SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 29 February 1864 vol 173 cc1280-315

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) Original Question again proposed, That 71,950 Men and Boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, including 18,000 Royal Marines.

Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) £2,874,647, Wages.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

observed, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, had introduced these Estimates in a very elaborate and able speech, which he regretted he had not the opportunity of hearing. The noble Lord took great credit to himself and the Government for having saved £303,422 on the Estimates this year as compared with the extravagant expenditure of last year. He wanted to compare the Estimates of the present year with those of the year before preparations were made for the Russian war, and which, therefore, was a fair standard of comparison with the present time. For this purpose he took the year 1851–2, when the present occupants of the Treasury bench were almost all in the Government of the day. The expenditure on the navy in 1851–2 was £5,727,000, and this year the Naval Estimates amounted to £10,432,610, showing an increase of no less than £4,705,000. The Secretary to the Admiralty had made reduction in some items of the present Estimates, no doubt, but he had made a corresponding increase on other items. Thus he had reduced the item of stores by £170,000, but the wages of artificers had been increased by very nearly the same amount. There were 18,000 Marines, 10,000 of whom were serving on shore, making an addition to the standing army by that amount. The coast-guard also seemed more numerous than necessary, for when he found himself near a coast-guard station he was told that there was no such thing as smuggling now. He observed that there were already thirty-seven General officers of Marines, yet an hon. Gentleman had put a notice on the paper that sixteen were necessary. Now, he had never heard of a General of Marines commanding that force on active service either on board or on shore. He trusted the noble Lord would tell the House why £12,000,000 more for the army and navy were required this year than in 1851–2. He was as anxious as any one to maintain the supremacy of the navy; he only objected to money being expended unnecessarily.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he would like to call the attention of the noble Lord to one item of the Vote—namely, the pay of the Marines. That valuable and distinguished corps had very seldom an opportunity of having their interests represented in that House. The Royal Marines being a seniority corps, provision had already been made for quickening promotion among the officers, which, by some accident he supposed, had not been fully carried out by the Admiralty. In the year 1854, at the commencement of the Crimean war, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the promotion of the seniority corps —the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. In consequence of the Report of that Commission, which recommended that a certain sum be bestowed upon those two corps for the purposes of retirement and promotion, an Order in Council was obtained by the Admiralty in 1854, with a view of benefiting the corps of Royal Marines. About that time the normal condition of the corps was 12,000 men. The Artillery force was then 20,000 men. The Royal Commission had recommended that £32,000 a year should be bestowed in furthering and purchasing promotion in the Artillery, and £16,000 in furthering promotion in the Engineers. The Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers had ever since received the benefit of the full sum recommended by the Royal Commissioners. But although in consequence of the recommendation of the Order in Council of 1854 the Admiralty had ever since at their disposal in each year the sum of £35,000 for quickening retirement and promotion in the Royal Marines, they had never spent that sum. The sum voted last year for the retirement, &c., of officers of the Royal Marines amounted to £32,000; this year a Vote was taken for £30,000; so that there remained a balance of £5,000 or more in their favour, accumulating each year. He contended that the full sum recommended by the Royal Commission ought to be expended in promoting retirement in the Marine force. The number of Generals fixed for the Marines was ten. That was the number when the Marines amounted only to 12,000. They were 12,050 on the 1st of January, 1854, but on the 13th of January, 1854, they were raised to 15,500 for the Crimean War, and on the 22nd of February, 1860, were still further increased to 18,000. It would appear proper, then, to increase the number of Generals belonging to the force; such a step would expedite promotion, and would give the same opportunity for rising as was enjoyed by the officers of the Artillery and Engineers. What he would suggest was that £5,000 which was not now spent should be applied to increase the number of General officers of the Marine force to sixteen. He trusted the Admiralty would take the matter into their consideration, and he begged to move that the number of General officers of Marines be increased to sixteen, in accordance with the spirit of the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1854.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that as the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member proposed to increase one particular item beyond the amount proposed by the responsible Minister of the Crown, it could not be entertained by the Committee.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, his proposal would not go to increase the number of men or the amount of money. The sum of £35,000 was at the disposal of the Admiralty, annually, for this purpose, and they did not exhaust or spend the money. He proposed that six Colonels should become Generals. He made that as a suggestion.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the explanation would appear to divest the Motion of its objectionable character; but, as it would appear on the Journals of the House it would be a Motion for an increase, and it was sufficient for him to say that such a proceeding was contrary to the usages of Parliament and the express rules of the House. He should therefore decline to put the Question.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, there were thirty-seven Generals of Marines, and that number appeared to him quite sufficient.

COLONEL SYKES

said, it struck him, there was some disposition in the House and in the public journals to keep the pub- lic in ignorance of the real strength of our resources for manning the navy. The House was asked to vote wages for 53,000 men and boys, 18,000 marines—10,000 on shore and 8,000 afloat—making a total of 71,000. There was, besides, 950 civilians for the coast-guard service, and if we added 16,000 reserves there was a grand total of resources available for manning our ships of 87,950. In his experience there never was such an amount in figures under the consideration of the House before. In the very next Vote, provisions were asked for no fewer than 85,167, out of the 87,950, so that a goodly proportion of the 16,000 reserved men were likely to prove their effectiveness by the consumption of rations. He trusted these figures would establish, to the satisfaction of the country at large, the efficient state of our means for manning the navy. There was an additional sum of £162,438 for artificers in Her Majesty's dockyards. His noble Friend stated, that sixty-four ships would require repairs in the present year. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET said, there were generally about fifty-three or fifty-four ships requiring repairs annually.] There never had been any such extra charge for any such service before, and he did not understand why it had been made now. A new word had been introduced into the Estimates. A charge was made for the superintendents of the dockyards and their "retinue," thirty in number. Did the superintendents propose to make circuits of the dockyards, with drums beating and colours flying, and were these accompaniments to constitute their retinue?

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

asked for an explanation of an increase of £13,000 in the third article of wages, the number of commissioned officers and men being less.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

said, he shared in the regret which had been expressed by many hon. Members at the proposed reduction of 2,000 boys. In the war from 1793 to 1815 we had recourse to the merchant navy, to the assistance of apprentices, and to the collier vessels, but we could not look to large assistance from those quarters now. The Admiralty deserved the highest commendation for having placed training ships at our large mercantile ports in order to obtain a promising set of young men for the navy; and the training ships were of the utmost value. On board of those ships the boys would be trained in habits of industry, cleanliness, self-respect, discipline, and subordination, and when they entered the navy would become attached to it, and would not desire to leave it, and in the course of four or five years they would be among our most promising men, upon whom the country might rely in any emergency. He would earnestly express his hope that if it should be found disadvantageous to the service to reduce the boys, their number would be quickly restored. The hon. Member opposite (Colonel Sykes) had remarked upon the large number of ships, sixty-four in all, that would be put under repair this year. But a cloud was gathering in the horizon, and remembering that our commerce was equal to that of every other country in the world, and that there was no water upon which the British flag did not float, it was absolutely necessary for the protection of that commerce that our navy should be everywhere. The Admiralty were under the necessity of calling home the vessels after a time, and, therefore, it was easily to be understood how in the course of the present year sixty-four vessels might return home. As it was a moral impossibility for any man to tell beforehand what they would cost in repairs, they were obliged to take a round sum for the purpose; but if the whole of the money was not spent it would be accounted for in the next Estimates. Under all the circumstances, it was to be hoped that the Admiralty would look to the efficiency of the service, and not too closely count the cost, so that at all times the country might rely on the naval service for the maintenance of its reputation and honour.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

asked, how it was that, while the number of men was reduced, the number of officers was increased? Last year there were 3,661 principal officers for a larger number of men, and in the present year there were 3,667 for a smaller number, besides an additional expense on this head of more than £15,000. The increase also extended to the case of the subordinate officers, who numbered 842 for last year and 857 for the present. The same was the case with the warrant officers.

