Commons Sitting of 31 May 1870

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the Isle of Wight, v. Sir John Simeon, baronet, deceased.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [May 30] reported.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Vaccination Act (1867) Amendment [126], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended—Sale of Poisons (Ireland)* [140].
Third Reading—Benefices* [141]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* [132]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [129], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—MILITARY RESERVE FUNDS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the recommendations contained in Paragraphs 15 and 18 of the Report from the Select Committee on Military Reserve Funds have been carried into effect—namely, that the Reserve Fund should be wound up and the balance paid into the Exchequer; and, if so, whether a sufficient sum has been taken in the Army Estimates to defray all payments formerly charged on the Reserve Fund?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the recommendations of the Committee have not been carried into effect by carrying the balance to the Consolidated Fund, as I thought the Reserve Fund was affected with a trust for the officers of the Army, by whose contributions it has been raised, and ought not to be paid into the public account. The course actually adopted has been this—Last year, for the first time, the application of the fund was submitted to the control of Parliament in one of the Votes. It is not at present in an affluent state owing to the recent reductions in the Army. The only increment asked for from the Votes is for the purpose of purchasing first commissions rendered vacant by the reduction in the number of subaltern, officers.

SAVINGS BANKS.—QUESTION
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Why the excess of interest paid to the Trustees of Savings Banks during the year 1869, over that received by the Commissioners, amounted to £217,254 15 s. 10 d. while the excess for the year 1868 was only £17,091 11 s. 2d.?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had not had a very long time to look into that Question, and therefore, perhaps, could not give the full answer which his hon. Friend desired. In substance, however, the answer was, that the amount which was paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the savings banks for terminable annuities in 1868 was £2,780,000, and in 1869 only £2,258,000, so that
1702
there was a difference between the two years in the amount of the payments of £522,000. The cause of that difference was the arrangements—which he had not had time fully to go into so as to state their details to the House—made as to the period for paying those annuities, with a view to the convenience of the public balances.

OPEN COMPETITION—CIVIL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is able to state what steps have been taken for "the establishment of a system of open competition on an extended scale" in the Civil Service, in accordance with the expectation held out to the House on the 10th of April 1869, and renewed on the 25th of February 1870?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in redemption of the pledge we gave at earlier periods of the Session, we have steadily prosecuted the measures which were contemplated in the discussions that occurred in this House. The arrangements connected with open competition, and connected with other elements of change in the offices that attach themselves to the subject of open competition, are now in a very forward state, and we hope in the course of a very short time—probably, in two or three weeks—to be able to lay on the Table of the House conclusive documents relating to the matter.

EDUCATION BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether the power of withdrawal during the time of religious instruction given by the Time Table Conscience Clause in the Government Amendments authorize withdrawal from the school during that time, or only withdrawal from the lesson?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must point out to my hon. and learned Friend the actual wording of the time-table clause. It has been carefully worded, and it is intended to carry out its exact meaning. The last line of that clause says—
"The scholar may be withdrawn by his parents from such observance or instruction without forfeiting any other benefit of the school,"

1703
such, instruction being instruction in religious subjects. The power of withdrawal is withdrawal from the instruction, not from the school. Of course, the clause must have that interpretation; but the way in which it will practically work will be this—that if the school is so managed that the child can be put to other instruction—as, for instance, sent to another class-room, then it will be in the power of the managers to send the child to that other instruction; whereas, if the school is so arranged that it would be impossible for him to be withdrawn from the religious instruction without being withdrawn from the school, then the child will be withdrawn from the school.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

NAVY ESTIMATES.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. CORRYsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that, on the first evening devoted to the Navy Estimates, the Secretary to the Admiralty made a statement, from which it was made to appear that certain stocks of victualling stores and Navy clothing were not only extravagantly, but absurdly in excess of the requirements of the service. The statement caused a great deal of merriment at the expense of former Boards of Admiralty, including all that had been in Office since 1854, and, therefore, various Liberal Boards. On hearing the statement he was satisfied that the hon. Member had found "a mare's nest," and although a Return was afterwards laid on the Table which afforded a literal confirmation of the hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to Deptford Victualling Yard, a single glance at it was sufficient to show that it was absolutely valueless as a confirmation of the impression which that statement was intended to convey. It was so for two reasons—first, because it specified the quantities in store in, and the issues from, one victualling yard only; and secondly, because it showed the issues during only one year, instead of on an average of years, by which alone a correct estimate could be formed of the requirements of the service. Of the three prin-
1704
cipal victualling yards—Deptford, Gosport, and Plymouth, Deptford was the least calculated to throw any light on the subject; because, while it was the principal depôt of stores for the supply of other yards, it was the yard from which the smallest direct issues were made to Her Majesty's ships, more especially since the abolition of Woolwich Dockyard. The issues of stores might be very large in a given year without there being any great demand on Deptford within that year. Suppose at the commencement of a year there were 5,000 bottles of wine in store at Gosport, and 4,000 were issued in the year to the ships in the Portsmouth harbour and at Spithead, that issue might occur without there being any demand on Deptford for the year; but, in the following year, there would be a demand on Deptford to replenish the stock at Gosport. Again, nothing was more uncertain than the quantity of clothing which would be required for seamen in the course of a year. Clothing was not supplied to sailors as it was to Marines, gratuitously; and you could not tell in respect of sailors, as you could of Marines, how many jackets and other articles would be required, for it was quite optional with the sailor, so long as he was dressed according to the regulation, whether he obtained what was necessary under the regulations respecting dress during the course of the year, and whether he obtained it at the slop-shop or from the Government stores. Moreover, the descriptions of clothing required depended in a great measure on accidental circumstances. The hon. Member complained that the stock of warm clothing was excessive in relation to the issues last year; but these would have been much larger if the Channel Squadron—one of the largest divisions of the fleet—had wintered, as usual, on the Home Station, instead of in a warm climate—between Lisbon and the Azores. As, for these reasons, it was obvious that the Return of the hon. Gentleman opposite was not worth the paper on which it was written, he thought it his duty to move for a more comprehensive Return, which he thought would show the real aspects of the case, and it was this Return to which he wished to call attention. The Return embraced the total quantities of stores in each of the three victualling yards of Deptford, Gosport, and Plymouth, the

1705
prices at which the purchases were made under the last contracts, the date of the last purchase or contract—a point which was material as bearing on the censure implied on former Boards—the quantities issued during each of the last three years, the average issues for periods of three, five, and seven years, and the length of time the quantities in stock would last on each average. In the first place, he would proceed to show what would have been the state of the ease if he had done as the hon. Gentleman had done, and if, in 1868, when preparing the Navy Estimates, he had called for Returns of the stock, not in one, but in the three yards, and had compared those Returns with the consumption for the preceding year. If he had done so they would have shown a very different state of things from that shown by the hon. Gentleman, and, in hardly any instance, would the stock have appeared excessive. He did not know what the stock was on the 1st of January, 1868; but he would assume it was the same as it was on the 1st of January, 1870. The hon. Gentleman had said that, on comparing the store of essence of beef at Deptford in 1870 with the issues in 1869, there was in hand a seven years' supply. The total quantity was 103,900 quarter pints; in 1867, 38,500 were issued for Abyssinia, and 61,200 for general service; so that the stock would have been equal to a supply for one year and eight months, instead of seven years. The hon. Gentleman further said that there was a stock of four years' pickles in hand. The total value of the stock in all the yards was £14; and the value of the stock in the Deptford Yard was £6 9s. 2d. It must be gratifying to the House to know that the hon. Member would effect a great saving under this head. The total quantity was 1,305 quarts, and the issues in 1867, after abating 427 quarts for Abyssinia, were 1,370 quarts, so that he (Mr. Corry) would have found a stock less than was necessary for one year's supply, instead of for four years. These two articles—essence of beef and pickles—were the only articles of which the Return showed any extra issues on account of Abyssinia. Next, the hon. Member said there was 6½ years' supply of white wine. The total quantity was 22,700 bottles; the issues in 1867 were 17,800 bottles; so that there would have been a sup-
1706
ply for about 15 months instead of 6½ years. If the hon. Gentleman thought this was an extravagantly large stock he himself must share the responsibility, for the last purchase, as stated in the Return, was made under a contract dated 1869, five months after the service had the advantage of his superintendence of the purchase department. The hon. Gentleman next said there was a supply of saloon candles for 10¾ years. The total quantity was 45,500 lb., and the issues in 1867 were 18,000 lb., so that there would have been a supply for two years and six months instead of 10¾ years. He admitted that the quantity was larger than was necessary; but this, he was informed, was owing to a mistake of a clerk in demanding candles instead of pounds. He now came to the famous foot-pieces for stockings. The hon. Member in his speech had said—
"There was an article called foot-pieces for stockings for men. This must have been a nice little job in times past. He had found no less than 50 years' supply of these articles."
The job must have been a very little one, because the entire value of the whole stock was only £285. The entire stock was stated to be 9,700, against an issue in 1867 of 6,500; so that, if he had called for a Return to guide him for the Estimates for 1868, he should have found the supply equal to about a year and a-half's consumption instead of 50 years. The history of these foot-pieces was this—In 1866 some benevolent individual suggested to the Duke of Somerset's Board that, as the feet of the men's stockings wore out before the legs, and Jack was very handy with his needle, it would be well that new foot-pieces should be supplied in order that they might be joined onto the sound legs, and accordingly a number of the foot-pieces were purchased with that view. At first these foot-pieces were very popular in the Navy, and in 1867 no less than 6,500 were demanded. For some reason, however, their popularity soon declined, and the consumption fell to 2,506 in 1868, and to 480 in 1869. Perhaps none were being used in 1870, and the hon. Member might then say that there were enough of them in stock to last till the Millennium instead of for 50 years. Then, as to the blue cloth No. 2, with respect to which the hon. Member was more facetious than upon any other article. The hon. Membersaid—

1707
"The right hon. Gentleman talked of starving the Navy, and said they had no cloth—no clothing for the Marines! Good gracious! Of blue cloth No. 2 they had 7¾ years' supply."
Now the quantity of blue cloth No. 2 actually in stock, on the 1st of last January, was 35,600 yards, being about half-a-yard per man, while the issue in 1867 was 17,700 yards. Thus the stock would only have met the consumption of two years, instead of 7¾ years. But the best part of the joke was that the hon. Member himself was responsible for any excess in the store of this cloth, because the last purchase of blue cloth was made by himself, under a contract of the 29th of May, 1869. The hon. Member stated that the number of Flushing jackets in stock was equal to 13 years' consumption, whereas the number in stock was 8,900, while the issue in 1867 was 2,800. Thus, the amount of these articles in stock could barely have exceeded three, instead of 13, years' consumption. He had been told that this description of clothing had become unpopular in the Navy; and, as he had already shown, the demand for articles of warm clothing depended, in a great measure, on accidental circumstances. The hon. Member had stated that there was 3½ years' consumption of comforters in stock, whereas there was only one year and four months' consumption in stock, calculated on the demands in 1867. Again, of striped shirting, the hon. Member stated that there was five years' consumption in stock, whereas, at the rate of the demands in 1867, there was really only a sufficient supply in hand for one year and two months. In respect of these two last articles the hon. Member was, again, himself responsible, because he had purchased large quantities of them under a contract of May, 1869. The hon. Member had stated that there was seven years' supply of towelling in hand, whereas there was really only two years' supply in stock, at the rate of the issues in 1867. The total quantities in stock on the 1st of January, 1870,in relation to the total issues of 1867 in no case exceeded three years' supply, and in only four out of the ten instances given did it exceed two years' supply. Had he, therefore, adopted the course taken by the hon. Member, and called for Returns of quantities in store, assuming them to be the same as in January last, and the issues for the
1708
year 1867 in preparing the Estimates of 1868, he should have found nothing very excessive in respect of the articles enumerated. The figures he had quoted showed the total quantities in the three yards on the first of January, 1870, and the time they would last at the rate of issues in 1867, the year preceding that of his Estimates for 1868–69. He would now take the entire quantities of these articles in stock on the 1st of January, 1870, and in the three yards, and would compare them with the issues during the last three years, instead of in one year, and from one yard only, as had been done by the hon. Gentleman. Essence of beef was sufficient for two years and one month, instead of for seven years, as stated by the hon. Member; pickles, for one year and six months, instead of for four years; white wine, for two years and two months, instead of for six years and six months; saloon candles, for three years, instead of for ten years and nine months; foot-pieces for stockings, for three years, instead of for 50 years; blue cloth, No. 2, for two years and. seven months, instead of for seven years and nine months; Flushing jackets, No. 1, for five years, instead of 13 years; comforters, for one year and nine months, instead of for three years and six months; striped shirting, for one year and ten months, instead of for five years; towellings, for two years and seven months, instead of for seven years. Therefore, taking the entire quantity in stock, it only in one instance exceeded three years' expenditure on the average of three years. The hon. Member, by taking only one yard and one year, had given an entirely false impression of the actual state of things. On the average of five years the stock in no case exceeded 3½ years' consumption, and on the average of seven years in no case exceeded the consumption of 3 1–6. The entire value of the various articles enumerated in the three yards was £45,203. The value of the stocks of which the last purchases were made before the present Board came into Office was £18,579, while the value of the articles of which the last purchases were made by the present Board was £26,625. The hon. Member's statement referred to Deptford Yard only, where the entire value of the stock amounted to no more than £38,000, but he informed us that in consequence of his discoveries in that yard he had advised the reduction of the

