the hon. Member that some change in the constitution of the Admiralty was necessary. Since 1828 there had been no fewer than fifteen First Lords, and no fewer than a hundred other changes in the Board. The work of Admiralty reform—like the stone of Sisyphus—was always falling back; or, like the web of Penelope, the Board was always pulling its own work to pieces. They had heard of late much of the discontent and discouragement abroad in the naval service, and he was of opinion that much of that discontent would, on inquiry, be proved to exist. The service required some assurance that equality of appointment and that equality of reward should be shown to all. Let every one see his own way to the admiral's cabin, and let no one feel that he needed anything beyond his own merits to earn honours and distinction. That was the only mode in which to put down the fooling of discontent that unhappily prevailed.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the very heavy increase in the item for extra clerks. He would suggest that as many as were necessary should be taken into permanent employment.

MR. WHITE
said, he did not think the inquiry he was about to make could be more applicable on any other than on the Vote before the Committee. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty to inform the Committee by whose authority her Majesty's gunboats had been handed over to the service of the Emperor of China, and by whose authority stores and supplies of ammunition had also been furnished? If any one was inclined to be captious, he might take the objection that the Estimates were framed on false pretences if a large portion of the expenses voted by the Committee were to be diverted for foreign objects. He thought, therefore, a full and complete explanation was due to the Committee as to the cost of the ammunition and stores supplied. If paid for, they ought to be set on the credit side of the account. A large num- 822 ber of arms had been furnished by the Government of India, which had been paid for by the Chinese Government. He wished to know if the same were the case with the stores and ammunition to which he referred?

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
The arrangement to which the hon. Member refers was one sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government upon considerations which they deemed sufficient; it being very desirable, with a view to the security of our commerce and the safety of British subjects, that tranquillity should be restored in China. The whole expense of the operations to which the hon. Member refers will be defrayed by the Chinese Government, and will not entail pecuniary liabilities on Her Majesty's Government.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he had listened with great attention to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) and he agreed with that hon. Member as to the want of responsibility of the Admiralty; but when the hon. Gentleman said that the country would be indifferent as to who was the head of the Department, he must join issue with him, for he was of opinion that no civilian could possibly perform the duties of head of the Admiralty satisfactorily. Would the hon. Member, whose fleet was one of the great ornaments of the mercantile marine of the country, dream of intrusting its management to any one but a person practically conversant with nautical affairs? A civilian First Lord was incapable of forming an opinion with regard to questions of a technical character, or inventions which might be submitted to him, and hence the country might be deprived, through his incompetence, of some really valuable improvement. He would suggest that the head of the great naval Department of this country should be the best officer that could be obtained, and that his appointment should not be subject to the fluctuations of political caprice in the House of Commons.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, that during the last year, he had called attention to the subject of Admiralty management, in the hope that something would be done to give practical effect to the numerous inquiries which had been made, by Commissioners and Committee?, during the last few years. He ventured to think that enough had been ascertained to show that it was impossible, with a Board of Admiralty as constituted, to have the work of the 823 country well done. During the thirty years from 1829 to 1859 there had been seventeen First Lords of the Admiralty, and the average time of their term of office was one year ten months and two weeks. During the same period there had been a hundred other changes in the Lords of the Admiralty. Within the last eight years there had been four general changes of the Board—five First Lords and thirty-four other Lords of the Admiralty. Now, he asked, how could any business be properly performed where the Department connected with it was subject to so many changes? From the Dockyard Committee's Report, and other Reports, it appeared to him that there was something rotten in the administration of the Board of Admiralty, and until it was reconstituted he believed it would be ridiculous to expect anything like good order in the Department. He hoped that the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty would avail himself of the present favourable opportunity to consider the question, with a view to a radical improvement of the system.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the variety of opinions expressed as to the constitution of the Admiralty showed the difficulty of dealing with the subject. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) was in favour of a sort of council, composed of the principal officers, presided over by a responsible Minister. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) objected to a civilian First Lord. Then it was proposed by another hon. Gentleman that the Board of Admiralty should be permanent. But he (Lord Clarence Paget) should like to know, in reference to the Constitution of this country and the control which the House of Commons ought to exercise over the Admiralty, what was to become of that control with a permanent Board. The Board would, practically, be responsible to nobody, and the result, he thought, would soon show itself in a great addition to the expenditure. But his hon. Friend proposed a council consisting of professional officers. Well, that was very much the present constitution of the Board. The First Lord was really responsible. He (Lord Clarence Paget) had watched the action of the Board very narrowly, and he could see no difference, practically, between the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty and that of the Secretary of State for War. He really 824 believed, that if by some good fortune the name of a "Board" were discontinued, and another designation employed, much of the prejudice on the subject would disappear. The Admiralty was not, in practice, a Board. Its affairs were administered by a responsible Minister, with a council of professional officers. No doubt the system had defects, like every other human institution; but he could think of no better means of getting through the mass of complicated business which they had to discharge than that of a body of men sitting round a table, where each member had his own specific function to perform. One of the Sea Lords, for example, had charge of the stores; another was placed over the movements of the ships; a civil Lord had the entire charge of the public works; another Lord was in charge of the manning of the navy; another of the whole of the vast department of armaments and guns. He could assure the Committee that every one of these branches was under the control of a Lord, but the whole business was transacted in concert. Thus, for instance, if the Lord who had the control of the movements of the fleet said, "I am going to send such and such a ship to South America," another says, "I have stores I want to put on board;" and thus these gentlemen worked together, and got rid of the confusion which must prevail if people were working in separate rooms, and a combination of result and action was attained. He believed that system was in practice in the War Department, and that it was the custom there to carry on the various branches separately. Such a plan introduced into the Admiralty would lead to immediate confusion; their work was so interlaced, that continual communication with each other amongst the different departments was essential. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) seemed, like other people, to entertain the notion that the Board of Admiralty was an irresponsible Board, and that they were inattentive to their duties; but he felt quite sure, that if the hon. Baronet could see the practical working of the Department, his prejudices against it would vanish and cease. But he would ask, had their plans for the manning of the navy been so unsuccessful? Two or three years ago ships were in harbour six months waiting for a crew, to the opprobrium of the navy. Now, they might be manned in a day. 825 Was that a proof of maladministration? Then with regard to iron ships. We were passing through a period of transition, and the Admiralty had been compelled to try various systems; but great progress had been made in the construction of a fleet. These were not proofs of want of energy and inaction on the part of the Admiralty. He should have hoped that the vast reductions which the Admiralty had been enabled to make in the Navy Estimates, without injury to the service, would also have helped to vindicate the Admiralty from the imputation of being inefficient. As to the question of the pay and promotion of officers, did hon. Members suppose, that if the Admiralty consisted of one Minister, there would be no complaints from any branch of the service? That, he thought, would be rather too much to expect. Such matters as those did not depend upon the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. Coming now to the Vote before the House, he would point out to the hon. Member for Lambeth that he was in error in supposing that there had been a large increase of temporary clerks. A change had been made by separating the Director of Transports' from the Controller of Victualling's Office, and the increase on one side had been balanced by a decrease on the other. The Admiralty had, however, been obliged, in consequence of the increase of business, to add a first-class clerk in the Secretary's Office. Then, some clerks that had been temporary were made permanent, because when it was found that those clerks had duties to perform that were permanent, it was bad policy to keep them in a temporary position. They had, therefore, put those gentlemen upon the establishment, with a view to their rising in pay and having a claim to superannuation allowance. In the Transport Department they had now got a military officer to sit with the head of that Department, which he thought would be found to work well and economically. He hoped the Committee would now agree to Vote 3.