MR. C. P. BERKELEY

observed, that in the Estimates of the present year the account of naval old stores, money, &c, applied to the period between the 1st of April, 1862, and the 31st of March, 1853; but in last year's Estimates the account appeared to have been made up between the 1st of January and the 31st of De- cember, 1862. This discrepancy ought to be explained, as it would otherwise seem that three-fourths of the money for old stores, &c, had been received twice over.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen had complained of the number of men to be employed during the year. [Colonel SYKES said, he did not complain." He was glad to hear the disclaimer. As for himself, he saw with regret any diminution in the number. He also regretted the proposal of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, to reduce the number of boys. No man valued the merchant seamen more highly than himself, but they were of less value now to the fleet than formerly, when the navy consisted entirely of sailing vessels. In the present day, the fleets of Europe were manned by seamen gunners, and the motive power being steam, the ships did not need to have the same description of seamen as formerly. It was therefore important that the British fleet should be manned by persons well qualified as gunners. A smart seaman from the merchant service was not equal to a boy trained up for the navy, who knew every part of the ship, who was qualified for a gunner, whose education, too, was superior to that of a merchant seaman, and who was better disciplined, for the discipline of the merchant service was a different thing from that of the navy. He should, however, be very sorry to stop the stream from the merchant service to the Queen's service; but the right time for bringing the merchant seamen into the fleet was the period of war, and during peace they should be left to the duties of their own service. If they adopted the system of bringing merchant seamen into our ships of war at once, they would raise the rate of wages in the merchant service; and he should, therefore, be glad if the noble Lord would ask the House to Vote 1,000 more boys. The noble Lord had told the House that the conduct of the sailors in the fleet was most admirable, and it could not, he believed, be surpassed. That, then, was a reason for keeping up a disciplined force, and the present were certainly not times to part with the naval strength of the country or with the Militia. The noble Lord very wisely contemplated to add to the navy a force of artificers or mechanics, but appeared to be in doubt whether to attach that force to the seamen or to the Marines. In his opinion, they ought to be attached to the Marines. If they were attached to the seamen, when a ship was paid off the artificers would be dispersed, and the country would lose their services; but if they formed an integral part of the Royal Marine corps, they would remain with that force during the whole period of service, and when a ship was paid off they would go to their division, their military discipline would be kept up, and they might -be, until placed on board ship again, employed in the dockyards. He recommended that these military artificers should be taught the art of diving, as sappers used to be trained at Chatham, and there would then be on board the iron-clad ships men competent in harbour to inspect the ships' bottoms, and even to clean them from barnacles. The noble Lord had had his attention directed very much to Lock Hospitals, or to Lock wards in some hospitals; but the noble Lord seemed to be in doubt as to what else to do. He would tell the noble Lord that the next step to having Lock Wards, was to have refuges for the fallen wherever there were Lock Wards. Many of the fallen in the ports might be rescued by the expenditure of a small sum for this purpose. The noble Lord drew a lamentable and heart-rending picture of the ravages of a particular disease, and it was to be hoped that he would turn his attention to this important subject, and endeavour to raise the fallen as well as to cure the sick.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he had listened with great pleasure to the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, and he should have listened with still greater pleasure if he had announced that it was intended to add to rather than diminish the number of men in the navy, and to make greater exertions to increase the number of armour-plated ships. In consequence of the existence of the Naval Reserve, the number of men was of less importance than it used to be; but, under present circumstances, he did not think that 3,000 men was a sufficient naval force for us to have in our home ports. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: These men were not included in the Naval Reserve.] He knew that; but he contended that such a number, even coupled with the Naval Reserve, was not sufficient to meet the contingencies which might shortly arise. His opinion was that no reduction in the number of men ought to be made; on the contrary, he believed that both the House and the country would cordially have supported a proposal for increasing the number of men in the navy. The question of ships was of still greater importance. His noble and gallant Friend stated, that at the end of this year we should have nineteen, and in the course of next year twenty-five armour-plated ships, and the noble Lord spoke of this as a marvellous exertion on the part of this country. Now, in his (Mr. Bentinck's) opinion, the exertions that had been made were not adequate to the wants of the country. Wooden ships were now so entirely useless for all purposes of warfare, that what this statement amounted to was, that in the course of next year we should have a navy of twenty-five ships. That was a most unsatisfactory, a most melancholy statement, and he regretted that the Government had not come boldly to the House and said that they intended building a new navy. This year his noble Friend had, rather to his disappointment, omitted his usual comparison between our naval strength and that of France. France was the only Power in the world which was capable of rivalling us upon the sea, and therefore we ought to bear in mind what was the actual navy of this country. He should be glad to see the realization of that state of things which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) imagined to exist at the present moment—namely, that our navy should equal those of the whole world. Unfortunately, that was not the case now. [Colonel SYKES: Figures show it.] Figures were not always to be relied on, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been completely misled. Nothing could be more delusive than the statements made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the strength of the French navy. He said that the French had only 214 ships, while we had 592. That might be so, but considering the duties which the extent of our colonial empire and our commerce imposed upon our navy, we required, even in time of peace, five or ten times the navy of France. The hon. and gallant Gentleman dwelt upon our twenty-five armour-plated ships. Those vessels might form the nucleus of a very fine navy; but to attempt to perform with them all the duties of our naval force was idle and absurd. You might as well attempt to do them with a collier brig. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had been much misled by the information which he had received upon the subject of transports. He said, that the French had only a few transports of 800 tons burden. Why, he himself had been on board a number of fine screw frigate built ships of 2,000 tons' burden intended especially for cavalry transports. Two years ago there were forty of these vessels, and he was told by the authorities of Rochefort that they hoped to have upwards of eighty; they hoped to name one after every Department in Franco. [Colonel SYKES: That is not in their Budget.] His hon. and gallant Friend said, that the French had only 44,000 sailors afloat. Was he not aware, that by reason of the maritime conscription, they could in forty-eight hours procure any number of men who had been trained to the sea for years? The hon. and gallant Gentleman, it was true, quoted the French Budget in support of his statements, but it was notorious that that Budget was a farce so far as related to the affording information as to the expenditure of the Imperial Government, which could command any amount of money for the prosecution of any object which it sought to accomplish. We must, therefore, form an opinion with respect to the strength of the French navy, not so much from what was said on the subject, as from what hon. Gentlemen could learn in the dockyards of France from actual inspection. For his own part, he looked, under all the circumstances of the case, at the reduction of our military and naval force as a measure based upon a system of wretched parsimony, which seemed to be so greatly favoured by some Members on the other side, but which would ultimately lead to enormous expense.

