HC Deb 22 February 1864 vol 173 cc903-19
MR. LINDSAY

rose to call attention to the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty in 1860 to inquire into the control and management of Her Majesty's Naval Yards; and to move, that in the opinion of this House the recommendations of the said Commissioners ought to be carried into effect. He said that he had hoped that the Naval Estimates would be postponed for a week, to give time for considering them; but he desired to make some observations on the Estimates as they stood.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the hon. Member would not be in order in referring to items in the Estimates, which, were about to be discussed in Committee.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that he did not intend to comment upon any items of the Estimates, but to offer some general remarks upon them as a whole. The total amount of the Estimates was upwards of £10,000,000; there was a reduction on last year of £300,000, and on the previous year of £1,300,000. He gathered this from a statement printed upon the Estimates, and which he regretted did not go back for seven or eight years, for then it would have shown that in 1858–9 the amount was £9,100,000, and the year before £8,200,000. The manner in which the reduction of £300,000 was proposed to be effected, was by asking a Vote for 2,000 Boys, 1,500 of the Coast Guard Service, and 500 able-bodied Seamen less than were asked for last year, with some reduction of stores; and yet at the same time there was to be a considerable increase in Vote 8, by adding 2,300 hired workmen in the building and 600 men in the Engineering Departments. Now, this increase could only be accounted for by the supposition that either they were going to spend a larger sum of money than formerly, or that they were about to reduce the stock of timber and other materials on hand, and thus be obliged to ask in future years for increased votes to make good the deficiency in the stock. He objected to the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government. They gave explanations about the most trivial items, bat did not properly account to the House for the larger amounts. Thus details of what each class of seamen received were given.

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Gentleman of what I stated just now. It appears to me that the course which the hon. Gentleman is now pursuing is exactly that which he said he did not intend to pursue. The Notice given by the hon. Member for Waterford referred to the construction of a dock at Malta, and to a choice of sites. It was of that kind that it could not be debated in Committee of Supply, but could, without impropriety, be brought under the notice of the House; but the course which the hon. Member is pursuing is quite different. He is going into an enumeration of particular items of the Navy Estimates. Those Estimates have been referred by the House to a Committee of Supply, and it is not in accordance with the practice of the House to discuss those items at the present stage.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he did not propose to refer to the items of the Navy Estimates, but to a Parliamentary paper laid before the House, which he held n his hand, containing the annual expense for ships built in1862 and 1863.While the Government informed the House of the amount spent in Bath brick and candles, they passed over, without explanation, such sums as £200,000 for "timber, &c.;" and information on these larger items of expenditure ought to be given before the House went into Committee of Supply. Some years ago, the House felt more deeply than at present that the country was not getting value for the large sums which they were expending upon the navy. The late Government appointed a Committee, presided over by Admiral Smart, to inquire into the subject; and the Committee was followed by a Royal Commission on the same subject. That Commission examined the entire question of the dockyards, and issued a Report, in which certain recommendations were made. He wished to know what the Government had done to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and the reasons why they had not carried them out. The Report found fault with the system of accounts as elaborate, while the results were not to be relied on for any practical purposes. The Admiralty had been trying to remedy this; but the accounts had become still more elaborate, and could not be relied on at the present time more than in 1859 and 1860. Then the Commission recommended an entire change in the constitution of the Admiralty. He wished to know why this important recommendation was not carried into effect? As matters stood, there was no responsibility at the Admiralty. The heads of the departments were responsible to the Lords of the Admiralty, but were the other Lords responsible to the First Lord, and was the First Lord responsible to that House? It was said that the First Lord was supreme at the Board; if he was not supreme, and any fault was found with him in that House, could the First Lord for instance say that the blame did not rest with him, but with the civil Lord? And, again, could the civil Lord shift the responsibility to the First Lord? The Commission recommended that there should be a Minister solely responsible for the management of the dockyards and for the administration of the affairs of the Admiralty. He (Mr. Lindsay) would be glad to know whether the Admiralty had considered this question. Much good would be effected if there was a Minister of Marine responsible to the country, at the head of the Admiralty, and the other officers responsible to the Minister of Marine. The Commission drew attention to the cost of constructing and converting Her Majesty's ships. He feared that on this point there had been no improvement since 1860, and that a five-pound note did not go further in the building of a ship now than at the date of the Commission. He was satisfied that without a radical change in the administration of the navy they could not have that economy, combined with efficiency, which they so much required.