§ NAVY ESTIMATES considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ 1. £1,164,100, Naval Stores.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, with reference to the item £120,000 for gunboats to be built by private contract, he should be glad of some explanation. Our former gunboats had been such lamentable failures, that he thought the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty ought to state the nature of the gunboats he intended to build.
§ MR. C. BERKELEYbegged to call attention to the number of ships removed from the effective list of the navy since the Return dated Feb. 1, 1863. At that date the number was 669, but at present was represented as 630, thus showing that thirty-nine vessels had been removed from the effective list; and he thought, as there had been some vessels added, the number might 419 be larger. Some were sailing vessels, which it was possible had been transferred to the harbour list; but, looking into the details, thirty-three or thirty-four he found to be steam vessels struck off during the past year. Many, if not all those vessels, were quite unseaworthy, and the reason he called the attention of the House to them was that he thought it desirable that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty should explain if any others now in the service, especially gunboats, were in a similar condition. Some of them were gunboats built about ten years ago. One of the vessels condemned was the Victor, and as there were five other ships of the same class built at the same time, it was desirable that the House should be informed as to the present condition of those vessels. Perhaps, too, the noble Lord would explain under what circumstances it was that two frigates which were now upon the stocks—the names of which he did not know—were to be pulled down. A system had lately sprung up of putting into the Navy List, and allowing to remain there for some time, the names of vessels on which little or nothing had been expended. Such cases were those of the Sappho at Deptford, the name of which was published in the list for three years, and then disappeared, and of the Alligator. He should like to have some explanation of these circumstances. It would be convenient if the noble Lord would give the House some more information than had yet been vouchsafed with regard to the character and form of the vessels building on Mr. Reed's plan. In successive Navy Lists vsesels not only appeared and disappeared, but the same vessels seemed to alter their tonnage. It was stated, for instance, that the frame of the Circassia, of 950 tons, had been appropriated to the Enterprise, building on Mr. Reed's plan, in July, 1862; but in the Navy List for 1861 a vessel called the Enterprise was included as well as the Circassia, and since the appropriation referred to another vessel called the Circassia had appeared on the scene. Different tonnages and armaments were given in every case with regard to these vessels. He was not to be understood, however, as insinuating that any wasteful or improvident practices existed in any of the dockyards. The very best guarantee against anything of the kind was afforded by the appointment of such men as Sir Baldwin Walker and Admiral Robinson.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must com- 420 plain that there was no real reduction in the Navy Estimates for the present year. No credit was due to the Admiralty, for the only apparent reduction was in the Vote for material. But if the Admiralty wanted more materials of any kind it would, without hesitation, purchase them, and then submit a supplementary Estimate to the House. The Vote for wages was £170,000 more than it was last year.
MR. CORRYsaid, as he had been prevented from attending in his place when the Navy Estimates were under discussion, he was anxious to make a few remarks on this occasion, and there was no part of those Estimates—not even the reduction of 4,000 men—which he had read with greater dissatisfaction than the diminution of about £200,000 in the sum proposed for the building of armour-plated ships. From the statement of his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, he concluded that it was not intended at present to exceed the number of the twenty-five now built or in progress. Of these, they were told nineteen would be available next year, and in the following year the whole number would be ready for service. He appealed to hon. Members whether, if armour-plated ships were to supersede wooden ships, that was a force adequate-to the wants of the British navy, or one with which it would be possible to carry on a great war. In the event of a war occurring in 1866, he would like to know how the noble Lord would propose to appropriate those vessels? How many of the twenty-five would he allot for the defence of the Channel; how many to the Mediterranean, where we have interests at stake not less important; how many to the Baltic; how many lo the North Sea, to the West Indies, to the coasts of China and India, and how many to the Pacific, where a large and important colony had lately sprung up? It was nonsense to talk of defending our vast interests on those stations with twenty-five ships, when it was well known that all the principal nations of Europe were acquiring largo fleets of armour-plated ships; and America, too, was largely increasing her strength in ships of that description. His noble Friend had abstained this year from speaking of what the French were doing, but the information had been furnished by France herself. In a letter from the Paris correspondent of The Times, he found that—
According to statistics recently published the French Government possesses at present, 421 either finished or in progress of completion, 43 screw iron-plated vessels, being altogether of the force of 24,000-horse power, and 1,356 guns; of these, four are liners (of which Eng land has none), 19 frigates, 19 gunboats, and 1 ship with a spur.We were promised twenty-five ships and six gunboats, of the united horse-power of 23,000, against the French forty-three vessels of 24,000-horse power. It was true that many of the French vessels were of a small class, but among them they were, told there were four line-of-battle ships and 19 frigates. In former days an opinion was entertained that it was necessary for the interests of England that she should possess a far larger navy than that of France; but in the present day, as far; as armour-plated ships were concerned, all that we aimed at was equality. He did not think that condition of things safe; and he complained of the policy of the Admiralty in not during the present year laying down additional armour-plated ships, because, as two years were required to; build a large armour-plated ship, it would now be impossible to add to the number of twenty-five till the year 1867. There could be no difficulty about a good model, because, according to his noble Friend, the Bellerophon was the perfection of what an armour-plated vessel should be. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer being in easy circumstances, his noble Friend would do well to induce him to increase the Vote for contract-built ships to the amount taken last year, and thus obtain the means of laying down two or three vessels similar to the Bellerophon during the present year. But, although he disapproved of the policy of the Admiralty in respect of armour ships, be rejoiced to learn, from reading his noble Friend's speech, that some attention was about to be paid to our steam reserves. In the opinion of some persons, wooden; ships were at the present time altogether useless; but that was a view which he did; not share. If we had the great misfortune to be engaged in a war with France, did anybody suppose that all her sailing ships would not be employed to cripple our trade, or that we should keep ours in harbour while hers were scouring the ocean? An efficient steam reserve was therefore necessary, and from all the information he had been able to collect, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the state of our steam reserve at this moment. His attention had been drawn to this subject by a paragraph which appeared last 422 year in The Times, under the head of "Naval and Military