MR. BAXTER

deprecated these attacks on the Government for reducing the expenditure connected with the navy. Hon. Gentlemen who, like the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), were continually crying "wolf," and who seemed to revel in such excitement as that which was created some time ago by the panic of a French invasion, appeared to be anxious for such an increase of taxation as it was impossible the country could bear. He, for one, should protest against that state of feeling, because he believed it to be unworthy of us as a nation, and because he felt quite assured that, whenever real danger arose, nothing would be left undone to repel it from our shores. In order that we might do that the more effectually the policy of Great Britain ought, in his opinion, to be to husband her resources in time of peace, and that being the view which he took, he saw no cogent reason why the Government should propose to keep up even so large a naval or military force as that which they now asked the House to sanc- tion. He knew no reason why the Government should have asked for so large a number of men either for the army or the navy as they had done; but he would accept the small reduction they had made as an earnest of the principle he advocated. He must also express his satisfaction that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty had omitted to make that comparison between the French navy and our own to which the hon. Member for Norfolk referred. That to him (Mr. Baxter) was one of the chief recommendations of the noble Lord's statement. No good result could, he thought, arise from the annual adoption of such a course. But he might, in corroboration of what fell from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) be allowed to state that, while similar statements had been over and over again made in that House by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), and by himself, a friend of his who had gone to France, and who was connected with our volunteer force, had informed him that, in comparison with those of England, he found Cherbourg and the other naval ports of France comparatively deserted. We had altogether 592 vessels afloat and 38 building, and that number—630—represented very closely the aggregate of the navies of the other Powers, excepting the vast flotilla which the Federal Government had improvised for a special purpose, and which was not fitted for ocean service. Surely the hon. Member could not mean to say that in the event of war we should commission only the 25 armour-plated ships; for there could be no doubt that our 59 wooden liners and our 57 large frigates would be able to do excellent service of some kind or other. The continual cries for an augmentation of our naval as well as military forces were absurd, and would lead, if they were carried out, to dire financial embarrassment. He thought that very great reliance should be placed upon our reserves. The hon. Member for Norfolk had complained that his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen had left out of his reckoning the maritime conscription of France, and that France could within forty-eight hours get any number of men she required for her navy. But the truth was the maritime conscription had proved an utter failure. It had been found that the reserves could not be called up effectually, and the French Government were at that very moment considering what other system could be substituted for that which had been so often used as a bugbear in the House of Commons, but which had now so lamentably broken down. For his own part he did not believe that an efficient naval reserve could be successfully established where the population was not fond of the sea, and that was certainly the case with the French. He did not believe they could by any means maintain a naval reserve worthy of mention in comparison with the naval reserve of England. No nation had such advantages in this respect as England, with her magnificent merchant navy, and almost inexhaustible supply of able seamen—to say nothing of the great number of magnificent merchant steamers, which in the event of war could for many purposes be used as vessels of war. He believed that our system of naval reserves was one of the best systems of defence that had ever been instituted, and if fully carried out it would place a most powerful weapon in our hands. He was glad to observe an increase in the Vote for the Royal Naval Reserve, as he held that it was by such means we ought to strengthen our maritime power. The tonnage of the port of Dundee was 48,078, and at that port there were no fewer than 859 seamen who were enrolled members of the Naval Reserve. Now the tonnage of England by the last Return was 3,969,356; of Scotland, 642,337; and of Ireland, 238,504; making a total of 4,860,191 tons; and if the whole country supplied men in the same proportion as Dundee the Naval Reserve would number 90,605 men. He was glad to find not only that the Reserve was very popular among the merchant sailors, but that those who had joined it had undergone a great improvement both in appearance and habits. He did not join in the complaint that the Government was not building more large iron-plated ships, for it was to be feared that they might fall into the same mistake as the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) when he built new line-of-battle ships —that of having too many ships of a particular class. Entertaining this view, he was pleased to hear that the Government proposed to build some ships upon the twin screw principle; and he also wished to impress upon them the necessity of having afloat a number of very fast frigates of such speed as to be an effective police of the sea capable of catching any Alabama, if foreign countries should in time of war imitate the deplorable example which we had set, and fit out such vessels to prey upon our commerce.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that having on a former occasion expressed his opinion in regard to this Vote, he rose only to correct a mistake into which the hon. Member (Mr. Baxter) had fallen with regard to himself (Sir John Pakington) and the Government with which he had been connected. The hon. Member had said more than once—what had been previously said in the House, and also out of doors—that the naval administration, of which he had had the honour to be the head, had continued to build wooden line-of-battle ships at a time when a great change was impending in naval construction. The fact, however, was not so; he believed the fact to be, that during the period when he had the honour of being connected with the Admiralty, they commenced the building of one, and only one, line-of-battle ship. When he and his colleagues entered on their duties they found that the navy of this country was far weaker than it ought to be; and it therefore became their imperative duty to strengthen it; but the mode which they adopted was to place screw steam-engines in such line-of-battle ships as were lit to receive them, and to hurry forward to completion other ships that bad been already commenced building. During that time they also determined to try a somewhat anxious experiment, that of building armour-covered ships. They commenced building the Warrior and the Black Prince; hut it must be remembered that at that time building such ships was entirely an experiment, and he had no doubt that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty would agree with him that until after the Warrior had been to sea no man could say whether a ship could safely go to sea in all weathers with 1,200 tons of armour upon her top sides. He was sure that hon. Members would acknowledge that any Board of Admiralty would have been deeply to blame that allowed the navy to remain in a weak and defective state, merely because there was an experiment to be tried which might or might not be successful. In fact it did succeed, and the existing Board of Admiralty had most properly built other armoured ships; but if the Board with which he had acted had neglected to strengthen the navy pending the experiment, and had adopted no precautions in case of failure, they would, in his opinion, have neglected their duty.