MR. LINDSAY
thought it objectionable that in the Transport Department there should be now two heads, while the amount of work to be done was the same as before. Last year some hon. Members objected to the sum proposed in the Vote as too large, and therefore there was an apparent reduction of £5,000 to make things look pleasant. But the fact 826 was, certain items had been transferred to other Votes, and, instead of a reduction, there was really an increase of £1,576.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he wished to impress upon the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty the great importance of concentrating the offices of the Admiralty. The noble Lord had more than once acknowledged the grave character of the difficulties which existed at the present moment. The Admiralty had plenty of time; there was nothing to disturb them; and he trusted the Committee would receive some assurance that during the present year some steps would be taken towards centralization of the offices under one roof, instead of their being divided between Somerset House and Whitehall.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that no one paid a more willing tribute than himself to the ability with which the noble Lord had brought forwared his Estimates. But as regarded the argument which the noble Lord used in reply to the suggestions made to him, he (Mr. Bentinck) was not disposed to compliment him. The noble Lord said, that the present was not the right time to discuss the subject. Now, that was always the argument used by the occupants of the Ministerial benches whenever they found the subject inconvenient or they wished to avoid it. When his noble and gallant Friend said that a permanent Board would be under no control, he (Mr. Bentinck) must dispute the assertion, because he could not see any reason why a permanent Board should be freer from the control of that House as regarded its expenditure than any other Board. The noble Lord said that the Department, with several heads, was under the control of one first Lord. Now, that was what they complained of. The Department was really under the control of one person who was not responsible. He would remind his noble and gallant Friend of an answer given by the late lamented Sir James Graham when a question was put to him about the administration of the Board of Admiralty. That right hon. Baronet was asked this question — If you, while at the head of the Board, had a decided difference of opinion with the naval officers under you, would you hesitate to act upon your own judgment, or defer to that of the other Lords. The answer given by Sir James Graham was this—"Unquestionably I should act upon my own opinion." Now, that reply of the late right hon. Baronet 827 showed the inconvenience of the present system, under which a civilian would think himself justified in overruling the opinion of naval men. He hoped, at a future time, his hon. Friend would bring this subject forward again. It was a mistake to suppose that the Board was attacked. It was not the Board but the system that was complained of. The country, willing as it was to contribute any amount of money which might be necessary for the support and maintenance of the naval service, did not, under the present system, get what he called its money's worth. It was a system of wasteful and useless extravagance, and hence arose those occasional bursts of economy which in the end, he believed, led to extravagance.

MR. WHITE
said, that the defence of the system of the Admiralty which had been offered by the noble Lord was singularly unfortunate. The noble Lord said, that it was meritorious, because the functions performed by the First Lord of the Admiralty were analagous to those performed by the Secretary for the War Department. Now, he believed that the part of their administration which gave least satisfaction to the House and to the country was the functions performed by the Secretary for the War Department. On more than one occasion, attention had been called to the anomalous connection that subsisted between the Secretary of War and the Horse Guards. The comparatively irresponsible authority of the Horse Guards overrode the authority of the Secretary of War. So persuaded was the House of the fact, that on the Motion of the then Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) the House had solemnly resolved that an humble Address should be presented to her Majesty, praying that as the present system gave great dissatisfaction, she would place the Horse Guards under the control of the Secretary at War.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, he was of opinion that whatever might be the defects in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, there was no lack of zeal on the part of the individuals of whom it was composed—the fact, he believed, being that the illness and absence from that House of one of its Members was attributable to overwork in the discharge of his duties in the Department. It was also believed that the death of Admiral Dundas was caused by overwork.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, he wished to take that occasion to congratulate the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty on the manner in which the Estimates under discussion had been framed. A saving of over a million was effected, as compared with the Estimates of last year, and yet it was the result of no unwise economy. He expressed satisfaction at the statement made by the noble Lord, on Monday evening, to the effect that 17,000 seamen were enrolled on the Naval Reserve, adding that while he was glad to have such evidence of the readiness with which merchant seamen made themselves available for service in the navy, he hoped the Government would not, as a consequence of the success of the scheme, be led to make any hasty reduction in the number of men-of-war's-men. Such a reduction, he contended, would be as improvident as if the Secretary at War was to diminish the number of Her Majesty's land forces because of the existence of the Volunteers. He was of that opinion, because, notwithstanding that the best class of merchant seamen might be secured for the Naval Reserve, and notwithstanding that they might be most attentive in going through the necessary training, yet no admiral would like, for obvious reasons, to go to sea with a fleet composed solely of such men. There was, he might add, some discrepancy between the official Returns, which gave the number of men on the Naval Reserve list at 15,272, and the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, who had given a higher number; but be that as it might, he thought the noble Lord was over-sanguine in his estimate of the extent to which the Reserve would be available if a sudden emergency were to arise. Commander Brown, late Registrar of Seamen, an officer of great experience, who had been examined before the Commission to inquire into the best mode of manning the navy, had set down the strength of the Reserve required at 20,000; but he was more cautious than the noble Lord, because he did not calculate that more than one-fourth of that number would be forthcoming at a moment's notice. The great merit of the scheme, there could be no doubt, consisted in its capability of furnishing the means to meet a sudden de- 829 mand upon our resources, and he should, therefore, like to know whether monthly or quarterly returns were required from the various shipping offices giving information as to the whereabouts of the men, so that the noble Lord might be able to lay his hands upon them when he wanted them. He would express his approval of the plan of engaging seamen for continued service in the navy, but there ought to be no hasty and indiscriminate reductions, such as took place at the close of the Crimean war, even on the grounds urged by hon. Members opposite, namely, the strength and efficiency of our Reserves; for it was a breach of faith with the seamen, which could not be repeated with impunity. He should also wish to know, whether the Admiralty contemplated any change in the regulations of the Royal Naval Reserve? As the organization of that valuable force depended on the exertions of the shipping masters, he would also ask whether they, as public servants charged with onerous duties, would have some fixed payment assigned to them proportionate to the important services rendered to the country?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
thought he could give a satisfactory answer in reference to most of the points touched on. With regard to the Royal Naval Reserve, what he stated on the previous night, though he might not have expressed himself clearly, was that from the beginning there had been upwards of 17,000 men enrolled. The number was, of course, diminished by deaths, by desertions (though of the latter there had been very few), and by vacancies arising in various ways; and the present strength of the Naval Reserve amounted to 14,556 men. According to the last Return, it appeared that the number of volunteers available from the coasting trade amounted to 7,213, and that was the number he (Lord Clarence Paget) quoted to the House. Therefore, his hon. Friend would see that the great mass of the men were at home. The Admiralty hoped to be able to enrol at least 18,000 men. His hon. Friend had asked, whether any alterations were about to be made in the regulations? In reply he (Lord Clarence Paget) might state, on the formation of the Reserve, the age had been extended, five years beyond the limit recommended by the Royal Commission; but, now that the body had nearly assumed its necessary strength, it would be desirable to 830 draw back to the former age. [Mr. LIDDELL: That will apply to future entries only?] Yes; to future entries only. In reference to the payment of the shipping masters some complaints had been made, and he thought it was well worthy of consideration whether it should not be a fixed payment; but the Government did not intend at present to make any alteration. The Return which the hon. Member had alluded to was a monthly Return.