1709
Victualling Vote by £47,000. It would be interesting to know on what principle he had given this advice, as it might throw some light upon the manner in which the large reductions effected by the present Board of Admiralty had been made under the various heads of expenditure.
MR. BAXTERsaid, the right hon. I Gentleman had characterized the Returns which he had laid upon the Table of the House as worthless; but he submitted that the figures of the right hon. Gentleman were both false and misleading. The right hon. Gentleman had taken no account whatever of the stocks in the depôts abroad, or of the recent reduction in the number of men, which had been reduced from 72,000 in 1864 to 61,000 in 1870. The statements he had made on a former occasion had been founded on the result of inquiries instituted by the Captain Superintendent of Deptford Dockyard, whose zeal and ability he trusted the Admiralty would not suffer to pass unnoticed. The officers who had conducted the inquiry had expressly informed him that the year 1867, which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman as the basis of his calculations, was so exceptional that it must be altogether excluded from the inquiry on account of the Abyssinian War.
MR. CORRYstated that he had expressly excluded the items applicable to the Abyssinian War from his figures.
MR. BAXTERobserved that those items were so mixed up with the other matters that it was impossible to separate them. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that he omitted in his statement to refer to certain dockyards, and had confined himself to Deptford; but the right hon. Gentleman knew the stock in these yards was exceedingly small; and the right hon. Gentleman had also remarked that if he had gone some years further back, he would have found much larger quantities of surplus stores. In reply, he said he could only speak as to what he found when he came into Office; and what he did find was great excess in the public Departments. The right hon. Gentleman had also remarked that he (Mr. Baxter) must bear his share of the responsibility, as he was at the head of the Department when some of this surplus was accumulated. He was willing to share the responsibility attaching to him; but the
1710
House would remember that he had many other things to do at the time, and that was the reason he had been foolish enough last year to order a quantity of articles, of which there was already five or six years' supply in the yards. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of white wine returned during the Abyssinian War. The excessive supply in this case arose from an error by a clerk in the victualling department, who wrote gallons instead of bottles, and caused the delivery of six times the quantity wanted. Very much the same thing occurred with respect to candles. The history of the stockings, as it had been told him by an hon. Member whom he had no reason to doubt, was simply this. A gentleman in the Midland Counties, with "a bee in his bonnet," conceived the notion that one pair of stocking legs would wear out three pair of stocking feet; and he thought it exceedingly probable that the sailors of the fleet, having little to do, could spend their time in knitting the feet to the stockings. Nobody, however, would buy his wares, until, by some mysterious influence at the Admiralty that never could be explained, he got them to take the greater part of his stock. The other day, what was left of it, was sold for mere waste by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. As regards blue cloth, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was only two and a-half years' supply; but he had been assured by the officials that there was not less than eight and a-half years' stock; and, notwithstanding this, he was this year asked to buy 2,000 yards mare. The result of these discoveries was, that the Government were able to take off at the last moment, £43,000. The savings in the Victualling Vote alone amounted to no less than £150,000 on the current year. He was not surprised the right hon. Gentleman should have been mislead by the information given him by the victualling department from time to time; for, the more he looked into it, the more he was astonished, that a great country should have been conducting its business concerns in so extraordinary a manner. He would give an example or two. Take the article of tea. When that article was wanted, the department, instead of giving an order for it, issued advertisements which contained conditions and fines of all sorts,

1711
which vexatious things scared the large dealers away. Then the agents came in—men without capital or an ounce of tea they could call their own—and the same men who took the contract for peas and for wheat generally got the contract for tea. A part of the process was to require a surety from two persons that the contract would be fulfilled; but, strange to say, this was more often than not filled up after the contract had been completed. The document contained 20 clauses; eight to provide against the natural wickedness of all contractors, three essential to the carrying out of the contract, and the rest were lawyers' verbiage. He found a pile of these contracts, six feet high; and he at once sent them to be made into pulp, and many others had shared the same fate. He held in his hand a letter sent from a first-class firm of linen manufacturers to a very able assistant of his, and they said that they regretted to state that it was out of their power to tender for the required articles, as they could not possibly agree to the conditions of the contract stated in the schedule. They said that they could not engage to wash and prepare the article, and they respectfully declined to give sureties for the performance of the contract. He inquired as to the bills of lading used by the Department, and he held in his hand one of these documents. It was contained in 19 pages, and four copies were written out. One was retained in the Department, one was sent abroad, one was for the Commander-in-chief, and another for the captain of the ship. This document contained the cost price of every article, so that the prices all became known to the captain of the merchant ship who carried them abroad. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir James Elphinstone) last night referred to the article of oil, and he seemed to think that, without any consideration, the Admiralty had changed the character of the oil that was used in the Navy. Now, in respect to the article of sperm oil, his attention was particularly directed to the large expenditure made upon it. The last price paid for the supply of that oil to the Navy was £134 a ton. It appeared that in accepting that tender no reference whatever was made to the price current of the day, and it turned out that though the Admiralty had agreed to pay £134 a ton for the ar-
1712
ticle, the price of the same oil quoted in the same week did not exceed £126 a ton. Well, he also thought it his duty to inquire of the best authorities what was the best kind of oil to use in lighting ships. Samples of colza oil were sent to all the ships in the service, and with the exception of one they reported in favour of that description of oil. Consequently, all the vessels in the Navy were now supplied with colza oil, which cost £38 15 s. a ton, whereas sperm oil cost £134 a ton. On this article alone there would be a saving of between £6,000 and £7,000. Again, an inferior kind of oil was brought from all parts of the South of Europe into London, where it was put into casks, and it was afterwards received by the Navy as Gallipoli oil. Instead of that inferior article—the last price paid for which was £74 per ton—the service was now supplied with different and better kinds of oil, which cost between £40 and £45 a ton. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone said last night that under the former system of contracts at the Admiralty it was quite impossible for abuses to arise. He said that Gambier represented he had influence at the Admiralty, whereas, in fact, he had none. This only showed, how green the right hon. Gentleman was. He was sorry to say it was perfectly well known in the City that the system of "tipping" prevailed extensively both in London and at the dockyards in connection with these contracts. Indeed, Mr. Gambier had confessed since being sent to prison that a series of items, found entered in his book and embracing columns, represented bribes which he had received in connection with contracts. These, too, were not bribes of £10 or £20, but very much larger sums; and the right hon. Gentleman could not for a moment suppose that commercial houses would go on expending such large sums year after year if they did not gain some proportionate benefit. The way in which the system was worked had been told to the Admiralty by other parties. It appeared that certain tenders made to the Admiralty had been opened, with all solemnity, at Somerset House in the presence of the superintending authorities; but the right hon. Gentleman and the House would probably feel surprised at hearing that other tenders had been opened under different circum-

1713
stances, and that certain messengers at Somerset House had had keys to open the boxes in which such tenders were kept. Now, that was the mode by which a great deal of those improper practices was carried on. It also, too, often occurred that when the schedule of articles required for the Navy was made up, two or three of the most important articles were purposely omitted. A hint was then given to the contracting party to offer a very low figure for the articles in the schedule, and then, when they obtained the contract, to supply the most important articles omitted, upon the understanding conveyed in a note which was to be found at the foot of each contract—namely, "All other articles required to be supplied at prices fair and reasonable." Now, the meaning of "fair and reasonable prices" in the minds of the contractors was very different from that which other persons would put upon them when applied to the sums set down for the articles in question. The prices charged were, at all events, amply sufficient to repay the contractors for any deficiency they had suffered from the low contract prices of the scheduled articles. He found in some cases that three-fourths of the whole contract were for the supply of the three largest articles which had been thus, as it were, accidentally omitted from the schedule; and as an illustration of the enormous amounts charged by contractors, he might say that for one particular article the Admiralty had been paying 9s. 9d. whereas one of the largest houses in the metropolis had agreed to furnish the same for 3s. 3d. When the Estimates were before the House last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone, amongst other charges against the Admiralty, stated that they had been supplying inferior hemp to the Navy, and that if an unfortunate vessel happened to be driven upon a lee shore the unhappy sailors would have no reason to bless the Government for the strength of the ropes they had furnished them with, and upon which their lives mainly depended. Now, he (Mr. Baxter) had never heard of that circumstance until it was then mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. On the following day he had made it his business to inquire into the matter, and he found that there was not the slightest foundation for the statement.
1714
He felt, therefore, he had reason to complain of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and other ex-Lords of the Admiralty, in going down to the dockyards and putting themselves in communication with discontented admirals and other grumblers, not for the purpose of assisting to put the Navy in an efficient state, but to enable them to repeat in that House some wretched tittle-tattle for which there was not the shadow of a foundation. The present Board of Admiralty had endeavoured, to the best of their ability, to reduce the expenditure, and at the same time to procure the very best articles for the use of the Navy. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman could really point out any articles which were of inferior quality, they would be greatly obliged to him. He was convinced, however, from personal visits paid to the dockyards and from the information he had received, that at the present moment the Navy was being supplied with cheaper and better stores than it had ever got before.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, that as the Government were endeavouring to carry out a system of economy which was strongly recommended by a Committee of that House, it was only fair that hon. Gentlemen on both sides should suspend their judgment until the new system had been fully and fairly tried. If it were then found necessary to institute a Committee of Inquiry, he was sure that the House would willingly assent to it. It was clear that, in reference to the new purchase system, competent persons were differing in their opinions as to the working of it. It seemed to him that all would go on smoothly and well, provided they had a thoroughly competent man, such as the present hon. Secretary, in the position of Financial Secretary of the Admiralty, he being in fact the head of the purchase department. On the contrary, if that duty devolved upon an incompetent person, and the business unfortunately fell into the hands of subordinates, it was almost certain that a large amount of jobbery would take place; but the same observation applied to every other Department of the State. He did not hesitate to say that the whole system of purchase and sale of stores had been in former times most unsatisfactory, and he was happy to find that there was a reduction to the extent of

1715
one-third in mere clerical labour, whilst he had no reason to doubt that a large amount of efficiency was also secured.
MR. PHILIPSsaid, he had the honour some years ago of serving on the Contracts Committee, when the existence of many abuses and incongruities was proved. He thanked the Government for what they had done on behalf of the taxpayers of the country. In the new management of the Admiralty it appeared to him that the Board had made a change which was working well both for the service and the country. He, for one, felt thankful to the hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Baxter) for the zeal and ability he had shown in the administration of his Department. There were many people in the country watching with great interest what was taking place.

CHATHAM, PORTSMOUTH, AND DEPTFORD DOCKYARDS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. CAWLEY, in rising to move that—
  "A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances and causes which have led to the large increase in the cost of the works for the extension of the Dockyards at Chatham and Portsmouth beyond the amounts set forth in the Act 28 & 29 Vic. c. 51, and what variations, if any, have been made or ordered from the works described in the said Act; also, whether the works included in the contracts made by authority of that Act, and laid before Parliament, are being executed in accordance with the drawings attached to such contracts, and as to the authority under which alterations have been made, and what has been or will be the effect on the cost of the works by such alterations; also, into the circumstances which have led to the disposal of Deptford Dockyard for an amount so much below the value thereof stated in the Stock Valuation Account,"
  said, he did not make this Motion in any hostile spirit to the present Board of Admiralty, nor for the purpose of attacking any individual Member of the Government. The evil to which his Resolution pointed was due to a system which it behoved every Board of Admiralty to sift and investigate. In the Estimates laid before them they found that, for the dockyards of Chatham and Portsmouth, there was an increase of £1,157,000 beyond the amount which was fixed by the Act of Parliament under which those extensive works had been carried on. An attempted explanation of this increase had been
  1716
  given; but that statement contained a fallacy, and did not give a satisfactory reason for this extraordinary difference. He should prove his case from official documents on the Table of the House, to which every Member had access. In respect to the origin of these works, a Commission sat upon the subject in 1861, and a Committee in 1864. In their Report the Committee directed attention to the evidence of two eminent engineers, which went to show that a great saving of expense would result from diminishing as far as practicable the time which it was proposed to occupy in the extension of the dockyards, as experience had proved that the saving effected by convict labour was nearly absorbed by the additional time required; it had been also recommended that contracts for the works should to a considerable extent be entered into and spread over several years. Acting on that view, the Secretary to the Admiralty of the day, Lord Clarence Paget, in introducing the Estimates on the 6th of March, 1865, asked for an additional sum of money, which was to be expended on carrying out contract works, and which he said would greatly expedite their completion. The noble Lord also stated that if the House would not sanction the proposed Estimates he could no longer answer for the works being executed for the sum named. The original estimate was alleged to have been based on the supposition that 2,000 convicts would be employed at Chatham and 2,500 at Portsmouth, whereas the number available had proved far short of those numbers. The next step after the introduction of the Estimates was the passing of the Extension Act of 1865, the Preamble of which recited that it would conduce to economy if the Admiralty were empowered, to accept contracts extending over a series of years for portions of the works. But whether it would conduce to economy would depend altogether on the nature of the contracts and the persons employed to carry them out. He would confine his remarks almost entirely to the case of Chatham, leaving it to be understood that they would to a great extent apply to Portsmouth also. In the 2nd Schedule of the Act the maximum time for the completion of the contracts was set down as five years. At this time, therefore, the works should have been very nearly completed, whereas