SIR JOHN HAY

wished to allude to one or two observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Mont rose (Mr. Baxter). The hon. Member urged upon the Government that it would be desirable, in the event of hostilities, that wooden line-of-battle ships should be sent out to protect the honour of England. But he (Sir John Hay) trusted that those ships would not be used for such a purpose. It would be most unfortunate if we should be compelled to meet the fleets of Europe with such ships, and nothing else. An experiment had been tried at Shoebury-ness which was conclusive upon the point. A wooden frigate, the Tartar, had been fired at with a 100lb. Armstrong gun, and before a dozen shells were fired she was in such a state that it was found impossible to extinguish the flames. The same thing might occur to any other wooden ship. With only seven iron-plated ships, it might be necessary to risk our reputation and the lives of our men in wooden line-of-battle ships, but it would be a great misfortune if we were compelled to do so. He had understood from the Secretary to the Admiralty, that there were 2,510 men disposable to be put on board ship at any moment. On the other hand, it had been asserted that during the present month some difficulty had been experienced in manning the Duncan, the flagship of Admiral Hope, and that the crew was actually completed by drafts from the coast-guard ships; and, assuming that to have been the case, he should like to know why the Admiralty did not draught some of the 2,510 men into the Duncan, instead of drawing upon their reserves. He also understood that pensioners were again being entered for the Reserve, which would seem to show that the coast-guard ships were not so easily manned as to make it advisable to trust to the merchant service, instead of to the boys hitherto kept in training. At the present moment the walls of Portsmouth were covered with placards announcing that men were wanted for the navy, and intimating that merchant seamen were received on board the Victory. In such a dearth of men, he could not understand why the Admiralty should reduce the number of boys under training for the navy.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, that the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) seemed to object to reduction in the abstract, for he always rose when the Estimates were brought forward, and deeply regretted that the Government had not asked for more. He (Sir Francis Baring) had himself no such objection; but he quite concurred that it was the duty of the Government— looking to the circumstances of the time— to have the navy of this country upon a safe and honourable footing. After the statement of the noble Lord (the Secretary of the Admiralty) it appeared to him (Sir Francis Baring) that never was the navy, especially as regarded men, in a more satisfactory state. The great difficulty had always been to find men upon the breaking out of war; and he did not think that at any time in our history had we been better able to meet this difficulty than at this moment. As to building ships, it was not an easy question to decide: he believed that very few people would venture to prophesy what sort of ships would be required ten years hence. But the duty of the Admiralty was to be always prepared to meet any foreign attack; beyond that he should be very sorry to see them go. He believed that if the Government took the advice which was given and built a large fleet of any particular kind of ships, as the hon. Member for Norfolk seemed inclined to recommend, they would find before ten years were over that they had wasted a great deal of money, and would have to commence anew. In a state of uncertainty it was the duty of the Government to be provided even with wooden ships; and he was far from blaming the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) for having built wooden ships when it was thought that they were adequate. The same observation applied to guns. He was not surprised at the difficulty of finding men at this moment, for he had always contended that the continuous service system, whilst it would work well in time of peace, would break down in time of war, because when they were obliged to have recourse to the merchant marine they would find there but very few men who had ever served on a man-of-war, or knew anything of its duties. He admitted that the system of reserve met this difficulty to a great extent; but they must not be surprised to find, upon war breaking out, that they would have to draw largely upon the mercantile navy, that there was considerable difficulty in getting men, and that the men they got were perfectly ignorant of the service. Upon the subject of naval barracks, he must say that he was not sanguine. Under the old system the men were not in barracks, but afloat; and he doubted whether putting sailors in barracks would be found economical; and he also doubted whether the men in barracks would be as efficient and as well disciplined as those that were kept on board ship.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he would first reply to the numerous questions addressed to him. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) had just remarked that though there was a considerable reduction in the number of men, there was only a very small reduction in the Vote for pay. There was a reduction of upwards of 4,000 in the number of men, but the Vote for pay was reduced by no more than £47,000. The explanation was that employment of smaller crews increased the pay per man, because there was a larger number of officers of all ranks in proportion to men. Another reason for the increased expense was, that the Admiralty were increasing the pay of some classes. The pay of ship's stewards required an increase in the Vote of £8,873, and chief stokers were also getting a higher rate of pay. There was also an increase of allowances here and there to officers of some classes who were before inadequately paid, and thus there was a tendency to increase the cost per head. The arrangement tended to procure more efficient men; and with the improvements in the merchant service, he must warn the Committee that the expense would go on increasing. The hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) was desirous to make a Motion to increase the number of generals of Marines, but not being in order he was very properly prevented making his Motion. He (Lord Clarence Paget) professed great attachment to the corps of Marines, and therefore he did not like to pass the subject over without remark. The Government had shown their desire to improve the condition of that magnificent body of men, and the hon. and gallant Officer had not stated what had been done for the Marines since the number was increased from 15,000 to 18,000. The Committee ought not to forget that an Inspector General of Marines had been appointed — a very necessary appointment for the good of the service, but at the same time of advantage to the officers generally, as it tended to promotions; and last year the Government appointed five colonels of divisions. General officers of Marines were not in the same proportion to general officers of the army; but he did not wish the impression to be conveyed that the Marines had been altogether overlooked. Another question had been put with great inge- nuity, and it was a very little question, based upon the assumption that, whereas be had stated they had 2,500 men in reserve, there was great difficulty in manning the Duncan. That was not the case. They had no difficulty in manning the Duncan, because they had this number of disposable continuous service seamen of the navy; but they were anxious that there should be a flow of merchant seamen into the navy: still the difficulty was apparent from the fact that although, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) had stated, the Government had a notice at Portsmouth inviting able seamen of the merchant service to enter, there were none to be got. What they were still more anxious to get was an increased corps of artificers; and he had told the Committee very frankly that they were badly off for artificers. But as to the Duncan, they could have put as many men again on board if they had chosen to draw upon the Reserve of disposable continuous service men. Then the hon. and gallant Member who made the inquiry about the Duncan also said they were obliged to appoint pensioners to harbour ships. They had appointed pensioners to harbour ships—but why? Because the pensioners felt it to be a grievance that they were not allowed to serve in the fleet. The Admiralty did not wish them to be in the fleet, but to keep them as reserves; yet as to harbour ships, they thought it only fair dealing to have a proportion of pensioners out of consideration for them. The hon. and gallant Officer said that the Admiralty had been obliged to draw men out of the coast-guard ships. That was one of the reasons for which those ships are maintained. A certain portion of new men went into the coast-guard ships, and when they had served a year they were draughted off for service in the fleet. He explained all this in detail the other night, but he supposed the hon. and gallant Officer was not listening to what he said. His gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) found fault with the "retinue" of the superintendents of dockyards; but the secretary, and flag lieutenant and clerks at the various ports connected with the personal retinue of the superintendent had always been voted in the Estimates. The gallant Officer the Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) touched upon another matter — one of very great and very melancholy interest, that of the Lock Hospitals, and submitted that aid should be given in reclaiming the unfortunate females. He (Lord Clarence Paget) alluded to the subject on Thursday evening, and from what he knew of the facts, and from what he knew of the sufferings of the men, he thought that anything which the Government could do would be well received in that House. But there was a distinction to be drawn between Sanitary measures and higher moral and religious questions. The Government were ready to undertake anything in relation to sanitary measures, but they could not profess to deal with any higher considerations. As to the forces of this country, when compared with other countries, it was no doubt a mistake to suppose that our French neighbours were not making great exertions. We had to look after our own navy so as to bring it to a proper position, and he did not think it very advisable to make comparisons between our navy and that of France, as it would certainly not lead to any good. All he could do was to assure the Committee, that in the exertions which the Government made year by year, they had their eyes upon what was going on in other countries, and he must add that he thought the progress which had been made was satisfactory.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, there seemed to be some misunderstanding between the noble Lord and the Committee with respect to the number of men the Admiralty had disposable at home. The noble Lord on Thursday alluded in a very strong and a very satisfactory manner to the Admiralty having at their disposal 2,500 men in the home ports, and he said he thought that number below the proper mark; but he understood the noble Lord now to say that the fleet was manned from the coast-guard. Fearing there might be some misunderstanding, he begged to ask who and where were the 2,500 men referred to by the noble Lord.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

hoped the question would now be set at rest. He was disposed to diminish rather than exaggerate the number of men. On the 17th of February there were—men available in the ports, 840; men on leave, 759; men in the steam-reserve, exclusive of pensioners, 816; trained boys, available, 75; boys on leave, 71 — total, 2,561. The total was more than 2,500, and the Admiralty were not quite satisfied, thinking it should be brought op to 3,000. The number varied, and six weeks ago was as low as 1,500; but he had given the numbers on the 17th inst.

MR. ADDINGTON

doubted the wisdom of the Admiralty in depending so much as they did for their seamen upon so precarious a source as the mercantile marine. That and the cutting off of the supply of boys were the main faults to be found with the present Estimates. To enable us to cope with other Powers we ought to have a large permanent body of seamen. He was sorry also to see so little done towards the erection of naval barracks either at Portsmouth or at Plymouth. There was not that attention paid by the Government to the domestic interests of the sailor as was shown in the case of the sister service. You could not place the same dependence, in a moral point of view, on the petty officers of the Royal Navy as you could in non-commissioned officers of the army, and this arose, in some degree, from the want of barracks for the former. Men were governed a good deal by kindness. There was not a barrack in the United Kingdom in which there was not something done for the education of the children and the comfort of the wives of soldiers; while, in contrast therewith, the poor sailors must see their families almost subsisting on charity.

COLONEL SYKES

thought the observation of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), as to putting no faith in French Budgets, was tantamount to saying a French Budget was a gigantic fraud. Now, he (Colonel Sykes) had based his statements, respecting the French navy, on the French Budget, signed by the Minister of Marine. The last Budget, as laid before the Chambers, gave infinitely more details than our Navy Estimates, improved as they were, and afforded Members better means of testing the accuracy of the demands made by the department; yet, the hon. Member refused to place the least faith in it.

MR. BENTINCK

wondered that a man of the hon. and gallant Member's acute-ness could place implicit faith in the statement and figures put forward in the document which he had quoted. He (Mr. Bentinck) had not the slightest faith in French Budgets, for the simple reason that the French Chamber, to which they were submitted, had no control over them or over the general expenditure of the country. This was the result of the attempts to introduce liberal institutions in France. If a proof were wanted that these documents could not be relied on, it would be found in the fact that the hon. and gallant Member assured the Committee on their authority, that the outside tonnage of the French transport ships was 800 tons. The hon. and gallant Member had been imposed upon; for he himself (Mr. Bentinck) had seen a large number of the very class of ships the existence of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman disputed, and the French authorities looked forward to having one of those large transports named after every Department in France. It had become a very favourite custom of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side to accuse Members on the Opposition side of advocating wilful and deliberate extravagance. That accusation was wholly unjust. Hon. Members on his side had to bear their full share of the public burdens as well as other people, and were not likely to be in favour of squandering the funds to which they must themselves contribute as taxpayers. It was the best economy to maintain the efficiency of our armaments, the great source of wasteful expenditure being the cheese-paring system pursued in time of peace, followed, as it inevitably must be, by a sudden and enormous outlay in the event of emergency.

MR. LAIRD

could confirm the statement of the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Bentinck) as to the size of the French transports. He had himself seen such a vessel in France of about 3,000 tons, or from three to four times the size named by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had been charged on the other side of the House with extravagance during his tenure of office at the Admiralty. Now, he (Mr. Laird) had looked over the Estimates, and he found that since the noble Lord came into office £58,000,000 had been spent upon the navy, and for such a vast sum the country was entitled to some return. He found that the naval expenditure in 1857, 1858, and 1859 upon various items, including the building and fitting out of ships, was £9,678,500; whereas in 1861, 1862, and 1863, when the noble Lord was Secretary to the Admiralty, the same expenditure amounted to £14,659,000; being an excess during the noble Lord's tenure of office of nearly £5,000,000 sterling over the three years preceding. That was, in some degree, an answer to the charge of extravagance brought against the right hon. Member for Droitwich and the Opposition generally. The total amount expended, from 1860 and including 1864, for the dockyard establishments at home, and abroad, wages of artificers, &c., was £24,000,000. It had always been alleged that wooden shipbuilding had been put a stop to, except those ships which were to be iron-cased. This year we should have seventeen armour ships afloat, and they represented between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, leaving about £18,000,000 to be accounted for, which could not all have been spent in repairs. He hoped the hon. Member for Halifax would give some explanation of this.

MR. STANSFELD

, in reference to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Mr. C. Berkeley) as to a seeming inconsistency between these accounts and those for previous years, said that the accounts for old stores in the Estimates for 1863–4 contained the old store monies, including the sums produced by the sale of old ships, paid quarterly into the Exchequer between the 1st of January and the 31st of December, 1862. In this year's Estimates it had been thought better not to take the account over to the Exchequer, but to carry on an account during the financial year 1862–3. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was right, therefore, in saying that nine months of the former account was included in the present Estimates, but the Committee should know that it was customary to pay over their balances only quarterly, and the time which the accounts overlapped each other was not three, but two quarters. The net result was this, that this year's accounts included about half the time of last year's.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he had expected that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had risen to make the statement as to the accounts, the desire to hear which had induced him to move that the Chairman report Progress the other night. [Mr. STANSFELD: It will come on Vote 8.] He certainly thought that the Committee ought to have it before any Vote of money was taken, considering the increase which was asked for on the dockyard expenditure. He was, on the whole, well satisfied with the statement of his noble Friend, with the exception of Votes 8 and 10. With regard to the reduction of men, he thought it was a wise and judicious step. The continuous system was all very well in time of peace, but in time of war we should have to go to the merchant service; and if the continuance service system kept merchant seamen out in time of peace, we should have great difficulty in getting them to enter in time of war, except, of course, it were a war for the defence of our shores, when the patriotism of our sailors would remove all obstacles. In 1858–9 there was great difficulty in getting men for our ships, in fact, it took four or five months to get a crew—now it was done in less than a month. He was glad to be able to endorse the statement that our fleet had never been in a more efficient state than at present. Some little time ago he happened to be in the Tagus when the Channel fleet was lying there, and it was impossible to conceive a fleet in finer condition than he found it. Flogging in the Channel fleet was nearly totally unknown. The men seemed full of respect and even devotion to their officers, and the officers seemed devoted to their men. One thing pleased him very much. He noticed that the officers in the ships he visited seemed to know all their men by name. The old "Come, you Sir!" had gone quite out of fashion; it was "Thompson or Jackson, do so and so." He was also glad to observe that on shore there were fewer of those scenes of drunkenness which he had witnessed on former occasions. Jack hired his donkey for a ride and had his fun in other harmless ways, and would return to his ship at night or in the morning ready for duty; but there was very little drunkenness. If the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen had really said that the French had no transports above 800 tons, he must have made a mistake, for he himself had been on board French transports of from 2,000 to 3,000 tons. But this was a branch in which it was only natural that the French Government should wish to supply its previous deficiencies. The hon. Member for West Norfolk was of opinion that we had not enough either of ships or men; but why did he not say what, according to his idea, would be sufficient, so that the Committee might know what he wanted? He himself during the Crimean war had had under his own management, on an average, about 100,000 tons of shipping employed as transports for the conveyance of French troops from Marseilles to the Crimea — some of them British ships, and some of them American. It was very curious, by the way, that some of the men in New York who made the greatest outcry against our violation of neutrality were the owners of ships which in the Crimean war carried French troops to fight against a country which at that time was a friendly ally. France, however, was only supplying herself with that which she wanted, and which we possessed to an extraordinary degree. Did the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk really mean to say that he did not believe in the accuracy of the accounts laid before the French Minister of Marine? From these Returns it appeared that the French had got 214 ships in all, including transports; whereas, we had 630 ships, and our vessels were very much larger than those of France. We were not only superior to France, but equal to the whole world. The hon. Member for West Norfolk desired that at all times, and under all circumstances, we should be in a position to cope with the whole world. [Mr. BENTINCK: Yes!] He did not think the House and the country went so far. He thought they would be satisfied if we should be able to cope with any two of the great maritime Powers. Though he was, on the whole, satisfied with the state of our navy, he was not content with our dockyards. When the Royal Commissioners were conducting their inquiries, it appeared clear that we did not get as much work out of the men in our dockyards as we had a right to expect. It was perfectly true that we never could expect to get as much work out of them as was got out of workmen in private yards, where the owners had a much greater interest in the quantity of work done than overseers in the dockyards could be expected to have; but he wanted to know whether the Admiralty had ever attempted to throw in any of the private element. That could easily be done. Again, he should like to know whether the reduction of which the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had spoken was real or merely nominal. The noble Lord had spoken of his anxiety to increase the remuneration of officers. He presumed this was to be provided for in a supplementary Estimate. If it had been provided for in the Estimates then before the Committee, perhaps the Estimates of the present year would not compare as favourably with those of past years as they did in their present shape. Before the Committee went further, he should like to hear the promised statement of his Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld.)