MR. LYGON
asked for an explanation of the increase in the item of cottages built for the Coast-guards.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that there had been a considerable increase in the Coast-guard stations, and new cottages had been built. The increase of the force on shore was from 4,000 last year to; 4,300 this year.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he desired to have some explanation, respecting the efficiency of the gentleman who had been appointed to succeed Captain Brown as Registrar General of Seamen.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the appointment rested with the Board of Trade, and the Admiralty had nothing to do with it.

§ MR. LIDDELL
observed, that last year £5,000 were voted for subsistence allowances for officers of the Royal Naval Reserve under drill; and though, the House was led to believe that the number of these officers was largely increasing every day by accessions from the mercantile marine, yet, under the same head in the present Estimates, only £2,184 were asked for.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
replied, that the Admiralty were gradually becoming acquainted with their actual necessities in reference to that portion of the Naval Reserve, and that they had taken for the first year a much larger sum than was requisite.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that the Reserve, added to the 76,000 men voted the other night, would give a force exceeding 90,000 men. The question, therefore, was, had they efficient ships which they would dare to send to face an enemy if the country were involved in war into which they could put them. He believed that they had not, and that they had a far greater number of men than they could possibly use in efficient ships. He also thought there ought to be some distinguishing mark upon ships officered 831 and manned by men belonging to the Naval Reserve.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said the hon. Member for Sunderland, when he complained that they had more men than we could possibly employ in ships in case of a war, seemed to forget that in war there was a large expenditure of men. He had been told that some of the owners of large merchant vessels, whose officers and crew were composed almost exclusively of the Royal Navy Reserve, were exceedingly anxious that those vessels should be permitted to carry the blue ensign. He wished to know, whether under proper restrictions, that permission might be given?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, with reference to the question of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), and backed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), whether ships commanded by officers of the Naval Reserve, and manned to great extent by men of the Naval Reserve, would be allowed to hoist the blue ensign, he (Lord Clarence Paget) would communicate to the Admiralty the wishes of hon. Gentlemen, and he was sure that anything that could be done with propriety in the matter would be done.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, who had been appointed in the place of Captain Brown, lately Registrar General of Seamen. He also desired to know, whether any increased remuneration had been given to the shipping-masters for their extra services consequent upon the formation of the Naval Reserve?

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, that Mr. Mayo had been appointed to succeed Captain Brown, who had retired after long service. He would inquire as to the shipping-masters and let the hon. Gentleman know.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he presumed that the appointment of Mr. Mayo had been made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. He wished to know, whether Captain Brown retired on his own accord, whether he wished to retire, whether he retired on full salary, whether he was entitled to retire on full salary, and whether any hint was given that his retirement would be agreeable? Captain Brown was the first person who held the office, so he could not appeal to any precedent as to the practice of appointing a person conversant with maritime affairs; 832 but he thought the Registrar General of Seamen should be such a person. Was Mr. Mayo conversant with maritime affairs, and what were the antecedents of Mr. Mayo?

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, he understood that Captain Brown asked to retire. If he had had some little notice, he would have taken care to be furnished with particulars. He was quite sure that it was by Captain Brown's own desire that his retirement came about, and that the cause of it was failing health and conscious inability to discharge the duties. Upon his retirement, Captain Brown had received, on the part of the Admiralty and on the part of the Board of Trade, the fullest acknowledgments of the manner in which, during a long period of years, he had discharged the duties of the office. It was quite true that Captain Brown was the first Registrar, and that he was a naval officer, professionally conversant with maritime affairs. At the outset that knowledge might be of advantage, but the duties were such as could well be performed by a civilian. Mr. Mayo had already performed many important duties in the Board of Trade in connection with the management of the seamen's savings-banks and collecting the effects of deceased seamen. Mr. Mayo had a fair claim to promotion on the vacancy occurring, and in appointing that gentleman he believed the Government had consulted the public interests, at the same time that they did justice to a meritorious public servant.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he wished to know if the Admiralty would have any objection to publish the results of Captain Denham's exploring expedition to the South Seas? Captain Denham had been away ten years, and had made some most important discoveries.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that Captain Denham had been absent ten years, and had done good service to his country. The charts, surveys, and remarks he had made, particularly with regard to that very intricate part of the world, which hitherto was considered almost impassable—Torres Straits—were of the greatest value. By his great ability, and the zeal and energy of his officers and men, he had succeeded in making a survey which would tend to render the navi- 833 gation of Torres Straits not more than of ordinary difficulty. The Government were publishing the charts and remarks, which were extremely valuable, but he could not undertake to say that the journals of the voyages would be published at the public expense.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, the noble Lord had done no more than justice to Captain Denham in what he had said. Captain Denham had rendered most important services to the country, and he (Sir John Pakington) would have been glad to hear that some substantial mark of the approval of the Admiralty had been given to him.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the right hon. Baronet's intimation should be conveyed to the Admiralty.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that last year a sum of £1,000 was voted for rewards for experiments, and only £300 of that sum had been expended. Out of such a fund as that the services of Captain Denham might be rewarded.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
observed, that if the Government had determined upon building large iron ships of war, it would be better that the work should be offered to competition. In that case there would be a large saving in the number of artificers employed in the dockyards, as wooden ships, for the construction of which they were chiefly employed, were going out of use. In the present Vote, however, he noticed an increase of £6,692, as compared with last year.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the hon. Baronet ought not to suppose that, because they were building iron-cased ships, therefore the wooden ships were to be done away with. Corvettes, sloops, and gunboats must continue to be built of wood till some better material was found, and shipbuilding must go on in the dockyards. There was an increase of £4,000 in this Vote for clerks. That was caused by the changes which the Admiralty were making. Hitherto each naval establishment had had a staff of its own, but they were now going to amalgamate the different staffs, so as to be able to command the services of each clerk at any station they chose, without nterfering with the course of promotion.