Intelligence." The writer was a gentleman possessing accurate means of information, for he was, he believed, the correspondent of The Times at Portsmouth. He asserted, that of the whole of the "steam reserves" not more than seven or eight vessels could be pronounced ready to proceed to sea; that others would take months to get ready, and the remainder could never be made available under any circumstances. "In proof that no part of this statement was exaggerated," the writer added, "let one port be selected as an example—-say Portsmouth." The substance of his statement was as follows:—That, exclusive of gunboats, the first division of the steam reserve at Portsmouth consisted of one line-of-battle ship and two screw corvettes; that the line-of-battle ship, the Duncan, could not be got ready for sea in three months; that one of the corvettes, the Esk, was ready for sea, but that the other was rotten; that in the second division there were four line-of-battle ships, three screw corvettes, and one paddle sloop; of these, the four liners would each take three months to make ready; that two of the corvettes were rotten, and the third of iron, so slight as to be unfit for war service, and that the paddle sloop might be placed in the useless category; that in the third division there were seven line-of-battle ships, eight first-class frigates, six sloops, and two troopships, all screws, and screws with a vengeance, for of these one of the line-of-battle ships had never been to sea, but would take six months to complete, and that the remainder would engage the whole of the resources of the yard six or eight months to make them ready for sea; that the hulls of the six sloops were all half rotten and their machinery in want of heavy repairs, and that the five paddle sloops were all useless; that the two troopships had both seen long foreign service, and required repairs; that in the fourth division the Penelope and the Retribution, paddle frigates, were both rotten from the keel to topsides. The writer added—Out of all the vessels so enumerated in the four divisions there is only one vessel—the Esk, of 17 guns, and 250 horse-power—that is ready for sea.He then went on to say that the annual cost of the "preservation and repair" of these vessels, exclusive of wages to stokers and engineers, was £45,000, and that for that sum Portsmouth possessed only one 423 vessel ready for sea, and it would require years to complete the remainder. That was the state of things last year. This statement naturally excited great alarm in his mind, and he had made it his business to make inquiries as to the state of the steam reserves at the other dockyards; and he found that the state of the steam reserves last autumn was much the same as at Portsmouth, at Devonport, and at the Nore. Of forty-three line-of-battle ships, exclusive of gunboats, composing the first, second, and third divisions of the steam reserve, only six were ready. Of twenty-six frigates in the three divisions, only two were ready. Of six corvettes in the three divisions, none were ready. Of twenty-six sloops, only three were ready; and of thirteen gun vessels only one was ready. The general result was, that of 115 ships of the above classes in the three divisions, all of which ought to have been in a seaworthy state, only twelve were ready for sea. That was a most unsatisfactory state for the steam reserves to be in, especially as he could state that means were taken when Lord Derby was in office to place them in good condition. He should be glad to hear that matters were not so had as he had been led to suppose, and that the Admiralty would make every effort to place the steam reserve in a proper state of repair. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), in explaining Vote 8, said that it was the intention of the Admiralty to bring up some of the arrears of the first division of the steam reserve. He trusted that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would tell the Committee that it was the intention of the Admiralty to place the whole of the three divisions in a substantial state of repair, for if war broke out, and our steam reserves were not in an effective condition, the country would run great risk of disgrace and disaster.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had observed that The Times correspondents abroad were usually very accurate in their statements. Did the right hon. Gentleman give the stamp of his own authority to the statement that France at that moment possessed 43,000 tons of armour-plating?
MR. CORRYsaid, that the statement he had quoted was that the French now had ready or in process of completion forty-three armour-plated ships of 24,000 horse power.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that this statement was still more startling. No hon. 424 Member ought to make such statements unless he was prepared to vouch for their accuracy. If the figures were correct, the navy of this country was in a most unsatisfactory position. Although he had long opposed an excessive naval expenditure, he was ready, if the statement just made was accurate, to support the Government in any Votes to increase the number of armour-plated ships. England ought to possess a navy, not merely equal to that of France, but equal to that of France and any other great European Power combined; and he should not be satisfied unless England maintained that position, for the protection of our commerce and the safety of our homes to a great extent depended upon the strength of our fleet. He trusted that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would tell the Committee what number of armour-plated ships France really did possess. Perhaps the number quoted in the paragraph referred to was simply that of French ships ordered to be built, the construction of which might he spread over a great number of years. He believed that the Admiralty could now send to sea armour-plated ships equal to those of any two European Powers, As long as that was the case the House and the country would be satisfied. With regard to wooden ships it would be found that they would be worthless in action against armour-plated ships. But he did not therefore hold that the Admiralty ought to sell their wooden ships. We ought to keep the same proportion of wooden vessels with respect to other countries as we did of iron-plated ships. What he objected to was the repair of obsolete wooden ships to be laid up in ordinary. In his opinion it would be far better to employ the money in building vessels as fleet and as powerful as the Alabama, which might act as the police of the seas. Pie saw in the Votes a large sum for stores for the Government dockyards. It would be more satisfactory if these Votes were given more in detail, and stating how the stores were to be appropriated. Having visited the Chatham Dockyard, which was 100 acres in extent, and refreshed his memory by going to see the private yard of the Messrs. Laird Brothers, which covered a space of only twelve acres, he had no hesitation in saying that the Messrs. Laird turned out a larger amount of work—and of splendid work too—than was done in the Chatham Dockyard. Hon. Members knew now the money voted for wages for the Chatham 425 Dockyard and the expense of the permanent staff; but they had no idea of the amount of money sunk in that yard in the shape of plant, timber, and materials, That was a thing which they ought to know, and on the opposite side of the account they ought to have the amount of work turned out in the yard in the course of twelve months. If they had that they could get the sums expended in private yards and the amount of tonnage turned out, and in that way they would have the materials for useful comparison. In Messrs. Laird's yard for instance, every piece of timber was cut by machinery, and the saw-mills were situated in the most convenient place, quite close to the water. But in Chatham Dockyard the timber was even now to a very great extent sawed by hand, at an enormous extra cost, and a saw-mill was placed on the top of a hill — of all places in the world the most inconvenient. All the timber had to be drawn up by ingenious machinery and then let down to the water's edge again. The circumstance put him in mind of an officer