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he must say that he admired the gallant conduct of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland in this matter: he went on hoping against hope, determined never to lose sight of his object, but without the slightest chance of obtaining it. The hon. Gentleman had quoted the Report of the Royal Commission, and he told the House what were the recommendations of the Commissioners. In the first place, they said the control of the dockyards was inefficient, and the Report went on to raise three other objections. But it appeared to him (Mr. Bentinck) that, having arrived at the first objection, the Commissioners might have saved themselves the trouble of arriving at the other three, for they were all included under the one head—the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. His hon. Friend asked the House this question— why the Admiralty had not carried out the recommendation of the Commission, and reconstituted the Board of Admiralty? He believed that so long as the constitution of the present Board of Admiralty existed, so long would the present state of things be continued. The Board of Admiralty was intended to be a body whose duty was to keep the navy of Great Britain in the highest state of efficiency; but it was in fact neither more nor less than a political jobbing office. He spoke not against any particular Government, or any particular individual; he only said that it was inevitable, so long as the Board of Admiralty was constituted as it was—so long as it continued to be not a combination of nautical talent—it would be a political jobbing office, always seeking to serve first the exigencies of party. The hon. Gentleman asked the Government why they had not carried out the recommendations of the Commission. In answer, he must say he did not believe that they would give up their position, because such, a question was asked on such a Motion as then proposed. Then with reference to the Committee that was appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Admiralty—at the time it was proposed, he took objection to the constitution of the Committee, because it was composed almost exclusively of officials and ex-officials who were interested in maintaining the present state of things. He ventured at the time to predict what would be the result of the labours of the Committee. After sitting some time on the Committee, and hearing the self-laudatory speeches that were made, he came to the conclusion that the whole thing was an utter waste of time, and he requested the Committee to allow him to retire, and they kindly did so, and the Committee continued to sit till the end of the Session. At the commencement of the following Session the hon. and gallant Member for the North Riding (Admiral Duncombe) was asked if he would move the reappointment of the Committee; and he declined, as he said it was useless. He did not mention these facts to show simply that his prediction had come true, but in order to show that this mode of dealing with the question was utterly useless, for nothing would be done till the House of Commons determined to reconstitute the Board of Admiralty, and did away with the absurdity of putting civilians at the head of the Department who were utterly incompetent for the post. There were plenty of hon. Gentlemen ready to attack the Board of Admiralty, but they consisted of two classes—those, on the one hand, desiring to put an end to the present anomalous state of things; and, on the other, those whom he would call the peace-at-any-price party, who were desirous only of cutting down the vote for the defences of the country. So long as there was this unnatural alliance, and so long as the House of Commons did not take the question fairly in hand, these discussions were useless.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, he was glad to think that the hour had passed after which the noble Lord the Secretary of the Navy had stated that he would not bring on the Navy Estimates for discussion, for he did not think they were yet in a position to discuss them. A blue-book entitled "Navy Labour Charges," which did the utmost credit to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), had just been published. It contained an account of almost every halfpenny that had been spent in the dockyards. It would obviously be of the utmost service to the House; but as it had only been delivered four days, and as it contained 196 pages of closely-printed matter, the House had not had sufficient time to make itself acquainted with its contents. Other valuable Returns had also been delivered, which they