§ MR. DALGLISH
said, he was glad to 834 hear of the change, and he hoped that all the clerks would be placed under the control of the Accountant General, instead of being under the different departments of the dockyards.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that had been partially done. There was an Audit clerk in each dockyard who represented the Accountant General, and was under his control alone as regarded auditing accounts.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he had a suspicion, from the maintenance of such large establishments, that Government were about to build iron ships in their own yards and withdraw them from private contract. If they did this, he warned them that they would have much worse ships, and they would be much more expensive. As to their requiring to build wooden ships, what purpose could they be built for when we had already more wooden ships of twenty guns and upwards than all the world besides? He was not satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, he was under the impression that stock was not taken in the dockyards; and if so, it was impossible that the accounts could be properly kept. There was an item of £10,000 for Deptford dockyard, though the last time he visited it he found it almost deserted, and only one or two ships building there. It would be wiser to sell Deptford and build all ships where the materials were more easily obtainable.

§ MR. CHILDERS
observed, that there were certain changes in the allowances to Wesleyan chaplains in some of the dockyards. He did not mention the matter by way of disapproval, but he wished to hear from the noble Lord on what principle these allowances were grounded.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the principle upon which these allowances were granted was taken from the army regulations, so that the remuneration for services was regulated by the number of marines attending each service. He would explain the discontinuance of the Wesleyan allowance. This allowance having been followed by demands from other Dissenting Churches, they were obliged to go to the War Office to know the course pursued in regard to the army, which was this:—The War Office considered that there were three national Churches—the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic—and to each of these they made allowances when requisite. The Admi- 835 ralty adopted this scheme. They were very sorry to cease the allowance to their Wesleyan friends, but they could not continue it without extending it to other denominations.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, it was a new theory that there were three established Churches in this country. If the principle were carried out consistently, something might be said for it. On a question on which religious bodies were so touchy, it was most important to adhere to some rule.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
I did not say established Churches—I said national Churches. Perhaps I should rather have said predominant Churches.

§ MR. SCHOLEFIELD
said, that with regard to the alleged superiority of iron over wood, it appeared the Alabama was built of wood, and therefore it was not so clear that the efficiency of the navy depended altogether on our ships being constructed of iron.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he had to complain of the total absence of any information on that important Vote. During the last two years they had spent £15,000,000 in stores and wages alone. Taking wages and stores together, the amount voted last year was, in round numbers, £3,500,000; and yet the Committee was in total ignorance as to how the money was spent. It seemed that about 14,000 workmen were employed, but how, why, or where nobody appeared to know. Such was not the way in which the Committee should be treated, and he hoped the noble Lord would favour them with an explanation.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that every year a detailed statement was laid before the House of the cost of every ship built during the previous twelve months. He regretted that that annual account had not yet been completed for the past year, but it would be produced in a fortnight, and he invited the criticism of the hon. Baronet upon it. Meanwhile, he 836 might state that he believed that by the end of the current year the Admiralty would have built 3–8ths of the iron armour-plated ship the Achilles, 19½–8ths of wooden armour-plated ships, 1½–8ths of corvettes, 7½–8ths of wooden armour-plated sloops, 8–8ths of despatch vessels, and 7½–8ths of yachts and other light boats. The annual account next year would show what they had done in the way of repairs during the current year.

MR. LINDSAY
said, they appeared to have got very little for their money last year, and he would therefore suggest that the Vote should be delayed until the detailed statement had been laid on the table.

§ MR. P. W. MARTIN (Rochester)
said, that three successive Boards of Admiralty had issued orders in which they endeavoured to impress upon the employés in the dockyards, and the public at large, that they retained no patronage in their hands whatever. A belief still existed, however, that the patronage of the dockyards was largely exercised for political purposes. He would, therefore, suggest that the orders should be converted into an Act of Parliament.

§ MR. DALGLISH
said, it appeared from the statement of the noble Lord that 47–8ths were built by the Admiralty last year. The produce of the year was six ships, and as the wages amounted to £1,147,000, it resulted, after deducting half for repairs, that about £100,000 had been paid per ship for labour alone.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the hon. Member had made out a very neat sum, but he had not allowed a sufficient sum for repairs. Owing to the war in China, and other matters, the Admiralty had been obliged to repair nearly the whole fleet. They were doing, in fact, what should have been done long ago—bringing our ships into a course of repair, which would put the navy in an efficient condition. If his hon. Friend would wait until the accounts of the year were presented to Parliament, he would find that a much larger sum than half the Vote for Wages had been expended on repairs.

MR. LINDSAY
Wait till next year! Does the noble Lord mean to say that over £600,000 were spent in wages for repairs last year?

§ MR. LAIRD
said, it was utterly impossible to understand the accounts in the shape presented to the Committee. If the sum of £600,000 had been expended 837 in one year in repairs, it was time they looker out for another material with which to construct their ships.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, in a Report presented to the Admiralty it was stated by Admiral Robinson that the number of seamen and marines voted for the service of the navy told directly on the number of men required in the dockyards. For every man so voted there was an average expense in the dockyards of at least £10 for fitment, refitment, and repairs. That would give a sum of £760,000 for the wages of artificers alone.