in Somerset House, whom the Admiralty appointed to answer the questions that were put to his department. He was an efficient officer, but he was deaf and dumb. Much had been said about the excellence of the work turned out from Her Majesty's dockyards, but that was all matter of opinion. He had seen an iron ship building in the yard of Messrs. Laird; it was sister to another which was being built in Her Majesty's dockyards, and he could say that so far from being in any way inferior to the latter, in strength and in seasoned timber it was quite equal and in some respects superior. He regretted that the Committee should be called upon to Vote this year £246,000 less for building in private yards, because the meaning was that £246,000 more would be devoted to building in Her Majesty's yards. That involved a question of policy. He did not wish Her Majesty's Government to give up shipbuilding. But supposing the country were to be suddenly involved in an European war, how could dependence be placed upon private yards to supply the necessary vessels especially treated as they always were by the Admiralty? Though the private yards might be able to produce gunboats and ordinary vessels, they would not be able to build those large classes of armour-plated ships that would then be required, because for that purpose they 426 would require to have a large sum of money invested in the necessary plant. But Messrs. Laird's dock would be as valuable to Her Majesty's Government in the event of war as any dockyard for which the Committee might be asked to vote a large sum of money. That firm had created an establishment which might be of great value to the country in time of need. It was a dangerous thing, then, to throw overboard the private yards. Foreign nations were obliged to come to the private yards of this country, but Her Majesty's Government were shutting the door against a class of men who might be of the utmost value to the nation. He begged, therefore, to enter his protest in the strongest possible manner against the proposed increase of the plant in Her Majesty's dockyards.
MR. CORRYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) sought to make him responsible for the statistics with regard to the French navy which he had quoted, but be had taken them from a letter of The Times correspondent, who stated that they had been recently published. He had often heard hon. Members say that every statement of that kind published by the French Government was most accurate.
§ COLONEL SYKESDoes he say they were published by the Government?
§ COLONEL SYKESAye, but not by the Government.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he was very glad to find that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland had been employing his time in the recess last autumn so profitably. He could have wished that he had been with his hon. Friend on the occasion of his visit to Chatham, as he had no doubt he should have come to a different conclusion from his hon. Friend as to the amount and quality of the work turned out there. His hon. Friend had not said that the Achilles was not of admirable shape; he had been unable to find a flaw in her; but not content to let the case stand on its own merits, he had proceeded to compare this ship with another built in a private yard. And for once in his life, somewhat illogically, his hon. Friend had argued, that if the Government did not at the present time apply to the private yards, it would not be able to have recourse to them in times of emergency. Yet it was admitted that those 427 private yards were building now men-of-war for all the other maritime Powers of Europe. No doubt Mr. Laird's was an excellent establishment, but was it fair on that account to say that there was no good work turned out of the Government dockyards? He believed that the ships that were being constructed by Mr. Reed were giving fair employment to the private yards. It was not fair to say, therefore, that the Government was not giving fair play to the private yards. His hon. Friend had carried his criticism upon Chatham so far as to object to the position of the saw mill. That position was selected forty-five years ago. He was there when it was constructed, and he remembered that the mill was placed there by the elder Brunel, the inventor of the system of block machinery, and the then very able Surveyor of the Navy (Sir Robert Seppings) thought it not desirable to fix it close to the water's edge; but the timber was floated up a channel to a point under the saws, then lifted by hydraulic pressure, and sent down an inclined plane to the water's edge when converted. The process was very simple, and was not justly liable to the criticism passed on it by his hon. Friend. The interruption of the navigation of the Medway was thus left unobstructed, as the mast pond was in an internal basin, instead of in the river. If his hon. Friend said that ships built in the Government yards were built on a defective construction, on a defective plan, he replied that that objection would be equally applicable to ships when built in private yards, as the designs in both cases were those of the chief constructor of the Navy. There was great variety of opinion as to what constituted the strength of ships; but his hon. Friend had not been able to assert that the Achilles was built upon defective lines. She was designed upon the most scientific principles, with the aid of the most practical shipbuilder in Her Majesty's service. Mr. Lang, in the Chatham dockyard, was a very remarkable man and a practical shipbuilder, and there was no doubt that if that gentleman had had any objections to make to the designs of the Controller, the latter would have listened to them. If there were any improvement in any vessel of the Messrs. Laird over the Achilles, it must be owing to their having had the advantage of first seeing the Achilles. Mr. Lang no doubt was originally a wooden shipbuilder, but he had had the advantage of the science of Mr. Samuda, one of the most experienced authorities on iron shipbuilding. These two gentle- 428 men had been schoolfellows together, and when any difficulty occurred, Mr. Lang invariably had recourse to Mr. Samuda's assistance, and vice versa. He believed that the Government were right in employing in private yards a certain amount of men to supplement the labour in the public yards; and as far as he could judge of the Northumberland, built in a private yard, he should say that she would be a most perfect ship.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, the system which the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) wished to see carried out — namely, that the dockyard authorities should be accountable for all their receipts and outgoings and that there should be periodical stock takings—was in contemplation by the junior Lord of the Admiralty, whose services the Government had just now had the misfortune to lose, and whoso indefatigable inquiries during the last autumn had resulted in laying down a system which was explained in what was called the "labour chart." That hon. Member was possessed of an acute mind and unbounded zeal, and his services had been in the highest degree advantageous to the Government. It was to be hoped that he would be replaced by another officer of equal capability. As the Estimates were now framed, no one could properly judge whether the sums asked for were founded on a proper basis, or whether it was not all guess-work; for the sums were asked for in a lump, without the slightest explanation of the quantities or of the cost of the materials. Nothing short of the plan projected by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) would be satisfactory to the House or to the country. He had been very much astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) quote a paragraph from a newspaper in reference to the relative strength of the French and English navies. If the hon. Member had referred to the French Estimates for 1865 or for 1864, he would have seen that the ships of the English navy were, both in number and power, beyond all comparison superior to those of the French navy. There had never been a time when our navy, in regard either to ships or men, was so powerful as at present.