ought to have more opportunity of studying. He found, for example, a charge of £51,764 for repairs in a single year of the Black Prince. He should like to ask the Government for some explanation of that. The charge was a monstrous one, and he should like to know whether it was the constructor's fault, or whether it arose from a fault in the building of the ship? He should like also to ask why the construction of naval barracks had been delayed? No one could doubt that they would be of the greatest possible utility to the service, and of the greatest importance to the health and well-being of the men. The matter had been discussed for two or three years past, and money had been voted for these barracks; yet not a brick had been laid. He should be glad to have some explanation of this. Again, there was the great question of how the iron-cased ships of the country were to be clad? They had had all sorts of targets proposed for the naval service; and he should be very glad to hear from his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), than whom there was no higher authority in Europe, his opinion on what had been done. His own idea was that it would have been very desirable to have tried the experiment upon the Minotaur target before the ship was built. Why was not that done? Nobody would say that the armour of the Warrior was not superior to that of the Minotaur, Northumberland, and the Agincourt. He had recently read a pamphlet by Mr. Chalmers, who asserted that he had invented a target which was better and cheaper than any that had yet been made. By the liberality of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), Mr. Chalmers had been enabled to construct a target on his plan, and it had certainly answered better than any other that had been tried; but while the Government had (very properly) repaid the hon. Member for Finsbury for risking the £1,200 which he had advanced, they had left the unfortunate inventor to bear his share of the cost, besides his loss of time and trouble. All that the Admiralty had done was to inform him, that although his plan was the best tried it was not suitable for the naval service. But surely they might have found out that before the experiments were tried, if such were the fact; and thus have saved the inventor his trouble, expense and disappointment. Referring to another point, he had heard that the Russian Government had invented a very powerful gun, and that they were using steel shot. He hoped his noble Friend would not, at any time, say that we had got the right gun; and although it was well known that the Government had been making numerous experiments, at an enormous cost to the country, everybody knew we had not yet got a gun suitable to the requirements of the times. He believed that no other country had a better gun, and so in that respect We were in the same state as our neighbours; but we ought to be in a better condition, considering our vast outlay on the investigation. He believed that if we had mortars which would throw long ranges, they would be very valuable; and he hoped the Admiralty would turn their attention to the construction of them. He desired to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty a question of which he had given notice, On what grounds the Admiralty have declined to apply to Parliament for a Grant of Money in aid of the erection of a Church and Schools at Brompton, it being understood that the Admiralty did apply for a Grant of £4,000 for the erection of the Church of St. James, Devonport?

MR. FERRAND

said, that the hon. Member for Sunderland had given notice of his intention to bring before the House the recommendations of the Commission of 1860–1 appointed to inquire into the management of Her Majesty's dockyards. Now he (Mr. Ferrand) said, that the Dockyards Commission was formed of four Whigs and one Tory, and, therefore, he had not much confidence in its reports. Last Session he had complained of the tryanny practised, not only by the present Admiralty, but by that of every Whig Government. He was then told that his language was too strong; but he did not think it was at all stronger than the circumstances demanded. The tyranny exercised over the workmen was in fact so great, that many of them had been driven from the dockyards, and he was informed that the Admiralty had had agents travelling through the country to try and induce shipwrights to leave the private and enter the Royal yards. He was informed, moreover, that petitions were constantly coming up from every class of mechanics and artisans complaining of some hardship or other. The hired men had also grievous complaints, which they had laid before the Board, and which were most ably set forth last summer in a letter published in The Times. He should be glad if the Admiralty would allay the bad feeling which now existed, and would show to the working men employed in the Royal dockyards that justice would be done them. Again, the appointment of Mr. Reed as Chief Constructor of the Navy had been looked upon, not only by the superior officers of the dockyards, but by the country, as a gross political job, and it had forced into retirement the ablest shipbuilder in the world, Mr. Laing. Last Session, the Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood) gave him a flat contradiction in what he said as to the tyranny of the Whig Admiralty, which prevented a free exercise of the franchise by the dockyard employés. The right hon. Gentleman said:— When I was First Lord, the patronage of the dockyards was given over to the Superintendents, and since then the Board of Admiralty have had nothing to do with promotion or employment in the yards. But the best proof of the independence of those employed in the dockyards is the hon. Gentleman's presence here; for if at the last election for Devonport, the dockyard votes had not been given at all, the Lord of the Admiralty would have been returned, whereas, in fact, with a majority elsewhere in his favour, the Lord of the Admiralty had a majority of 150 dockyard votes against him." [3 Hansard, clxix. 