MR. LINDSAY
said, if the Government had expended £600,000 in repairs, there must be something radically wrong. The country was not getting value in labour for the money expended. It was the duty of the Committee to stop the Estimates until further information was obtained; and therefore he would move that the Chairman do report progress.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, the Estimates for artificers' wages and stores for the year amounted to the sum of £4,000,000. Taking £1,500,000 for repairs of the fleet and management, and £230,000 for repairs of the dockyards and machinery, there was left for new ships £2,000,000, which would give 30,000 tons of iron shipping at £70 a ton. He would like to see a correct statement of these outgoings, so that they might arrive at the cost of new ships built in the dockyards.

§ MR. DALGLISH
suggested that it was not desirable to stop the progress of the Estimates. He believed the present Controller was doing everything in his power to establish a proper system; and he arrived at that conclusion from the result of the Devonport election. If the Admiralty were not doing their duty there, the Government candidate would not have been defeated.

SIR HENEY WILLOUHBY
asked, whether there was any manner of distinguishing that class of dockyard business which did not belong to the building and repair of war ships? A large sum was spent on yachts.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
observed, that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) was acquainted with the endea- 838 vours of the Admiralty to put these things on a proper footing. There was an annual account of the expenditure. It was true the Admiralty did not take an annual survey of stores for the purpose of making a balance, because such a proceeding would be attended with enormous expense.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he could assure his noble Friend that he had given the Committee a fair idea of the total want of arrangement which prevailed at the dockyards, when he told them there was no annual valuation of the stores on account of the expense. The firm with which he was connected had a larger stock in hand than the stores of the Board of Admiralty to go over. Some £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 of engagements in every part of the world must entail on the part of his firm some amount of labour in taking stock, and yet they did not shrink from it, because otherwise they would not know their position. There ought to be an accurate statement at the close of every year of the whole of the stock of every kind.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
paid, he could not understand why a stock-taking should cost so much money. He supposed the Government had officers competent to the task; and, if so, it might be performed easily as a part of their ordinary duties, and without any expense.

§ MR. P. W, MARTIN
said, he believed that the officials in the dockyards were at present overworked.

§ MR. SEELY
said, he was anxious that the system of accounts put forward by the Admiralty should be improved; but, from experience, he knew that taking stock was a costly operation; however, its expense, in time, trouble, and money, was fully compensated by the advantage it afforded of knowing how they stood. He believed that stock-taking by the Admiralty would occupy a fortnight or three weeks. Having himself inspected the accounts at Portsmouth last year, he found no double entry practised there, or, at any rate, none was produced. The Committee ought to know what each ship cost for building or repairs, but their present information was most delusive, because it did not show on one side what they got for the money they paid on the other.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, he saw no difficulty, not only in taking stock, but in keeping a correct account of the cost of every ship built or repaired, for he had done it him- 839 self in his establishment for thirty years. The men usually got holydays at Christmas, and the operation might be got through in a week or ten days. It was most essential that the Admiralty should know by taking stock, like private firms, what was the first cost, and what the expense of repairs, for every ship.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that having himself visited a Government dockyard and looked at the accounts, he must say he found the entries to be most carefully and precisely made, showing how each man was employed and every article appropriated.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, he thought the information which hon. Gentlemen opposite sought might be easily obtained by having duplicate accounts for every separate dockyard.

MR. LINDSAY
said, the description of the system of accounts in the dockyards, given by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, certainly did not tally with the report of the Royal Commission.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he spoke of a period subsequent to that Report.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he should be glad to see the accounts which were presented to the House, drawn up so as to show the cost of the labour, the material, &c., of each ship. He was at a loss to know how the Admiralty could balance their books, as they were said to do every year, without taking stock. It would not be necessary to turn over large materials, such as timber, of which a stock account ought always to be kept; but it was all important to have a proper annual balance-sheet.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he thought, if stock were to be taken at all, it must be taken with minute exactitude, otherwise it would be fallacious. It must extend to every article they had in the yards. That was done at present once every three years. The accounts were now kept by double entry under the Accountant General; and the documents which would be placed before the House would give, in a complete form, the expenditure on every ship and every manufactured article in the dockyards. When they had these accounts in as perfect a state as the cash accounts of the navy, it would become a question for consideration whether it would be worth while to take stock annually instead of triennially. The accounts now kept would furnish every particle of information for which hon. Gentlemen asked.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he thought hon. Members opposite were expecting a little too much. In the Government dockyards the stimulus to care and economy which existed in private establishments, was wanting, and though an alteration of the system might partially remedy that defect, it would nit wholly eradicate it.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he wished to inquire the cause of the increase in the number of hired men (133) employed in the naval yard of Bermuda.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, it arose from the substitution of free for convict labour.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
asked if all the convicts had been withdrawn.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
They have all been withdrawn, I believe.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
Where have they gone?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
I do not know.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he rose to move that the Vote be reduced by £250,000. He did so on two grounds. The first was that it was not required; and secondly, because the Government had improperly taken that amount from a Vote destined for another purpose. In the year, 1861 the Vote for timber was £995,000, and his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland proposed, and I seconded his Motion, that it should be reduced by £300,000, but did not meet with very extensive support in the Committee. In the year 1862 the amount of the Vote was £560,713, and again his hon. Friend proposed its reduction by £100,000, but did not meet with the support which he had reason to expect. The Government had at present 112,000 loads of timber in the dockyard, which was equivalent to five years' consumption when timber ships only were built. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had given his pledge that no more, or at 841 least very few more, wooden vessels would be constructed; and if that was the case, and with 112,000 loads of timber in hand, was it necessary that they should come and ask for £266,000? But his second reason for proposing the reduction was that the Admiralty had taken the sum of £250,000 from a distinct Vote and appropriated it to the purchase of timber. From the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts, printed in July, 1862, they found that in the early part of the year there had been a somewhat sharp dissension between the Lords of the Treasury and the Board of Admiralty in regard to this sum. The sum of £250,000 had been taken from a Vote for the construction of iron ships, and he asked why the Admiralty had taken that sum and devoted it to the purchase of timber? The auditor objected, but the Admiralty defended themselves, and said they were at liberty to take the sum voted for the construction of iron ships to purchase wood, inasmuch as the sum was taken under the Vote of Stores, and they could devote the sum to any branch of the stores they pleased. If that could be done there was no use of Parliament voting money for separate and distinct purposes; their sitting there was a sham and a farce. They gave Votes of money for the purposes which they thought best for the interests of the country, and he held that the Admiralty had no power, without not only showing marked disrespect to the House, but acting in a most unconstitutional manner, to appropriate any Vote of that House for any other purpose than that for which the House sanctioned it. He must refer to the exact words of the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, when defending himself in Committee on this matter. He was asked, "In point of fact, did you not apply for the purchase of timber money which was voted by Parliament for the exclusive purpose of building iron ships?" and the noble Duke answered, "Yes I did. I did that on my own responsibility. I considered it a right thing to do. Parliament was not sitting when I bought the whole of that timber. I may have bought some whilst Parliament was sitting, but most of that timber was bought after Parliament was prorogued." When further asked whether it was while Parliament was sitting that he resolved to make the purchase, he answered, "Yes it was." The course which the noble Duke ought to have 842 pursued was to have asked the House to reverse the Vote for building iron ships, and to have asked a quarter of a million for timber. He had given notice to his noble Friend that he would call attention to the subject, and it was but right that he should have a full opportunity of explaining the course which the Admiralty had adopted. He should take the sense of the Committee on the reduction of the Vote by £250,000.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that undoubtedly, on the occasion to which his hon. Friend alluded, the Duke of Somerset did take on himself the responsibility, when great exertions were required, of using every means in his power of procuring timber, and hence the very contracts he now asked the Committee to agree to. He was obliged to tell hon. Gentlemen this, year after year; timber contracts were taken two or three years beforehand. They could not get timber just when they wanted it. If he waited to contract for timber till he carne down to the House for a Vote, he would get none. It was necessary to make contracts for timber two or three years in advance. Dantsic timber might be had as it was wanted, but the great bulk of the timber now estimated had been contracted for two or three years ago. On that occasion, when all the world were urging the Government to great exertions in ship-building, and when they were taunted over and over again for not having a sufficient stock of timber, it was the duty of his noble Friend the Duke of Somerset—to order a considerable stock of timber, and that was the reason why they found themselves in so satisfactory a position as regarded the stock of sound timber. He hoped the Committee, notwithstanding the appeal of his hon. Friend, would agree that it was the duty of the Admiralty to take these contracts, in order to procure a suitable supply of that important article.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that the noble Lord had not answered the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury—Was the Duke of Somerset to overrule the decisions of that House?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that in order to show how anxious the Duke of Somerset was that the Vote should be 843 brought under the consideration of Parliament in a distinct shape, and that there should be no transfer of a sum given for one purpose to another purpose, he might mention that His Grace had himself divided the Tote into two sections. The object of the division was to prevent the Admiralty from having the power of applying money voted for the first section towards the purposes provided for under the second section.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
remarked that a considerable change had lately taken place in the system of accounts. The House had made an important alteration in the Appropriation Act, which prevented any transfer of money from one Vote to another, and required that any excess should be surrendered to the Treasury. If an emergency arose, the Department could apply to the Treasury for a temporary advance, which must afterwards come under the notice of the House as a distinct Vote. If those regulations were disregarded, the House had the remedy in their own hands.