  1717
  at Chatham some of the most important, and certainly the most difficult, had not been yet commenced. The question as to the employment of convicts could not be satisfactorily answered by the First Lord of the Admiralty or any one connected with the Department, because there were matters connected with the subject which could be ascertained only by the examination of the parties in charge of the works. Any statement made in reply, therefore, must be necessarily a repetition of the reports made to the heads of the Department, and he was afraid there was as much concealment used in these matters as in those to which the Secretary to the Admiralty had just referred. He was not quite ignorant how these things were carried on, because he was professionally engaged against the Admiralty in reference to works that were carried on at Malta; but he would say no further than this, with respect to them, that they were carried on in a way discreditable to every person concerned. Not a single thing had been carried out in the manner prescribed in the original drawings and contracts, and he was afraid the same would be found to apply to Chatham. The first question that presented itself was this—whether the original Estimate was really based upon the supposition that 2,000 convicts would be constantly employed in one place, and 2,500 in the other. He should be sorry to think that a deliberate misstatement had been made by the Director of Works; but from the evidence before the House it would appear that such an estimate was entirely without justification. From a Return of the amount of accommodation at both places, it appeared that before the 1st of I March last the number of convicts that could be accommodated at Chatham, including invalids, was only 1,637, the total of effective men being only 1,182; at Portsmouth there was accommodation for 1,289 only, the number of effectives being 877. From the Returns before the House it also appeared that in the spring of last year it was agreed that a portion of the contract work should be taken out of the hands of the contractors, because they had not work for the convicts to do, notwithstanding that the convicts who had from the first been engaged on the works were not one-third of the number at first proposed to be employed. If the Director of
  1718
  Works had been a man of experience, or had been long connected with such works, he would not only have looked to the number of men he could place on the works, but whether the convicts were likely to be had, because upon that depended the economy that was to be effected; and it was clear from the Returns that the numbers alleged could not be obtained. As to the manner in which the contracts were entered into, they were merely contracts at a schedule of prices, and very like the schedules which the Secretary of the Admiralty had described in connection with the purchase of stores. They had attached to them, no doubt, perfect and elaborate plans and sections, but no quantities. It might be true that the works, had they been executed precisely according to the drawings, would have cost what the Director of Works stated; but the question was not whether they were executed according to the drawings alone, but whether the drawings represented all the works that were absolutely necessary for the completion of that which was included in the contract. Having boon once commenced, extras came in, and they had not only extra quantities, but an increase in the work of a very expensive character. Works were very frequently estimated on the supposition that the earth was of a certain quality, and it afterwards turned out to be very different. No doubt it was not an uncommon thing for estimates for public works, even when framed by eminent engineers, to be exceeded; but a very easy answer could be given to the latter fact—namely, that in the majority of such cases contracts were made on estimates prepared for Parliamentary purposes, and often necessarily made on a very imperfect knowledge of much that would have to be done, and that frequently men were desired not to look too narrowly into matters lest the estimates should be swelled too high. That, however, was not the mode in which works for a public Department ought to be prepared. The particular works in question, moreover, were no new idea; they had been long in contemplation; it was in the power of the Director of Works to make himself perfectly master of the nature of the soil and the stratification with which he had to deal. He ought to have made himself master of all these things before submitting an estimate to a Government Department to

  1719
  be laid on the Table of that House; and he was equally blameable whether it was want of judgment or want of foresight that had been shown. The hon. Member then described the works undertaken under the Act of Parliament for the enclosing of St. Mary's Island, the erection of a river wall, an embankment, and the construction of three basins, with two docks, one lock, and factory buildings; and he said that of the three large basins projected, only one was nearly completed, the second was in course of construction, and the third—the fitting-out basin—was not yet commenced, although the five years fixed for their completion would expire within a month. Subsequent Acts extended the time fixed for their completion to 1872, although the original intention was, for the sake of economy, to complete them in five years from 1865. He found from the Return of 1868 that Colonel Clarke's alternative estimate was £1,250,000, assuming that at least 2,000 convicts would be available. A Return had also been made a few weeks ago, from which it appeared that a portion of the work as to the river wall was completed previous to the Act of 1865; and that accounted for the difference between the estimate of £1,250,000 and the sum mentioned in the Schedule. The Director of Works stated in 1868, that the works had been constructed in great part by convict labour; but in his Report just laid before the House, in explaining the quantity of work that had been done, he stated that the number of convict labourers in the early part of the contract did not exceed 700, and he added that the sanguine expectations formerly entertained of convict labour, and that works of an elaborate and difficult character might be executed by them, had not been realized, but that experience showed that forced labour was not so inexpensive as it was supposed to be. He also said that the services most urgently required from the convicts was for the completion of the river wall and the formation of bricks; but the former work proved to be so unsuited to them that their employment on it had in a great measure to be abandoned. In that opinion he (Mr. Cawley) entirely agreed; but he contended such a result ought to have been foreseen. There were several contracts besides those he had mentioned which had not been laid on the Table of the House, including one
  1720
  for a wharf at Gillingham, estimated to cost £40,000, but on which a largely increased sum had been expended, in consequence, as Colonel Clarke explained, of various unexpected circumstances. One reason assigned was that, to obviate opposition from the local authorities, a clause was introduced in an Extension Act; but no Act containing such a clause was to be found in the Library, and he was inclined to think that the explanation was a suppositious one, based on a dreamy remembrance of a dispute with the local authorities. Speaking generally, Colonel Clarke had shown conclusively the impropriety of employing convict labour in works connected with docks; but if the original estimate were made on the supposition that convicts were not what they were afterwards described to be, blame must be attached to those who made it for want of forethought and consideration. That penal discipline could not be adapted to tidal variations, and that paid labour would, therefore, have to be resorted to, were matters which ought to have been known beforehand. Some explanation was required of the fact stated in the Return, that contracts agreed to be entered into in March, 1869, were not signed and laid on the Table on the last day of May, 1870. Another point of serious import was, that works which had been contracted for as a matter of economy had been taken out of the hands of the contractor for the purpose of executing them with convict and hired labour. The information given in the Papers was enough to satisfy anybody accustomed to large works that these would not be carried out for anything like the sum set down. He should like to have a distinct statement whether it was intended to act in the teeth of the recommendation of the Committee and of Lord Clarence Paget, and to execute these most difficult works with convict and hired labour instead of by contract. What did Colonel Clarke mean by saying now that the factory buildings were not included in the original estimate when they were recited in the Schedule of the Act of Parliament? Surely they were not inserted in the Schedule without a full knowledge of whether or not they were included in the estimate. The statement that they were not included in the original estimate was one which must be received with great jealousy.

  1721
  There were contracts connected with the supply of machinery and boilers to the dockyards which had never been laid before that House. There was abundant matter in the Reports to justify him in the course he had pursued. It was well known that the contractor for the Chatham Works was in financial difficulties, although the contractors for the Portsmouth Works were not only persons of ability, but were possessed of ample means. The subject of these contracts, however, required a careful investigation. He had included in his Motion a question relating to the sale of Deptford Dockyard; but as the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had given Notice of a Motion upon that subject, he did not propose to enter into that matter further than to say that he had himself failed to reconcile at least two discrepancies. According to the Valuation Return of Admiralty property Deptford Dockyard was worth £387,740, exclusive of movable plant, yet this very property had actually been sold to two persons for a little over £100,000, being only one-fourth of the estimated value. The matter certainly demanded some explanation. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Motion.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in rising to second the Motion, said, that after the speech which they had just listened to, he would not trouble the House with any remarks on the general subject. He wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether a part of Deptford Dockyard was sold to Mr. Austin by private bargain for £71,800; if he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence on the subject, and any Papers relating to any other and higher offers that have been made; and further, if he will state the reasons for departing in this instance from the usual practice of a puble sale? In consequence of its being desired to secure a portion of Deptford Dockyard for a new cattle market, inquiries had been made, and it was ascertained that Mr. Austin had recently purchased 22 acres of that dockyard for about £71,000. He had received a letter from a gentleman, on whose authority he could safely rely, stating that the purchaser had refused an offer which would have secured to him a profit of £15,000. This information led him to believe that the nation had lost by the
  1722
  transaction. The official Return, in 1865, set down the value of the land at £134,270, the buildings at £253,470, and the fixed and moveable plant at £24,300, making a total value of I £412,040. He had likewise ascertained that an acre of land contiguous to the dockyard, and used simply for storing timber, was sold the other day for £15,000. At this rate the 22 acres purchased by Mr. Austin would amount to £330,000. He had also been informed that a person who was prepared to give from £100,000 to £125,000 for the dockyard had not the least hope of such an offer being accepted, because in his belief the property, if sold in lots, would realize more than £200,000 when it came to be offered for public competition. The House might remember that, at a time of great commercial distress, a Mr. Baxter Langley desired to become the purchaser of Deptford Dockyard, in order that employment might be provided for some of the thousands of men then out of work, and that Mr. Langley was asked £450,000 for the property. [Mr. BAXTER dissented.] The hon. Member for Montrose shook his head. If what he said was not correct, he hoped the matter would be satisfactorily cleared up. It was not improbable that the House would be told that the valuation given was not a very sound one; but it had been based upon the price which had been paid for the surrounding land. He was aware that a part of the dockyard had been retained with something like a thousand feet frontage, and a portion of it—he believed over five acres out of 27—had been sold to the ground landlord, Mr. Evelyn, for £27,200. If this was the value of the land, £4,800 per acre would be the full value. But, instead of the £71,800 which represented the money received, for the 22 acres, the country ought to have received £105,600. If these statements were inaccurate, it was right the country should be informed in what respect they were so. There was another point upon which he would touch. A statement had been made in The United Service Gazette of an extraordinary kind, referring to Chatham and the sale of Deptford Dockyard, and when a statement of such a character appeared in a paper of such authority uncontradicted, it was incumbent on the Government to meet it. The statement, among other things, set forth that the purchaser

  1723
  of the Deptford Dockyard was a Mr. Austin, who was said to be formerly the landlord of a tavern at St. George's Road, Lambeth, afterwards of Peel's Coffee House, Fetter Lane, then joint proprietor with Mr. Henry Essex Bristow (brother of the Solicitor to the Admiralty), of the Beulah Spa Hotel, Norwood, and now a wine merchant in Billiter Street. Having this question brought before him, he felt himself bound, as a Member of Parliament, to bring it before the House, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of stating to the House what were the real facts of the case.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances and causes which have led to the large increase in the cost of the works for the extension of the Dockyards at Chatham and Portsmouth beyond the amounts set forth in the Act 28 and 29 Vic c. 51, and what variations, if any, have been made or ordered from the works described in the said Act; also, whether the works included in the contracts made by authority of that Act, and laid before Parliament, are being executed in accordance with the drawings attached to such contracts, and as to the authority under which alterations have been made, and what has been or will be the effect on the cost of the works by such alterations; also, into the circumstances which have led to the disposal of Deptford Dockyard for an amount so much below the value thereof stated in the Stock Valuation Account,"—(Mr. Cawley,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, that no person could be more interested in the Deptford Dockyard than his constituents. He was able to speak of the conduct of the Admiralty with regard to this dockyard. It was impossible for any person to behave in a more open and straightforward manner with regard to the sale of that dockyard than the hon. Member who was the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Baxter). The moment it was found that the Admiralty had decided to sell the Deptford Dockyard, he (Sir David Salomons) called at the Admiralty and ventured to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty if they had fixed a price, and the Secretary gave him the price which the Admiralty would take. He (Sir David Salomons) told him that he hoped to be able to restore the trade of Deptford by the Corporation of London purchasing the dockyard in connection with the proposed market for foreign
  1724
  cattle. He was told that the Government had fixed the price at £80,000, but that probably £75,000 would be taken, and that, as several persons were about the land, he had better bestir himself. The Corporation of London, on being consulted, did not think it expedient to enter into the negotiation. Being anxious, however, that his constituents should have the advantage of the dockyard, being occupied, he consulted almost every person he met connected with shipping to influence them to establish commercial docks on the south side of the river and the advantage which they would be to the trade of London. But he did not succeed. He at length gathered from the local papers that a buyer for the docks had been found. He was, however, astonished to find that while £75,000 was the price at which the docks could be bought; the docks had been purchased for a firm of American shipwrights at £140,000, and this story struck him as savoring strongly of the dealings of the year 1866. But the whole story was a fable. He made this statement to show that the Admiralty had acted fairly as regards the price at which they offered the property. At the same time, he thought the Committee would not be undesirable.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he was one of the Committee on Dockyards, which recommended that the dockyards of Deptford and Woolwich should be abolished. He meant so much of each as could be rendered available for building purposes. The Deptford Dockyard comprised 27 acres 1 rood and 23 perches; the length of quay accommodation, 2,000 feet. The Committee recommended the execution of extensive works at Chatham; and Mr. Scamp, who at that time was the engineer of the Admiralty, drew plans and prepared specifications of the works, which were approved of. An Act of Parliament was passed; contracts were entered into for the purpose of carrying out the works. But these plans had been entirely departed from. Not only had the Admiralty contractor fallen into difficulties, and been relieved from his contract, but the whole undertaking had been boulversed, and the country was in entire ignorance of what the works were to be. He would not dwell upon the various rumours afloat respecting individuals, as these might possibly be investigated by