§ MR. BENTINCKbegged to express a hope that in future the Votes would be so arranged as not under one head to embrace such a multiplicity of questions, the effect of which was to lead to debate desultory and somewhat confused. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone 429 (Mr. Corry) in his observations on the armour-plated ships, which to the number of twenty-five were promised to be in readiness next year. He did not imagine that his noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget) was prepared to tell the Committee that because a great revolution had taken place in the construction of the navy, therefore wooden vessels were to be entirely dispensed with, nor did he think that he would be prepared to state that twenty-five armour-plated ships were as many as would be required for fulfilling all the duties of the navy of this country. It was obvious that either our navy must for the future be confined to iron sheathed vessels, or that we should have to draw very largely on the services of our wooden ships. Now, he wanted to know in what position the country stood; if it was understood that in future we were to be solely dependent on iron-plated ships, why, in that ease, were not immediate orders given for the construction of a much larger number? And, on the other hand, if it was admitted that there was still occasion for the services of a very large number of wooden vessels, he wished to be informed why a more satisfactory account of the state of the Naval Reserve with regard to those ships had not been presented. It was said that iron-plated ships were not fit to fulfil all the duties required—and the Committee ought to know whether iron-plated ships were to be depended on exclusively, or whether wooden and iron-plated ships should be combined. He wanted his noble Friend to define the policy of' the Government on that subject, and to state what the future navy of Great Britain was to consist of, so that the House might know with what they were dealing. With respect to the somewhat old question of the amount of reliance that ought to be placed upon the public and private yards for supplying the requirements of the navy, he must say that he differed from the views of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He believed that nothing could be more injurious to the interests of the British navy than in any way to restrict the operations of the public dockyards. It was utterly impossible that this country, with the demands which existed upon her naval power, should ever be reduced to a total dependence upon the resources of private yards, without being placed in a most defenceless state. The more work that was done in public dockyards the more was this country likely to be placed in a; position to meet any possible emergency, 430 and the true principle was to execute all the work possible at those establishments, leaving the surplus to be performed by the private yards. What he deprecated was: this annual discussion as to the comparative merits of the two systems, because he believed that a feeling of rivalry ought not to be encouraged and ought not to exist-As to the difference in the cost which his hon. Friend desired to see equalized, it must be borne in mind that in the private yards the employers of labour have a direct interest in obtaining the largest possible return from the labour employed—an element which they could never have in the public yards, For that reason alone, he did not think that any amount of ingenuity would ever enable Government establishments to work as cheaply as the private yards could; but that, he contended, was a fact which ought not to weigh with the Committee in comparison with the efficiency of the public service.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he could not think with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), that the hon. Member; for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) was to be blamed for calling attention to the comparative merits of the two systems. Great service was done by the discussion as to the comparative merits of public and private dockyards, as it had the effect of keeping the Government up to the mark, and urging them on to improvements. He quite agreed that in the Government dockyards I such a number of ships should be built as I would render the country prepared for any emergency; but, at the same time, he wanted the accounts of the Admiralty to be so I presented that hon. Members might know the cost of building every single vessel, with the amount of tonnage accurately defined, so that having the same data in the case of a vessel constructed in a private yard, a comparison might be instituted between the two. It would then be seen what was actually doing, whether the country was obtaining value for its money. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck), that it was important that they should know the future policy of the Government with respect to iron and wooden vessels. Were they prepared to vote money for the repairs of an immense number of wooden vessels which, at the present moment, were practically useless, and which nobody imagined could be sent out against an enemy? With regard to those which were coining home, he trusted that his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would follow the practice which was 431 adopted by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) in his own case-namely, when he had a vessel that did not suit his purpose, to break her up and dispose of her, and substitute better in her place.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he did not blame hon. Members for drawing comparison between public yards and private establishments. It was right that those things should be inquired into, and that, indeed, was the reason for the Admiralty for the last four years endeavouring to place their accounts on such a footing as would enable them to lay before Parliament the sums expended on each ship. They were now in a position to do so, and he was prepared to challenge the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to move for a Return for any or all of the dockyards, of the number of ships built in 1862–3 and their tonnage, the expenditure on the one side, and on the other the progress made in their construction, showing in fact the value obtained for money. The hon. Gentleman would then be able to express an opinion to the Committee, but it was not fair that he should persist in making broad statements without proofs as to the superior workmanship and administration of the private yards as compared with the public establishments. No doubt the work in the latter was more costly; but he believed that the repairs of the wooden vessels built in the public dockyards were not on so large a scale—not so expensive—as those of similar ships constructed by private traders. At all events, he was ready to repeat the offer made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld)—who, unfortunately, was no longer his Colleague, and who was a great loss to the Admiralty— that all those matters should be carefully gone into with any mercantile man who might chose to undertake the business. Certainly, the Admiralty would be only too happy if they could improve their system by a comparison with that in vogue in private yards. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had asked him a difficult question as to the future policy of the Government with regard to the construction of ships. He must protest against having to look into futurity in a matter of such magnitude. First of all, it must depend a good deal upon foreign countries, and especially upon France, because the great object of Her Majesty's Government was to maintain at all times the navy of this country in such a state of efficiency as to enable us to cope successfully 432 with foreign Powers. One could not advert to the subject without more or less dealing with foreign nations, and especially with France. He generally avoided as much as possible any statement of the actual numbers of the French navy, but he could not allow the alarming picture drawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) to pass without notice. He did not know the source from which the right hon. Gentleman obtained his information, but he believed that on the 8th of February the French had eight armour-cased frigates afloat, and eight building, making together sixteen. They had also of new floating batteries—a small class of vessels for the defence of their coast—four afloat and seven building; also one turret-ship building; making, with the foregoing, a total of twenty-eight; besides which they had five small iron gunboats, of a kind that could be taken to pieces. That was all that Her Majesty's Government knew of the French navy. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) asked what their policy was. It would be to go on building armour-plated vessels which were undoubtedly the class that must take the place of line-of-battle ships, and to build them in such numbers as would enable this country always to be in a proper position as regarded foreign Powers. That, he believed, was their position at the pro sent moment, and it was that belief which justified the Government in not asking this year for a very large Vote on account of contract-built ships. The Admiralty had a high opinion of the private shipbuilding firms of the country, and relied on them in a great measure for the construction of its armour-plated fleet. Although it should not be unnecessary to enter into any large contracts during the present year, yet those firms might rest assured that recourse would be had to them as the construction of that fleet proceeded. The vast majority of the armour-ships now in existence, taking into consideration the tonnage, had been built in private yards. The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) asked for some description of the armour-plated gunboats about to be constructed by contract. Those vessels would be of over 700 tons, their engines of 160 horse-power, their length 160 feet, their speed was expected to be about 9J knots, and they would carry an armament, as at present advised, of two 100-pounder guns, of 125 cwt., and two 24-pounder howitzers. 433 Although he had before alluded to the intention of the Admiralty to build six of those vessels, he might state that they now proposed to set about the construction of two. both of them being vessels on the twin-screw principle, and being likewise an experiment of a wooden bottom combined with an iron frame. It was manifest that if they could combine wood and iron in that way, they would overcome one of their greatest difficulties — namely, the defect; of wooden construction in regard to the liability to rot. That liability to rot existed, not so much in the planking as in the frame. Our iron-armour ships, though be near home that they could be continually docked, soon got so foul as to lose their speed and become unmanageable. Therefore, the system of wooden planks with an iron frame was about to be tried. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) drew his information from sources which were often very accurate —namely, the articles of newspaper correspondents at the ports; but, undoubtedly, those gentlemen sometimes used very highly coloured language in describing the defects in ships and the state of our fleet at those places. Perhaps his noble Friend would be good enough to look at the Return of the state of the steam reserve for March. [Mr. CORRY had spoken of it last June,] He would admit frankly that our reserves were not in a satisfactory state; and that was the reason why they asked for upwards of £100,000 increase on Vote 8, to bring them up to the condition in which they ought to stand. At the same time, he must protest against the statement that the reserves in the home ports were in a most disgraceful and inefficient state. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Berkeley) asked what had become of two ships —namely, the Sappho and the Alligator, They had been removed from the list in common with a good many others, A custom had prevailed of putting the name of a ship in the Navy List when it was contemplated to build her, and before she was in actual existence. That practice had been brought under the notice of the Admiralty by the Controller, and, accordingly, a number of ships had this year been removed from the list, which had no existence except on paper. With regard to the Enterprise and the Circassia, which had been referred to, those two vessels had exchanged names. With regard to the lengthening and altering of vessels, where wooden ships had been converted into iron-plated ships, the Admiralty had 434 been obliged to enlarge the frames and alter the floors, in order to give the additional floatation necessary for carrying armour-plates. With those explanations, he trusted the Committee would allow the Vote to pass. He would again request the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to cease making these sweeping accusations against the management of the dockyards, but, instead thereof, to move for a Return of the cost of any ship built there during the past year; and then lot the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) persuade his talented son either to give a similar Return from their yard, or to allow the Admiralty to inspect their premises and institute a comparison between the cost of the two establishments. The Admiralty had no desire to shirk this question. The Achilles would soon be at sea, and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) might then get at every shilling that had been expended upon her construction,
§ MR. LAIRDsaid, that having been challenged by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, he thought it right to state that, although the building of ships in the Royal dockyards and by contract had been a good deal discussed in that House, he was not prepared to admit that the principle of building by contract had ever yet been fairly tested. The present system was a bad one. The designs were all made by the Controller of the Navy, assisted now by Mr. Reed, and until lately by Mr. Watts. The entire designing power for the navy of this country was, therefore, concentrated in one man. The plans were made by the Government, and the contractors were not allowed to exercise their own talent or their own ingenuity, but were bound down in every way to carry out the precise orders issued to them. He did not at all depreciate the talents of the Controller of the Navy or his assistants, but he did say it would be much better for the Government, if they determined to go on building ships by contract, to throw open the designs for the vessels to the whole talent of the country the to waste the public money on a school of naval architecture. He had never thought it desirable that the ships of our navy should be built altogether by private contract. He thought it would be madness to propose such a system, It would be injudicious to altogether discontinue the present system, but the Government should import into it all the talent of the country. What did Government do in the engine department? 435 When they contracted for a pair of engines they did not send any particular plan with the order, but requested those persons who were allowed to tender to send in designs. When sent in, these were referred to the head engineer of the department, who, as he was not allowed to compete himself, was able to give his important judgment as to whether the engines were likely to answer the object for which they were designed. The question was decided not by mere reference to price, but on the merits of the designs and the capability of the party to carry out the work. And what had been the result of that system of competition? That all other countries came to us for their machinery. If the Government adopted the same course with reference to their ships, a much greater amount of talent would be brought to bear, and they would have vessels of a much more perfect character than heretofore. There was an advantage in doing a portion of their work out of the Government dockyards. In time of war, the Government could not do all their work in their dockyards. But by doing part of their work in private building yards in time of peace, there would always be a number of men who knew how the Government work should be done, and the amount of dockyard accommodation would be thus doubled or trebled, and the facilities for repairs necessary in case of war would be greatly increased. It would be much better to keep a staff of workmen employed during peace on the Mersey or the Clyde than to have to import men to Portsmouth and Plymouth in time of war. He had not intended to make these remarks; but having been called on by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to say whether parties were allowed to visit the building yard at Birkenhead, he must be allowed to observe that he believed private yards were open to the inspection of any body, and if private individuals were allowed to inspect the Government accounts in their building yards much good would result.