§ MR. LAIRD
contended that before the Admiralty proceeded further in the construction of iron-plated vessels, the merits of the turret ship ought to be fully tested by experiments; and that if it was found to be superior, it should be adopted. They had two cupola ships building. Let them be tried, and let the ships on Mr. Reed's plan be also pushed on. The Admiralty should act as they did in France, where they did not keep on building all sorts of ships, but proceeded with their iron-cased ones and stopped the others, and thus did not require any larger estimates for the reconstruction of their navy.

§ MR. SEELY
said, he wished to ask whether the Vote was required for timber already bought or to be bought?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
For timber contracted for in 1861.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he thought that more information was required. The noble Lord had told them that they must regulate their progress by that of other countries. The noble Lord had also told them that by April of next year this country would have eighteen iron-coated ships. It was desirable to know the tonnage of those vessels, and also what number of iron-plated ships France would have by April of next year. In order to 844 afford the noble Lord an opportunity of giving that information, he would move that the Chairman report progress.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he wished for some information respecting the extent the Admiralty were building wooden ships covered with iron armour, and how far it was their intention to construct such vessels? That was a plan of building, the wisdom of which he very much doubted. They had been accustomed for the last year or two to make comparisons between the progress of the French navy in armour-plated ships and the English navy, and their consolation had been, and he always felt reasonably, that though the French were superior in point of numbers, England had the advantage in point of quality and construction. Now, he believed that one of the principal reasons why they were justified in claiming that advantage over the French ships, ship for ship, was that the majority of the armour-covered ships in England were built of iron, while the majority of the French were of wood. He understood the noble Lord to say, that the Admiralty were beginning to deviate, to some considerable extent, from that plan. They could not expect large wooden ships, carrying an immense amount of armour, to bear the wear and tear of every weather like iron ships. When they considered the large amount of machinery those vessels had to carry, they must see it was desirable that the best mode of construction should be adopted. He believed the best mode was to have iron ships covered with armour, and not wooden ships covered with armour. He begged to ask the noble Lord to explain to what extent they were preparing wooden ships to be covered with armour.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the position of the country was very peculiar. They had now a large and very fine stock of timber, and that to him was a source of unmitigated satisfaction, whatever might be thought by others. Having a very good stock of seasoned timber, the Government proposed, during the coming year, to cut out the frames of five 845 ships. Their forms were not, in truth, yet exactly decided upon, but they would be ships very much like the Royal Oak, though, perhaps, somewhat larger. If it was found that the turret principle succeeded, the frames which were now to be cut out would come in for turret ships, as there was no difference between the bottoms of turret and of broadside ships. The Government also proposed to convert one line-of-battle ship, the Repulse, into a wooden armour-plated ship. Undoubtedly, there were great advantages in iron. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Then, why build of wood?] Because they wanted to build quickly and cheaply. Under all the circumstances, he thought the Admiralty were justified in cutting out those wooden frames.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he thought the Committee must have heard with great surprise the explanation of the noble Lord. It was true that, as far as experience went, it was very desirable between the iron frame and the armour to put a certain thickness of wood as a protection, and to have a wooden sheathing for the support of the copper. But the proposal to convert a certain portion of superfluous timber into frames, which could not be nearly so durable as iron frames would be, was a very extraordinary one. Nor did it follow, because other countries used the inferior article for their ships, that they should use it too, when they were able to use iron, which was so much better.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
—No doubt iron-framed ships, covered with a backing of wood and then armour-plated, are, as far as experience has yet gone, on the whole the best, although everybody knows there is a difficulty about the iron bottom, which gets foul unless properly protected. But the Committee will recollect that last year and the year before a great pressure was exercised upon the Government to get an iron-cased fleet equal in number and in power to the iron-cased fleets of other Powers. The Admiralty, therefore, had to get these ships as fast as possible, and it was found that a given number of iron-plated ships could be gut ready at a less cost and in less time by making use of the timber which was in store, and by plating wooden ships with iron, than if we had constructed the necessary number of ships of iron. Although the iron ships on the whole are the best, yet what my noble Friend has said is true—that, in 846 comparing your armaments with those of other countries, you must not forget that other countries have cheap wooden ships covered with iron-plating. I believe the French have only one ship, the Couronne, of iron. The Solferino and Magenta are of wood, armour-plated. Therefore, you are at least on a par with other countries, though if you have the time, and do not mind the additional expense, iron ships are preferable.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
observed, that he was sorry to say that the explanation of the noble Lord could not be considered satisfactory. It was perfectly true that it was desirable to increase the number of plated ships, and he should have felt grateful to the Government if they had applied wooden ships, which were in progress, for this purpose by having them plated. That, however, did not apply to what they were now told the Government were doing. What the noble Lord said was no justification for commencing de novo to build wooden ships, which it was admitted were inferior to those whose frames were of iron. He thought the course taken was a very serious mistake upon the part of the Admiralty. They had found out this at all events, that iron-framed ships were the best; and this being so, why should they build wooden ships? He was not one of those who thought that, with their extended territory and large commerce, wooden ships would be altogether superseded; but that had nothing to do with the proposition that when they were building plated ships they should build them in the best manner. From the form of the Estimate he was unable to say what portion of the Vote applied to the five ships; but if the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty would inform him upon that matter, he would move to reduce it.

§ MR. LAIRD
said, that Spain, Turkey, Sardinia, Russia, and America were all building iron ships in this country, and in France private establishments were building large iron frigates, to be plated with armour. He did not agree with the noble Lord as to the facility of converting the wooden frames into turret ships; turret ships ought to be planned and built as such. There was an impression abroad that cupola ships could not be made seagoing vessels, but he believed that that was quite an erroneous impression. The Monitor was a totally different thing. She was built merely for coast service. He 847 trusted that the Admiralty would push on the Prince Albert, which was now building, in order that it might be ascertained whether the views of practical men were correct, that we should have to a great extent to adopt these ships; and if the answer were in the affirmative, the country would save a large sum of money in the navy in future.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the reason why the Admiralty had decided upon cutting out these frames was that the wooden frames could be constructed a great deal more rapidly than iron ones. It would take two years at least to build a ship wholly of iron. It took two years and a half to build the Warrior. Another reason why the Admiralty thought it best to build wooden frames and coat them with iron, rather than convert wooden ships into iron-plated ships, was that they had used all the large wooden ships, with few exceptions, and the state of the remainder was not so good as to make it a matter of economy to convert them. Then they had a certain number of a smaller class of ships, but those ships had not flotation sufficient to carry iron plates. They could give them greater floating power, but that would be a costly operation, and, on the whole, it was more advantageous to build wooden frames, giving great capacity to carry these heavy plates. With regard to wooden sheathing, it was found that galvanic action took place, and the iron bottom became full of holes.

MR. LINDSAY
said, that the Vote contained an item of £160,000 for armour-plates for wooden ships. Five-sixths of that would be for the plates for these five ships which were to be built, and, in order to take the sense of the Committee, he would move the reduction of the item by £134,000.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he did not think that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was calculated to attain his object. The objection entertained by some Members of the Committee was not to the plating of these vessels, but to the construction of the frames, and their desire was that the ships to be plated should be built of iron instead of wood. The effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be, that there would be no plates to put upon 848 either wood or iron ships. Old ships covered with armour-plates would not be as good as ships newly framed out of timber for the purpose, because the latter would be constructed on a different principle and would not contain unsound places. What the country wanted was the best ship that could be had. The best ship undoubtedly was an armour-plated iron ship; but it would cost more and take longer in construction, and we were in a hurry. It was quite clear that it would be cheaper to use timber already paid for than to use iron which would have to be paid for. It would take two years and a half to construct iron ships, and even then they would not be able to obtain as many as they required.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, the arguments of the noble Lord had not reconciled him to the course taken by the Admiralty. He had no desire to check the progress of armour-covered ships. On the contrary, any wooden vessels, completed or in progress, ought to be armour-plated. But where ships were about to be constructed de novo, they were bound to build them on the best principle in their power, and they certainly ought not to be made of wood. For these reasons he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
explained that the armour-plates, of which the Amendment sought to deprive the Government, had nothing to do with the embryo ships. They were intended for vessels already in existence.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he would certainly vote as he had just stated unless he received an assurance from the noble Lord that the five new ships should not be built of wood.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
thought the Committee had reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in the matter. In 1861 the noble Premier came down to the House, and asked a Vote of about £1,000,000 for iron ships; and that Vote the Government had used most improperly in the purchase of timber. In 1862 another large Vote (£600,000) was taken; and when that evening he proposed to reduce the Vote for timber by £250,000, he was told by the Government that the timber was ordered in 1861, and must be paid for. If the Committee failed to treat the question as business men, they might as well vote the Estimates in a lump, and go home to dinner. What the country 849 wanted was not an iron fleet, but an effective iron fleet. There was an item in the Estimates under consideration of £750,000 for wages paid for the repair of the fleet; but if they had an iron fleet, scarcely any repairs would be needed. An iron hull, practically speaking, would only require repairs once in fifty years. The House had resolved that the fleet should be an iron one, and the Government were not justified in disregarding that Resolution, and continuing to build wooden ships. The noble Lord said, the best thing they could do with timber in their possession was to use it; he denied that. They had better let it lie where it was, or sell it.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he hoped the Government would make some concession to the feeling of the House on that point. It was obvious that timber, into which a saw had never been put, could readily be converted to purposes other than the construction of ships. As to the question of time, everybody conversant with the subject knew that iron frames could be rolled in a much shorter time than the most zealous and active shipwright could put together a wooden frame.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, he would be sorry to see the Government placed in a minority on a question of the kind. Opinions would be reconciled if something like a pledge were given that the five wooden ships would not be built without further consent on the part of the House.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he thought the House had a right to ask for something more than a pledge. The Vote should be withdrawn, and reproduced in a shape which would admit of a definite Vote being taken with regard to these wooden ships.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the Vote had nothing to do with the five wooden ships. All that was wanted, was for the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to withdraw his statement of the intention to build these ships.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he would suggest that the Vote should be postponed. At present the Committee were about to Vote without understanding the subject.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he begged to add his recommendation to the Government to postpone the Vote. At the same time, he would not take it upon himself to dictate to the Admiralty how these ships were to be built.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he hoped the Committee had the same object in view as Her Majesty's Government, which was that the country might obtain, at the smallest expense and in the shortest time, an effective fleet able to compete with the fleets with which, under certain circumstances, they might—he trusted at a distant day—have to come in conflict. Let the Committee first examine the course intended to be pursued by the Government, and then the course recommended by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend proposed to omit from the Vote the cost of the iron plating which it was proposed to provide. He seemed to think that by cutting off that part of the Vote he would open up that part of the question which related to the five ships it was intended to prepare. But he would do no such thing. The Admiralty did not come down to the House for a Vote for armour-plating until the ships were in a state to receive it. In this Estimate the Govern-did not ask the Committee to vote for armour-plating for ships until they were begun. The iron plating now to be voted was for ships that were ready to receive the armour. He (Viscount Palmerston) did not suppose his hon. Friend, or the House, meant that ships which were now ready to receive the armour-plates should not receive them. That would not be the way to provide the country with an adequate fleet. Whether ships in future were to be built of wood or iron was another question. The right hon. Baronet, he believed, thought it better that old ships should be converted. He (Viscount Palmerston) believed that the present ships had new frames, and his hon. Friend asked that they should be deprived of the armour which they were ready to receive. He thought, that if his hon. Friend saw the actual result of this Amendment, he would not press it. Then came the question of the future. That was a question to arise between the House and the Government. There were three descriptions of armour-plated ships which they had to consider. One was the class of ships with iron skin-plates, backed by teak, upon which the iron armour-plates were fixed, such as the Warrior and Black Prince; and he (Viscount Palmerston) thought it very possible experience would show they were the best. But experience had also shown that they were by far the most costly, and took the longest time to complete. The Warrior, Black Prince, Resist- 851 ance, Revenge, and others were a very long time in building, and experience showed that it was possible to cut out timber and construct wooden ships and put iron upon them in a much shorter time. Therefore, if the Committee wanted, within the shortest period, to equal the number of ships possessed by foreign Powers, they would arrive at the result by pursuing the course the Admiralty were taking with regard to these five ships. Then there was another consideration which the House was not always disposed to keep out of view, the consideration of expense. According to the calculation made by the Admiralty a certain amount of expense only would be required. If, on the other hand, his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty consented to build these ships of iron instead of wood, as some hon. Members wished, they would cost more money, and his noble Friend would have to come down with an additional Navy Estimate. The Committee must, therefore, consider whether the advantage to be gained by building iron ships was such as to induce them to urge the Government to come down with an increased Naval Estimate. The Government had proposed an economical arrangement, by which the object in view would be gamed at an early time and at a moderate cost. The House of Commons had been urgent, during the last two Sessions, in recommending the Government to pratice economy. Hon. Members had declared that the cost of the navy was greater than it ought to be, and they were gratified by the reduction of £1,000,000, which the Government had effected in the Navy Estimates. But if the House, instead of the Admiralty providing five ships at an early period and at a cheap rate, insisted on the ships being built at a greater expense, and in a longer time, it was not for the Government to be more economical than the House of Commons. The Government were quite ready to take these views into consideration if they were not permitted to take their own more economical course. But that question was not involved in the Vote now under consideration. There were seven or eight ships ready to be plated with iron; and if the present Amendment were carried, the Committee would only refuse the necessary plates for those ships without accomplishing the prospective object they had in view. He hoped his hon. Friend would 852 not persist in his Motion. Another point that had been raised had been fully answered by the right hon. Baronet. A sum estimated for iron ships was applied to a different purpose, but that was perfectly legitimate and was owing to the difference between an Estimate and a Vote. The Estimate that was submitted to the House showed the different elements of which the aggregate Vote was made up; and when the House resolved upon the aggregate Vote, nothing prevented the Admiralty from applying to one portion of the Vote what was estimated for another. But when the House is asked for a Vote for a specific purpose, it is not competent for the Admiralty to apply the money to a different object. But, with regard to the point now at issue, he begged to say, on the part of the Government, that the question of the relative advantage of iron and wooden ships should be considered, and that the Government would, at a proper time, state to the House, after full consideration, the conclusions at which they should arrive.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he did not quite understand by the last words of the noble Lord whether the Government would consent to withdraw the Vote, or whether he wished to have it passed on the ground that the point which had been raised did not strictly apply to the item in question, and that the Government would afterwards take the question of the wooden ships into their consideration, and state the result at which they had arrived. But he would warn the House, that if the doctrines which the noble Lord laid down were to pass without protest, the House of Commons would lose all control over the Supplies. They were told that Government intended to proceed in a certain way which many hon. Members on both sides of the House thought objectionable. When hon. Gentlemen were ask to vote a large sum for the Navy Estimates, they were bound to consider whether the money was to be properly applied. Well, they objected to applying it to the putting of armour-plates upon wooden ships. First of all came the Vote for wooden ships, and hon. Members were told they could not diminish it; and next came the Vote for armour-plating, and again they were told that that did not apply to wooden ships. It was absolutely necessary, then, that the House of Commons should make a stand. The House did not wish to refuse the money if they received a pledge that the Government would 853 not proceed with those other wooden ships without the sanction of the House. But if they got no pledge, but had the matter put in such a way as to prevent their expressing any opinion upon it, they would be obliged to stop the Vote until such a pledge should be given by the Government.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he thought the best arrangement would be to pass the Vote, and he would pledge himself that no steps should be taken with respect to the five wooden ships in question until the matter had been submitted to the House. The Government would submit a statement to the House showing what would be the cost of the five iron ships, and the time that would be required to complete them, and also the cost of the five ships intended by the Admiralty, and the time when they would be ready, and then the House would be able to judge. But it should be understood that the present Vote had nothing to do with those ships, but was intended for ships already completed.

SIR JOHN HANMER
said, he had no objection to the course proposed, but he thought there was no pressing necessity for building our navy in such breathless haste. He had heard the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) say, that it would be very easy to furnish twenty Alabamas in a very short time and for a very small sum of money. The worst thing they could do, however, was to build inefficient ships. When they remembered what happened in 1814, how English frigates were sent to compete with American vessels of the same name but of greater power, and how British seamen were obliged to haul down their pennons, though their hearts almost broke in doing so, they would see the necessity of taking their time, and when they put a ship upon the sea that it should be one that would be able to maintain the honour of England against any opponent in the world.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he understood the pledge to be this, that no steps should be taken in building those live wooden ships, of which they had heard that night, until a statement had been laid before the House, showing the comparative time and expense of building those ships, or of building iron ships instead, and until the House should have an opportunity of distinctly expressing its opinion upon the subject.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
That is distinctly the pledge I intended to give.