784.] Now the reason that he (Mr. Ferrand) had obtained a large majority of the dockyard voters was that Admiral Symonds, then Admiral Superintendent at Devonport, had the manliness and the honesty to give notice that every voter would be allowed to vote according to his conscience, and, that if any man, whatever his position, dared to interfere, he should instantly be dismissed. It was an extraordinary sight to witness the joy which this notice created among the workmen, who were then, for the first time, able to exercise the franchise freely. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), who was a member of the Dockyard Commission, had made this statement, 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."—[3 Hansard, clxix. 837.] Now, his constituents were as honest, as high minded, and as high principled as the electors of Glasgow, and they felt that a grievous wrong had been done them by the hon. Member, whom he had challenged to give his authority for such a statement. That hon. Gentleman had said the Admiralty were doing their duty on that occasion. He would show the House how the Admiralty had performed their duty in the borough of Devonport. In 1859 he contested the borough, and while doing so grievous complaints were made to him, that, for many months previous, many vacancies had occurred in the dockyard which were not filled up. After the election he came to London and called at the Admiralty. There he saw a gentleman connected with the Board, and told him of the complaints he had heard at Devonport, asking him whether they were true. The reply he got was, that it was the duty of the Admiral Superintendent at Devonport to send the monthly lists of vacancies up to the Controller of the Navy — that those lists were received by the Controller, and, if the vacancies had not been filled up, would be found in his office. The gentleman who made this statement went to the Controller's office, and on returning said, "You are wrong; there are no vacancies at all at Devonport." When he afterwards mentioned at Devonport the answer he had thus received, he was told, "Oh! you must not believe the Whig Board of Admiralty; they are bamboozling you." He went back to the Admiralty on the subject, and saw the same officer, who again brought him the same reply from the Controller's office. That occurred three or four times; but a few days before Lord Derby's Government left office, and his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) retired from his position of First Lord, he returned once more to the Admiralty, when he saw the same officer, and told him that there were lists of vacancies in the Controller's Office, and that unless he were furnished with them, he would get a friend in the House of Commons to put a question to the Secretary of the Board on the matter, when the truth must come out, for he did not care to be trifled with any more. The gentleman then went away, and returned in half an hour, bringing a list of between thirty and forty vacancies which had been kept back for a long time, thereby depriving many honest men of their fair right to promotion. He saw the Secretary, who introduced him to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), and the latter assured him that if he continued at the Admiralty the matter would be investigated. But the change of Ministry took place, and in a few days after the Duke of Somerset became First Lord every one of these vacancies was filled up, so as to strengthen the Whig Government. Then, moreover, it was said to the people of Devonport, What an idle fellow Sir John Pakington is! He would not take the trouble to fill up these offices. The Whigs have given you these appointments, —they are the men who ought to be at the Admiralty." He was put in nomination for Devonport by his friends, against Sir Michael Seymour, and was nearly returned without canvassing an elector. On the following week he contested the borough against Sir Arthur Buller. The Whig Admiralty became alarmed, and put on the screw. A gallant friend of his, who held an office of small emolument under the Horse Guards, received a letter signed "Sidney Herbert" (who was then at the War Office), telling him that any interference with the election would be visited with dismissal. It was then hoped that there would be fair play. Great excitement prevailed on account of Sir Baldwin Walker, the Controller of the Navy, having kept back the thirty or forty appointments, and it was generally thought that he would be returned. But to the amazement of everybody, his friend, who had received the order above stated from the War Office, received a communication from an official in the Admiralty, which was placarded in the borough, informing the electors that the reason why the vacancies had not been filled up was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a mistake in his calculations—that there had been no money for the salaries of the officers in question, but that now there was some and the offices had been all filled up. That letter was signed by Sir Baldwin Walker, then Controller of the Navy. What could the Admiralty say for such conduct as that? Well, he and his friends thought that a very bad proceeding, but very like the Whigs. The nomination came, and when he went to the Town Hall whom should he see acting openly as fugleman to the Whigs but a naval officer in full uniform, who held high office in the dockyard? The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), who had become very Whiggish, seemed to think this a laughing matter, but he would find out his mistake. The Whig fugleman in full uniform interrupted the proceedings in a most offensive manner, and the remark was made at the time that he would not be long in getting his reward from the Duke of Somerset. Well, the Commission to which he had referred was appointed, when, sure enough, the Whig fugleman, for his services at the Devonport election, figured as one of its members. ["Name, name?"] He was described as "Our trusty and well-beloved Robert Spencer Robinson, Esq., Captain, R.N." The Commissioners sat in London on the 25th of October, 1860, and Sir Baldwin Walker, then Controller of the Navy, was examined before them. When asked by the Chairman (Mr. Peel), What have you to do with promotion in the yards?" Sir Baldwin answered, The papers on the subject of promotions are forwarded to the Admiralty, and are generally marked to me for report; sometimes they come to me direct. I submit my report to the Board, and that is generally dealt with by the Secretary to the Admiralty: he has these promotions. The Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), the only Conservative on the Commission who did his duty honestly and faithfully, then took Sir Baldwin Walker in hand and sifted him thoroughly. He asked, "I understand you to say that your recommendations are not conclusive?" The answer was "No, I merely submit the whole case to the Admiralty for their decision." To the next question, "I understand you to say that you submitted the cases of promotion to the Secretary?" The reply was, "It goes to the Admiralty; it is in the Secretary's department; he has the promotions." This was Sir Baldwin Walker's evidence; and it directly contradicted the assertions of the Secretary of State for India—namely, that the Board and the Secretary had nothing to do with the promotions; that they rested with the superintendents. Sir Baldwin was also asked whether the results of an examination for a vacant inspectorship would be conclusive in the candidate's favour, and he said, "Not always. Where there is a very good practical man who has passed a good practical examination, and who has long servitude, that is considered also." "By whom?" Answer: "When recom- mended by the local officers, I concur in their opinion. I submit his promotion to the Admiralty." Sir Baldwin added that the examination papers were submitted to him sometimes in the first instance, and at other times they went through the Admiralty; that "since the Duke of Somerset has revised my department, they generally came direct to me." In some cases they went to the Secretary. Then Sir Henry Willoughby stepped in again. He asked, was influence ever brought to bear in these appointments? The answer was— I have no reason to believe that any undue influence is used in any way. I believe that officers are conscientious in the recommendations they make. 'The Secretary has power to act upon these unless they have reference to the promotion of high officers in the dockyards. That rests with the First Lord. Sir Henry Willoughby then squeezed out the Duke of Somerset, showing how the First Lord of the Admiralty interfered with the appointment of the working men in the borough of Devonport. I may mention," the reply went on, "that the Duke of Somerset has very carefully looked into most of the promotions since he has been in office, lie has been excessively particular on the subject with the view of making the best selection"—politically speaking, he (Mr. Ferrand) might add, "I have generally gone into the question with the Duke about promotion. That originated the difference with the Secretary. The Duke since that period has gone into the question himself. An ex-First Lord and former Secretary of the Admiralty (Sir. Charles Wood) said the patronage was given over to the superintendents, and since then the Board of Admiralty had nothing to do with promotion in the yards. He hoped the House would allow him to read two or three more questions and answers, that the country might know what was being done by the Duke of Somerset and his colleagues at the Admiralty— Has it come to your knowledge that vacancies have been kept open for periods of time?—There have been two or three instances in which the vacancies have been kept open longer than usual; the appointments have been kept back by the Admiralty on one or two occasions. In consequence of the great pressure in my department, when so many vessels were being built by contract, and one thing and another,"—[There were no vessels building by contract, but it was the "one thing and another,"]—"there was a little delay on my part in transmitting some of the names of the candidates for promotion, in consequence of not having time to go fully into the question. Have any such cases of delay occurred in the dockyard at Devonport?