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he quite agreed with his hou. Friend the. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), that it would be a great advantage if the Government could be assisted in their designs for the navy by the whole available talent of the country. The country had suffered by placing the construction of ships in the hands of individuals. Uncontrolled by any supervision, or by the operation of contemporary science, the ships of Sir W. Symonds had cost the country dear. He did 436 not doubt that Mr. Reed was a very clever and talented man, but he very much doubted the policy of letting him enter upon such large works perfectly uncontrolled. It was not fitting that such vast sums of money should be expended upon the knowledge and experience of a single individual, especially when that individual had not, up to the present moment, sent a single ship afloat. He had seen in The Times newspaper a list of the number and description of ships Mr. Reed had designed and had under construction without having had an opportunity of trying a single one of them. They were all in progress, and many of them exhibited features in their construction in a great degree foreign to all previously received ideas of shipbuilding. Those might be steps in the right direction, but they might also be steps in the wrong direction; and he maintained it was not proper thus to expend the money of the country on the sole responsibility of one individual. He should be one of the last to imitate American example in anything; in fact, he thought America one of the most unfortunate countries on the face of the earth; but we might do worse than borrow from America her plan formerly acted on, of submitting designs for shipbuilding to Congress, taking the opinion of the best shipbuilders in the country as to the merits of those designs, and very good ships had been built in that way. He did not wish the Government to act precisely in that manner, but he certainly did think, in the present transition state of the navy, that they should avail themselves of all the scientific assistance they could possibly command.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had found no difficulty in ascertaining at Birkenhead the amount of money expended in wages, materials, rent, insurance, plant, &c., but he had sought in vain for similar information with regard to Chatham Dockyard. He was, therefore, driven to make general charges for want of specific information. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty himself had resorted to general charges. Five years ago, it would be recollected, he had spoken of a mysterious sum of £5,000,000. He had been five years in office, however, without giving those data which would enable hon. Members to ascertain the relative cost of those ships constructed in private yards and those in Her Majesty's dockyards. With respect to the article of coal, the Admiralty was also to blame. In the present Estimates there was a charge of £275,000 for coal. 437 The coalowners of the North had called the attention of the Admiralty over and over again to the unnecessary expenditure under this head. Nothing but Welsh coal was used for ships of war, under the impression that it caused no smoke, while North of England coal caused a great deal. The Welsh coal was delivered in large lumps, which ground the small into dust, which thereby became utterly worthless and could not be used. By adopting: a mixture of one-half Welsh coal with one-half North of England coal, the dust of Welsh coal, which hitherto had been worthless, could be made as available as larger coal, while by that mixture the quantity of smoke emitted would be as small as that from au equal quantity of Welsh coal. For two years those facts had been laid before the Admiralty without result, and persons who complained of the present system were taunted with making general charges without stating details. Some months ago the Government had instituted a trial between those two kinds of coal, and the result proved the correctness of what he had, years ago, said on the subject. But now that the Government officers had certified to those facts, and tenders had been issued, the Admiralty, instead of asking for tenders for half Welsh and half North country coal—which mixture had been proved to he the best—asked for tenders to supply only one-third North of England coal. Another point he would urge on the noble Lord was the different qualities of the various kinds of coal on the Admiralty list. There were some thirty different sorts of North of England coal, and perhaps twenty different kinds of Welsh coal on the Admiralty list; yet the contractors were allowed to ship any one of the kinds specified in the Admiralty list, though these kinds differed in value, some being as low as 7s. a ton, while others could not be got for 10s. A; contractor would, of course, supply the; cheapest and the least valuable coal that was included in the Admiralty list. He hoped the noble Lord the Secretary to the I Admiralty would go further into that question, and allow the different kinds of coals: to be classified and tested as to their relative qualities, and that in future only the best kind of Welsh and of North of England coal would be placed on the Admiralty; list. A few years ago they were told that only two firms could build engines for the Government, though they discovered after- wards that twenty or thirty firms could build 438 them. The result had been a considerable reduction in the cost of engines, and he hoped the number would be still further increased. If the Returns he had asked for were faithfully made, he would undertake to prove to the House that, quality considered, they had been paying too much for ships built in Her Majesty's dockyards, and that, therefore, it was neither wise nor just to the taxpayers that they should go on increasing the plant in Her Majesty's dockyards, and thus create great establishments for the building of ships which could be built as efficiently and more economically in the private yards of the country.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, had not exactly dealt with the question raised by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) and afterwards alluded to by himself. That question related to the number of iron-plated ships about to be commissioned, either in private or in Her Majesty's dockyards. In asking the noble Lord what the future policy of the Admiralty with regard to the building of ships was to be, he wished to place no restrictions on the noble Lord. He only desired to know the views which the Admiralty entertained on so important a question as the future construction and state of the navy of this country. On a former occasion the noble Lord said that it was not intended to continue to build wooden ships, but to devote larger sums to the building of iron-plated vessels. But nothing confirmatory of that statement was to be found in the present Estimates. If the noble Lord thought that wooden ships would be useless against iron-plated ones—and the noble Lord had admitted that much—he wished to know what his ideas were as to our navy for the future. With the exception of one vessel, not a shilling was asked for in the present Estimates for the building of any additional iron-plated ships. Was our navy to be limited to the twenty-five iron-plated ships at present in existence, or were more to be built?