  1725
  the Committee if the Government would assent, as he sincerely trusted they would, to its appointment. The Committee ought to direct its attention, first, to the sufficiency of Mr. Scamp's plans, which, in his opinion would be established; secondly, to the circumstances which led to Colonel Clarke not carrying out those plans; thirdly, to the question of convict labour; and, lastly, what was the position of those works at present—how far they were authorized by the Acts of that House, and how far they were the mere dictates of the Admiralty. Taking this opportunity of making a few remarks on Deptford Dockyard, the hon. and gallant Baronet referred to the fact of its value, according to the valuation of the Admiralty, being £412,040, and it was understood that the men would be transferred to Chatham. The stories that were going abroad with respect to the sale of the dockyard were of a very serious description. For instance, it was said that Mr. Austin, who at one time kept Peel's Coffeehouse, came forward and purchased the property from the Admiralty for £73,000. Of course, he pronounced no opinion as to the truth or falsehood of this, or of similar stories; but he strongly urged that the whole of the facts ought to be thoroughly investigated.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that before his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) replied to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley), he desired to say a few words on the Deptford part of the question, because he was primarily responsible for advising his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty to accept the offer which was made for the purchase of that dockyard. He admitted that the hon. and gallant Baronet, as a Member of that House, was entitled to know all the facts of the case. When the present Board of Admiralty came into Office they found that dockyard shut up, and they resolved that it should be disposed of—either sold or let as speedily as possible, with a view of giving employment to the large number of labourers thrown out of work by the shutting up. This was more than a year and a-half ago, and the Board were most deliberate in their action. The hon. Baronet, he might remark, was mistaken when he said that Admiralty property was generally sold by auction. It was made known throughout the
  1726
  country by advertisement and by a paragraph in the money article of The Times that Deptford Dockyard was in the market. Moreover, experienced valuators, legal gentlemen, and merchants in the City were consulted as to the best course to be pursued, and they unanimously advised the Board on no account to put up the dockyard to public sale, as the inevitable consequence would be what was termed a "knock-out," which would depreciate the value of the property in the market. Acting on this advice the Government resolved to seek an offer for Deptford Dockyard. He had seen it stated that the property was sold for £71,500, whereas it was valued in the Admiralty books at £412,000; but it was impossible for him to endeavour to refute all the statements and imputations—some of them supremely ridiculous, which had been made in the naval and military newspapers. Mr. Evelyn had the right of pre-emption with regard to a portion of the dockyard, and a portion was bought by him at a former period for £29,000. After the advertisements were inserted, tenders were received at £48,000, £50,000, £55,000, £58,000, and £60,000 respectively. All these offers he thought proper to decline, as being of insufficient value. A long period then elapsed, and no offers came in, and the Government, eventually, took other measures to let the public know that the land was for sale. Meanwhile, he received many visits from his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Sir David Salomons), who treated, on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London, for the purchase of the yard. At that time the Admiralty were not prepared to state what was the value of the land, as they had not received the report of the gentleman appointed to estimate it; but at a subsequent interview he told the hon. Baronet that if the Corporation made an offer of £80,000 for the remainder of the ground, that offer would be favourably entertained by the Admiralty, and, probably, by the Treasury also. The hon. Gentleman intimated to him that that was out of the question, and for a considerable time no further offer was made. At last the Admiralty received an offer from Mr. Marsh, the well known auctioneer, of £71,500, and with the full consent of the Treasury, and the Woods and Forests, the Admiralty accepted that sum,

  1727
  which, was within £5,000 of the valuation furnished to them by very competent parties. These negotiations, he might remark, occupied many months, and the Admiralty did not hastily jump to a conclusion. He must give a most unqualified contradiction to the statement referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that Mr. Baxter Langley offered anything like £450,000 for the purchase of the dockyard, in order to give employment to the men out of work. If the dockyard had been wanted for such a purpose, he should not have hesitated to recommend his right hon. Friend to sell it at less than its market value. The valuation of £412,000 included not only the value of the land but the value of stores, buildings, docks, and many other things which were now of little use, and most of which had been sold. He had only to add that he knew nothing about Mr. Austin until the last moment. His dealings were with Mr. Marsh. They had sold a portion of the yard to Mr. Evelyn, a portion to Mr. Marsh for Mr. Austin; they had thrown a portion into the victualling yard, and they had sold a quantity of stores. Taking all these points together they hadobtained for Deptford Dockyard £140,000 instead of £70,000. All he had to state further was that if he had made any mistake he was very sorry for it; but the affair had been conducted with great deliberation and care.
  CAPTAIN BEAUMONTsaid, the position in which Colonel Clarke stood was that he had been called upon to do a greater amount of work for £230,000 than was demanded of him under the original estimate. The total amount, he might add, which the works would cost was actually within that estimate. Any failures that had arisen in connection with them had been the result of improvident arrangements on the part of the contractor. It was said that the contract should have been finished in the month of April; but the money necessary to finish the work was not forthcoming. It had been further stated that the works had been carried out in a discreditable manner; but an examination of them would, he thought, show that that was not the fact. So far as the contractor was concerned, he believed he had done his work as a contractor extremely well; and a proof that he had not been overpaid
  1728
  was furnished by the circumstance that he was not now supposed to be financially in a very sound position. The advantage of the employment of convict labour had, he thought, in the present instance been over-estimated, though where no particular difficulties existed it might be employed with advantage. He was sorry that the scope of the proposed inquiry was so large, and he should, like to hear the answer of the Government before he decided which way he should vote. He could only say, on the part of a brother officer whose character was to some extent involved in the question, that there was nothing he should like better than a full inquiry. The result of such an inquiry would, he believed, be completely to exculpate Colonel Clarke.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the House was placed in a position of some difficulty in consequence of having before it two very different subjects, both of great importance. On the second of those subjects—that relating to the sale of Deptford Dockyard he wished to say a few words. He was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty discuss the question in a very different, and much more becoming tone from that which he assumed the evening before, when an opportunity was afforded the Government of giving an explanation with regard to certain rumours which were very prevalent out-of-doors. It was extremely desirable, in his opinion, that some explanation should be given with respect to those startling statements which had appeared in the public prints, and which, up to the present time, had been allowed to remain uncontradicted. The statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject of the sale of Deptford Dockyard he could not regard as satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be conscious that the property had been sold for a sum below its value. [Mr. BAXTER dissented.] The hon. Gentleman might shake his head; but although the statements in the public prints were almost incredible, it was hard, under the circumstances, to come to the conclusion that the property would not have brought a large sum. In that view he was strengthened by some portions of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He alluded to the common practice of selling public property by auction, and explained that that course had not been

  1729
  resorted to in the present instance, because it was feared an understanding might have been arrived at between the bidders, and that the full value of the property would not, as a consequence, be obtained. But there was no necessity that there should have been a forced sale and that any offer made should have been accepted. The hon. Gentleman appeared wholly to forget that he could have put a reserve bidding, and that he could thus have secured himself from the danger of seeing the property knocked down at a figure below its real value. Then the hon. Gentleman proceeded to say—and in that he was quite correct—that the estimated value of £412,000 was arrived at by including the value of certain buildings and properties which stood on the estate. That was perfectly true; but the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the price for which the Government sold it included all those buildings and properties. He spoke under correction; but he believed all the properties were included in the sum of £71,500. The Government must feel that the country had a right to explanation. Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side, therefore, were perfectly justified in saying that the Government were bound to explain what had been done; and he could not help thinking that the most satisfactory course would be that the transaction should be calmly and dispassionately inquired into by the proposed Committee.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, the question for the House was this—whether there was anything in the transaction which required to have a greater degree of light thrown on it than could be done in Committee of Supply. For his own part, he should wait with great anxiety for an explanation as to the dockyards. At present, there were certain items with respect to which he could only express his astonishment that they had not before been brought under the notice of the House. How did the case stand with respect to Chatham? The House had departed from its usual practice of voting from year to year the sum required, and at the request of the Ministers of the Crown, represented by Lord, Clarence Paget, had placed at their disposal a fixed sum which might be spread over a series of years, the object being to secure greater economy by enabling a contract to be entered on for the en-
  1730
  tire works at once. Well, £1,250,000 was granted in 1865, and if the House would refer back to the Estimates for 1866–7, 1867–8, and 1868–9, they would find that sum set down for the extension of Chatham Dockyard. Then they would find, in the following column, the amount voted on account of the work; in a third column, the sum required to be taken that year; and, in a fourth, the amount which remained to be expended in future years. There was also a distinct statement of the total sum the House had given permission to expend. How, then, did the case stand? That this sum in the Estimates was now, for the first time, raised from £1,250,000 to £1,750,000. But though the estimate had been raised, the sum previously voted had not yet been exhausted. And then his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) came down to the House, and, speaking in explanation of his Estimates for a space of three hours, never stated that he had varied the sums voted for Chatham and Portsmouth, and had increased the liabilities of the nation by a sum of £1,157,000. What would have happened if the House had gone on without noticing this matter? Why, next year they should have been told that it was too late; that the increased amount was on the Estimates of the year before, and that they had not taken any exception to it. Surely, it ought to have been the primary duty of the right hon. Gentleman—who had devoted the greater portion of his statement to explaining how grateful the House ought to be to him for reducing the Estimates by £840,000—to have stated that he had, by this unreferred-to increase in the Construction Estimates, actually committed them to an increase of £350,000 on the previous year. Now either a concise and satisfactory explanation could be given of this matter, or else it was a good case for investigation by a Select Committee; at all events the House was entitled to the best explanation the First Lord could give, and it was wholly inadmissible for him to take credit for having effected a saving of £840,000, when it was clearly known to him he was committing the country to an expenditure the House had not sanctioned of nearly £1,250,000, and hence on balance practically increasing the Estimates £330,000. There was another point upon which some explanation was neces-

  1731
  sary, and that was the statement made by Colonel Clarke the Director of Works as to the cause of this increase. He (the Director of Works) pointed out, for the most part justly, that the attempt to employ convict labour had not answered to the expectations that had been formed of it; that, instead of 2,000, only 700 convicts had been obtained; that their labour by no means cost nothing, and that the pecuniary saving that their employment was expected to lead to had been greatly over-estimated. The result was this—that if the whole quantity of convict labour had been deficient, there would have been an increase in the cost of £200,000 in the one case, and of £270,000 in the other, or a total of £470,000; whereas the House was now asked to vote a sum of £1,200,000, or nearly three times the amount of the excess. Upon another point, he looked for a particularly explicit explanation from the Government, because it appeared to show that a great deal of favouritism had been shown to the contractor. By referring to the plan of the works, it would be seen that the contractor had to make a repairing basin at the western side; secondly, towards the east, a factory basin; and, thirdly, still further east, a fitting-out basin. Now, in the Report of the Director of Works, it was stated that a great deal of expense and difficulty were occasioned by the treacherous nature of the soil; that as they proceeded eastward those difficulties became greater and greater until, at last, the soil was a mere quicksand, on which all labour was thrown away; in short, as they went from the west to the east, the cost of the work became greater and greater. The whole work was performed by the contractor upon a schedule of prices, which meant that an average of prices was struck from the worst part of the work up to the best. But it appeared that, at a very late period of the works, a good portion of those to the west were allowed to be finished by the contractor, and the work as it went eastward, where it became more difficult, was taken off his hands, at a price upon which he intended to inquire as to how it had been arrived at. Therefore, the contractor had been relieved from doing the difficult part of the work, but had been allowed to finish the easy part. This was a matter which he thought called for explanation. There was only one
  1732
  other matter to which he wished to call the attention of the House. The general tenour of the Report complained, or explained, that the large excess which the country was called upon to pay for that work was mainly to be attributed to the deficiency of convicts; and it went on to show that the fitting-out basin—a very large basin—had been altogether abandoned, or, at least, could not be executed up to this time, because of the short supply of convicts. Yet, notwithstanding the shortness of the supply of convicts, the contractor had a difficult portion of the work taken from him with the view to allot it to convicts, and had some more work given to him in the good part of the ground, and given to him, too, at the schedule price. In conclusion, the whole of that scheme had been put before the country as, being connected with a wonderful measure of economy, to be effected by substituting a certain amount of expenditure, known and agreed to on the part of the nation, at Chatham, so as to enable them to shut up Woolwich and Deptford Dockyards. He would never cease to protest against the shutting up of Woolwich Dockyard. But they were told that it would be a saving of £100,000 a year to the country; but it now appeared that the excess which they were called upon to pay, beyond the expected estimate when the works were recommended and decided on, went far to do away with any saving that might have been effected. These were matters that called for explanation, and he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not be doing good service to the Government and to those who desired to support them, if he would frankly come forward and grant the full inquiry into these matters which was due to the country, and would be satisfactory to the House.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought no one who had survived the naval battle of last night could wonder at the observation of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), that the tone of his hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter), in answering the accusations of that day, was very different from what it was on the previous night. On the former occasion hon. Gentlemen opposite got up and made themselves the mouth-pieces of floating rumours with regard to the Purchase department of the Admiralty, implying that his hon. Friend had

  1733
  practically used that department as a means of bringing about a new species of peculation and jobbery. Things had quite changed that day. Gentlemen connected with the late Board of Admiralty had stated, in an extremely moderate manner, the circumstances that had given rise to disagreeable suspicions in their minds as to the conduct not of the Government, but of people connected with it either temporarily or permanently. Therefore it was not surprising that the answer of the Government that day had been given in a very different tone. The hon. Member who spoke last asked the Government to grant a Committee of Inquiry, assigning several reasons why they should take that course. He thought I he would be able to show, in the course of a quarter of an hour, that there was no need for a Committee; but that the Government could be trusted, and that the Director of Works could be trusted. The hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. Friend—the great economist who had cut down expenditure by £860,000 in one year, and by £1,250,000 in another—had saddled them with something like £1,200,000 of excess on these works. It might have been thought that a Gentleman acquainted with the practical affairs of life like the hon. Member would have known the difference between stating an expense that had been incurred and incurring it. What had the Government done in that case? They had deemed it absolutely necessary for them—a Liberal Government, coming into Office pledged to economy—to begin with that which was the commencement of all sound economy—namely, by presenting to the House of Commons full and true accounts of all expenditure. He did not wish to throw a word of blame upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—all he would say was, that his opinion of the way in which Estimates should be presented to that House was very different from theirs. He would remind the House that the Members of the late Government were as much concerned in this Inquiry as the present, and he would show that the late Government knew all along what was the condition of the Chatham and Portsmouth Extension Works. That was proved by the Paper they laid before Parliament in 1868–9, carefully drawn up by the Director of Works, and stating that his estimate of January, 1865, for the
  1734
  execution of the works approved by Parliament in connection with the extension of Chatham, amounted to £1,750,000, to be reduced in proportion as convict labour was more or less employed. The Director of Works went on to say that he had not a sufficiency of convicts to enable him to execute them at the lower sum, and it was evident from his Paper that the £1,750,000 would be reached. So with regard to Portsmouth Dockyard; no one could read that Paper carefully without seeing that the late Government also were in possession of all the facts. Again, in the annual Estimates for 1868–9, the late Government inserted a foot-note, stating that the estimate of £1,250,000 was dependent on the number of convicts employed, and that the amount would be increased if the estimated number of convicts fell short. A smilar foot-note was given in respect of Portsmouth and Haulbowline. Those were the Estimates which they found ready prepared when they came into Office. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had been ready to claim credit for the reductions made by the Government in their first year of Office, and certainly, in the six short weeks they had to lay the Estimates before the House last year, it was impossible for the Government to concern themselves with their matter and their form. So much for the year 1868–9. But in the autumn of last year the Admiralty determined to look carefully into the subject. He did not hesitate to say—and he was proud of it, for it showed that though they were in Office they had still some sympathy with Gentlemen below the Gangway—they were determined to have a full account of the meaning of that foot-note and to lay it before the House. They knew the suspicion with which that foot-note would be regarded by every good Radical in the House. The Government consulted the Director of Works on the matter, and they had now told the House and the country the full amount of their liability. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion evidently heard from some quarter—he knew not what—certain rumours about the Director of Works, and as to his conduct with regard to the employment of convicts, which everybody who knew that valuable officer knew were not correct.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he had heard no rumours whatever; he had founded his

  1735
  statements strictly on the Reports of the Director of Works.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that might be so; but the hon. Gentleman must have read the article on the subject in The United Service Gazette. The hon. Gentleman stated at the beginning of his speech that he was not ignorant of the way in which the works were carried on by the Admiralty.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, his statement was founded on experience.
  MR. TREVELYAN: But the hon. Gentleman's experience had been very unfavourable. He referred to works executed at Malta, under the control of Mr. Scamp, the late Director of Works, the estimate for which was £26,900; but the contractor obtained £44,230, or almost twice the original contract. His next experience of Admiralty work was also at Malta, in a contract which exceeded the original estimate by £11,000. But if the hon. Gentleman would watch with equal care the Admiralty works of the present day he would find that they were carried on in a different spirit. The present Director of Works had got a strong hand, and he showed it by never exceeding his estimates. It was true that there was a scheme brought forward in an Act of Parliament, by which £1,096,000 was put down to be expended on Chatham Dockyard. That Act was brought in and pushed forward by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Admiralty, for the purpose of giving confidence to contractors in putting in tenders for works which were to extend over several years, as several circumstances had before that occurred to shake the confidence of contractors in the stability of purpose of the Government. There was a guarantee of £610,000 for Chatham Dockyard, and of £700,000 for Portsmouth, and the object of that guarantee had been fully obtained. In the case of Mr. Gabrielli, at Chatham, the works would be executed for a sum under the £610,000. In the case of Messrs. Leather and Smith, he could not say that the works at Portsmouth would be executed under the £700,000. However, the late Government had given—with great judgment and discretion, he would admit—a contract for work that would exceed £700,000, at the same time cautioning them that Parliament had only authorized the sum of £700,000 to be spent, and Messrs. Leather and Smith
  1736
  were very anxious now to ascertain if that sum was to be exceeded. Very hard things had been said of the present Director of Works; but his best defence was to be found in a Paper that was laid before Parliament in 1865, where he stated that the works at Portsmouth could not be executed with free labour for less than £2,250,000, and at Chatham for £1,750,000; but that, if convict labour were employed to any great extent, the expenses would be reduced at Portsmouth to £1,500,000 and at Chatham to £1,250,000. It was not the fault of the Director of Works that the Government could not obtain convict labour in sufficient quantity. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuda) had called attention to a very material charge against the Director of Works, and which might be said to contain the gist of the whole debate. The question was this—whether the Admiralty by releasing Mr. Gabrielli of his contract for the factory basin and employing him in erecting docks had enabled him to make more money than, if he had been left with the factory basin. This was said to be shown by the Report of the Director of Works, who said that as they went westward the ground got better. But that was not what the Director of Works said. What he said was, that it was now evident that as they went westward they could obtain a comparatively good foundation for the walls, which did not exist in the eastern, that part of the island which still remained to be dealt with. He said that at the west end the gravel was cemented into a natural concrete; but that at the east end it was more loamy, and unfavourable for a foundation. But that was not the same thing as saying that the soil changed gradually as they went from west to east. The fact was that the repairing basin and the factory basin stood upon exactly the same soil. The one was as good as the other. The real motive for the Government undertaking the work to which the hon. Gentleman alluded was that they had now more convicts than they had at first, and they wanted work for them. At first they had only 700 convicts; they had now 1,100. They did not wish to go on with the fitting-out basin, because that was a gigantic work, and would occupy them for a considerable time; and they preferred to have two complete basins in the course of a couple

  1737
  of years or so to having three unfinished ones; besides which, it was admitted that convicts could not be put to the work of making docks, although they might be employed in excavating, and to the benefit of the country. Another reason for the alteration was that the Admiralty required Docks Nos. 3 and 4 to be finished in a much shorter time than the convicts would take to do the work, because Docks Nos. 1 and 2 were already very much cramped for the newest class of vessels. Besides that, there would be a saving of £30,000, which he hoped would be as satisfactory to the House, as it was creditable to the Director of Works. The result of the experience obtained in the construction of docks was that, while the two smaller docks had cost £244,000, the two larger docks, built of finer material, would cost only £210,000; and surely it was no indication of a want of fidelity on the part of a public servant that he built two docks larger and better than two others for a less sum than they had cost. Hon. Members could not spend their Whitsuntide holidays better than by going down to Chatham to see these enormous temples of shining granite, and to satisfy themselves of the workmanlike manner in which they had boon constructed. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) desired inquiry into the rumours concerning Mr. Gabrielli, though he declined to go into them, and it was for the House to say whether a Committee should be appointed to inquire into rumours which could not be described. He would not trouble the House by examining the allegations of The United Service Gazette; but he might state that from first to last they were a tissue of slightly true statements curiously interwoven with the most utterly false ones. In one of the articles it was stated that Mr. Thomas Phipps Austin had been latterly joint proprietor in an hotel with Mr. H. Bristowe, the son of the Solicitor to the Admiralty. [Mr. CAWLEY: It should have been brother.] He was not acquainted with the facts as to the authorship of the article as others appeared to be, and naturally thought that the Mr. Bristowe referred to was a son of the Solicitor to the Admiralty. Now, however, he understood why Mr. Bristowe supplied him with a Paper about his brother. Mr. Bristowe said his only son was a partner in the Soli-
  1738
  citor's office, and never was a partner in an hotel or public - house, and Mr. Bristowe made a similar statement with respect to his brother, adding that he had never been in partnership with Mr. Austin. Further, Mr. Bristowe never knew Mr. Austin until he was brought by a relation of Chief Justice Bovill as one of the sureties of Mr. Gabrielli. With reference to the exchange between the docks and the repairing basin, he read a letter written to the Director of Works by the Secretary of the Admiralty, in Jury, 1868, when the Conservatives were in Office; and this letter requested the Director of Works to submit revised Estimates for the two additional docks that entrances were already provided for, as it might be more economical to proceed with their construction; so that all that was reserved to the present Government was to take from Mr. Gabrielli the repairing basin, which they did, because, with the present additional number of convicts, they could construct it more cheaply than they could the docks. He had now referred to the various reasons which had been given for a Select Committee, and he trusted the explanations he had given would be deemed satisfactory, and that they would show that the present Government was watching, in addition to the rest of the Admiralty, the Director of Works. The Government asked the House to trust them in this matter, and by the end of the year they would know whether there should be an Inquiry or not. The Director of Works stated that he had great hopes that by 1870 the repairing basin and the two docks would be finished, and then it could be seen whether the rest of the works could be completed within the contract. Until that time he thought the Government had a right to ask the House to trust it in this as it had trusted it in all other matters connected with the Admiralty.
  CAPTAIN STANLEYsaid, he was sorry to hoar his hon. Friend say that the Government could not accede to the appointment of this Committee, because in his speech he had given sufficient reason for the appointment of the Committee. Attention had been drawn to statements which the hon. Gentleman characterized as slightly true, but curiously interwoven with falsehood. He thought that in regard to matters of such intricacy, connected as they were with professional details, the investigations of a Committee

  1739
  of Inquiry were preferable to casual speeches made in that House. He should be sorry to say a word either for or against the professional acquirements of his friend, Colonel Clarke, who had gained considerable experience at home and abroad; but the charges brought against him in the course of this discussion were such that they could be described only as being of a serious nature. According to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) there were four matters for consideration—the sufficiency of the original estimate; the failure or otherwise of Colonel Clarke to carry it out; the failure of convict labour in the purpose to which it was originally applied; and the state of the works, now a considerable time after that fixed for the completion of the contract. It appeared to him that these were fitting matters for a Committee to decide. The question was important as one of precedent, and also as affecting the manner in which the estimates were prepared. It would be remembered that when Lord Clarence Paget proposed a departure from the course previously pursued, and asked Parliament to extend the period for the expenditure by whatever Government might be in power, the principle was criticized by many competent Members, and it was only after considerable discussion, and not without some hesitation, that it was adopted. One principal argument in favour of the course was that, by extending the operations over a series of years, a great economy would be effected, and that, by spreading the cost over the Estimates of several years, the work would be carried forward with the least pressure in respect of public taxation. Here, again, two points were involved—first, whether the expected economy had been realized; and, second, whether there was any objection to the course taken in binding by Act of Parliament successive Governments to prosecute the works, irrespective of their own approval of them. Without expressing any opinion on these questions, he held that they might fairly be inquired into by a Committee, and it was to be regretted that the Government did not accede to the proposal to appoint one. In his opinion the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) had shown good grounds for the appointment of a Committee, and he hoped hon. Members
  1740
  on that side of the House would be able to support his Motion.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 83: Majority 59.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Debate arising.
  Debate adjourned till this day.

SUPPLY.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [31st May], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Question again proposed.

THE GREEK MASSACRES.

  OBSERVATION'S.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to refer to the naval force belonging to this country that was stationed in Greek waters. On a former occasion, when he put a Question on the subject to the First Lord of the Admiralty, he conveyed the idea to the House that there were two English sloops-of-war there—namely, the Antelope and Cockatrice; but the fact was, that when the lamentable massacres took place in Greece, there were only two vessels in the neighbourhood, neither of them belonging to the British squadron. The Antelope was a vessel attached to the Embassy at Constantinople, and at the time of the massacres was on her passage from Constantinople to Brindisi, to meet Sir William Elliott, who was returning from this country. The Cockatrice was a small vessel attached to the Conservators of the Danube, and was at the time accidentally on her way to resume her station on the Danube. He had stated last night, on the authority of Admiral Hobart, that if there had been an English vessel of war off the coast these lamentable occurrences would not have happened. Admiral Hobart knew more of these banditti than anybody else, having captured most of them in Crete, and handed them over to the Greek Government, who sent a sloop of war to carry them off with their arms. He had asked whether it was not a matter of policy that the Mediterranean

  1741
  Fleet should be sent up to the Piræus to strengthen the hands of the Greek Government. He did not indicate any opinion of his own on the subject; but it seemed to him that when Mr. Erskine was deprived of his right-hand man, Mr. Herbert, it would have been well if he had been supported by the mature judgment of Sir Alexander Milne. The police of the seas, formerly maintained by this country, could not be relaxed in any quarter of the world for any length of time without some disaster.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not pretend to give any opinion of his own; but it appeared from the despatches to be certain that if, when the brigands were encamped on the promontory of Oropos, Mr. Erskine had been able to send an English vessel with a view to the release of the captives, instead of a Greek gunboat, the lives of the prisoners would have been saved. ["Oh!"] Well, that was the purport, as it seemed to him, of the despatches. Mr. Erskine's despatches conveyed the impression that, as soon as the Greek flag was seen at sea on board their gunboat, while the Greek soldiers were drawing a cordon around the brigands by land, the brigands attempted to escape, and committed the crimes which had horrified all Europe. These miscreants naturally suspected that they were being surrounded, and had been betrayed. Had an English vessel been there no suspicion would have arisen, and the lives of those gentlemen would have been saved—there was no vessel, and those lives were sacrificed.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not rise to reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, because he had, on two previous occasions, given him an answer to similar questions. When the hon. and gallant Member gave notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the Suez Canal, and then, without Notice, called attention to a different subject, it was exceedingly irregular and very inconvenient to the Government in conducting the business of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) had entirely misread Mr. Erskine's despatch, which made no allusion to there not being an English vessel in Greek waters. With respect to the Mediterranean Fleet, he could only repeat what he had previously stated—that the force had not been reduced, and that the instructions to commanders re-
  1742
  mained unaltered—those in force having been given by the late Board of Admiralty. Under the circumstances, he thought it was not worth while to discuss the matter further.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £779,090, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for Building, Repairing, and Outfitting the Fleet and Coast Guard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871."
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKexpressed a hope that the Government would not entirely abandon the contract system. There was a general impression that those who entered into contracts with the Government were not honest; but that, he believed, was not true. He knew men who, during the last two years, had honestly fulfilled their Government contracts at great expense to themselves, and they had, by their contracts, lost a large sum of money. He had himself seen the course of business at Somerset House. He never met a Government officer who was corrupt, or capable of taking advantage of his position; and it was only fair to the officers, and to those who did business with them, that he should say so. As to their transactions in oil, if the Government bought a wrong article, it was their own fault.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, there was nothing of greater moment than that the Navy should be supplied with the best oil; because the extra money that it would cost was nothing compared with the mischief which would be done by an inferior article. He hoped the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) would be independent of criticism, and do what was really best for the Navy. The great curse of the present day was the desire to subordinate everything to price—a plan which much depreciated the general morality of commerce. The Government had hitherto endeavoured to obtain contracts from persons of experience and integrity, and it would be ill-judged parsimony to institute a competition of a fraudulent description. The

1743
best was certainly the cheapest, although Manchester and Birmingham might look entirely to price, and altogether disregard quality.
MR. BAXTERconfessed that he was lost in amazement at the speech which had just been delivered. He had always thought his hon. Friend who had just sat down a candid and accomplished man, who never talked upon any subject on which he was not fully competent to deliver an opinion. His hon. Friend had told the Committee that the Admiralty were wrong in buying colza oil when sperm, which had been used for so many years, was so much better for lubricating purposes; but if the hon. Gentleman had listened to the explanation given to-day, he would have known that they had got the colza oil for illuminating purposes.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, he understood the hon. Gentleman to state most distinctly that the Admiralty had substituted colza oil at £38 a ton for sperm oil at £134 a ton for lubricating the machinery.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he had never made any such statement. What he had stated was that the Department had been using sperm oil for illuminating purposes, and that he had substituted colza oil. He knew very well that for illuminating purposes at home they had long been using colza oil; but he did not trust his own judgment merely in the matter. He had sent samples of the colza oil and the sperm oil to the ships; and in every case except one the report was that the colza oil was superior, and in that one case it was said that both were equally good. He had stated also that for Gallipoli oil he had substituted Rangoon oil.
MR. RYLANDSobserved that it was most singular that the only return which the Government got for their efforts to promote the public good was an amount of badgering which was almost unparalleled. Representing an independent interest, he must say that the nation at large was very much indebted to the First Lord of the Admiralty and to his hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter) for their exertions to reduce expenditure, and he could not sit in his place without recording a very strong protest against the course which had been taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) had
1744
stated that the friends of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the hon. Member for Montrose were engaged in jobbery, and that there was now more jobbery at the Admiralty than ever. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Hear, hear!] The hon. Baronet had gone further, for he had said that commercial men below the Gangway were influenced in their support of the Government by their relations with the Admiralty. Now, he would say, in words that were justified by the highest authority, that such language was calumnious of Gentlemen on that—the Ministerial—side of the House.
SIR JOHN HAYrose to Order. The hon. Member had said he had the highest authority for the statement he had just made. He should move to report Progress, in order that they might tear from the highest authority himself whether he had made any such statement.
MR. RYLANDSexplained that what he did say was that the authority of the Speaker had been given that the word "calumnious" was not un-Parliamentary. The hon. Baronet had insinuated that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose was making use of his position in Her Majesty's Government in order to buy portions of the Government stores at Dundee, a place with which he was intimately associated. That was a very serious charge, and when his hon. Friend rose and denied that he had bought oil there, he was surprised that the hon. Baronet did not at once get up and say that he regretted he had made a most unjust and unwarrantable charge.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he rose to throw some oil on the troubled waters. When any charge was brought against the Government they always had some friend at hand to rise and endeavour to get them out of the scrape, and on this occasion that friendly office had been rendered by the hon. Member for the minority of Warrington. What he had said was that the oil now used was deficient in lubricating and illuminating power; that it was very dirty, and clogged the engines. He had merely asked the question whether the oil had come from Dundee. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) and other good authorities had stated that vegetable oils would not do for lubricating the engines; and even if they could not get good animal oil for pur-

1745
poses of lubrication at less than £134 a ton, it would be better to buy it than inferior oil at £38.
CAPTAIN BEAUMONTdeprecated such discussions about so small a matter as oil, for he could not believe the Admiralty were buying oil without regard to quality, and introduced the question of iron plates. He observed that there had been no experiments as to the quality of 12 inch or 14 inch plates, backed by timber and iron skin, such as was being manufactured for the Glatton, the Thunderer, and ships of the heavier class. The target representing the water line of the Hercules fired at in 1865 gave satisfactory results for that time; but no conclusions could be drawn from those experiments to indicate the quality of the plates of which he spoke. The only test to which the Glatton plates were subjected was that of being fired at by a 7-inch service gun, with a 20-lb. charge of powder, and as it had been found that a small charge of 26lb. from a 7-inch service gun had considerably damaged the plates, grave doubts were raised as to whether these plates could not be penetrated at close range. Certainly the experiments as yet made did not prove that the Glatton plates were sufficiently strong. An experiment at Shoeburyness, at which he was present, showed that a 15-inch rolled and hammered plate was defective, and it was generally believed a plate reduced by rolling and working from 20 inches to 15, was not as good in fibre as one reduced from 20 inches to 8. He would not pretend to offer a professional opinion on the subject; but he maintained that it was a wrong policy and a want of economy to put down so small a sum as £3,000 in the Estimates for experiments, and then to expend a large sum of money in placing plates upon the sides of our ships which had not been thoroughly proved. He sympathized with the Admiralty in the bullying they received in small matters, and assured them that what the House and the country wanted was the exercise of sound judgment in matters of larger importance. The subject he had broached involved thousands, to say nothing of the credit of the nation. In conclusion, he protested against large contracts being gone into without further experiment.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the Committee ought to be indebted to
1746
the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham for calling attention to that subject. He concurred with him in believing that it would be very desirable to have some further experiments as to the power of resistance of the very thick plates which it was intended to use in the construction of some of Her Majesty's ships. It seemed to him very doubtful whether they had sufficient mechanical power to exert the pressure required by rolling or hammering to produce that tenacity and ductility—the necessary combination of softness and elasticity, and hardness without brittleness, which was required in iron plates which had to resist the impact of shot. A very fair approximate law had been recorded in the Report of the Iron Plate Committee, which seemed to hold good up to plates of 9 inches in thickness—namely, that the resisting power of a plate seemed to increase in a ratio, which might be compared by the square of the thickness. Thus one plate of 4 inches in thickness and of good quality might be expected to resist as well as 16 plates of an inch in thickness and rivetted together. It was of great consequence to ascertain this accurately in plates of the great thickness which were about to be used; because, doubtless, where weight was of so much consequence as in naval architecture, it would be desirable, if possible, to obtain protection by one thick plate rather than by a laminated structure, which must be thicker and heavier, to produce the same resistance. But, until machinery exerting much greater rolling power was produced, he doubted if the same law of resistance would hold good in plates over 9 or 10 inches thick, as had been proved to exist in plates below that thickness. It would certainly be better to have two plates of 9 inches, whose quality they could depend upon, rather than one plate of 18 inches which, from deficiency in manufacturing power or from difficulty and irregularity in cooling, might not afford the same protection. He thought that some further experiment was necessary in that matter, and it was a subject to which the attention of Her Majesty's Government might well be directed.
MR. SAMUELSONsaid, this subject was one of so technical a nature that it scarcely admitted of being made popular. The only course open to the

1747
Government was to try what would be the result of manufacture. Unless the Government could state that sufficient experiments had already been made, he strongly urged on them the necessity of not employing thick plates to any large extent in the vessels they were building, until they had made careful experiments in testing the resistance of those plates. Otherwise they might hereafter be greatly disappointed at the result.
MR. MUNTZquite agreed that nothing but trial, nothing but practical experience, could possibly determine this question. He regretted the personal attack which had been made on his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). It was lamentable to find an economical House, and particularly the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), representing an economical constituency, finding fault with his hon. Friend because he had done his best to introduce economy into the administration of the Admiralty. He thought that the hon. Member (Mr. Samuda) had gone out of his way to attack Manchester and Birmingham. Manchester could very well take care of itself; but in regard to Birmingham he could say that she had been taught that real economy consisted in buying the best article at as low a price as the best article could be obtained. He (Mr. Muntz) was not for cutting down and using inferior articles. With reference to oil it had been distinctly asserted that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had been buying colza oil from Dundee, and it was said that vegetable oil was not fit for machinery; but it was only an ignoramus that would say so. He sincerely hoped the Admiralty would persevere in the economical course on which they had entered.
MR. CHILDERSfelt it was very agreeable, after a good deal of badgering for the last two nights, to get for a few minutes into quiet waters. A very interesting discussion had been commenced by the hon. Member for South Durham (Captain Beaumont); and after what had been stated by the high scientific authority of the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir John Hay), he must admit it was quite true that at the present time they had not the information they ought to have with respect to iron plates of very great thickness. He had
1748
not expected that the question would come on, or he would have refreshed his recollection, which he had not done within the last few days; but his impression was that up to 9 inches they had experiments of the highest kind. Above that—up to 14 and 16 inches—he was not sure that resistance was according to the square of thickness. Here they ought to have a certain amount of information which they had not. It was quite open to the consideration of the Admiralty whether there should not be experiments on a higher scale. All he would undertake to do on that particular point was that the Admiralty would confer with the scientific department of the War Office and consider what further experiments should be obtained on the subject. After all the discussion which had arisen he hoped they would now be allowed to take this Vote.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to say a few words before the Vote was taken. He always listened with great respect to everything that fell from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), because he was a man of great practical experience, and in everything he said there was always honesty and sincerity of intention. But he regretted very much the remarks which fell from him last night with reference to the coal trade. He said that the North of England coal trade had brought their influence to bear on the Admiralty to take their coal. Now it was perfectly true that they had not once but many times, and during many years, pressed on the Admiralty the advantage, to the efficiency and economy of the public service, of using a proper admixture of North country coal with Welsh coal, and he would say that the result of some experiments that had been very carefully conducted in the North was very favourable to such an admixture. He took this opportunity of thanking the Admiralty for following the advice given by the northern coal-owners. Experiments had been conducted at Portsmouth, which, he believed, had terminated in successful results, likely to lead to a fair use of North country coal for steam vessels; and he was persuaded that when certain Returns he had moved for were laid before the House they would be found to be favourable to the admixture he had spoken of. He therefore hoped that the Committee

1749
would suspend its judgment until that Return was in the hands of hon. Members.
MR. GRAVESasked whether any of the mixed coal had been sent to China and found advantageous there? He suggested that a dash of Lancashire coal might be a very useful element in a mixture of Welsh and Northumbrian coal. If they were to have mixtures he did not see why the coal fields of Lancashire should be excluded.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the larger the field from which coal for the Navy could be drawn the better, and if the mixture of Northumberland coal and Welsh coal proved to be smokeless he should be glad of that result. He was a little sceptical on the point, but would be guided by the Returns relating to the experiments. It should also be ascertained how far the combustion of this combined coal would tend to the destruction of the tubes. It was known that shorter tubes were required to produce the combustion of this mixture of coals, and perhaps it might be found that the cost in destruction of tubes and boilers more than compensated the saving in the difference of price between good Welsh coal and a mixture of North country coal with indifferent anthracite.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, he must protest against the intemperate language that had been used towards him by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), and he asked in what way such an attack was justified by anything he said? All he stated was, that it would have been better to purchase one description of oil rather than another, and was such a statement sufficient to justify the attack made on him, followed up, as it had been, by many hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, one of whom had even gone so far as to say that the course he was pursuing was that of bullying the Admiralty? If hon. Gentlemen were to be restrained by such attacks from the free exercise of their Parliamentary duties it was high time that a stand should be made against it. He would not support any Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench if he felt that in doing so he must compromise his independence, and he was surprised that the hon. Member for Montrose had ventured to castigate him in the language which had so unjustifiably been used, and he hoped that the hon. Member would admit that
1750
he was mistaken. In reference to what the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had said, he denied that he had ever intended to use any expression insulting to the hon. Gentleman, and he had only adopted the common method of expression in referring to the "Manchester and Birmingham school." He observed that the hon. Member (Mr. Baxter) was laughing. That did not either mend the matter or mend the manners of the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Member (Mr. Muntz) thought that the articles manufactured by his constituents were always the best, he would direct his attention to a statement which appeared in the leading journal—The Times—to the effect that American-made axes were preferred to Birmingham axes by the people of the United States, because they could rely on the quality of the former and not of the latter. He could assure the hon. Member for Montrose that he was very much mistaken if he thought to overawe him. He was ready to give the hon. Member credit for what he had properly done in the situation he filled; but he should pursue the course he thought right, indifferent alike to the hon. Member's praise or blame.
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, it might, perhaps, be thought presumptuous for an independent Member like himself to endeavour to be a peacemaker; but he had observed during these discussions a great deal of personality had been causelessly introduced, and they were getting into a state of private quarrelling. If the Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench would allow a non-official representative to say a word or two to them he thought they might arrive at a different mode of debating great questions. Many hon. Members, perfectly sincere in their opinions as to proceedings at the Admiralty, were a little impetuous in the expression of their disapproval, and the Secretary to the Admiralty was naturally very susceptible and sensitive. The moment an attack was made on some general principle adopted by the Admiralty as to contracts or any other matter, the hon. Member for Montrose rose in his place and treated it as an attack upon himself. Like an honourable man he strongly repudiated any insinuation against his own conduct, and the moment he did so there arose a conflict between him and certain other Members, and the result was a little too much unpleasant

1751
personality. ["No!"] That could not be denied; and he would put it to the Committee whether it would not now be desirable to go on with the Estimates? But this could not be done if any hon. Member who condemned a course adopted by the Admiralty were regarded as making individual attacks. It was a great pity they should institute these unnecessary comparisons between the London and Manchester schools of financial economy, especially at so late an hour.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to put a question with regard to the sales of timber at the various dockyards. The establishment provided that 60,000 loads should always be retained in store, which was equal to a three years' supply. The quantity used in each year was about 20,000 loads. This arrangement insured the timber being well seasoned. He saw that the sum taken for timber this year was £23,000; whilst, at the same time, large sales were going on of the very large amount of timber provided for by Lord Palmerston's Government in excess of the three years' stock required by the establishment. He wished to know what was the quantity the present Government desired to keep in stock, and also whether the timber to be purchased was teak or other material?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he could not give off-hand the information which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked for. The old rules with respect to the supply of timber had been very much altered; but the Admiralty had not yet drawn up any precise regulations as to the establishments of all articles. At present there was a very considerable excess, which they were trying to get rid of; and the quantity which it was desirable to have in the dockyards would be a subject of consideration in the present year. With the exception of a comparatively small quantity, all the timber purchased this year was teak. He was anxious to say the Admiralty did not complain of discussion. They courted it. What they did complain of was insinuations against the motives of Members of the Board. He hoped the Committee would now allow the Vote to be taken.
MR. CORRY, who rose amid cries of "Oh," said that he begged to remind hon. Members who called out "Oh!" that this was one of the most important
1752
Votes in the Navy Estimates, and that he had not uttered a single syllable during the debate. With regard to the subject of timber, the language held by his right hon. Friend opposite seemed to imply that the present Board was the first which had seriously turned its attention to the reduction of the large accumulation in the dockyards. Several causes had contributed to the accumulation of timber, the chief one being the entire abandonment of the use of timber for the frames of ships whether built of wood or of iron, and the adoption of iron in its stead. The consequence was that some of the finest timber the world ever saw remained on their hands. But the late Board had adopted, when in Office, every means in their power to dispose of the surplus timber. In 1867 the Board of Admiralty set apart 1,500 loads at Devonport, and 1,000 loads at Deptford. The cost price of the timber at the former place was £13,000, and at the latter £10,900. The Admiralty placed a reserve price on the timber at Devonport of £9,700, and at Deptford of £4,100. But the highest offer they got was £3,600 in the one case, and £3,200 in the other. To accept the £3,600 for timber which cost £13,000 would have been throwing the timber away; but the price offered at Deptford was accepted. They, however, issued the Devonport timber to the shipwrights' department at the reserved price instead of at the cost price, and under that arrangement a considerable portion of it was utilized by the Controller of the Navy. It was the greatest possible mistake to suppose that they had not made every effort in their power to dispose of this timber. There was, however, a much more important question which arose on this Vote, and likewise on Vote No. 6, which provided for the artificers in the dockyards. He stated on a former occasion that he did not think the Admiralty was making sufficient provision for the maintenance of the naval strength of the country. Of unarmoured vessels the First Lord of the Admiralty said he proposed to build at the rate of one frigate and one sloop or corvette each year. That would give 20 frigates and 20 sloops or corvettes in 20 years, which period was about the average life of a steam ship of war; so that the proposed scheme of work would be sufficient to provide and maintain a force of only 40 unarmoured vessels

1753
above the size of gun vessels—a force quite inadequate to the protection of our colonial and commercial interests even in time of peace. We had now in commission, notwithstanding the reduced strength of the foreign squadrons, 27 frigates and corvettes and 18 sloops; that was, 45 vessels above the rank of gun vessels; but to keep 45 vessels in commission we should require 66, or one-third more, which was the smallest margin which could be allowed for the vessels under repair and fitting for service. And that number would suffice for the existing peace establishment only, irrespective of the reserve of ships which would be indispensable in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the present Estimates were quite inadequate to maintain the power of the British Navy in that condition which our colonial and other interests made absolutely necessary. In his (Mr. (Corry's) opinion the work proposed to be executed in building unarmoured ships of the larger classes, was not more than one-half of what it ought to be, and the Admiralty would have adopted a more statesmanlike and considerate course if they had retained in the service the large number of artificers which were to be discharged from the dockyards, and appropriated to the building of additional ships a portion of the excessive stock of valuable timber which is to be sold for what it will fetch I in the market. As respected armoured vessels he did not so much complain of his right hon. Friend's proposal. The First Lord proposed to build three new armoured ships every year. No doubt a considerable force would be maintained in that way; but he held it to be the duty of the Admiralty to maintain the British Navy in a position of clear superiority over that of the navy of any other country, no matter what might be the number of armour-clads necessary for this purpose. At the present moment England and France had each 40 seagoing armour-clads. France had 33 broadside ships; England 31. She had seven turret-ships and rams, while we had nine. In addition to that France had 11 batteries. That did not show any great superiority on the part of our Navy, which ought to be on something more than a bare equality with France. Considering the many points we had to defend, and our enormous commercial navy, France, with a force equal to that of England,
1754
would have double our power of aggression. With a narrow sea between us we should have a clear superiority over France, whose military resources were so much greater than ours, and he did not think the Estimates of his right hon. Friend would be sufficient for that purpose. As to the unarmoured ships, he was also strongly of opinion that the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman were insufficient. It would have been, as he had said, a sounder policy had his right hon. Friend retained the 2,800 dockyard workmen who were to be discharged, and placed our Navy in a satisfactory position in this respect.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, his right hon. Friend had raised a question not commonly discussed on this Vote—namely, the comparative power of the English and French Navies. A very experienced Member of the House used to say that there seemed at the Admiralty to be two pigeon-holes, in one of which were accumulated proofs to show that the French Navy was far superior to ours, and that the country was, therefore, in great danger, while in the other pigeonhole were kept proofs that we were remarkably strong at sea; and there never appeared to be any distinct reason for resorting to one pigeon-hole more than another. Now, it was difficult to understand, that the late Board of Admiralty should have reduced the force of the dockyards in six months by 5,000, and should have laid down no new ships at all, and yet that his right hon. Friend should blame the present Board for not building enough ships. It had been his aim to prevent, for the future, the constant ups and downs which had occurred in the past, when in one year no ships were laid down, and in another year many; when sometimes all the ships begun were iron, and sometimes all wood; when one year the number of men was increased, and in another it was reduced; when sometimes large contracts were given out, and sometimes none at all. Such a system, or such a want of system, was most uneconomical. He wished to substitute a steady amount of work applicable to the present state of things, and not liable to change unless there was some distinct reason for it. Instead of stopping shipbuilding altogether—a legacy left to the present Admiralty by the late Board—he had thought it po-

1755
litic to build 19,500 tons a year, about 12,000 tons of which were armoured and 7,500 unarmoured ships. With respect to armoured ships, his right hon. Friend admitted that on the present basis the Board had provided what was necessary, though he said our force might be exceeded by that of some foreign Power. Well, when that time came, or before it came, it would be necessary to build more armoured ships. The right hon. Gentleman contended that 7,500 tons of unarmoured ships per year was not a sufficient provision, as that would only give one frigate, one corvette, and three gunboats. But that was not what he (Mr. Childers) had said. The 7,500 tons would produce one frigate, one corvette, and three small vessels of the sloop class. The right hon. Gentleman said that 20 years might be taken to represent the life of a wooden ship; but he (Mr. Childers) thought that was below the mark. As ships were now built, and according to their present strength, 30 years would be much nearer the mark; though not, of course, if the vessel were constantly in commission. With 7,500 tons of unarmoured ships built annually there would be about 200,000 tons of wooden shipping, and this was quite sufficient for the present requirements of the service. This Estimate was not the result of guesswork. Great pains were taken by those who advised the Admiralty on this point to estimate what the strength of our wooden Navy ought to be, and after careful investigation and comparison they arrived at the conclusion that provision for an annual increase of 7,500 tons was sufficient.
MR. CORRYsaid, this was not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that his (Mr. Corry's) Estimates for 1869 were based upon the foundation of an entire suspension in the work of shipbuilding. Nothing could be more untrue. Though he had been soundly abused for this in stump speeches made on the subject, the fact was that the late Government had laid down a very large number of powerful armoured ships, no less than ten during their two years of Office, of which seven were ordered while he (Mr. Corry) held the office of First Lord. So far from ship building having been suspended in his intention, the completion of these vessels necessitated the provision of about
1756
£1,300,000 in the Estimates for 1869–70, which he considered a very handsome legacy of obligation to bequeath to his successor. If it had not been for the seven broadside armour-clads laid down by the late Government, in addition to two turret ships and a ram, the comparison which his right hon. Friend had made between the armoured Navies of England and France, and which showed there were 33 broadside ships in the French, to only 31 in the English Navy, would not have been of a very satisfactory character. It was true that he had not proposed to lay down any new ships; but that was because he was waiting to see the result of the experiment with the Captain and the Monarch, and in thus waiting he was supported by the almost unanimous opinion of naval officers. The right hon. Gentleman claimed great credit for his improvements on his (Mr. Corry's) Estimates; but the three turret ships he had ordered to be laid down last year were little more than ships on paper. One of them, although ordered more than a year ago, was not even yet laid down. Only that very morning the Sultan—one of his (Mr. Corry's) ships—was floated out of her dock at Chatham the very dock in which that ship was to be built, and the Estimates for last year provided only about £70,000 towards the building of the three ships—or not one-tenth of their entire cost. In these days of rapid innovation in the designs of ships, he considered this a most unwise policy.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he hoped that, after the long discussion which had arisen on the general question, the Committee would now be allowed to address itself to the practical discussion of the Vote under consideration.
MR. GOURLEYsaid, he thought they were proceeding upon an erroneous policy in building so many iron-clads, when the experiments at Shoeburyness proved that those ships were not invulnerable either in their sides or their decks. Besides half those vessels were fitted with machinery of the old style, and half with machinery of the new. And what to his mind was the special weakness of these iron-clads vessels was that they could only only carry fuel sufficient to enable them to steam from Portsmouth to Gibraltar. Hence, in the event of hostilities, they would be, for practical purposes, almost as obsolete as the old

1757
wooden ships. If ordered to proceed to Canada, for instance, they would only be able to steam for five or six days consecutively, and a swifter vessel of greater power carrying one or two heavy guns would, at the end of that time, be able to compete successfully with many of our armour-clads. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if these were the kind of ships which a great naval Power like England ought to possess? He considered the amount proposed to be taken for repairs, refitting, &c, excessive, and accordingly moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £33,000. He did not wish to interfere with what was done by contract.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £746,090, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for Building, Repairing, and Outfitting the Fleet and Coast Guard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871"—(Mr. Gourley.)
MR. CHILDERSopposed the Motion, in support of which he had heard no sufficient argument.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £466,173, Steam Machinery and Ships building by Contract.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, they had now got to the second part of the subject. The amount proposed to be taken was extremely small, only £184,000 being allowed for contract shipbuilding. Since the present Board of Admiralty came into office they had not built a single ship of war by private contract. He confessed he did not altogether approve the course intended to be pursued by his right hon. Friend the First Lord, who proposed to build 20,000 tons of shipping annually for the next 20 years. Looking at what the Admiralty had done in the last 10 years, he did not think it very probable that in the next 20 years they would produce the best possible results. During the last 10 years they had adopted no fewer than eight distinct types of vessels; but, in his opinion, the later types were not always improvements on the previous ones. In 1867 his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Corry) acted on the suggestion that all the shipbuilders should be asked to propose what in their judgment would most contribute to the suc-
1758
cessful production of armour-plated ships. This wise appeal was responded to very extensively, and the results would have been very beneficial; but unfortunately his right hon. Friend lost his self-reliance at the last moment and handed over his jurisdiction in the matter to an official in the Admiralty, who looked with disfavour upon every suggestion which emanated from without. He regretted, more-over, to add that the present First Lord voted against him when he brought the I subject under the consideration of the House. The Admiralty had always been behind the age, and had even gone on building sailing vessels long after persons well qualified to form a judgment had expressed their opinion in favour of steamers. The country owed a great debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Corry) because in his official capacity he was the first to adopt the screw for most of the vessels in our Navy. Within the last few years the whole question of constructing ships of war had been materially modified by the experiments set on foot to ascertain the effect of torpedoes. If it should be found that torpedoes could be effectually used on a large scale, the whole of our present iron-clad arrangements would be comparatively useless. He had no doubt it was our imperative duty to keep ahead of all other nations in regard to the strength of our Navy. When the right hon. Gentleman had attained this object he might deliberately consider the plans necessary for the future progress of the service. He ventured to express an opinion that it would not be necessary to keep on building very heavy armour-plated. vessels. A very large weight of armour was a radical mistake, for he felt convinced that no quantity of it could keep out shot from the guns of the present clay. A smaller amount of armour would suffice, however, to keep out shells, and this was all we ought to aim at. From six to eight inches of armour was all that was necessary or advisable. He therefore implored his right hon. Friend not to be led away by the impression that the right thing was to go on building 20,000 tons a year without reference to the considerations he had just brought forward. Nevertheless, he thought it desirable to build vessels at a uniform rate, because nothing tended more to degrade and demoralize the working classes than to force on them for a short time an unusual

1759
amount of prosperity, to be followed by a corresponding amount of adversity. He thought that a larger sum might be appropriated for experimental purposes. It was proposed to increase the tonnage of the ships to be built in the course of the next financial year, and yet the work contemplated last year had not been completed, no less than £55,000 of the sum voted in respect of two ships being yet unspent. He wished, in conclusion, to make a few remarks with reference to the Captain and the Monarch. They had not yet been tried, and he was afraid that in those matters right hon. Gentlemen, whether they sat on one side of the House or on the other were very much in the hands of those in their Department. It involved, at all events, a very long process to get any of those vessels tried so as to enable anything like an adequate conclusion to be arrived at with respect to them. The best course to adopt was, he thought, that the Admiralty should rely on the judgment of those who were most qualified to advise them, while they used their own discretion as to accepting or rejecting that advice.
MR. GRAVESexpressed his regret that, although he had on more than one previous occasion urged upon the Admiralty the expediency of adopting the new type of engine in our Navy, there was only one of those engines as yet to be found afloat. In our Mercantile Marine, what was known as the compound type of engine was coming into universal use, why was it that the Admiralty were so slow in adopting the greatest known improvement in steam machinery? The outside world had shot ahead, for no one would now think of putting into a ship the engines in use in the Navy. He knew of an instance of obsolete types of engines ordered by the Admiralty eight years since being still in the hands of the makers, because improvements had sprung up in the manufacture; the result being a loss to the country, in one case, of over £20,000. There were engines now being made for ships in the Navy, which he did not hesitate to say would never be put into them; and seeing the economy of fuel which was the consequence of the adoption of the compound system, he was surprised that the generally-condemned coal-consuming old type of engines should be preferred to the economic double compound. Economy of coal was
1760
an increase of power in whatever light we regarded it. To be able to put on a ship an increased weight of armour by reducing the quantity of fuel, would be, it was obvious, a great advantage; or if continuous steaming was required, a gain of one-third to one-half would be obtained with the same quantity of coal now used. He was able to state that many to whom proposals had recently been made to send, in tenders for engines had expressed their astonishment that they should have been applied to to furnish a class of engines which were become obsolete. They also complained that they had been asked to send in those engines within five months—far too short a time for any maker to supply them in, unless it might be the firm who possessed the designs and models of similar engines previously supplied to the Admiralty. If the orders had been given sooner—as they might have been, he saw no reason why seven or eight months should not be given, so that the whole competitive power of the engine-makers of the country might be brought into play, instead of having the supply turned into a monopoly. He must also express his regret that Papers had not been laid before the House to show the results of the trials of the Invincible, the Audacious, and the Vanguard, and he should like to have some explanation as to the singular results of the trials in the case of those three vessels, for he found that whereas the maximum speed of the Invincible and the Audacious was only 13½ knots an hour, the Vanguard had attained a speed within a decimal of 15 knots an hour. The three vessels had been built on the same lines, had the same kind of engines, the same power, and, in all respects, sister ships; two of them must be regarded as failures if no higher rate of speed could be realized, and one was a remarkable success. In the Channel fleet last autumn there were three new vessels—the Northumberland, the Monarch, and the Hercules, all of which were fitted with a new steering apparatus, which it was reported did not act in a satisfactory manner. The reports on these vessels were most condemnatory so far as the steaming qualities were concerned; the rudders could not be relied on, and anyone who knew anything of a ship could appreciate how dangerous was a bad steaming vessel; it may have been the balanced

1761
rudder, or it may be a defect in construction; but, whatever the cause, if other vessels of that class were built the defect ought to be remedied.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that as to the result of the introduction of compound engines he could not speak positively; but he must point out that there was a difference between merchant ships and vessels of war, and that difference led to a difficulty which the skill of constructors would probably overcome. Last year the Admiralty entered into contracts for two pairs of engines on that plan, and at no distant date he should be able to say to what extent they were satisfactory. His own impression was in favour of the system, which he knew had been very successful in merchant ships. As to the three vessels which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had mentioned, it was true that the Vanguard had shown qualities superior to the other two; but the trials of those ships were still proceeding, and he, therefore, would not prejudge the official Report which should be presented to the House. As to the balance rudder, considerable difficulty had been experienced in steering with it, especially when under canvas; but he could not call it a failure, as it was in some respects a decided success, and as far as his experience had gone he did not feel at all disappointed. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had set him a problem which, he confessed, he despaired of solving. He was to save more money, and to reduce the building in the dockyards; but he had been wrong in closing Deptford and Woolwich, and he ought not to have discharged so many men. For his part, he utterly despaired of reconciling these objections. With respect to the proportion of shipbuilding to be done in the dockyards and that to be given to private contractors, he thought he had last year laid down a fair plan of adjustment, not off-hand, but after much consideration. He proposed to expend £184,000 this year on ships built by contract, and £200,000 next year, and he would abide by the decision arrived at last year until he was convinced to the contrary.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that he desired some information as to the course the Admiralty intended to pursue with regard to further experiments in the use of
1762
hydraulic propulsion. He thought that all the experiments had shown it to be very satisfactory, and he thought that that invention would certainly be extensively adopted in future. It was free from many of the objections which might be urged against screw propulsion. It was under the eye of those in command, and had not the liability to fouling to which the screw was liable. It left the action of the rudder unimpeded when the ship was not under steam, and gave facilities for stopping, turning, and steering, which no other propeller possessed. The only doubt seemed whether it could give the highest velocities; yet the experiments in the Nautilus seemed to show that it could, and the Waterwitch was quite as successful as the Vixen and Viper with the single and twin screw respectively. He thought it a pity that the Admiralty had not caused one of their new ships to be fitted with it, and thus lead the way and show the great advantage of this system, both to the Navy and the Commercial Marine.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEread a passage from the letters of The Times' correspondent, who accompanied the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty last year upon his cruise, stating that upon one occasion, in wearing round, the Hercules for more than half-an-hour refused to answer her helm, while the Monarch, in like manner, refused to stay; and said that this occurrence in the case of the two ships was to be explained by the fact of their having adopted that greatest absurdity in naval art, the balance rudder. This description of rudder was acted upon in two different fashions by the water, the result being to "put the ship in irons." And the only way in which the defects thus arising could be cured was by cutting off the upper or balance portion of the rudder, and turning it back again into one of the original pattern. He warmly approved the class of engines referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), and gave to the House his personal experience of a recent voyage from India on board a vessel fitted with these engines. If the Admiralty would only make patent coal for themselves, instead of squabbling with Members representing the different coal ports, they would save a great deal both of time and money. Good stokers, however, were indispensable to the suc-

1763
cess of such a scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman had discharged all the trained stokers and taken men from the shore, who nominally received less wages, but cost the country vastly more through waste of material. It was deeply to be regretted that the Admiralty had not taken up the hydraulic propeller and given it a fair trial. That appliance, originally invented by a Scotch mechanic in Ayrshire, was adopted and supported by Lord John Scott with, the hope of facilitating the towing of fishing boats, and thus of saving life among those engaged in the Scotch fisheries. After his death, however, the invention languished until taken up by Admiral Elliot, who, by persevering effort and considerable expenditure out of his own pocket, at length induced the Admiralty to give it a trial. But, as the invention was not one to which the Department could lay any claim, it was tried on a vessel not sea-going and essentially unseaworthy, and then apparently thrown aside. He was perfectly convinced that the hydraulic principle would supersede every other.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, if anyone was to blame for not carrying the hydraulic principle further it was not the present Board of Admiralty. He was not, however, disposed to throw cold water upon experiments which, if successful, would be of considerable advantage; but he could not at that time give any distinct pledge upon the subject.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £744,232, New Works, Buildings, &c.
MR. CHILDERSobserved that as he was desirous to reciprocate the confidence displayed by the House in the Vote recorded, before dinner that day, it was his intention to lay upon the Table the whole of the correspondence between the Admiralty and the Director of Works and the contractors with reference to the contracts for the Chatham and Portsmouth Extensions since these contracts were made. He would, therefore, take care to put the House in possession of all the documents and Papers relating to the subject.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was quite prepared to place confidence in the right ton. Gentleman, and had exhibited that disposition by his vote that day; but as the question of the extension of the
1764
Chatham Dockyard was a very serious one, it would be more satisfactory that nothing should be at present undertaken beyond the completion of the docks and the two basins which it was proposed to construct.
CAPTAIN STANLEYconcurred in the remarks of the hon. Member, and said he was glad to hear the First Lord of the Admiralty intended to lay the correspondence on the Table. He desired some further information with respect to the employment of convict labour provided for in the Vote.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would lay upon the Table of the House everything that he could which could furnish information upon the subject of this Vote. He trusted to be able to restrict the works in the manner suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal; but he could not at that moment give any more distinct pledge upon that subject.
MR. SAMUDAtrusted that if it was proposed to spend more money than was now contemplated, his right hon. Friend would first obtain the sanction of Parliament to such expenditure.
SIR JOHN HAYreferred to the Act of Parliament for the purpose of showing that his hon. Friend (Captain Stanley) was perfectly correct in his description of it. The sum stated was £1,190,000 for the completion of the works specified. One dock had been taken off the hands of the contractors, and all the money was spent, while the House was pledged to £490,000 more.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Act did not prescribe the total expense, but only limited the amount for which Parliament would be liable under a contract spread over a series of years. If this was exceeded, the contractor would have to take his chance of the approval of Parliament. In the original Papers laid before Parliament, the chances of the large sums now likely to be required being incurred were distinctly stated. He (Mr. Childers), however, would take care that the Vote for Chatham Extension was not exceeded this year.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, there was one other subject to which he wished to direct attention. The sum stated did not include machinery. Now, he found on his table a catalogue of an enormous quantity of machinery, of recent construction, which was about to be sold at Woolwich, probably for little more than

1765
the price of old iron. Now, what he wished to know was whether that machinery might not be made available elsewhere?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the greatest possible pains had been taken, with reference to that machinery, to see whether any portion of it could not be used at Chatham, or elsewhere.
Vote agreed to.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would pass over Votes 12 and 17, in order to take the Greenwich Vote, on which his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. Baring) wished to make some observations.
(4.) £133,996, Greenwich Hospital and School.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he wished to know under what authority a sum of £500,000 stock had been sold in December last, and invested in Indian securities? Was there any distinct authority given by any Act of Parliament to enable the First Lord of the Admiralty for the time being to make a change in the security; and if the change was made to Indian securities, were they considered of equal responsibility with the British funds? There was another question—whether, in making that sale of £500,000, thus transferred into these Indian securities, the right hon. Gentleman had communicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on the same day, had £7,000,000 of stock to dispose of? Certainly no intimation had been given to the public of this financial operation. He put these questions without at all intending to call in question the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought it desirable to know the principles on which he had acted.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had much pleasure in answering the questions of his hon. Friend, and he did not hesitate to say there was no Member of the House who was more entitled to ask them. The Admiralty was distinctly empowered by the Act of 1865 to invest in or transfer to the special securities mentioned in the Act—that is, stocks, funds, and securities payable by way of guarantee or out of the Revenues of the United Kingdom or India. Part of the Greenwich funds were vested in mortgage, partly in the Three per Cents, and partly in the Guaranteed Five per Cent Fund payable out of the Revenue of India. The change of security was distinctly
1766
contemplated by Act of Parliament, and it was very desirable to add to the revenue of Greenwich Hospital a sum of £7,000 a year, which was the result of the change of security. The second question put by his hon. Friend was whether he had communicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In answer to that he had to say he was aware of the arrangement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he must at once admit, that it might have been better if the purchases had been made a few days sooner; but the market was, in fact, not in the least affected.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had listened with some attention to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. He confessed he did not think that he replied in a satisfactory manner to his hon. Friend. He was for some time a member of the Royal Commission, and therefore saw with some surprise the financial arrangement now under discussion. The revenues of Greenwich Hospital were derived principally from land and from about £2,000,000 invested in the ordinary public debt of the country. The Act to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, no doubt, authorized him to invest the accumulations in the securities of Indian Railways or other stocks guaranteed by England; but he could not believe it was ever contemplated that large quantities of stock were to be sold at the pleasure of the Minister, and transfers effected such as those shown by the Return he held in his hand. It appeared from that Return that nearly £600,000 Three per Cents and other cognate securities—the exact sum was £591,568—was sold at a price a little over 92, producing £544,484, and this, again, was invested in £500,000 Indian Railway Stocks, thus diminishing the capital by a sixth or £91,000. It was true that the revenue has been increased by above £7,000 a year; but that, of course, represented diminished security, and he could not believe that it was statesmanlike to raise the revenues of Greenwich Hospital by such a process. If Greenwich required £7,000 extra, he was sure it would have been wiser to have obtained it by a Vote of that House rather than by a transaction which was, in his opinion, questionable and unprecedented.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday 9th June;
Committee to sit again upon Thursday 9th June.
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Thursday 9th June.