§ Resolutions [June 13] reported.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty on his having diminished the Estimate for gunboats on the China station. He wished, indeed, that there had been a greater diminution, and that the number of these boats had been reduced from eight to five. At the present time sixteen out of the forty-four vessels on the China station were in the harbour of Hong Kong, while only one was 1862 employed in cruising against the pirates. According to the former Return, there were three boats employed in repressing piracy, and fourteen were in the harbour of Hong Kong. It might, perhaps, be said that the vessels in harbour were rotten. If that were the case they ought to be dismantled and withdrawn, instead of being paid for as if they were efficient. A force of ten gunboats and five vessels of war would be sufficient for the due protection of our interests. Twenty vessels would be more than enough for the purpose. Our force in the China Seas was forty-four vessels.
MR. CORRYsaid, he had expected that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have brought forward this subject yesterday when the Vote was under consideration. He had then come down to the House with some documents that had reference to the question. Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in order in inviting the present discussion upon the bringing up of the Report, it was not a course usually adopted. He (Mr. Corry) had not now with him the documents in question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was under a misapprehension as to the number of vessels in service on the China station. A great number of the gunboats there were vessels paid off, under repair, and not in commission. The actual strength of the squadron was twenty-eight vessels, instead of forty-four, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman supposed. With respect to the sixteen in the harbour of Hong Kong, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given him the names of those vessels, and he had referred them to the head clerk in the proper branch of the Admiralty for explanation. Only one of the sixteen vessels was a sea-going ship. All the rest were either hospital or troop ships, or gunboats not in commission. With regard to the assertion that the force in China was too great, he was happy to say that he had had the opportunity of conferring upon the subject with the highest authority, Sir James Hope, who had been commander-in-chief on the China station for three years, and had just returned from the chief command of the North-America and West India station. When this question was raised two or three months ago he (Mr. Corry) had promised to ascertain if it was possible to make any reduction in the number of our vessels on the China or on the North-America and West India stations. He was fortunate enough to find in 1863 Sir James Hope an officer who was capable of answering respecting both those stations. Sir James Hope had sent in a paper on the subject, in which he expressed the opinion in respect both of the North-America and West India station, that so many of the ships were constantly engaged in making long voyages from one part of the station to another, that the available number left for actual service was so small that it would be impossible to reduce them without danger to our commercial and other interests. With regard to the squadron in the China Seas, as Sir James Hope had left that command four years ago he did not feel himself able to speak as to the actual necessities of the moment. But he pointed out that in Japan, China, and Singapore we had eighteen treaty or open ports, and that it was necessary to have one vessel at each of those ports so that only ten vessels were left available for general service on that extensive station. Under these circumstances, he thought it would not be advisable to diminish the force. With respect to the piracy in those seas, it was satisfactory to know that it had been considerably diminished.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask whether all the vessels in the harbour of Hong Kong were dismantled?
§ Resolutions agreed to.