§ MR. LAIRDsaid, that as there had been a discussion as to the respective number of ships in the French and English navies he would quote what he believed to be an accurate statement of the strength of the French navy. He found that our neighbours possessed four iron-cased ships of 3,750 tons and 900 horse-power, two of 4,200 tons and 1,000 horse-power, and ten of 3,780 tons and 1,000 horse- 439 power, making together sixteen vessels, built, or which would be ready in the course of the present year. In addition, the French had five floating batteries of about 10 ft. draught of water, four of from 8ft. to 10ft. draught, and seven of 6 ft. 6 in. draught, all in an advanced stage of construction. Then, they had five small batteries, built in sections, but not armour-plated, thus making a total of 37 iron-cased ships or batteries built or building in France. In this country we had 17 iron-plated ships built or in course of construction — eight upon Mr. Reed's plan and seven floating batteries, or a total of 32 against the French 37. Now, there was certain information which the Committee ought to have. It appeared that for wages, materials, and dockyard expenses we should spend this year about £3,000,000. They ought to know how much was for iron-plated ships, how much for wooden vessels for the police of the sea, and how much for repairs. Without such information the accounts before them were useless. They had at the present time a large number of ships which would cost as much to repair as to build. He wished to learn how many ships of various classes they were to have for the £3,000,000, and how large a sum was to be expended on the repairs.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he begged to express his satisfaction that the coal question had been brought before the Committee, and hoped the noble Lord would tell them what he proposed to do in reference to the future supply of coal. It was only by incessant, he might almost say persecution of the Admiralty, that the Government had granted the prayer of the coalowners of the North of England. The coalowners had not obtained their requests as matters of favour, for the reports of the engineers of the Admiralty were, in all respects, favourable to them.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, it would be desirable if the noble Lord would state the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to the repairs of iron-coated vessels. When the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) stated the proportion between our ironclads and those of France to be as thirty-seven French and thirty-one English, he ought to have mentioned the difference in their tonnage. The largest of the French vessels was 4,000 tons—most of them were of 2,000 tons—while in our own navy many of the ships were from 5,000 to 7,000 tons.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he believed that it was understood in the House that the Government could not do away with their wooden ships, as they required a vast number of such vessels to perform the duties of what might be termed the police at sea, and at the present time they had not arrived at the position of being able to do without frigates and corvettes. They were obliged, to a great extent, to put their forces upon the same footing as those of other countries. With regard to the question of coal, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had made such a grievance, and in connection with which he showed so much antipathy towards the Government—
MR. LINDSAYbegged to disclaim the idea of having either a grievance or an antipathy. He was merely performing his duty to his constituents by seeing that they obtained a fair return for the money they were called upon to expend.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty exhibited no partiality in the choice of their coal. The naval officers certainly preferred the Welsh to the North country material; and to test the value of each the Admiralty had instituted a series of careful experiments, the result of which was already before the House in a report which he had lately laid on the table. He could only inform the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), and also the North country coal owners, that the Government had no desire to employ the Welsh coal exclusively, but simply to obtain the most satisfactory mixture they could for the use of the fleet, and orders had been given to supply the Fleet with both descriptions, which were to be combined in various proportions, and careful reports to be made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) wished to know in what manner the Admiralty proposed to devote so large a sum of money to shipbuilding during the forthcoming year. Their proposal was to build of iron armour ships, 6–8ths; of wood armour large ships, 15½–8ths; of wood armour corvettes, 8¾–8ths; of frigates, 5¾ –8ths; of despatch vessels, 7½–8ths; of gunboats, 12½–8ths; of a fast vessel of new design, which he might term a species of Alabama, 6–8ths; and one tank vessel, for Simon's Bay. There was also some work to be done upon smaller vessels. He did not pledge himself for the Government's following out that programme in its entirety, because, 441 as the House well knew, they were influenced in a great measure by their repairs, which, if heavy, would largely disturb their building operations. They were in arrears as to repairs, and it was proposed by the end of the year to Lave the reserve in a satisfactory state, He acknowledged that the figures he had given to the House did not represent the ultimate number of armour vessels, because, although the amount of building was considerable, he had no hesitation in saying that if greater exertions were made elsewhere, it would be his duty to ask the House for additional supplies. The Government believed that the progress that was now being made, was so far satisfactory, that this country might be said to occupy the position to which she was entitled as compared with Foreign Powers
§ MR. LAIRDsaid, that it might be found necessary to take men engaged in shipbuilding from their duties and to place them upon repairs, but that fact would not prevent the noble Lord from replying to his question. He would again ask how many ships were to be built for the money that was about to be voted?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would give the hon. Member the names of the ships it was proposed to construct.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE,though he did not personally anticipate such an event, considered that six-eighths of a vessel like the Alabama would be of very little service in ease of the war with America, which the occupants of the Ministerial bench appeared to regard as so probable. If hostilities really were imminent, they ought, to construct twenty ships like the Alabama, or at the present moment to be in possession of twenty-five such vessels.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET,in reply to Mr. Laird, said, that the wooden ships, not armour-plated, to be completed during the year 1864–5 were the Endymion, screw-frigate at Deptford; a tank vessel for Simon's Bay; the Helicon, despatch, paddle steamer; the Minstrel, gunboat; the Cherub, gunboat; and a fast vessel of the Alabama class, of new design.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £662,212, Steam Machinery.
MR. COHRYobserved, that the item ''for engines ordered to be built," £17,000, seemed very small, and did not seem to indicate that any great effort was to be made.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that 442 the Admiralty were making very good progress with their engines.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked what were the iron gunboats for which there was an item of £120,000?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty were going to build two of those boats in the first instance, and not to commence any more until it was seen how those two answered.
§ Vote agreed to,
§ (3.) £64,350, Medicines and Medical, Stores.