—There was a statement made that the appointments had been kept back from political motives, but that was not the case. It was principally in consequence of the great pressure, but there were other causes. The returns which were sent up were not considered satisfactory. I had to send the papers down on two or three occasions for more full explanation. Not one paper ever was sent down. What number of appointments were delayed? —I cannot at this moment call the number to my mind, but my impression is that there may have been four or five vacancies. In that one dockyard?—I think so, but I may mention that that is not at all detrimental to the public service. The moment there is a vacancy the officers of the yard have the power of putting a person to act. It is submitted to the Admiralty, it goes through my department, and I recommend it for approval until the permanent appointment is made. Chairman.—When you say that there is no loss to the public, what knowledge have you of the person selected being the most eligible in the yard?—You depend chiefly upon the officers in the yard. Then came the hon. Member for Glasgow, the Royal Commissioner (Mr. Dalglish), and he put this question, "Is it a temporary appointment?" That is all. That was the only question the Member for Glasgow put, in order to sift this corrupt proceeding on the part of the Admiralty. He should have been delighted had that hon. Gentleman put half-a-dozen searching questions. Why he was silent he could not understand, unless it was that he was sorry such an exposure should be made of the Whig party. Sir Henry Willoughby put this other question— There is no regulation in your office that the Controller should report vacancies within a given period?—No, it does not state any particular period. I look to the requirements of the service. For instance, with reference to Devonport, it has just occurred to me that there was another reason why some of the appointments were kept back. We had a greater number of men in the yards than it was intended to continue after the financial year; we had many hired men, and as there were already a number of acting officers who would have been reduced when the men were discharged, I did not think it desirable that an additional number of acting officers should be appointed for so short a time. He should like now to read a few questions and answers from the evidence of Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Pasley, Admiral Superintendent of the dockyard, when these disgraceful proceedings occurred. He used the word "disgraceful" advisedly. Sir Thomas Pasley was seriously compromised by the statement of Sir Baldwin Walker; he appeared before the Commission and was examined. In answer to question 2,522, Sir Thomas Pasley stated— What are your powers as Admiral Superintendent as to promotions in this dockyard?—I have no powers at all as to promotion; the promotions are regulated by examination, and reference to the Admiralty; the results of the examination are sent up to the Admiralty. Are you bound to report vacancies within a given time?—The vacancies are all reported at the end of every month. Are the vacancies filled up by the Board of Admiralty on the recommendation of any authorities in this yard?—No, the vacancies are filled up by the result of the examinations; the candidates for promotion are examined professionally by the professional officers; and they are examined in mathematics and arithmetic, and so on, by the schoolmaster of the yard; this is all sent up in a tabular form with the number of marks gained by each candidate, and it is referred to the Admiralty for their decision, and they almost invariably, unless the Superintendent reports that there is a very good reason indeed to the contrary (which he sometimes, but very seldom does), select the man first on the list for the promotion; it arises from the number of marks. Since you have been Admiral Superintendent, have vacancies in the higher offices ever been allowed to remain unfilled for a length of time?— No. Or in any offices?—Two years ago there was a long interval, when some of the subordinate officers in the ropery were not appointed; but I do not know what it arose from—there was some delay. In whose department would the recommendation of the officers in the ropery be?—It comes through me from the master-attendant; it is under the master-attendant. But the delay was at head-quarters, it was not here, it was somewhere between Somerset House and the Admiralty. Did that delay extend over a year?—No, it began in one year and ended in the other, but there was not a year's interval. In the statements of Sir Thomas Pasley and Sir Baldwin Walker, he found the following striking contradictions. In answer to Sir Henry Willoughby: "Has it come to your knowledge that vacancies have been kept open for periods of time?" Sir Baldwin Walker replied— Inconsequence of the great pressure in my department, when so many vessels were being built by contract, and one thing and another, there was some little delay on my part in transmitting some of the names. Sir Thomas Pasley said, "The delay began in one year and ended in another, but there was not a year's interval." The vacancies were denied at the office, and there was no shipbuilding by contract in 1858 and 1859. Again, Sir Baldwin Walker said— The Returns which were sent up were not considered satisfactory. I had to send the papers down on two or three occasions for more full explanations. And Sir Thomas Pasley said— The delay was at head-quarters; it was not here. It was somewhere between Somerset House and the Admiralty (the Controller's office.) Sir Baldwin Walker said— The vacancies not being filled up is not detrimental to the public service. The moment there is a vacancy the officers of the yard have the power of putting a person to act. Sir Thomas Pasley said, "There was a long interval, when some of the subordinate offices in the ropery were not filled up." Now, he believed the fact was, that the thirty or forty permanent appointments that were kept open for ten months, were filled up in ten days after the Duke of Somerset became the First Lord of the Admiralty. Sir Baldwin Walker again said— It has just occurred to me, that there was another reason why some of the appointments were kept back; we had a greater number of hired men in the yards than it was intended to continue after the financial year. Yet, in his election letter he stated— The vacancies have been filled up. The reason why they were not filled up at once was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a mistake in his calculations of the sum of money required. With regard to the promotions, Sir Baldwin Walker said— My impression is, that the Secretary has the power to act upon them. He has the power of deciding the question. But the gallant Admiral afterwards contradicts himself when he says— With the view of making the best selection, I have generally gone into the question with the Duke with reference to promotions. This originated in a difference between the Secretary and myself. The Duke, from that period, has gone into the question himself. But the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) states— When I was First Lord, the patronage of the Admiralty was given over to the superintendents, and since then the Board have had nothing to do with promotion in the employment of the yards. On the evidence taken before the Commissioners becoming known to the Duke of Somerset what steps had he taken to explain or deny them? None. And when the Royal Commissioners desired Sir Baldwin Walker to again attend before them and give further evidence, what did the Duke of Somerset do. Why, he shipped him off to the Pacific in one of the swiftest steamers the Admiralty had at their command, and when that House decided the gallant Admiral should again attend before the Royal Commissioners, the Duke of Somerset treated that demand with contempt, and sent out an old tub of a steamer after him, knowing very well that she could not overtake him. In fact, it was more like Sir Baldwin Flyer in the fast steamer and Sir Baldwin Walker in the second one. Who was the controller of the navy? The Whig fugleman. That was his reward for disgracing the uniform he wore. He (Mr. Ferrand) was sorry to say, that there were complaints now in the dockyards of the same kind of tyranny being practised; and he believed that Admiral Robinson and the Duke of Somerset were as carefully working the electors of the present day as the Duke of Somerset and Sir Baldwin Walker were shown to have been in that evidence that was extracted by the ability of his hon. Friend. No wonder there was dissatisfaction in Her Majesty's dockyards. No wonder the Admiralty were obliged to send agents through the country to get men to work in the dockyards. This was not the case in former days. It was Whig tyranny that had brought this state of things to pass. And who were the men who were acting in this manner? Why, those who had hunted the noble-hearted Augustus Stafford to death. If the right hon. Baronet the ex-Lord of the Admiralty had been present in the House, he (Mr. Ferrand) would have asked him to reconcile the statement he had made last year with the evidence that had been produced that night. There was no denying it—the Duke of Somerset could not deny it. He had now had the satisfaction of showing the Duke and Sir Baldwin Walker up in that House for the manner in which they had acted in the borough of Devonport. They had given orders, he knew, that he was not to be returned for that borough again. He himself believed that he would sit for the borough of Devonport long after the Duke of Somerset had ceased to be the First Lord of the Admiralty; and if he should be driven from office to-morrow, by a vote of censure from that House, for conduct such as he (Mr. Ferrand) had brought under the notice of Parliament that evening, he believed that there was not a man in the British naval service, or throughout the country, who would not rejoice at his being driven from office.

MR. DALGLISH

said, that if all the charges brought by the hon. Member against the Admiralty were true, the electors of Devonport were the most patriotic constituency in the kingdom, and that they deserved an eternal monument for sending the hon. Member to Parliament. However, the matters to which the hon. Member had recurred had been already so thoroughly sifted, that it was quite unnecessary for him to say one word in reply.

Main Question put, and agreed to.