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that when the Committee came to the proper Vote for considering the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, a clear statement would be given by his hon. Friend.

MR. LINDSAY

held that one Vote bore on the whole of the Estimates, and that his hon. Friend's statement would be more appropriate on the Vote before the Committee than at a later period.

MR. STANSFELD

could assure his hon. Friend that, if he would only have patience, nothing would be withheld from the knowledge of the Committee. On one of the Votes a large increase of money was asked for; and the Admiralty must, of course, give reasons for that increase.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £1,304,119, Victuals and Clothing.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £168,605, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865.

MR. LINDSAY

asked for some explanation. The Royal Commission had alluded in very distinct terms to the reforms necessary in the offices of the Admiralty.

SIR MORTON PETO

wished to know the intention of the Government with reference to consolidating the Admiralty Offices at Whitehall. A division of the offices in two separate buildings was an acknowledged evil.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

was not at all disposed to retire from what he had stated last year. It was most important that all the departments of the Admiralty should be under one roof, as he believed such an arrangement would be productive of ultimate economy and increased efficiency. All he could say, however, was that the expenditure for increased armaments and iron-plated ships had been so great, that he had not yet been able to place a Vote upon the Estimates for the purpose of concentrating the departments. He hoped, however, that some time or other steps would be taken to arrive at that consummation. The hon. Member for Sunderland wanted to know why the Board of Admiralty had not been reorganized. The Report of the Royal Commissioners had been very carefully considered by the Government, but they were not of opinion that sufficient reasons were shown for upsetting the present system.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he was not satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation. If an additional Vote were really necessary for the efficiency of the navy, he was convinced there would be no difficulty in obtaining the sanction of that House.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

inquired, whether any estimate had been made of the cost of bringing all the departments under one roof, and of the mode in which it was to be done?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that two propositions had been made—one that the Admiralty should be removed entire to Somerset House, and the other that some additions should be made to the buildings at Whitehall, and the whole business concentrated in the Admiralty there. A question had arisen as to the amount of accommodation that could be afforded at Somerset House, and how it could be adapted for Admiralty purposes. The result was, that it would cost more to locate the Admiralty at Somerset House than to build an efficient wing at Whitehall, the estimate for which was about £150,000.

MR. WALPOLE

thought it due to the Admiralty to make one remark. For twenty years the money expended in some of the departments had been greater than the sum voted. The Public Accounts Commission had recommended that the transfer of accounts should not be made so freely as had been the practice—the supplying of Votes which were unpopular out of Votes which were popular. He was happy to find that, for the first time, the Admiralty had brought the expenditure within £2,000 of the Estimates for the year.

MR. LINDSAY

thought, that no sufficient reason had been given for not carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. Unless he received a satisfactory answer, he should move that the Vote be reduced by £5,200, which was the total of the salaries of the junior Lords. He did not complain of the amount of those salaries, nor of the manner in which the present recipients performed their duties, but he objected to the system.

MR. STANSFELD

thought the question of the re-organization of the Board of Admiralty thus started was a large one, which could not be fairly discussed on a Vote like that now under the consideration of the Committee. As to the present constitution of the Board, he thought the hon. Member for Sunderland would understand that business could be carried on well in private firms where one partner was the executive partner, like the First Lord, and the other partners applied themselves to special departments. The objection of double or divided responsibility was hardly sound, because the First Lord was responsible for everything; but if it was desired that a special department should be placed under each Lord, such a change could easily be made.

MR. LINDSAY

wished all the heads of departments to be in direct communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty. What, he would ask, were the duties of the five junior Lords of the Admiralty? Were they to look after the Controller and the other heads of departments? If so, the work would be more efficiently done by the department, as he suggested, being in direct communication with the First Lord, who was responsible to that House. There was no Board required for the Admiralty any more than there was for the army, or any other Department of the State. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £5,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £163,405, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."—(Mr. Lindsay.)

MR. BENTINCK

said, he was perfectly astounded at the proposition which his hon. Friend, who was such a skilful naval man and man of business, had made. It was perfectly Quixotic. The First Lord of the Admiralty when he was first appointed knew nothing of his duties. The very language of his department was Greek and Hebrew to him, and the other Lords of the Admiralty were simply his dry nurses, and helped his feeble and tottering steps on his first entry into office, and yet his hon. Friend would cast all the responsibilities of the management of the navy upon such a Minister. Why, the First Lord of the Admiralty generally knew as much about navigating a ship as his hon. Friend did about navigating a balloon. The withdrawal of the salary of the First Lord would have been an intelligible proposal, for this gentleman was probably the most useless member of the Board; he was an inconvenience and an incumbrance. But no more ill-advised thing could be done than to take away the salaries of men who were the life and soul of the Admiralty.

MR. WHITE

said, that the strongest argument against the constitution of the Board of Admiralty was, that its very existence now guaranteed that there should be a civil First Lord of the Admiralty, who did not know, and never would know, his duty. If the House desired to have a proper person to conduct the affairs of the Admiralty, that end was best attained by abolishing the Board. He should vote for the Amendment.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

thought it was desirable that the Committee should bear what the improvements in keeping the dockyard accounts had been before they disposed of this Vote. He wished to know who was responsible for repairs. Vast sums were expended in the repairs of ships; the Committee tried to find out who was responsible in this department. They had asked Sir Baldwin Walker and Admiral Robinson, and were told to go to the dockyards; but at the dockyards they were told they had nothing to do with cost, but only with ship materials and wages. In all the vast outlays which must take place under this head was there no estimate? Did no one know what a thing was to cost? Sir Richard Bromley gave the very best evidence. He said, where work of £5,000 or £6,000 was to be done the cost was ascertained; but the vast expenditure on shipbuilding was undertaken without estimate and without check.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, that in all private mercantile firms the various heads of departments were responsible to some one partner, who again was responsible to all the other partners. There was thus a well arranged and clearly understood line of action adopted. But at the Admiralty no one appeared to be responsible; no estimates were made, and there were no means of knowing what they were about. The noble Lord said the other evening, that a large expenditure would be incurred in the repairs of vessels coming home. Was there any careful preliminary survey conducted by proper persons as to the state and condition of each vessel, and the amount that ought to be expended? He was bound to say with his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), that they did not get money's worth for what was spent, and until they had accounts which would enable them to check the various departments of expenditure, they would never have a clear or satisfactory view of their operations. They wanted that simplicity of scheme which characterized the working of mercantile firms.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), he should like to ask him who was responsible for the vast expenditure on barracks, fortifications, and the commissariat of the army? No doubt he would be told the Minister for the Army—and if the hon. Baronet asked him who was responsible for the navy, he would say the Minister for the Navy. The responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty was equal—he had heard it said, greater—than that of the Secretary of State for War. The hon. Baronet had gone back to the Controller of the Navy; but he forgot that the Controller had since been put on a much more proper and responsible footing. He would read a paragraph from the instructions which had been issued to the Controller of the Navy in order to prove this— Your duties consist in the control of all expenditure incurred for the building, the repairs, and the outfit of vessels in Her Majesty's navy. These works, therefore, whether they be performed in the naval yards or by contract, are placed under your direction and management. For the discharge of these important duties you are invested with such authority as will enable you by the exercise of due vigilance to regulate the numerous sources of expenditure, for which you are responsible to the Board of Admiralty. Could anything be more clearly defined than the duties of the Controller in this paragraph? He was responsible to the Minister for the expenditure in the dockyards, and he was invested with full powers with that view, being enabled to give orders to the dockyards, which before he could not do. It was said they made no estimates for ships; but what they were now doing was laying the foundation for that. Their object in going carefully into what the Achilles cost, was to enable them to make an estimate for succeeding ships. Nothing could be so fallacious as estimating for repairs going into dockyards. Gentlemen who had a yacht going into dock well knew it never would be turned out for the sum stated. It was notorious that an accurate estimate could not be given of the extent of repairs which would be requisite until the ship was "opened," and then it was discovered for the first time that this, that, and the other parts required to be replaced.

THE CHAIRMAN

here intimated that the noble Lord was now discussing another Vote.

MR. LINDSAY

observed, that one Lord of the Admiralty took charge of finance; but what then were the duties of the Accountant General? Another looked after the stores; what, therefore, was the use of the Storekeeper General?

MR. SEELY

wished to know why the cost of our central department was £160,000, whereas the cost of the corresponding office in Prance was only £40,000. Perhaps the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken might suggest an answer: we had two persons to do the same work.

COLONEL SYKES

said, on this occasion he was about to vote in opposition to his ordinary principles of economy. But he did so, knowing that where appointments were made to high offices on the ground of political influence or high connections, "nurses" were indispensable to the performance of the duties.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 10; Noes 109: Majority 99.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £300,718, Coast Guard Service, &c.

COLONEL SYKES

complained that this Vote, which professed to give the number and cost of all the men in the coast-guard service, in reality did not do so. In that respect the Vote contrasted unfavourably with the detailed information given in the French Estimates.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the Admiralty were anxious to show what each department cost the country. The hon. Member would find that the total charge of the coast-guard service was £721,697.

MR. LYGON

said, he could not understand how it happened that every year there was a Vote of £30,000 for building cottages for the coast-guard, without any sensible reduction in the Vote for rents and the hire of buildings occupied by the men.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, as the building of new cottages progressed, the item of allowances for lodgings would necessarily be reduced.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £71,276, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

wished to know what had been done towards the establishment of a Royal Naval College?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that it was intended to establish a School of Naval Architecture. The Admiralty were desirous that the school should be open, not only to the pupils of the dockyard schools, but also to the public. With regard to the former, it was intended to choose some of the most intelligent and better educated youths among the dockyard apprentices, and to teach them the higher branches of mathematics. These youths would form a considerable portion of the Admiralty pupils of the new institution, and some of them would, it was hoped, become the future master shipwrights and draughtsmen of the Royal dockyards. All the advantages of the school would be open, however, to the public on payment of a fixed Bum. The school would be placed under the Science and Art Department at Kensington, where apartments would be provided. Lord Granville would undertake the charge of it, with proper officers under him, and that would be a guarantee that the system of education required for the Admiralty students would be properly carried out. He did not wish to express too sanguine an opinion, but he had great hopes of the success of the proposed institution. It was proposed to ask for £2,300 this year, which would pay for preparing the rooms, and also for two lecturers and instructors. The Admiralty did not propose to put more than thirty students into the school at first.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

inquired, when the School would begin, and under whose management it would be placed?

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

wished to know whether he understood the rooms for the new schools were to be built? [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: No; they are built.] A worse situation for a naval school than Kensington could not be conceived. The Vote was one of those of which the House had seen too many. It was a small sum at the commencement, but it pledged the House to go on, and to incur, probably, a heavy expense in the end.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said that, no doubt, a larger sum than £2,300 would be required when the School became developed. The apartments belonged to the Department of Science and Art, but they had been placed at the disposal of the Government. He had not himself seen the rooms, but he was told they formed a suite of apartments well adapted to the purpose. If the hon. Gentleman would move for the details connected with the expenditure of the proposed Vote of £2,300 he should be happy to give them.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, that the School was to be opened to all qualified youths, but what was the use of placing it at the west end of the town when all the dockyards were at the east?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the very object of placing it at Kensington was that the School should be in some central place. The Admiralty were anxious to accommodate youths from Liverpool, Glasgow, and other maritime ports. They therefore selected London as a central place, and Kensington, because they did not wish the school to be too much under the shade of the Admiralty. Moreover, Kensington was chosen because there were eminent lecturers and masters already established there who would be very useful to the Students of the Schools, many of the subjects taught there being well adapted to the education of naval architecture. The School would be opened, indeed, quite as much for the public as for the Admiralty. At present there was no great establishment in this country for the education of shipbuilders, and it was high time, not only for the sake of the public, but for the sake of private shipbuilders, that youths should be enabled somewhere to acquire a scientific knowledge of shipbuilding. In answer to the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) he would state that the School was to be opened immediately, and that it would be placed under Dr. Woolley, one of the Government Inspectors of Schools. He would be assisted by the Controller of the Navy, who would represent the Admiralty, and by Mr. Cole. Between these three gentlemen the School would, he thought, be in very good hands.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

Why not have the School at Woolwich? There is plenty of science there.

CAPTAIN JERVIS

said, that a School of Naval Architecture at South Kensington was mere rubbish. The pupils did not want mere theoretical knowledge, and they would no more learn shipbuilding at Kensington than they could learn anything else there. It was perfectly plain that this would be only throwing away the public money.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he stated the other night that the six winter months of the year were to be devoted to the theory, and the six summer months to the practice of shipbuilding in the dockyards.

MR. C. P. BERKELEY

said, that under the head of "Scientific Branch, extraordinary expenses," were some expenses which were very extraordinary indeed. There were "Galvanic contingencies," £100; "Subterranean apartment for magnetic instruments," £240; "Self-registering barrel for record of earth's currents," £50; "For determining the longitude of New Milford, in connection with the operations for measuring the great European are of parallel from Valentia, in Ireland, to Orsk, on the Oural," £60—in all, an increase of £463 on the sums voted last year. Perhaps the noble Lord would give some explanation.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

thought the noble Lord's explanation about the Naval School of Architecture incomplete and unsatisfactory, and that the school, if established, might hereafter lead to unlimited expense. He wished to enter his protest against the proposal. He should move to reduce the Vote by £2,300.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

did not think the hon. Member would have moved the reduction of the Vote if he were aware of the value of the proposed establishment. The old School of Naval Architecture had been given up; all the men who knew anything about naval architecture had been educated in that school; and if we were not to get a new supply from a new source, we should be totally destitute of persons capable of designing ships for the navy. He would give an instance of the value of such a school. Professor Wray, at Devon-port, was the principal schoolmaster of the dockyard, and a short time ago Lloyd's Committee offered a number of prizes of £60 for the best designs, and no less than six of those prizes were carried off by the pupils of that Professor. The boys who carried off those prizes were the sons of working men, and they actually beat many men who had been employed all their lives in designing ships. That instance was enough to show the advantage of having a school of naval architecture.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, that the old School of Naval Architecture was at Portsmouth, and he thought the new school should be placed in one of the dockyards.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

asked, was such an establishment called for by the country? He should like to hear the opinions of hon. Members connected with shipbuilding on the necessity of such an institution, and if it were necessary, where it ought to be established with the greatest probability of success. But to found an institution of that kind in the particular locality named for it would be the commencement of the most extraordinary expenditure. Such an establishment ought to be at some such place as Portsmouth or Woolwich, and he, therefore, felt it necessary to take the sense of the Committee upon the question.

MR. ADDINGTON

said, he thought it desirable that young officers should know-more of naval architecture than they did. He wished to ask, whether the noble Lord's attention had been directed to the circumstance that Naval Instructors were not required to pass any examination in steam, nor were naval officers until they had been six years in the service?

MR. BUXTON

inquired, why the old Naval School had been done away with?

CAPTAIN JERVIS

asked, whether the pupils of the new Naval School were to meet with the same fate as those of the old School; and whether men who might have distinguished themselves were to look forward to being passed over by persons newly brought into the Admiralty? No one knew better the object of having this School at Kensington. It had been for many years on the cards to establish such a School there. If the Admiralty -were inclined to bring forward a bonâ fide scheme, let the School be established at Portsmouth, or some other of the ports of the country where the pupils could obtain a practical knowledge of their business.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, the object of fixing the School at Kensington was upon these grounds. The old Naval School, which he regretted had been ever done away with, had failed in this—that there was no provision, no adequate outlet, for all the students that belonged to it. The wants of the navy proper were not sufficient for their employment. But it was contended, and with very great reason, by the Institute of Naval Architects, and urged on the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty and himself by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), that it would be desirable to have such an establishment, in which the higher branches—not only the form of ships, but likewise the chymical properties of iron, and all those minerals that are requisite for shipbuilding—might be studied. If such a School were established, and kept up with a due regard to economy, it would, notwithstanding the alarm of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith), be of immense national importance. But the School at Portsmouth was felt to be a purely Government school, nor did the public generally benefit by it. In the present case it was proposed to provide for a certain number of students connected with the dockyards, and at the same time to invite the public to come to the School upon payment of a fixed sum, and enjoy all the advantages of the School. If the School were put at Portsmouth, or any one of the dockyards, it was thought by the Government it would have the air of an Admiralty establishment; but they did not want that, nor did they desire that the Admiralty should interfere with the details. To make it a national establishment, it was necessary that it should be placed in some central situation; and the question was, where could a central situation for it be found? Lord Granville took the matter up, and put himself in communication with Dr. Woolley, Mr. Cole, and others, and all agreed that South Kensington was the best place for the School. The institution at present there was eminently a school of art, and a great many branches of art were taught in it which would be useful to young persons studying shipbuilding.

CAPTAIN JERVIS

desired to know what it was intended to teach specially in this school? The great object of a school of naval architecture must be to teach people to build ships capable of holding such guns as were required at the present day, but what opportunity was there at Kensington to test the displacement of water? It was absurd to teach a number of boys to draw lines upon paper. What was wanted, was to enable them to lay down lines for ships —to become practical shipbuilders — and that could not be done at Kensington. The proposition was mere rubbish. Mr. Cole was an able man, and had conducted the establishment at Kensington in an able way for the improvement of art; but he knew nothing about shipbuilding, and no person who knew anything about the subject would think of placing a school of naval architecture under him. Though this proposition came from the Admiralty, they did not, it seemed, wish it to be con- sidered as emanating from them; and he desired to know, therefore, whether it was their intention to open the school to all the public?

SIR JOHN HAY

believed the proposition to be a step in the right direction; but he wished the noble Lord to explain more fully what the summer vacation of these scholars was to be, and how they were to be occupied at the time when they were not at Kensington?

SIR BROOKE BRIDGES

feared that, as during a portion of the year the students were not to be at Kensington, two establishments would be required instead of one. It appeared to him a most extraordinary proposition, that a School of Naval Architecture should be placed at Kensington. This was only the beginning of the expense, and the House would soon be asked for a larger sum. He should like to know what was to be the annual expense of the establishment?

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that the annual expense of this School, when developed, was calculated at £5,000. He did not like to tell the Committee that it would not cost more, because a certain percentage might generally be put on an estimate of that nature, and he should add that many supposed the School would ultimately be self-supporting. At Kensington, there were three class-rooms and a large model room; so that, instead of keeping the naval models shut up in a dark room at Somerset House, he hoped that the models would be neatly arranged in a fine room, specially adapted for the purpose, at Kensington. The Admiralty students would have a certain sum allowed them per annum for food and lodging. During the winter they would be studying at Kensington; and if the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich had been in a ship draughtsman's office and seen the beautiful geometrical problems and the various calculations there worked out, he would know that it required a good deal more scientific acquirement than the mere mechanical building of a ship, in order to become a naval architect; one was mere mechanical art, the other one of the highest branches of science.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

hoped he might infer that the doubts entertained by the Committee with respect to this proposition referred rather to the locality than to the question, whether or not there should be a School of Naval Architecture. He could not express too strongly his convic- tion that for the interests both of the navy and the mercantile marine the establishment of a School of Naval Architecture was most necessary. He, therefore, hailed with pleasure the beginning made by the Admiralty. Whether or not Kensington was intended to be the permanent place for this school he knew not, but his belief was that it had been selected for the time merely from the accident that Lord Granville had it in his power to grant rooms there. So strongly was he convinced of the importance of such an establishment, that he anticipated that, as from all parts of the country students were sent to the Universities and the great schools, in like manner students would resort to the School of Architecture, wherever it might be established.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

wished to know, whether placing the School at Kensington was a temporary or permanent arrangement? If the arrangement was intended to be permanent it was most objectionable. He thought that the proposition to place a School of Naval Architecture at Kensington permanently would be just as reasonable as to fix a School of Agriculture in the heart of London.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

was afraid that he could not undertake to say that the arrangement was only temporary. Was it likely that hon. Gentlemen representing the taxpayers of the country would permit him to bring in an estimate for building a college in another place?

CAPTAIN JERVIS

wanted to know, whether the noble Lord would state what sum he proposed to allow for each of the Admiralty students in the school—because £2,300 appeared a small sum for the establishment, with a number of men living and lodging in London?

Motion made, and Question put, That the Item of £2,300, for School of Naval Architecture, and maintenance of Students in the same, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Augustus Smith.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 100: Majority 85.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) £192,574, Naval Establishments at Home.

SIR MORTON PETO

asked, what the Government intended to do with the dockyard at Sheerness, when the extensions and improvements of that at Chatham were completed?

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

inquired, Whether it was intended to discontinue Deptford dockyard? He hoped that, if it was, the yard would not merely be shut up, but that the site would be disposed of, so that it might be occupied by private trade.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that he could hold out no hopes that Sheerness dockyard would be abandoned, because, although not a first-rate yard, it was very useful for North Sea purposes. He could give no promise as to what would be done with Deptford; but he hoped and believed, that as soon as the extensions at Chatham had made such progress that the Government could do there the work now done at Deptford, it would be disposed of. This, of course, applied merely to the dockyard, and not to the victualling yard.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, that his inquiry was limited to the dockyard. As an additional reason for the abandonment of that yard, he might state that, on visiting it a short time ago, he found a man employed in rooting up the grass which was growing between the stones.

MR. ADDINGTON

asked for some explanation of the expenses of management of the naval asylum for lunatics at Yarmouth, which he saw exceeded those incurred in county lunatic asylums.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that although there were not many lunatics in the navy, still a hospital was required for their reception. Formerly, Haslar was used for that purpose; but, as the accommodation there was required for other objects, they had been removed to Yarmouth.

MR. ADDINGTON

thought that £3,000 was too large a sum to take for a hospital containing no more than 120 patients.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he was afraid the expense was likely to in. crease rather than diminish.

SIR HENRY STRACEY

said, that it was impossible that the hospital at Yarmouth could be maintained for a less sum than £3,000. No money could be better laid out than that which was expended on the Yarmouth Hospital. Dr. Ray, the head of the medical staff, said that the situation chosen was by far the best that could have been selected for the purpose.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £37,666, Naval Establishments Abroad. Vote agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.