§ SIR MORTON PETOasked what steps the Admiralty intended to take with respect to mitigating the prevalence of a disease which was at present so great an evil in the navy?
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSobserved, that the announcement of the intention of the Government to do away with the dock- yard at Deptford had given rise to a good deal of alarm among the men employed there and in the vicinity. He hoped, if such was the intention, that the claims of those men would be taken into consideration.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the subject referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) had engaged the serious attention of the Government, and he hoped that at a later period of the Session a proposal would be brought before the House with the view of checking that frightful disease which was so great an evil in the navy. With reference to the matter brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons), he was afraid it would be a considerable period before Deptford dockyard could be done away with; but when the time arrived the interests of the men employed in that yard would be duly considered.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £102,320, Naval Miscellaneous Services.
§ COLONEL SYKESobserved, that there was an item of £2,000 for subsistence and travelling expenses of dockyard officers and others superintending ships building by contract. He would beg to ask how many of those persons were there, how often in the year did they make their superintendence, and what was their allowance?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, there were Inspectors in the employ of the Go- 443 vernment at all the large armour makers and shipbuilders, to see that the contracts were properly carried out.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEbegged to urge the expediency of establishing sailors homes, and of combining therewith recruiting offices. There was a great want of the former as temporary barracks when the men came on shore; and with regard to the latter, he must say that recruiting was conducted on the primitive style of a hundred years ago, and that the public-houses were the recruiting offices of the navy. He would suggest that some money might be advantageously expended in improving the system?
MR. LINDSAYremarked, that different plans of fitting prevailed in the different public dockyards, and when the officers from those yards were sent out to inspect work under contract in private establishments, each carried with him the system that prevailed in the particular dockyard from which he had been sent. Much inconvenience was thereby caused to contractors when the Inspectors were changed during the progress of a contract. Could not an arrangement be made for leaving the one Inspector in charge throughout the execution of a contract, or for introducing a uniform system of fitting?
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYasked, Whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to appoint a Chaplain General to the navy in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee which had recently reported in favour of the appointment of such an official?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET,in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir James Elphinstone), said there was an increase over last year of £200 for contributions in aid of sailors' homes and charitable institutions in the neighbourhood of the dockyards. If the gallant Member proposed to have sailors' homes all over the coast, a new principle would be involved which could not be adopted without asking the House to consent to it. The scheme would entail considerable expenditure, since if carried out in England it must also be in Scotland and Ireland. In reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), he might say that the Duke of Somerset had taken into consideration the evidence laid before the Select Committee, and had found that, although it would be advantageous in some respects that a Chaplain General should be appointed, yet the arrangement had 444 corresponding disadvantages, as the appointment might interfere with the discipline in ships if the chaplain had any other superior than the captain to look to.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to explain that his question referred only to sailors' homes in dockyards.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £697,790, Half Pay, Reserved Half Pay, and Retirement Officers of Navy and Royal Marines.
MR. LINDSAYwished to know when the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty intended to bring forward his plan for the increase of pay in the navy.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the matter was not yet fully matured, but due notice would be given.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £490,201, Military Pensions and Allowances:—agreed to.
§ (7.) £193,983, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked, Why the full superannuation allowance of £1,000 a year granted to Sir Richard Bromley, the retired accountant general of the navy, was not included in this Vote? That pension had been allowed under a Treasury Minute of 1863, and the amount now asked was only £481 12s.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was true the Treasury had awarded Sir Richard Bromley a pension of £1,000, but the appointment which he now held at Greenwich, to the advantage of the public service, entitled him to receive £600 a year, and the amount on the Vote was to raise his pay to that which he would have received as accountant general. When he resigned his present appointment, he would be entitled to draw the entire pension fixed by the Treasury.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £314,230, Freight of Ships, &c.
§ COLONEL SYKESbegged to call attention to the increase in several items over the Estimates for last year.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, this was owing to the war in New Zealand and the surrender of the Ionian Islands. That step had rendered necessary the transport home of the stores hitherto collected there. Other portions of the increase were caused by the large force which had to be kept up in Canada and the local disbursements in China.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, a Committee had sat on the transport service, which recommended the consolidation of the several departments, and that the responsibility should be fixed. He regretted that those recommendations had not been carried out,
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty, as he had on more than one occasion before stated, were perfectly ready to carry out the transport service in connection with the Colonial Office, but that owing to the very weighty reasons which had been urged by the Duke of Newcastle against any alteration in the present system the change had not been made. Negotiations were, he might add, now going on with a view to bringing the Indian transport service between this country and Alexandria under the control of the Admiralty.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEremarked, that while the Himalaya and Orontes were very good ships for the transport service, that was not the case with other vessels so employed. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Government intended to increase the number of vessels of the Himalaya class, and whether they proposed to lay on the table any Returns with respect to the transport of men in private ships and in those belonging to the Admiralty, specifying the expense in each instance? He asked the question, because he fancied it would be found that such vessels as the Himalaya would convey men at a much smaller cost than any vessel which the Government might hire.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Baronet bear testimony to the economical working of the Admiralty transports. The Tamar and Orontes, which had been built by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) for the service, were very fine vessels. He could not say that it was the intention of the Admiralty to do anything further in that direction at present, but it was under consideration to build two large Government transports for the Indian Government.
MR. LINDSAYobserved, that however the matter might now stand, the last Returns which had been published on the subject clearly showed that the conveyance of troops in the Government transports cost just double that which was expended on private ships.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEbegged to repeat his question as to whether there would be any objection to give the Return to 446 which he had alluded, stating the relative cost of the conveyance of men in the vessels employed,
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, if the hon. Baronet would visit him at the Admiralty, he would endeavour to procure for him such information as he required.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed,
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow,
§ Committee to sit again on Wednesday.
§ House adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock.