Sitting of 13 February 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Fisher Lane (Greenwich) Improvement; Constables (Scotland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Darby, and Colonel Wyndham, from a great number of places, for Agricultural Relief from Taxation.—By Mr. H. Hinde, from Chamber of Commerce, Newcastle, against the Export Duty on Coals. — By Colonel Baillie, from Honiton, against the Income Tax.—By Mr. Masterman, against the Soap Duty.—By Mr. Trotter, from Island of Barbadoes, for Reduction of Duty on Colonial Sugar.—By Mr. H. Baillie, from Merchants of the Isle of Skye, county of Inverness, against Alteration of Law relating to Banking (Scotland).—By Sir W. Clay, from Tower Hamlets Medical Association, and by Mr. Pendarves, from General Practitioners of Penzance, against the Medical Practice Bill (1844).—By Lord Claude Hamilton, from Guardians of Strabane Union, against the Poor Law.—By Mr. Hume, from Forfar, against the Prisons (Scotland) Act.—By Mr. Young, from Rector and Protestant Inhabitants of Shercock, for Alteration of Law relating to persons who make a Trade of promoting Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Rothwell, and by Mr. Owen Stanley, from Calvinistic Methodists, Bethlehem, parish of Llanbadrig, for diminishing the number of Public Houses.

PRIVILEGE.
The Solicitor General, in calling the attention of the House to the communication made by the Sergeant-at-Arms yesterday, as to what course he should adopt in an action of trespass brought against him as an Officer of the House, said he should not trouble the House at any length, as he did not anticipate any opposition to the Motion he was about to submit. He should pro-

383
pose to adopt the same course as that taken in a similar action in 1843. The House then, on the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, gave leave to the Sergeant-at-Arms to appear and plead to the action. The plea was put on record, and a demurrer to it having been argued, the case now stood for judgment. He should therefore move (proceedings in the first case being still pending) that Sir W. Gossett should have leave to appear, and plead to the action.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that as the proposal was merely to follow the precedent of 1843, he should not occupy the time of the House in arguing the question. The House having then come to a decision on the question, he should not now re-open it, though he still retained his opinion as to the proper course to be adopted.
Resolved accordingly.

STATE OF THE NAVY.
Sir C. Napierrose, pursuant to notice, to move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the manner in which the money voted since the year 1835 for the construction of ships has been expended; and if the ships constructed are an improvement of the old system. He begged to assure the House that his only motive in bringing forward this Motion was to ascertain whether the reports spread as to the ships lately built were true or false. If true, the sooner the present system was put an end to the better. If false, the reputation of the officers engaged in constructing them required that it should be publicly known that no blame attached to them. He knew it might be said (and, in fact, it was said) that this was no business of his; that the question should be left for settlement to the proper powers. He supposed by that expression was meant the Admiralty. The building of ships had been left to them for a considerable time, and it would be seen that they had committed the greatest errors and blunders—greater, he believed, than had taken place in any other department. He had neither a political nor a party view in the Motion which he submitted, his sole object was the well-being of the Navy, and the expenditure of the finances of the country in the most judicious manner. In the observations which he should make, he should endeavour to state the facts with the justness, fairness, and impartiality becoming a British seaman and officer, and such alone as an independent Member, anxious for the proper disbursement of the
384
public money, should adduce. It would be necessary to go back for a considerable time. When he (Sir C. Napier) first entered the service, in 1800, the Navy contained several three-deckers of 120, 110, 100, 98, and 90 guns. The first of those were generally good for sailing and war; the other classes were so entirely unfit for service, and they sailed so low in the water in bad weather, that it was impossible to bring them into action. Many representations were made to the Admiralty by the officers commanding those vessels; but the same system was persevered in till the end of the war, and then totally given up. He should mention that some of those ships, the Blenheim, and the Ocean, and the Camperdown, which was paid off the other day, had been cut down; in addition to which, the Prince Regent was in the act of cutting down, and he trusted the Impregnable would be treated in the same manner. Could he give a greater proof of the inefficiency of the constructors than that such three-decked ships should, at an enormous expense, be cut down to 80-guns? The first and second class, 80, 74, and 64-gun ships were well constructed and did their duty well. The 44 and 50-gun ships, though useless, were persevered in until the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) came to the Admiralty, and were then taken to pieces. When new seventy-fours were to be built, instead of availing themselves of the models they had, the Admiralty ordered Sir H. Peake and Sir W. Rue to submit two plans of a seventy-four. One was pronounced too large, and the other too small. They were desired to construct a kind of ship between the two, and the result was a class of vessels, nicknamed the "Forty Thieves." Now we had some excellent ships which we had taken from the French at Malta: the Tonnant, the Canopus, and the Sanspareil. But such was the obstinacy of the builders, and of the Navy Board, that these were never copied until the present time, when the ship last built was constructed on the Sanspareil model. He now came to the frigates of those days. There were forty-six-gun frigates, forty-two-gun frigates, and thirty-two-gun frigates, all carrying 18 pounders. He had no objection to the first of this class; but of the thirty-two-gun ships, two of which he commanded, he could say that more useless vessels were never constructed. These were persevered in until the right hon. Baronet opposite came to the Admiralty, and after attempt-

385
ting to improve on three of them he gave them up. There were then 16-gun ships mounting 6-pounders. These were persevered in until the end of the war, though he could safely say there was not a boy in the service who did not know them to be useless. The 18-gun brigs were then adopted; but Lord Melville, not satisfied with them, turned them into bad corvettes; but these in their turn were given up also. Another attempt was made to construct corvettes of 20-guns, being made longer and narrower than the 18-gun brigs; but these were called patent coffins for sinking 120 men, and pronounced failures. Then came 10-gun brigs—the Blazer, the Bruiser, the Barker, &c.; other brigs were substituted for these. These were continued for a time, but condemned last year by the Shipwreck Committee. The Admiralty had indeed thrown away their own exertions and the money of the country in building bad ships, and when the American war broke out—and they might have looked forward to that event for many years—the Admiralty were utterly unable to contend with their adversaries. They had not indeed a single vessel of the same class fit to meet their corvettes, nor a single frigate capable of contending with their frigates. He (Sir C. Napier) well remembered the reports of that day, when a naval officer would have been scouted if he had ventured to utter even a hint of the inability of British ships to contend successfully with American vessels of the same rating as their own; and notwithstanding all the warning they had received, the Government of the day had never opened their eyes until they learned that three British frigates had been captured and carried into American ports. What did they do then? The Admiralty immediately ordered three line-of-battle ships to be cut down; and at the end of the year, though it was proved beyond a doubt that 46-gun frigates were unfit to contend with the American 46's, between sixty and seventy were built, which were now useless in our Navy. It was then considered that ships had not been built strong enough. The next thing the Surveyor did was to cut and carve half the Navy into round sterns, thus showing the enemy how to defend themselves, instead of fortifying their bows to attack their opponents; and although Mr. Roberts, Mr. Laing, and other shipwrights, proposed a plain round stern, totally unencumbered with galleries, they were not adopted till after a consideration of twenty
386
years, and this was now settled as the regular form of the ship's stern in the Navy. Another error was committed by the master shipwright of those days, though he was certainly an excellent builder—that of trussingthe ships with diagonal shores, and with very heavy timber along their waterways. An enormous quantity of timber, therefore, was put into ships that were never intended to carry it, such as the 32 and 36-gun frigates. This spoiled them entirely as frigates; there was not one ship, which had formerly been used to stand up stiffly and properly to their canvass, that did not become cranky. He (Sir C. Napier) commanded one of them, the Euryalus, which was formerly the pride of the ocean; but after she had gone through this process, she turned out so bad that she could not stand on her legs, and was nearly upset when going to Smyrna. Then there was the Caledonia, originally one of the fastest sail of the line ever known; Sir Robert Seppings took her into dock to have her widened; Lord Exmouth begged that she might not be touched; but she was taken into dock, stripped of her timbers, and altered, and had never been a good ship since. It was to the Yacht Club we owed our improvement in ship-building; they employed private individuals to build their ships, seeing that the Navy Board stuck to their old way, and would not move; but at last public opinion gained such strength that they were forced to attend to it, and Sir W. Symonds, Captain Hayes, and Professor Inman, were allowed to construct ships. In the time of the Lord High Admiral, an experimental squadron was sent to sea, composed of the Sapphire, Challenger, Tyne, three small frigates, with the Columbine, Satellite, Wolf, and another, sloops and brigs. It was found that of the frigates the Sapphire, thirty-six, was certainly the best; the Challenger and Tyne were so cranky, that if they had been sailing in company within pistol-shot, and had commenced an action, the guns of the weather ship would have gone under the bottom of the lee one, and the guns of the lee ship would have gone over the truck of the weather one. Of the smaller ships, the Columbine, built by Sir William Symonds, turned out the best. He then took upon himself to write a letter to the Lord High Admiral, detailing his opinions as to the manner in which the building department of the Navy was managed, from which, if the House would permit him, he would read an extract:—
"October 1, 1827.
"Sir,—The naval service of this country would be much better conducted, and at less expense, were the Admiralty and Navy Boards amalgamated, and the whole put under the comptrol of the Lord High Admiral.
"Without meaning any disrespect to the latter branch, I think the manner it is formed is a certain means of insuring its inefficiency, and of preventing its profiting by the march of intellect; and, indeed, it is pretty generally allowed by the naval service that they are the last to adopt any improvement, and most obstinately shut their eyes to whatever is proposed to them, believing that the whole naval talent of the country is centered in their own body.
"The wise encouragement that the Admiralty have lately given to people unconnected with the Navy Board to construct ships on certain conditions, has clearly proved that they are not possessed of absolute wisdom in shipbuilding; and I shall endeavour to show your Royal Highness that it is morally impossible, from the manner they are composed, that they should be possessed of the shining qualifications so necessary to the well-being of the naval service.
"Hitherto, for the naval officer to obtain a seat at the Navy Board, it was necessary he should have sufficient interest to be appointed to a foreign dock-yard; and, after moving from one to another for a considerable number of years, he succeeded to the first vacant seat in Somerset House, provided one of the Commissioners of the home dock-yards preferred moving, well versed, no doubt, in the business of a yard, and, if not too old, and too long out of active service, probably acquainted with the improvements and wants of the Navy: on taking his seat, he finds himself placed amongst a set of old gentlemen (and perhaps a young statesman or two), who have been out of the sphere of naval improvements for the last twenty years, and who oppose as innovations any ameliorations he may wish to introduce, and he is at last obliged to give up the point, and gradually adopt all the ideas of Navy Board supremacy.
"The office of Comptroller is, I believe, generally bestowed upon some man of interest, without taking much trouble about his qualifications. The Surveyors, on whom chiefly depend the goodness or badness of our ships, either are, or ought to be, chosen for their talents; but if I am to judge from what they have produced — such as the fir 32's, and 22-gun corvettes, neither of which would either stand up under canvass or sail, the 28-gun ships which could neither fight nor run away, the forty thieves, together with the bad sailing of the Navy in general—I should be inclined to estimate their abilities very low. The fault of constructing such classes lay with the Board of Admiralty, but their models with the Navy Board; and if they could not hit upon a form of their own that would sail well,
388
they ought to have been less bigoted, and copied from their neighbours.
"All these gentlemen remain in their situations for life, or until they find themselves useless, which is never till many years after they are judged so by the rest of the world.
"The Victualling Board is pretty well composed, for the duties they have to perform, but with the same fault of being fixtures, as the Navy Board, and generally with a sucking statesman or two amongst them. Commissioners of dock-yards are really so very comfortable, that no man in his senses will retire as long as he can hold together: and I believe they are not removable, except for some glaring misconduct. I confess I have no faith in any department being well conducted, or greatly improved: where the mainspring is allowed to wear itself out, it loses its elasticity in time, and becomes unfit to perform its functions."
When the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) came into office, he (Sir C. Napier) followed up the letter by a pamphlet, addressed to Sir John Pechell; and though he had not the vanity to suppose that either the letter or the pamphlet had caused the abolition of the Navy Board, still the right hon. Baronet acquiesced in his statement, and broke it up. He thought the right hon. Baronet had done a great service to the country by abolishing that useless Board; but he feared very much that the substitute provided had not answered the end desired. The first and great fault of the new plan was the enormous quantity of work thrown on the Admiralty, particularly the first Naval Lord; and he said it was morally and physically impossible for him to go through the duties of his office in a proper manner, looking to the vast number of subjects, all of the greatest importance, which were brought before him every day of his life. It was not in the power of man to do so, and unless some change in the system were made, we should soon feel the mischievous effects of it. The first step taken by the right hon. Baronet, after he had seen that Sir W. Symonds had constructed a very fine corvette, and also a yacht, which was bought into the service, superior to any of their competitors, was to give him an opportunity of building a larger ship; but he took an immense responsibility on himself in allowing that Officer to jump from an 18-gun corvette up to a 50-gun frigate, the Vernon, of 2,082 tons. The Vernon answered perfectly well; she had had her detractors, but he (Sir C. Napier) really believed she was a fine ship. When he had produced the Vernon, the right hon. Baronet thought Sir W. Symonds was the fittest man to be Sur-

389
veyor of the Navy. Now, though he had a great opinion of Sir W. Symonds as a seaman and an officer, and a man who knew perfectly well how to produce the model of a ship up to a certain point, he did not think that he had a knowledge of shipbuilding sufficient for such an office. Never having been brought up in a dockyard, it was impossible he could be master of the sixes and weights of iron, timber, and the materials used in the construction of a man-of- war. Sir William Symonds having launched the Vernon, she was tried as a cruiser; and he believed the reports of her were extremely favourable, with one exception, that her motion at sea was extremely quick, which rendered it not so easy to fight her. But she had redeeming qualities as a ship, able to carry an immense press of sail, and to carry her guns at all times. The Vernon went through two cruises under Captains Macconnochie and Walpole. When the right hon. and gallant Officer opposite went out to America, he believed that he had found her motion much quicker than he approved of; but his opinion as to the Vernon was, on the whole, most favourable. Sir William Symonds, after having constructed the Vernon, was allowed to build a large number of 26-gun ship, and 16-gun brigs. All these, he believed, had turned out favourably; the officers who commanded them spoke of the 26-gun ships as great improvements on the old class of 28-gun frigates, and the 16-gun brigs great improvements on the old 8-gun brigs; and on the trial the other day the Cruiser could not keep up with her Competitors of the new class. The next ship Sir William Symonds was allowed to build was the Vanguard, against which much had been said. He (Sir C. Napier) was intimate with the two captains who commanded her, Sir T. Fellowes and Sir D. Dunn, who were both strongly in her favour, and than whom there were not two better officers in the service. Captain Bouverie also spoke in the highest terms of her. In the Mediterranean she proved to be superior to most ships. She was tried once with the Powerful and Ganges, and though they had the advantage, she could have carried a reef more out of her topsails, and would then have had the superiority. In a gale of wind off Alexandria she was the most leewardly of the six ships. He had spoken to the various captains, lest his memory should have deceived him, and all agreed that that was the case. He had also spoken to the captain who commanded her,
390
who differed from him to some extent, maintaining her to be the fourth, and not the lowest. It would be wrong, therefore, to condemn her on that ground, because in blowing weather, an accident during the night might have placed her in that position: and he, therefore, thought it only perfectly fair to admit that she was a good, efficient, and fast-sailing man-of-war. She had one fault, certainly; but it was rather owing to the Admiralty than her constructor. It was all very well for the builder to wish to construct a pretty ship, with a fine raking stern, like a Virginia pilot-boat; but the Admiralty should have said, "What is to become of all the expense and trouble we have been at to construct a new round stern, such as will admit of a great number of guns bearing, if raked?" He had no hesitation in saying, that if the ship were in action, she would run the greatest danger of being set fire to. There was another circumstance which he might mention: the Vanguard was rated on the list as an 80-gun ship; but while in commission, and so rated, she had two of her guns struck down in the hold, so that she, in fact, mounted only 78. The next ship ordered to be constructed was the Pique, which was commanded by his hon. and gallant Friend on the other side. And not only that, but six Piques were laid down without trying one. He was not prepared to blame the Admiralty for that, because they saw that he could construct ships like the Vanguard, and the 26-gun frigates, and 16-gun sloops, so that it was very natural for them to employ him to construct a ship of intermediate size. He believed there was not a single doubt in the mind of any naval officer that this vessel was a total and entire failure. The Pique was commanded by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite, who was well known to be an able seaman and excellent officer; and he was perfectly certain his hon. Friend's Report, was condemnatory of her. Captain Boxer succeeded his hon. Friend, whose Report, he understood, was favourable to the Pique; Captain Yates was the next, who carried out Sir Charles Adam to the West Indies. Captain Boxer also went as a passenger, and the Pique rolled to such an extraordinary degree that, though he had reported favourably of her, he came on deck, and told him if he did not get up runners and tackles, the ship would inevitably lose her masts. Captain Yates said no, she was a fine ship, and he had never been in the habit of doing that, and

391
he refused to do so until Sir C. Adam sent him an order. After the failure of the Pique, and when six fellow ships had been laid down at an enormous expense, of which three were launched, the Surveyor of the Navy was allowed to build a three-decked ship, to be called the Queen, and to make room for which the Royal Frederic was pulled to pieces. When finished, the vessel was looked upon as a miracle; the Queen went to Brighton to see her, and she was sent to the Mediterranean under the command of one of our oldest officers—a man he believed seventy-five years of age. In order that she might be fairly tried, the Admiralty very properly sent out the Formidable in company with her; but the whole of the trial consisted in the Queens running out and home. The ship arrived in Malta harbour, where she had a three years' station of it. He had forgotten to say, that with the example of the Pique before their eyes, the Board of Admiralty laid down no fewer than six Queens, and that, he conceived, was extremely blameable in them. He believed it to be the fact, nevertheless, and if he could get the papers he had asked for, he would be able to show the state those ships were now in. Well, the Queen went to Malta, and the Admiralty seemed to be satisfied with the sailing powers. Now, he would read the Report to the Board of Admiralty, as to the sailing powers of the Queen; and here let him say that he could hardly believe, when he read it, that such a document could have emanated from the Board of Admiralty. The document was headed, "Character of the ship after nine months trial."
"CHARACTER OF THE SHIP AFTER A TRIAL OF NINE MONTHS.
"How does she stow her provisions?—Well.
"Does she ride easy at her anchors?—Very easy?"
Not the smallest doubt of it; she was hardly ever out of harbour.
"How does she stand under her sails?—Remarkably stiff.
"How does she carry her lee ports?—Rather low, being too much immersed.
"Does she roll easy or uneasy in the trough of the sea?—Remarkably easy.
"Does she pitch easy?—Very easy.
"Is she, generally speaking, an easy or uneasy ship?—A remarkably easy ship.
"How does she in general carry her helm?—Rather slack.
"How does she steer?—Rather hard in a seaway.
"How does she wear and stay?—Very well.
"Is she weatherly or leewardly, compared with other ships?—Very weatherly.
"How does she behave lying-to?—No trial."
All this time the ship lying in Malta harbour.
"She has run per hour by the log, with as much wind as she could safely bear—Close-hauled.
"Under whole or single-reefed topsails and top gallant sails?—Never tried under these circumstances with sufficient wind.
"Under double-reefed topsails? — Never tried under these circumstances with sufficient wind.
"Under courses?—Never tried under these circumstances with sufficient wind.
"Large, under all sail that could with propriety be set?—No trial.
"Before the wind, under similar circumstances?—No trial.
"What is her best point of sailing?—Not sufficient trial, but supposed on a wind.
"Comparative rate of sailing with other ships?—No regular trial, but shows occasionally superiority under the same sail.
"Is she, generally speaking, a well-built and strong ship, or does she, on the contrary, show any unusual symptoms of weakness?—Remarkably strong; shows no symptom of weakness.
"Remarks, stating the grounds of such of the present answers as differ from those in last Report, and any other observations tending to form an accurate judgment on the qualities of the ship.—Since the arrival of the Queen at Malta from England, twenty tons of ballast have been discharged out of the after hold, as it was supposed the ship was too much immersed, and it was remarkable, that in the recent cruises, her stability was not in the least affected, as she became lighter in the water, having returned into this port lightened by the consumption of provisions and water of 136 tons.
"H. R. HENRY, Acting Captain.
"G. C. DOWERS, Master,
"T. BARNARD, Carpenter.
"Jan. 1, 1843."
"CHARACTER OF THE SHIP AFTER A TRIAL OF TWENTY-TWO MONTHS.
"Does she ride easy at her anchors?—Easy.
"Inclination of the ship:
"Under stormy staysails or trysails?—Not tried.
"Under stormy staysails and main topsail?—Not tried.
"Under stormy staysails and main topsail, and reefed foresail?—Not tried.
"Under close-reefed topsails and courses?—Not tried.
"Under treble-reefed topsails and courses?—Not tried.
"Under double-reefed topsails and topgallant-sails?—Six degrees.
"Under all sail except royals?—Five degrees.
"Under all sail, when just able to carry royals?—Four degrees.
"How does she carry her lee ports?—Well, since lightened.
"Does she roll easy or uneasy in the trough of the sea?—Very easy.
"Does she pitch easy?—Easy.
"Is she, generally speaking, an easy or uneasy ship?—A very easy ship.
"How does she in general carry her helm by the wind:
"With all sail set?—A weather, when near her trim.
"With treble-reefed topsails and courses?—A weather, when near her trim.
"How does she steer off the wind?—Easy, since lightened.
"How does she stay?—Quick and sure.
"How does she wear?—Quick.
"Is she weatherly or leewardly, compared with other ships, in moderate weather?—Weatherly.
"Is she weatherly or leewardly, compared with other ships in a gale?—Not tried.
"How does she behave lying-to? — Not tried.
"She has run per hour by the log, with as much wind as she could safely carry this sail to—
"Close-hauled with smooth water:
"Under whole or single-reefed topsails and topgallant sails?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"Under double-reefed topsails? — Never tried under these circumstances.
"Close-hauled with a head sea:
"Under double-reefed topsails and topgallant sails?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"Under close-reefed topsails and courses?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"Wind on the beam:
"Under close-reefed topsails and courses?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"Under treble-reefed topsails and courses?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"Under double-reefed topsails and topgallant sails?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"In moderate weather, unable to carry royals?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"In moderate weather, with all sail set?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"Wind on the quarter:
"In a gale?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"Under double-reefed topsails, topgallant sails, and scudding sails?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"In Moderate weather with royals and
394
studding sails?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"Before the wind:
"In a gale?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"In moderate weather, with all sails set?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"How does she scud in a heavy gale?—Never tried under these circumstances.
"What is her best point of sailing?—No trial of sufficient duration.
"Comparative rate of sailing with other ships?—Great superiority over ships of her class.
"Is she, generally speaking, a well-built and strong ship, or does she show any symptoms of weakness?—A strong ship.
"Has the ship been ashore, or has she struck the ground, at any time during the period of this report; if she has, mention the time and place, and the date of the report of the circumstance, and to whom made?—Never.
"Remarks, stating the grounds for such of the present answers as differ from those in the last report, and any additional observations on the quality of the ship? — No difference in substance from former report.
(Signed) "G. F. RICH, Captain.
"C. P. BELLAMY, Master.
"T. BARNARD, Carpenter.
"Dated 1st Jan. 1844."
The House, he hoped, would see that he did not want to make "fish of one and flesh of another." He had read the Report of an Officer of the Navy, one of the most clever and talented in the service. He had set out by praying the attention of the House to this question, for it was not one either of party or politics. Now, he would say it was wrong for the Board of Admiralty to lay down six Queens without trying the ship at all—he certainly could not see why they were proceeded with. Well, the Queen came home, was sent into dock at Portsmouth, and received a complete overhaul. He had the authority of her captain for saying that she was exactly trimmed to the trim pointed out by the Surveyor of the Navy, and her masts were stayed by his dictation. The Admiral at Portsmouth, whom every body knew to be as good a seaman as possible, declared that she appeared to him in everything a complete ship. She then went to sea with the St. Vincent, Caledonia, and Albion. The St. Vincent was by no means a fast ship—he had brought her to Portsmouth when in command of the Galatea, known as the greatest brute in the service—but she best the Queen completely, although when taken into dock the other day her bottom was found to be quite foul. It appeared that

395
the Queen steered so badly that she was obliged to have her foresail up and her mainsail set to keep her by the wind. She pitched in such a tremendous manner that her middle-deck bow ports were in the water, and he understood that her rolling was of the same nature. They had the Report of the gallant Officer commanding her, who did not appear to have had much opportunity of trying her, and who seemed to have had much difficulty in picking up a gale of wind on the coast of Portugal in winter; but if he had extended his peregrinations as far as the Western Islands, he would have, perhaps, found no difficulty whatever. It appeared from the Reports of this gallant officer, that the Queen's great fault was an apparent want of sufficient power in her rudder, causing her to carry a slack helm, and that, under low and easy sail, she could not be well kept to the wind. The Queen returned to port, and was finally paid off at Sheerness, and was now in the dockyard at Chatham, to have her keel increased, her stern-post changed, her magazine altered, and other repairs. This was of course all done with the approval of the Surveyor of the Navy himself. Now, if this doctoring did not succeed in the case of the Queen, what was to be done? Were they to return to the system upon which they acted fifty-five years ago? Were they to go on building three-deckers and making them seventy-fours, building seventy-fours and making them frigates, building frigates and making them corvettes? If the Queen did not answer, it would puzzle the Admiralty to tell what to do with her. The only thing they could do was to follow the example of their predecessors in the case of the Boscawen. That ship was first of all laid down, in 1814, as a 74-gun ship; in 1819, she was made an 80-gun ship; and in 1834, after eight years' seasoning, she was changed into a 70-gun ship, upon the Surveyor's present plan. He now came to the Albion. Sir Robert Seppings, before he quitted the Navy Board, laid down three 92-gun ships, the London, the Nile, and the Rodney. The Rodney had gone through two commissions; she carried 32-pounders on her lower deck, her main deck, and her quarter-deck; she measured 2,626 tons, and her hull cost 67,550 l. This vessel was commanded by Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, than whom there was not a better seaman in the whole Navy, and afterwards she was commanded by Captain Mansell,
396
of whom the same might be said. The qualities of the vessel were approved of by both those officers. Whether considered as a sea-boat or as a man-of-war, there was no better vessel, although, of course, not so fast a sailer as some of the smaller ships. She was an excellent man-of-war, and though she carried five months' provisions, a year's stores, and full of water, she carried her lower-deck ports 7 feet 11 inches out of the water. The ship was perfectly stiff, never heeled more than 7 degrees, rode as easily and pleasantly as possible in a gale. It was very natural when the late Board of Admiralty came into office, that they should endeavour to construct ships on the new principle which should turn out as well as those built on the old principle; and it was very natural to suppose that as other ships had worked well on the new principle, those about to be built should do so also. Accordingly the Albion was built, and commanded by an excellent seaman, Captain Lockhart. He (Sir C. Napier) believed that six ships were laid down on the principle of the Albion; but he might be in error from the want of the papers. He believed that the gallant Officer opposite was favourable to the principle of the Albion, and that some years ago he wrote a pamphlet, if not exactly on that subject, yet one in which he took occasion to speak favourably of that class of ships. Well, it was decided by the Admiralty to send out a squadron, and the Albion, St. Vincent, Queen, and Caledonia were sent out; and although, as he was informed, they had no weather fit for trying experiments, yet he had heard that the Albion was to windward with a heavy swell, and rolled so dreadfully that it was impossible to keep her lower deck ports open. And here he might relate a little anecdote of the gallant Officer opposite, who was then in command of the Albion. That gallant Officer quitted his own ship, which was pitching and rolling about, and on coming alongside the Caledonia, one of the boat's crew was so astonished with her comparative stillness, that he exclaimed to a brother sailor—the House would forgive him for quoting the words—"D—my eyes, Jack, is your ship aground?" That the Albion sailed better than most of the other ships he (Sir C. Napier) admitted, but she exceeded the St. Vincent by but very little. He had understood—but if he was wrong the gallant Officer would contradict him—that the Albion laboured under the disad-

397
vantage of being unable to keep her lower deck ports open; that was to say, that while the lower parts of the Caledonia and St. Vincent were open, those of the Albion were obliged to be shut. If that were the case, he regretted very much that the gallant Officer did not signal her to open her ports, and run out her lower deck guns. In that case the Officer in command must have been placed in this very unpleasant position—he must either have opened his ports, swamped his ship, or made the signal of inability. But after such a fact as that, all the writing and talking on earth about the excellent qualities of the Albion, would have been of no avail. He saw that an hon. and gallant Friend of his opposite, enjoyed all this very much, being himself an old sailor, [the hon. and gallant Commodore alluded to the Solicitor-General, Sir F. Thesiger;] and that learned Gentleman would be an authority, besides the gallant Officer opposite, able to judge of the force of such an objection against the Albion as he had been urging. But there was another mode by which the true character of the Albion might have been ascertained. It would have been easy to have ordered the Queen to engage with the Albion—of course with unshotted guns—and it would have been seen by the fire kept up by the latter, whether she was really the superior ship she was reported to be. He would take the Report of the Captain of the Albion himself, and that Officer stated that the Rodney carried her ports 6 feet 7 inches above water, with all her stores shipped; while the Albion, with only three months' provisions on board, carried her lower ports only 3 feet 9 inches and a half above water. But even from that calculation must be deducted three or four inches for the difference between the inner and outer sill of the port, which would reduce it to 3 feet 6 inches. He hoped he had not fatigued the House by the minuteness with which he entered into particulars. He felt a great obligation for the indulgence which had been already shown to him, but the subject was really of vast importance, and he would endeavour to be as brief as was consistent with his duty. By the Return furnished by the Admiralty, and now upon the Table, it appeared that since 1830 there had been launched five 120-gun ships, costing 319,436 l. for the hulls alone. The hon. and gallant Officer read the following table:—
398

I. SHIPS LAUNCHED SINCE 1830

Year.

Name.

Guns.

Tonnage.

Cost.

Neptune

120

No returns

1841

Trafalgar

120

2,721

87,588

1833

Rl. William

120

2,698

82,183

1833

Waterloo

120

2,718

70,553

1840

St. George

120

2,719

79,112

Total

319,436

1839

Queen

110

3,104

83,000

1833

Rodney

92

2,626

67,550

1839

Nile

92

2,622

70,909

1840

London

92

2,602

71,648

1842

Albion

90

3,110

81,349

1831

Thunderer

84

2,279

72,292

1832

Monarch

84

No return

1831

Calcutta

84

2,299

No return

1835

Vanguard

80

2,609

62,115

1841

Collingwood

80

2,585

59,792

1842

Goliath

80

2,596

56,757

1842

Superb

80

2,583

54,980

1842

Centurion

80

No return

Total

233,744

1842

Cumberland

70

2,214

45,025

1842

Boscawen

70

No return

1832

Vernon

50

2,082

48,437

1842

Worcester

50

1,473

44,466

1843

Chichester

50

1,501

35,033

1832

Castor

36

1,293

29,578

1836

Inconstant

36

1,422

30,922

1834

Pique

36

1,633

33,061

1841

Cambrian

36

1,625

33,289

1844

Flora

36

1,634

No return

1833

Forth

44

1,228

28,542

1833

Meander

44

No return

1833

Vestal

26

913

21,383

1833

Spartan

26

913

104,584

1833

Carysfort

26

913

1833

Iris

26

913

1833

Cleopatra

36

913

1833

Calliope

No return

1832

Andromeda

26

717

14,845

1832

Conway

26

652

No return

1831

Imogene

26

660

16,314

1831

Actæon

26

620

No return

1839

Fantome

16

484

10,339

1839

Helena

16

153,520

1839

Wolverine

16

1839

Harlequin

16

1839

Siren

16

1839

Frolic

16

1839

Albatross

16

1839

Snake

16

1839

Serpent

16

1839

Ringdove

16

1339

Rose

16

1839

Wanderer

16

1839

Sappho

16

1839

Lily

16

1839

Grecian

16

1839

Pilot

16

1839

Acorn

16

1831

Fly

18

485

12,431

1831

Harrier

18

486

12,365

1832

Rover

18

590

No return

1836

Dido

18

734

14,969

1837

Modeste

18

568

11,097

Total

50,862

The total amount since 1830, was £1,668,406.

Besides the ships he had mentioned, he should be able, when his other papers came from the Admiralty, to show the number of ships upon the stocks, and how far they were advanced. There was one observation he had forgotten to make respecting the Albion, which was very important. It appeared that when she came into Plymouth the other day, after having been only a year out and very little at sea, her water-ways were so open that before she could be caulked she was obliged to be listed, and wood driven in between her seams. It appeared that although she only wanted caulking, there were no less than 100 shipwrights employed upon her for seven days, or, as it might be said, 700 men were working on her. He now came to steamboats. Before the year 1831, there were only twelve steam-boats in the Navy, and they were small vessels. But in 1831, steam begun to take a turn, and look up. The Government saw that it was absolutely necessary something should be done about steam. He had certainly thought them rather slow about it, and he himself had then constructed six or seven steam-boats; and so he fancied he knew something about them. At that time several steam-boats were laid down; and he spoke to his gallant Friend, Sir Thomas Hardy, requesting him to apply to the Admiralty, to name a commission of two or three officers and engineers, to confer respecting the construction of steam-vessels. But Sir Thomas Hardy said to him, "It is of no use going to the Admiralty, because they will not listen to us." He then took upon himself to write to the Lord High Admiral, who was then in office, upon the subject of steam-boats:—
"Oct. 4,1829.
"SIR,—To render steam-boats fit for war, requires a better combination of construction and arming than we seem to be aware of; and, as I understand there is a steam man-of-war of 700 tons to be laid down at Woolwich, I trust His Royal Highness, the Lord High Admiral, will not think it presumptuous in my stating my opinion on the subject. I have had a considerable degree of experience, but I do it with great diffidence, being well aware of the difficulty of the subject.
"As it is uncertain whether the various experiments now trying will succeed, I shall base my opinion on the system of Bolton and Watts, and shall begin with the construction of my vessel, limiting myself to a steam corvette.
"I should propose she should be 30 feet wide, 150 feet long, and 18 feet deep from the gun-deck. She ought neither to be so fine as a man of-war, nor, on the other hand, have
400
the capacity of an Indiaman. In the first case, she would not stow sufficient quantity of fuel, and would draw too much water for most purposes; in the latter case, she would not steam with sufficient rapidity. Her floor should not be quite flat, but nearly so, and its length one-half the vessel; the form of the bow and run would occupy the other half. I beg it fully to be understood that I do not propose this as a vessel offering the last resistance, but as one combining the requisites necessary for a steam man-of-war; such a vessel, light, would draw less than four feet, and with her engines and boilers would not much exceed six feet, and would certainly be under seven; and with 600 tons of coals would draw about twelve, having her guns six feet above the water at her greatest loading. She would consume twenty-two tons of coals a day, and, if the coals are good, and with great care, something less. The engines and boilers should be secured against shot as I have already proposed. Experience has proved beyond a doubt that the fittest vessels for sea are those constructed according to the plan of the steamboat at the Admiralty; and I should recommend the wheels not to be so broad as they usually are; such a vessel would certainly not go so fast in the river Thames, but in rough weather the wheels would always be under the command of the engines.
"The Lord High Admiral has, no doubt, observed that according to that plan, it would be impossible for a man-of-war to keep her guns run out so many feet beyond her real breadth; they might be fought in that way in light winds, it is true, but not even then without straining the ship.
"I would, therefore, abandon entirely the system of broadside guns, and mount amidships as many heavy guns as the ship would bear, and as there was room to place on pivots to point all round, as the privateers were wont to do in the West Indies, in addition to two bow and stern chasers mounted the usual way.
"She should be rigged as a three-masted schooner, with the lower masts in two, having top-sails, rut-sails, &c., and all the necessary sails for common purposes; and which, with the exception of the lower part of the lower mast, should be got down the moment it became necessary to steam in bad weather against the wind.
"To His Royal Highness, the
Lord High Admiral."
That was the letter he had thought it his duty to write to the Lord High Admiral. He was sorry to say that not the least attention was paid to it, and since then he had gone on for fifteen or sixteen years with the same arguments, yet still seeing the authorities building steam-vessels, like a wedge, without any bottom at all, and so narrow, that they were obliged to raise a

401
platform to put their engines upon. Before that time, steam was esteemed of little importance: but when the right hon. Baronet came into office, he did, much to his credit, take steam up; he turned his attention to it, and called in the opinion of Sir Thomas Hardy. Now, he (Sir Charles Napier) concluded that when Sir Thomas Hardy came into office he should have no trouble in gaining the attention of that gallant Officer to the subject. But there really seemed some extraordinary influence belonging to the walls of the Admiralty; for when Sir Thomas Hardy was within them, he (Sir Charles Napier) found his work quite as difficult as before. He was just as difficult to deal with as any other Lord of the Admiralty. Now, he did think, when they undertook to lay out such enormous sums upon the construction of steam men-of-war, care ought to be had that they should be rendered as perfect as it was possible to make them. These vessels must be considered in the light only of corvettes; and he did not see any impropriety in not putting main-deck guns in them. But a great part of the vessels constructed by the Surveyor of the Navy had the same faults as those which characterised his sailing vessels. The first disadvantage was, that they were so sharp that when the machinery was put in they were obliged to raise it too high; they were obliged to get a platform for it, so that it lay exposed to the shot of the enemy. Another error lay with the engineers; but he did not blame them, but the Board of Admiralty, for not having brought the engineers together, to let them know that no steam man-of-war is of use, the machinery of which is exposed to be destroyed by the first shot of the enemy. Now, he had no hesitation in asserting, that not one of these steam-boats, built at the cost of these immense sums, had the slightest pretensions to be considered as a man-of-war. There was not one of them that the first shot fired would not enter her machinery, and blow her up. But had those vessels been built flat, and of sufficient depth, the case would have been altogether different. If the engineers and builders had been brought together, and had been told that it was absolutely necessary the engines should be under water, there was not one of them, he had no hesitation in saying, who could not have built ships for that purpose. Another grand fault in these ships was, that when they took in their coals—and none of them could carry more
402
than from ten to twelve days' supply—the wheels of every one of them were completely buried in the water, so that half their power was consumed. But he was now coming to a still greater error. After having built these smaller vessels, the Admiralty thought they would run the risk of constructing a frigate, and the Gorgon was laid down, a ship of 1,111 tons, and built at a cost of 58,000 l. for her hull alone. Now, what was the case with respect to this frigate? She had only one gun fore, and another aft, and had no means of running a gun out of her main deck. They were now told, indeed, that it was not intended to mount main deck guns at all. So that these ships were so constructed, that they had no means of firing from their main deck at all, nor could they fire two guns right ahead. The counter was, moreover, carried up too high. Then, if chased by a superior force, this vessel could only bring one gun to bear astern for her defence. All he could say, was this, if it was intended that this frigate should carry main deck guns, she was a direct failure; and if it was not intended she should carry them, the people who built her knew nothing at all about the matter. Well, then, the Gorgon was a failure. Then came the Cyclops, the tonnage of which was 1,195, and she cost 27,411 l. She, also, had no main deck guns, though there were rings for them, and bolts to run them out, so that people supposed she was to carry them. But there was the same fault in the Cyclops as in the Gorgon, and, for the sake of giving her a smart, handsome stern, like a Virginia pilot boat, it became impossible to put her engines in a proper position, and instead of having four guns at her head and four astern, she was unable to carry one. So also with respect to this frigate, he would say, that if intended to carry main deck guns, she was a complete failure, and if not, those who built her knew nothing about the matter. It was melancholy to see such a waste of money upon an enormous steam navy, and none of the vessels worth anything. The next vessels on the list were:—

Driver

1,059

£26,682

Styx

1,057

22,967

Vixen

1,054

21,474

Geyser

1,054

22,553

Growler

1,059

22,231

Devastation

1,058

21,865

Thunderbolt

1,055

24,655

Cormorant

1,057

26,076

403

Spiteful

1,054

£23,074

Virago

1,059

23,034

Medina

889

18,252

Hecla

817

16,219

Vesuvius

970

20,980

Stromboli

967

22,372

Hydra

818

15,357

Ardent

801

14,631

All of them were less in tonnage than the Gorgon and Cyclops, and none of them were properly constructed. If they had been, he had no hesitation in saying there were none of them which ought not to fire four guns, nearly if not right ahead, and four astern. Then there were the following ships:—

Firebrand

1,190

Vulture

1,191

Eclair

1,059

Gladiator

1,210

Samson

1,299

Retribution

1,641

Scourge

1,124

There was no Return of the expense of these vessels, but all of them were exactly in the same category with the corvettes and frigates he had mentioned. Not one of them was able to carry main deck guns, but were fitted out with fine sterns, like Virginia pilot boats. When a builder presented a model, he was responsible for the ship built after that model, but the Board of Admiralty were responsible for the adoption of the model; and the first question to the builder ought to be, "Where are your bow guns?" The fact was, we had not a single steam-ship to fight two guns ahead and two astern. There were two bow ports, indeed, but it was impossible to work them with any facility whatever, on account of the vessels being so sharp. There was the Retribution, an enormous steam-vessel of 1,641 tons; she was to carry one gun upon a pivot abaft, and either four or six, he was not sure which, on her upper deck; but the necessity of stern and bow guns seemed never to have entered the heads of her constructers, and she had cabin windows up to her very deck. And then, instead of carrying her engines and boilers sufficiently low, they were even more exposed than in the other vessels. When she went down to Chatham the other day, having only her engines on board, her wheels were plunged into the water four feet six inches, which was more than ought to have been, had she had all her stores and guns shipped. Then there was the Terrible, the last steam-ship launched, which the Government had built by Mr. Laing. She measured 1,840 tons,
404
and was larger than any of our old line-of-battle ships. The Terrible was unquestionably better than the other vessels. He believed the Surveyor of the Navy would never have listened to anybody's opinion; but after all, he had come down to flattening his boats a little more, certainly at a great expense to the public. He did not know the number of steam-vessels upon the stocks. There was a great number, he was aware; but how far they were advanced he knew not. One, he understood, was in a forward state—the Avenger, a large vessel; but, whatever might be the state of forwardness of all these vessels, it would be much better to pull them to pieces than to go on building them according to the present system. It was actually throwing money to the winds. They could never be of any service whenever this country should go to war; because steam-boats could neither be more nor less to the Navy than what the cavalry was to the Army. No Admiral would ever send two steam-boats to fight each other; a general might just as well send out two regiments of cavalry to have an afternoon's amusement with each other. He should like to know how any steam-vessel could harass the rear of the enemy, if she had no guns at her bow. None of the steam-vessels belonging to the British Navy had guns at the bow. He had seen them with his own eyes, and could testify to the fact. Another use for steamboats in a time of war would be to cover a retreat. Suppose a squadron running away from a superior fleet, the Admiral would be obliged to send the steam-boats astern to keep the enemy's vessels off. But how could such a retreating fleet be protected if there was only one steam-boat, and that boat with only one gun astern? Now, what was the fact? It could not be too often repeated—there was not, belonging to the British Navy, a steam-boat with more than one gun astern, except the Terrible, which had two. And yet, not withstanding this fact, and notwithstanding the great and serious consequences which might be involved in this state of things, the Board of Admiralty looked with a jaundiced eye upon all the suggestions which men of experience had made to remedy so glaring an evil in the naval system of this great country. [Laughter]. The right hon. Baronet might laugh, but these were straightforward facts; and if the right hon. Gentleman could point out one single steam-boat in the British Navy that could work her bow guns upon the main deck,

405
he would cut his head off. All that he had to ask, then, in moving for a Committee of inquiry, was simply this: had they succeeded, or had they not, in the manner in which the Board of Admiralty had hitherto been going on? If not, and it was his firm conviction that they had not, then they ought to make a change. He should have preferred asking for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the whole system of the naval construction pursued by the Government of this country; but on consulting with Gentlemen who were better acquainted with the rules of the House than he was, he found they were of opinion that there would be more chance of an inquiry being instituted if he moved for a Committee, limited to the terms of his Motion, than if he had adopted any other course. For his own part, he did not care whether the inquiry were conducted by means of a Commission, or by a Committee of that House; all he was anxious for was that an efficient inquiry should be made, and he implored the House not to grant one single shilling towards the Navy Estimates until some competent body should be appointed to examine thoroughly and completely into the present condition of the Steam Navy of this country, in order that the errors existing in the system now pursued might be discovered, and a better plan devised for the future. Until an assurance should be given by Her Majesty's Ministers that something of this sort should be speedily done, he for one would not vote for the appropriation of a single shilling of the public money towards the Navy Estimates. He had been induced to bring this subject forward from the knowledge he possessed of the present condition of the Navy of this Empire; but he should not have entertained any hope of success in his efforts if he had not known that the public press had at length made it a matter of grave discussion. It was not till now that he had been able to get the House, or, at all events, the Government for the time being, to listen to any of the suggestions which he himself had from time to time made in relation to the state of the British Navy. He certainly had in all his communications with the present Board of Admiralty met with the greatest courtesy, especially from the gallant Officer opposite (Sir George Cockburn). That gallant Officer had always met him (Sir C. Napier) with great kindness and cordiality, and he was certainly induced to entertain some hopes that an endeavour would at length be made
406
to put an end to this bad system. He thought the House ought to grant him the Committee he now asked for. He had made some very strong statements to the House, and he was perfectly certain that if an inquiry were granted he should be able to make those statements good. The House was bound, in honour and justice to the Surveyor of the Navy, as well as to the present Board of Admiralty, and also to their predecessors, to institute an inquiry, in order to know whether he had been maligning them or not. Knowing, however, full well, that if he should obtain a Committee, he would be able to substantiate everything he had stated, he now begged to move
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner in which the money voted since the year 1835 for the construction of Ships has been expended, and if the Ships constructed are an improvement of the old system."
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion, as he was anxious to see a searching inquiry into this subject instituted. It was a question not new to the House. He thought a great responsibility attached to the right hon. Baronet the present Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the course which he took in the year 1832, when First Lord of the Admiralty, and for the changes which he had then made. He would not, on this occasion, enter into details, but the changes which the right hon. Baronet at that period made, were such as challenged inquiry; and the question could not be satisfactorily settled until that inquiry took place; and in order to embrace the period from which those changes were made, he could have wished that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir C. Napier) had fixed the year 1832, instead of 1835, as the time since which he was desirous to ascertain the appropriation of the public money in the construction of ships for the British Navy. On the 29th of June, 1832, when he, in a Committee of Supply, challenged the policy of the changes which the right hon. Baronet had made by appointing Captain Symonds to be Surveyor of the Navy, when pupils who had been educated at the School of Naval Architecture at a considerable expense, were passed over, the right hon. Baronet made use of an expression which had often been quoted, and which had excited a great deal of feeling among a large class of persons. The right hon. Baronet said—
"That he had acted in accordance with the best naval advice, and that he was firmly

407
persuaded that a naval captain was more competent to act as the Surveyor of the shipbuilding department, than any other gentleman that could be selected to fill it."
This was as much as to say that science was of no value in ship-building. Science which in every other mechanical department was found to be so essentially advantageous, and which had been the means of advancing the arts to an immense extent, was declared by the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) to be of no use whatever in the construction of ships. It was important that the House should know what had taken place upon this subject, for it involved great national interests. This country was the greatest commercial nation in the world, and required necessarily to have the most powerful and complete ships; and yet, to the reproach of England, she was now, and had been from the earliest ages, the most backward nation in the application of science in the construction of ships. The consequence was that no two ships had ever been built in this country upon the same principle. So defective, indeed, was the method upon which the ships of the British Navy were constructed, that whenever any foreign ship was captured, its plan of construction was immediately copied by this country. French, Danish, Swedish, and Spanish ships had all in turn been preferred to those of England. This subject had attracted public attention so early as 1791, when a Committee was appointed to inquire into it, and two eminent British Admirals were members of that Committee. The defect was considered to be of such importance, that an Association was formed, calling the attention of the country to it; and so sensible was Lord St. Vincent of the importance of remedying the inconvenience, and of removing the stigma which attached to the British name, in as far as naval architecture was concerned, that he promoted the formation of a School of Naval Architecture. There was a school of naval architecture in France, in Spain, in Denmark, and in Sweden. However anxious he might be to see the public expenditure conducted upon economical principles, yet he never had objected to a liberal outlay upon the naval power of the country, because he conceivedour Navy to be the natural defence of our insulated position. In the third Report of the Commissioners who were appointed in 1806 to inquire into the state of the British Navy, they stated that the means taken by France for promoting
408
naval architecture were greater than those adopted in this country, and that no little attention was paid by men of science to naval architecture; and that while our rivals in naval power were employing men of the greatest talents, and were availing themselves of the highest scientific knowledge in the construction of ships, this country was grovelling on in the dark. In consequence of this recommendation, sanctioned by the Earl St. Vincent, a School of Naval Architecture was established. This was in the year 1809. In 1811, it came into full operation, and continued until 1832, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), as the First Lord of the Admiralty, abolished the system, declaring that not one of those gentlemen who were educated at the school was sufficiently qualified to fill the office of Surveyor to the Navy; and he then appointed Captain Symonds, who possessed no scientific knowledge whatever in naval architecture, to that department. Notwithstanding the representations made to the House on that occasion, the right hon. Baronet obtained a majority, and carried through his measure, thereby inflicting much injury upon a body of men who had devoted themselves to the study of naval architecture, under the pledge given that they should rise by degrees to fill such situations as were connected with their peculiar pursuits. The education acquired at the School of Naval Architecture was of the most comprehensive description. There was not a branch of science applicable to shipbuilding which was not taught; and the pupils, before obtaining any employment, underwent the strictest examination as to their knowledge and qualifications in all that related to naval architecture. No doubt those who held commissions in the Navy were required to undergo a certain degree of scientific instruction; but there was nothing in the system of education they were subjected to which enabled them to judge of the application of principles to the construction of a ship, or to make improvements in naval architecture. By taking away, therefore, that important branch of professional education, the right hon. Baronet at once deprived this country of the means of reaching the same height in naval architecture as other countries. This was a most unwise course, and particularly at a time when a large sum of money was about to be expended on the Navy. Seeing that England was the only country that for the last twenty years had been building large ships that were unmanageable, and

409
which were constantly being cut down into frigates or brigs, he considered it was high time that some inquiry should be made, to ascertain how all this might be corrected. Everything that came to his knowledge convinced him that England was very much behind other countries in naval matters. Haw was it that no two ships could be built by Sir William Symonds having the same qualities? Why was it, after fourteen years' trial, that he had not been able to discover any one plan by which a ship might be built that should be better than any other? If Sir William Symonds had made any such discovery, why had it not been tested by a trial, and after the experiment made, why should there not at this moment be lying before them a Report as to what that superior mode of construction was, in order that the public money might be laid out to the best advantage, and to the greatest credit of the country? This was the ground why he was anxious for an inquiry to be instituted. No written Report by Sir William Symonds would be satisfactory. The investigation must be by personal examination, whether by a Committee or by a Commission he cared not. If it should turn out, as he feared it would, that this country had not availed itself of the advantages of science in the building of ships, he would be happy to see the restoration of the School of Naval Architecture which the right hon. Baronet destroyed, or at any rate to see whether the advantages which were promised by the appointment of Sir William Symonds had been realised. The right hon. Baronet said, that that appointment was an experiment. Let it, then, be tested as an experiment. The question was one of great importance, and demanded investigation.
Sir George Cockburnconfessed that, in respect to all which the hon. and gallant Commodore (Sir C. Napier) had said relating to naval affairs, so far back as 1806, he was scarcely able to follow him. At that time he was at sea carrying on the war against France, and was not acquainted with the circumstances to which his hon. and gallant Friend had alluded. He could only say that that system, which was not perfect in 1806, might be in a very improved state now. It was very probable that the vessels built during the war were bad; but it might be supposed, from the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend, that those vessels were cut down at once into frigates; but the fact was other-
410
wise. They had become old ships and required repair; and not being thought worth that expense, they were then cut down to make efficient frigates. There could be no blame imputed to the authorities of that day for taking such a course. But those were matters which had occurred a long time ago. What he more particularly wished to do, was to bring before the House the charge which had been made against the present Board of Admiralty. It was rather unfair to expect him to defend what had been done in former times, and by other Governments, when he was far away. The Board of Admiralty was charged with having allowed Sir William Symonds to build ships upon his own plan, before it had been sufficiently tested. With respect to that gentleman himself, he (Sir G. Cockburn) called on the House to recollect what the feeling was towards that officer when he (Sir George Cockburn) came into office; and to say, if the present Board of Admiralty had, on coming into office, suspended all the work which Sir W. Symonds was proceeding with in the building of vessels, whether it would not have been considered a mere party proceeding, and would not the Admiralty have been acused of treating that officer in a way which was not deserved? No doubt about it; no more than there was that the great majority of the Navy, with a very large portion of the public, considered that Sir W. Symonds had rendered great benefit to the Navy by increasing the size of the ships, by making them broader and more capable of bearing the weights they had to carry. Perhaps, indeed, he had gone to the extreme, and had made them broader than necessary, which might have tended, with his mode of construction, to cause the uneasy motion complained of as attaching to them generally. When the present Board of Admiralty came into office, the Queen was the largest ship built by Sir W. Symonds. That ship went to sea soon afterwards, and proceeded in company with the Formidable to the Mediterranean; and every report that came home had been highly favourable to the Queen. She was reported to be the "finest first-rate and three-decker in the service." She was tried against other vessels (for in spite of what had been stated by the gallant Officer opposite, several trials had taken place), and she was reported to have beaten the Howe, a ship of her own class, the Rodney, and, in short, every other ship except the Vanguard, which latter ship, it must be ob-

411
served, was also built by Sir W. Symonds. Would the Admiralty then have been justified in at once stopping entirely the building of ships by the Surveyor of the Navy? Sir W. Symonds was not an officer of their appointing; but he (Sir G. Cockburn) considered him to be an officer of much merit, and entitled to support and protection. But he must say, that the Board of Admiralty, on coming into office, did not deem it right to confine the construction of our ships of war to one individual only. The Admiralty, therefore, checked the advancement of the larger ships building until an opportunity should be afforded by the completion of the Albion to test the efficiency of that principle of construction; and the Albion was the only one, therefore, hurried forward; and when that ship was ready, she was ordered to join the Queen, the Caledonia, and St. Vincent, to try their comparative qualities—the reports of which trial not having proved so satisfactory relative to the Queen and the Albion as desirable, the completion of the ships on the same principle was entirely stopped; and the Surveyor having requested certain alterations to be made in the Queen, she had been docked for that purpose; and it was intended when she should be again ready, to send her for further trial with the St. Vincent, the Albion, and Rodney, together with the Vanguard, Superb, and Canopus, the last-named ship having been selected in consequence of her having been considered the finest and best two-decker of the last war, and to have carried her lower deck ports open longer than any other ship of that day: she would, therefore, afford the best proof as to our gain or otherwise by the present mode of construction. Further, the Board of Admiralty, soon after coming into office, without detracting from the merits of Sir W. Symonds, appointed a Committee composed of the master shipwrights of all our dockyards, to report what they deemed the best plan for constructing our ships of war for affording them the greatest degree of strength generally, and most efficiently arming their bows and sterns: that Committee sat a considerable time, and its detailed report was forwarded to Sir W. Symonds for his observations; and, though he differed from the Committee on many points, most of its recommendations had been adopted, modified to a certain extent by the Surveyor's observations. After that, the present Board of Admiralty selected three of the most talented of those educated at the School of
412
Naval Architecture, to meet as a Committee to examine scientifically the errors of construction of our former system of building, and to report the cause of their having been less efficient than those of other nations; and they were to submit to the Admiralty the lines they would propose for a ship of each class as the most perfect, according to the principles their science should dictate, and of which they were to superintend the building; and under this latter direction, the Espiegle brig had been built. But it was only fair to say, that that brig had not shown any great superiority; for in the trial she only stood third in the report—Sir W. Symonds' brig, the Flying Fish, having been placed as second; and the brig of Mr. White, a practical man (the Daring), proved the best and fastest of the whole. Mr. White had also done an extraordinary thing. One of the worst of the 42-gun frigates had been picked out. She had had her bow cut off. He had lengthened it, put a new bow on, and the report upon her trial was, that she had done wonders. He thought that he had stated enough to show that the Board of Admiralty had not been indifferent to the very important question of the construction of ships. They had done everything in their power to discover what was the best system of building; but at the same time they felt that they ought not to do anything to hurt the feelings of a man like Sir W. Symonds, who, on the admission of every one, had rendered great service to the Navy and to the country. They had made up their minds not to trust any single person with the building of the Navy; but they had not been in too great a haste to overturn what they had found established. If those large ships of which the gallant Officer had spoken—the Queen, the Albion, and others—turned out inferior, they had determined that those now on the stocks should be altered in conformity with another model. In answer to what the hon. Member for Montrose had said about the School for Naval Architecture, he might state that the present Board of Admiralty had brought them forward, and had given them high appointments as opportunities offered; and he would instance Mr. Fincham and Mr. Laing, as two who had been advanced to be master shipwrights, and the others filled the stations of master shipwrights and foremen of our yards. It was, therefore, unfair to insist that they had been thrown on one side. If the results of the present inquiry should justify it, there would

413
be no objection to re-establish some system of that description. The gallant Mover founded his proposal on the necessity for a Committee in order to ascertain what ought to be done; but his (Sir G. Cockburn's) strong impression was, that a Committee of the House of Commons was the very Worst tribunal that could be selected for the purpose. For himself, he could say that it was the bounden duty of the Admiralty Board thoroughly to investigate such matters; and if the House of Commons thought those now at the head of the Department incompetent to the duty, it had nothing to do but to remove the present occupants of office, and to place at the Board either the gallant Mover, or any other set of Gentlemen they might prefer. He was quite sure, let the Board of Admiralty consist of whom it would, that it was the only proper channel for the investigation of such subjects. So much for sailing ships. He would now advert to team-ships; and he could assure the gallant Officer that he was not more anxious on the question than all who were at present concerned in administering the naval affairs of the country. It was to be borne in mind that most of the steam-ships made the topic of observation had been, if not finished, contracted for before the present Ministers came into power. The first point they had ascertained was, that our steam-ships were under-powered, and that it was necessary to give them more power. It had been truly said, that steam-ships were not, and never could be, the main navy of the country; and the principle the present Admiralty had gone upon was this, to give them the heaviest shot and the greatest range. There had been no intention to put guns on the main deck of those steam-vessels in progress when they came into office; that deck was reserved for carrying troops, and they were armed on the upper deck with the heaviest description of guns they could bear, some of the largest guns carrying solid shot, which insured to them the greatest possible range. The great value and advantage of steam-ships of war, besides that of lowing line-of-battle ships in and out of action, would be to assist sailing ships or fleets with their guns of long range, choosing their position beyond the range of the guns of such sailing ships or fleets; but to enable them to do this, they ought not to have bluff bows, as recommended by the gallant Officer opposite, but must be made sharp and capable of going rapidly through the water; with which
414
view he (Sir G. Cockburn) did not think it would be advisable to overload them with guns, which, by rendering them so much deeper in the water, would, of course, impede their power of rapid movement. As to the Terrible, she being of larger size, had been constructed to carry heavy guns on her main deck, and she would fire three heavy guns on the line of keel forward, and two aft, besides her broadside guns of heavy calibre. Some iron steamships were now in course of construction, and it was made a sine qua non that the main deck should have power to carry two guns forward, and two aft. This, too, was to be accomplished without any increase of bluffness, for the bows were to be as fine as under the former construction. He admitted the guns on the main deck to be an improvement, but he did not think it indispensable. A force of this description would be of great importance along the line of our coast. He knew how many steamers France had, and he also knew how many steamers we had in this country; and though he hoped that he would not be asked to state the numbers, he could assure the House that England had a larger steam force than France had, despite of all that had been said to the contrary. He would not state the numbers to the House; but if he were asked by any hon. Member, he should be very happy to tell him, and prove that we were superior both in number and force. With regard to the remarks made by the gallant Officer relative to Sir Byam Martin and other respectable officers, he (Sir G. Cockburn) would not pay them so bad a compliment as to say one word in their defence, it being wholly unnecessary; but the gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier), must excuse him for saying, that, on certain subjects, he was rather too much in the habit of speaking loosely about others. As regarded the late trial cruise, his gallant Friend behind him would be able to speak for himself, and to defend his own arrangements. He only knew that the Board of Admiralty had been much obliged to him forgoing, and that he had perfectly satisfied them by the manner in which he had discharged his duty.
Captain Roussaid, the Navy, the Government, and the country, were indebted to the gallant Officer who had brought the subject forward. But he also considered the country indebted to those who had abolished the Navy Board; and as to the Naval School of Science—if its efficacy were to be estimated by a model he had

415
seen as a specimen of its productions, the sooner it was abolished the better. In his opinion the system which had from time immemorial been followed in our dockyards was pernicious. Earl St. Vincent had saved 1,000,000 l. or so per annum to the country at a stroke, by abolishing one part of the system—that through which treenails were often substituted for copper bolts, &c., practices by which many valuable vessels had been lost. The hon. Member had spoken of round sterns, and he (Captain Rous) remembered the years 1820 and 1822, when there was a mania for fortifying the stems of three-deckers. Between 1817 and 1823, he had commanded three brigs and a corvette; and he recollected telling his lamented brother-in-law, Sir H. Hotham, that there was not a single brig or corvette in the service capable of firing a stern chase gun, because it could not be fired clear of the port-sill. In fact, millions had been misspent in our dockyards, and it was hardly too much to say, that one-eighth of the National Debt had been incurred by building bad ships, which were either useless at sea, or had never been sent to sea at all. This system had been going on ever since 1815; and he only wished that the burden rested not on the nation, but on the shoulders of those who had caused the useless expenditure. He begged to remind the House that the Waterwitch had been proved in all the late trials to be a very fast vessel, and that nobody had been able to say one word against her. As one instance of the system that still reigned, he might mention, that when last year the Waterwitch required repairs, double the sum was stated to be necessary, for which the ship had originally been built; and unless this had been accidentally discovered by the builder, she would have been broken up as not worth repairing. It had been reported to him from a very good quarter, that some of the late trial ships had been built of such decayed timber, that they were not water-tight, and that one, after having been taken into dock, had had 500 tons of water pumped into her, in order to find out where she leaked. The effect must be to render the vessel unwholesome for the men, and to injure her sailing powers, by saturating her timbers. If he were allowed his own way, no Surveyor of the Navy should build a ship, but models should be sent in, and all encouragement given, to skill and ingenuity;
416
while the Surveyor, instead of entering into competition, should be one of the judges to ascertain which model ought to be preferred. If he wanted to construct a steamer, he would go to the builder of the Great Britain, or to Mr. Napier, as persons who had established their reputation in that line; not to the Surveyor of the Navy. The question raised by the Motion was, whether the ships built since 1835 were inferior or superior to those which had preceded them. He had no doubt whatever on the subject. In the course of his time he had commanded every species of ship which had been condemned; he had commanded a 14-gun brig, one of the corvettes, a donkey frigate, and others, and was therefore able to speak of their qualities. Not one of them was fit to go to sea as a man-of-war; but he admitted that those constructed by Sir W. Symonds were in many respects splendid vessels, but then they were a great deal larger, and totally different from former vessels of the same class. There was no doubt that great improvements had been made of late years as far as frigates were concerned. Having been in the Mediterranean, he had remarked what indeed every one who had been there must have remarked—that the best vessels that were built in the world, were the ships and brigs of the Greek Archipelago. Any one who saw them would say that they were built by Sir W. Symonds; but the fact was, that he took his model from those vessels. The Duke of Portland, one of the best men who ever lived, patronised him: he was allowed to build a brig in competition with other gentlemen. The brigs were tried, and Sir W. Symonds succeeded. But then he proceeded to build vessels without a flat floor, and immediately he did it, every man at the Admiralty said, "We have found out the philosopher's stone; Sir W. Symonds is building vessels without a flat floor;" the parts fitted each other like a Chinese puzzle, and it was said no further improvement could be made. Every one at the Admiralty Board gave an opinion in their favour; but there were admirals in the service who did not know one ship from another, and Lords of the Admiralty who could not distinguish a first-rate from a Newcastle collier. He very emphatically maintained the necessity of a flat floor, and insisted that every pound weight at the top of a vessel required a certain pro-

417
portion of a flat floor. If a vessel carried no guns she might do without a flat floor; but if she did carry guns it was impossible to raise a three-decker without a flat floor. Why, the Admiralty ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of it. He had commanded one of the 36-gun frigates, built by Sir W. Symonds, and he did his duty then, as he endeavoured always to do it in that House. He told the Admiralty then that she was a very magnificent ship; that she had many good points; that she could stand up under any weight of canvass; but, nevertheless, she had a great defect—she was very sharp under water, had a short bluff bow, and never was fit to meet a head sea. But if any Gentleman would only look at the Flying Fish, which was built the other day, and compare her with the Snake, which Sir W. Symonds built some time ago, he would say that they were not like the same thing. The Flying Fish was one of the wonders of the world; still they could not meet a head sea with a vessel having a short bluff bow; but when he commanded one of Her Majesty's ships, he found to his cost and great inconvenience, and by no means to his profit, that the Admiralty had so identified themselves with the Surveyor, and had ordered so many ships to be built by him—the Queen and half a dozen others—that if he had said one word to them, that such or such a vessel is a magnificent vessel, but she bas such or such a defect, it would have been considered a personal attack upon themselves. But what happened ten years afterwards? That he repeated what he told them then, and that they were more ready to believe him; but they left a most painful legacy to their successors. He trusted that what he said would not be considered as any attack upon them; but the Admiralty had been three years making up their minds whether the Queen was a fit ship to build three-deckers by or not. Now, if he had been ordered to go to the Mediterranean—to Malta for instance—and having made a short passage out, had received orders from the Admiralty to try the two ships, the Formidable and the Queen, as to their sailing qualities, he should have known that the eyes of the naval world were upon him; and if he had treated the orders the Admiralty with disrespect, and never made the trial, he should have been plain Mr. Rous, instead of Captain
418
Rous, for probably he should have been broken by a court-martial. But then again with respect to the steamers, which Sir W. Symonds had built, and which his friends declare as the finest in the world; no doubt when the Admiralty ordered him as Surveyor of the Navy, to build a certain number of steamers, he had done so; but if they had desired him to rebuild Westminster Abbey he would have done it too. Without any more knowledge of steam-vessels than he himself possessed, yet Sir W. Symonds was ready to enter into any expense in building them. But did he find fault with Sir W. Symonds?—although his steamers were failures, and Sir William had spent a million of money to very little purpose, yet he found no fault with him, but with the Admiralty who had employed him. It was not his fault, he was not brought up to it, he was not a scientific man; but the absurdity was picking out such a man to build steam-vessels. He must say a few words about the late trial of the brigs. It appeared to him that under Captain Corry everything was carried on in a fair and straight-forward manner, as would be the case when he commanded. They went to Lisbon; it came on to blow; what could they have done better, than with a pretty smart wind, to beat off the shore? They were then sailing under double-reefed topsails; it was the time, of all others, to make trial—but what they were about he could not tell; they let it slip and never made the trial until the weather became fine, so that it was no trial at all. When the wind was blowing fresh on the shore there was an excellent opportunity for trial in beating off the shore. He regretted the misfortune that had happened of the Admiralty taking three years to come to a decision; but, although it was upwards of three years since the Queen went to sea, still she had not been in a gale of wind; it seemed as if there had not been a gale for the last three years. Not having been exposed to bad weather they had not then been able to find out the qualities of these ships, and a change of Ministry might take place, and Sir W. Symonds might again come in, and be as much listened to as he was under the last Administration. All that he wanted was to get at the truth, and that when these ships went to sea on trial, they should be commanded by some seaman who would look for a gale of wind, and would find one, if that

419
be all, if he went 2,000 miles to get it. And with respect to the Surveyor, he hoped that office would be done away with—they wanted an active and intelligent man like Sir W. Symonds—for no man was more active or intelligent than he—who would be constantly going round from one dockyard to another, observing what went on, so as to save the lavish expenditure which was annually thrown away in these dockyards. In that way they might find him exceedingly useful, as long as he did not lay down lines and build ships: let him examine other men's lines and other men's models, not his own, and he (Captain Rous) was sure that Sir W. Symonds would be benefited if that suggestion were carried into execution. Whether the Motion were acceded to or not, it would be of great benefit and use, because it proved, in the first place, that naval affairs at last had excited the attention of the House of Commons. But he confessed that he alluded to the supporters of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier), on the other side, in preference to his own—there was a kinder feeling towards the Navy on that side than on his own—and he always looked to them as the peculiar friends of the Navy, and who always stuck up for it. He hoped, then, that all things would in future be conducted on a sounder footing. He was sorry if he had said anything that had hurt the feelings of any one, for he always spoke warmly, and never minded what he said: he cared for nothing when he was speaking upon public matters. He had given up the command of the Pique because he had spoken the truth at the Admiralty; he had resigned the command because he did not care what happened to him as long as he gave his honest opinion as to that ship; he had done so, and nine years afterwards the facts had corroborated what he had stated over and over again. Any man who pretended to be a sailor, must see that it was impossible to build a proper three-decker without a flat floor and a long bow to meet the sea, and if any one could build them upon straight lines, and with a short bow, he hoped they would be considered not fit to serve Her Majesty in the Navy.
Mr. C. Woodwas sorry that the hon. and gallant Officer who had just sat down thought he had any reason to complain of the Board of Admiralty with which he (Mr. C. Wood) had been connected. He
420
certainly had no right to complain of inattention on the part of that Board to naval affairs. With regard to the Motion, he (Mr. C. Wood) was persuaded that it would be highly inexpedient to institute an inquiry by any other body than the Members of the Executive Department. A Committee of the House of Commons would not even understand the language employed by the witnesses; for what could Members in general know of flat floors, of long or bluff bows, of portsills, and other terms of which the hon. and gallant Officer had been liberal? He admitted, that if a case of great grievance or abuse were made out upon reasonable or probable grounds, it might be the duty of the House to institute an investigation. Such, however, was not the fact. Now, what was it the hon. and gallant Officer moved for? An inquiry into the mode in which ships had been constructed since the year 1835, and whether there was any improvement whatever on the old system. That implied, of course, a censure on the manner in which the ships had been built since that time. He would not go into the question of the Navy Board or the School for Naval Architecture; but he perfectly agreed with the right hon. and gallant Officer, that it was a great service to the country, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had put an end to that establishment, and he believed that the substitution of the present Board was a great improvement. The hon. and gallant Officer began with the state of the Navy when he first entered it, from the year 1800 to 1830, and there was no one single class of ships, except the 120-gun ships, that he had not condemned. As to the 80-gun ships, the greatest possible benefit was done by their being given up in 1830 by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As to the 74-gun ships, they were called the "Forty Thieves." The 36-gun frigates were described as totally useless. [Sir C. Napier: That's a mistake. I said the 32's.] Well then, the 32-gun frigates were perfectly useless—the 28-gun frigates were donkeys—[Sir C. Napier: Quite true.] The 16-gun sloops were also useless. [Sir C. Napier: No.] And at last he came to what he called the "patent-coffins"—the 10-gun brigs—and those he utterly condemned; in fact, one and all, from the highest to the lowest, except the three-deckers, came within his condemnation. [Sir C. Napier:

421
It's quite a mistake.] He took down the words at the time, and every class of ships which the hon. and gallant Officer enumerated, ending with the year 1830, he had condemned, except the 120-gun ships. He condemned a Navy Board in the gross, expressing his satisfaction that it was entirety broken up. Now let them see what the hon. and gallant Officer said of the ships that had been built since the time he had mentioned. Nothing could be fairer than the mode in which the gallant Officer dealt out his censures; his condemnation was indiscriminate, but it did not bear out his Motion. After all, the great object of attack seemed to be the 16-gun brigs constructed by Sir W. Symonds. [The hon. Member read a letter from an Officer in one of the trial squadrons, reporting in favour of the ships built by Sir W. Symonds since 1835.] The hon. Gentleman proceeded to defend the construction of the Pique, and went on to state, that when the late Board of Admiralty left office, two ships only were laid down, both of which answered exceedingly well. As to Sir W. Symonds, he would only say that there was a considerable difference between his last ships and those which he had previously built, and he believed him not to be bigoted to any opinion of his own, but that he was always ready to adopt any suggestion calculated to improve the service. He was most ready to bear his testimony to the seal with which that Officer had executed his duties, and the extreme anxiety which he had always manifested to do that which he thought best for the interest of the Navy. Now, he came to the Queen; the hon. and gallant Officer had said, that six vessels were laid down, by order of the late Board, upon the same principle, before the Queen was tried; that, however, was not so, for two only were ordered, one of which was built. The Queen was built in 1839, and when the late Board went out of office in that year, the Royal Frederick was building. So far as the document to which he had referred went, the Report was exceedingly favourable to the Queen. The official documents were in favour of that ship, and when the Board of Admiralty ordered four other vessels of the same character to be laid down, he thought they were justified in so doing by the official Reports which they had received. Next, as to the Albion: that vessel, perhaps, had not had a fair trial, but the
422
officers who tried her, as it appeared by their Report, were very confident of the result. The Report said, that she was a very still ship and sailed better than any other in the squadron. The hon. and gallant Officer had read a favourable report of the 110-gun ship, so long as she remained in the Mediterranean, and they had heard a favourable report of the 90-gun ship from the hon. and gallant Officer opposite; and having, in fact, read the most favourable Reports of every class of ships since 1835, and condemned every ship built before that period, the hon. and gallant Officer now called upon the House to condemn the Board of Admiralty for the ships built since 1835. The Thunderer was not Sir William Symonds' ship. They had been led to suppose by the hon. and gallant Officer that they were wasting the public money by building ships on Sir William Symonds' principle when they ought to have built them on some other principle. The injustice of such an observation would be understood when he stated that the Thunderer cost 72,000 l., the Vanguard 62,000 l. and the Collingwood 59,000 l. thus showing a saving of 13,000 l. on the building of the Collingwood as compared to the Thunderer by adopting Sir W. Symonds' plan. The Rodney, to which the hon. and gallant Officer had referred, had cost 76,000 l., instead of 67,000 l. He really could not understand upon what earthly ground the hon. and gallant Officer could support his Motion. He asked the House to express an opinion, that the public money had been thrown away by the system which had been pursued in building ships within the last few years, whilst he had read Reports from very competent authorities approving of such ships, and it appeared that the cost of building them had been reduced. Now, as to steamers, he did not think it possible that anybody could give a clear and decided opinion upon the effect of steam navigation, and what would be the best mode of constructing and arming steam vessels. He was very glad to find that steamers upon a large scale were to be constructed. What the result would be he would not attempt to predict. He had no doubt but that the experiment of building steamers for the Navy would be carried on with the greatest anxiety to discover the best plan which could be adopted, and that no expense would be spared to make them useful in case of any future war; he, for one, was quite content to

423
leave this matter in the hands of the present Board of Admiralty.
Admiral Bowleswished to observe, in reply to the charge of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, that if he did not find a gale of wind it was no fault of his, and that to go in search of one was not the object with which he went out. His duty was to try all ships under his charge, and not to run the risk of damaging them to the extent, perhaps, of several thousand pounds, without any earthly benefit. He could not but express his surprise, at hearing sailors, and especially the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone, talk as they did of the Albion, and argue that, because she had some defects she ought to be tried against a three-decker. He had tried her as much as it was necessary for him to do in order to test her speed and strength, with both of which he was satisfied. It was said that she rolled so much as to excite particular attention to that defect. Now, he did not think she would be found to roll a bit more than other vessels of the same size. It was well known that small vessels rolled more than large ones—that a two-decker would roll more than a three-decker; and he coincided quite with the Officer of that vessel, who visited him on board the Caledonia in the Bay of Biscay, that she was steadier than others of her class. As for her not being able to fight her guns, that was a charge which he did not believe, and which he was sure would be found on further experiment not to be true. With respect to the question of naval architecture he agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer that the former system of naval architecture was extremely defective. He would willingly make the hon. and gallant Officer a present of all the old ships, for he was glad to find that improvements had began, and he looked forward to every year for increased improvements. He thought that Sir W. Symonds was entitled to great credit for not having obstinately adhered to any part of his system when he found that it was objectionable. He thought it was highly creditable to Sir W. Symonds that he was ready to give all due attention to any suggestions made to him; and he was sure that the new ships would be found unobjectionable. There was one other point to which he begged the attention of the House for a moment. He felt that there was a debt of gratitude due to those noblemen and gentlemen who had estab-
424
lished the Yacht Club, which had attached so many to that truly British amusement of yacht sailing, and exerted an influence upon society to which might be attributed a great many of those improvements in naval architecture so much to be rejoiced at. There were two men in particular whose names were especially entitled to their respect—he meant the late Lord Vernon, who unhappily had not lived to witness the success of these improvements, and the Duke of Portland. Lord Vernon gave his personal guarantee to the Admiralty, before Sir W. Symonds was allowed to build his first ship the Columbine, that if it failed he (Lord Vernon) would pay the whole expense, amounting to 10,000 l. The Duke of Portland actually paid 8,790 l. for the building of the Pantaloon, with no other object than to promote and improve the science of naval architecture. With regard to Sir W. Symonds, his opinion was, that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, never did a greater service to the country than by appointing him to the office which he now filled with so much credit, and from which, notwithstanding the calumnies that might assail him, he would retire, he felt convinced, with the proud satisfaction of having contributed more than any other officer in the British Navy to the improvement of the service. He considered him, therefore justly entitled to the thanks of that House.
Captain Pechellsaid, that the late Secretary of the Admiralty had acted most unfairly towards his hon. and gallant Friend, by endeavouring to put a misconstruction upon the views which he had expressed to the House. If he understood the object of his hon. and gallant Friend, it was this—he complained that the Board of Admiralty had been going on in the construction of vessels, without giving them a sufficient trial; that immediately upon being satisfied with one particular vessel, they, without sufficient experience, laid down half-a-dozen of the same description. If it was attempted to be shown that the present Surveyor of the Navy had involved the country in unnecessary expense, and incumbered the service with improper ships, then he must differ from his hon. Friends, for he was of the contrary opinion, believing as he did, that no person deserved more credit than the present Surveyor of the Navy. He was very happy to find that the gallant Admiral oppo-

425
site, after experiencing the breezes of the Mediterranean, had taken his seat in that House, and was prepared to give them any information which they might require as to the experimental cruise of the squadron which he had commanded. He was glad when he found the hon. and gallant Admiral had been selected to take the command of such an expedition, because he knew that they should have a faithful account from him; and it was almost to be regretted that it was thought necessary to take one of the Lords in Waiting from his duties to asssume the command of one of the ships of the experimental squadron. When they saw the contradictory reports and opinions as to the capabilities of one of those noble ships, the Queen, he thought there were strong grounds for inquiry. The public were not satisfied, neither would they be, unless the Committee which the hon. and gallant Member sought for was granted. They had tried an experiment by altering one of the old frigates, with the view of making them more like the modern vessels; and they had then sent her on the Irish station, where she lay in the Shannon for nine months to aid the civil power to keep all quiet during the collection of the Poor Rates. Then, when they came to steam-vessels, it appeared that they had not one in the Navy furnished with the Archimedean screw. They had a vessel named the Rattler, which he had called the attention of the Admiralty to, and upon the subject of which he had corresponded with a gentleman who was then the Secretary of the Admiralty, but who had since quitted that department for one where he (Captain Pechell) feared he would not be so useful—he meant the late Member for Wiltshire. The nature of the correspondence which he had had with that gentleman, was as to testing the qualities of the Archimedean screw, and he was assured that it would be done; but two years had since elapsed, and that vessel was not yet at sea. [Sir George Cockburn: She is.] He did not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman meant by her being at sea, for she was now in Portsmouth harbour, and had only been tried in the Thames. When he was at Portsmouth, and saw the arrival of Her Majesty from France, attended by the squadron of the Prince de Joinville, he observed a vessel amongst them to which the Archimedean screw had been applied,
426
and she was the admiration of all who saw her—she, in fact, captivated everybody. He did not fail to make a representation to those who were interested in the Board of Admiralty, that he hoped it would not be long, after the experiment had been tested by the French, before they would relieve the steamers now in the service of those monstrous and unsightly incumbrances, the paddle-boxes, which were a nuisance to every vessel that had them; and they had then declared that, if they only had time, it would be their wish to bring the Archimedean screw into notice, and it would not be long before it would be applied to the Rattler, and she would be at sea. That was nearly two years ago, and they had not heard of the merits of that vessel since; and were consequently unable to make use of those advantages which they might have been in possession of six years ago. The hon. and gallant Admiral had, he believed a sincere desire to extend competition. Captain Hendry had submitted to him models of an 80 gun ship, and a steamer, exactly on the principle of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, being able to carry great weights on a mere flat floor; and he thought the models which he had seen were worthy of the attention of the Admiralty. But what would be the use of all those fine vessels which were in contemplation, and of those which he would admit they now possessed? No one had suffered more than he had (and the hon. and gallant Admiral knew it, for he had served under the gallant Admiral) from being on board vessels that could not sail: he had lost opportunity and lost prize-money. But when they had all these fine vessels, what advantage would it be to this country, if, when an opportunity arose, they should, as in the case which had occurred within the last few months, have only a small sloop to defend their foreign possessions? The station of Tahiti was left in charge of a small vessel of the size of a sloop of war. What was the use of having these large vessels, if the honour and dignity of this country were to be risked by maintaining in the Pacific a vessel which was obliged to remain in a passive state, and render obedience to the larger vessels of a neighbouring Power which were there? The necessity had before been urged of keeping a stout frigate in the China seas and the Pacific. What, then, he repeated, was the use of building such magnificent

427
ships if when they were wanted they were not forthcoming? That was a melancholy condition, and he verily believed the correspondence which had been laid on the Table a few days ago would never have been required, if they had had one or two stout frigates lying at Tahiti, instead of the miserable vessel which, from unforeseen circumstances, was unfortunately placed there. Whatever might be the result of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion, it would have this advantage, that public attention would be drawn to the state of the Navy. He only hoped, when they were called upon to vote a larger grant for the purposes of the Navy, they would not assent to it, unless they had a guarantee that steam frigates should be properly constructed; that they should no longer call a vessel a steam frigate unless she was capable of having a broadside. She must have a gun-deck, and not merely guns on the upper part. If they called upon them—the representatives of populous districts—to increase the Navy Estimates, their constituents would be very little inclined to part with more of their money and continue the Income Tax for such a purpose as was proposed, unless the contemplated steam frigates were of the character which he had described. He hoped the Board of Admiralty would well consider the subject, and that the steam-vessels which they intended to build would be a great improvement upon those which were now in Her Majesty's service.
Mr. Corrysaid, that he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone, not only because he thought it would be difficult to convince any body of men less qualified than a Committee of the House of Commons to form a just opinion on the subject matter which he proposed to refer to it, but also because he could not consider the adoption of the Motion in any other light than as an indirect vote of censure on the Board of Admiralty, of which they were quite undeserving; for there was no branch of their public duties to which they had devoted more attention than the improvement of ships. When the present Administration entered upon office, they found nineteen ships of the line building, or ordered to be built, the whole upon the lines of the Surveyor of the Navy. If, therefore, they had hesitated to proceed with these ships, they must have abandoned altogether the building of the ships
428
of the line in course of construction in the dockyards; and how could they have justified such a proceeding? It was true, that at that time, only one of the Surveyor's ships had been at sea—the Vanguard; but he held in his hand the highest testimonials as to her capabilities. In July, 1836, the hon. Captain D. P. Bouverie reported that
"On all occasions, her working was admirable, and surpassed our fullest expectations; and I have no doubt that she will prove herself to possess every good quality, and that she is a perfect man-of-war."
Captain Martin of the Caledonia said:—
"The Vanguard hauled out of the line just like a cutter, and went away to windward of the whole squadron, and was six miles on our weather beam in three hours and a-half."
He was in possession of many other Reports favourable to the qualities of the Vanguard, but it was unnecessary that he should occupy the time of the House by reading them, for he believed it was universally admitted that she was a most excellent man-of-war. Shortly after the present Ministry came into office, the Queen was commissioned and sent to sea, and instructions were given that her qualities should be tested. She was tried on several occasions, and on the 5th of June 1842, Sir Edward Owen wrote,—
"I have called for the Reports of the qualities of the several ships, and hope to have them for enclosure in this letter. In the mean time, I may say, that so far as my own observations went, no one of the ships, except the Vanguard, could compete with Her Majesty's ship the Queen, whether in easiness of motion or in sailing. She does not so well answer under low sail, but bears pressing with her canvass, and answers to it by her power. I have no difficulty in pronouncing the Queen a ship superior to all three-deckers, and to most of those with two decks."
Captain Rich, of the Calcutta, also wrote on the 6th of June, 1842:—
"With respect to the comparison between this ship and the Queen, there can be no doubt in my opinion as to the superiority of the latter in every point, namely, in sailing, working, stability, and weatherly qualities."
This opinion, he considered the more valuable as being given by the commander of a vessel which was placed in competition with the Queen; and the House was well aware of the pride which naval officers generally felt in the qualities of their own ships. He had in his possession

429
various other Reports in which equally favourable opinions were expressed of the Queen. And on the other hand, the Admiralty had no Reports which would have justified them in suspending the building of the other vessels which were then in course of construction by the Surveyor. Subsequently, however, when a squadron was sent out commanded by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him, and when the result of the cruise was to raise doubts as to the qualities of the Queen, the Admiralty did not wait to be reminded of their duty, either by the gallant Commodore, or by a Committee of this House, but they at once ordered the construction of ships of the Queen class and of the Albion class to be suspended, until their qualities should be further tested; and he hoped that, in the ensuing spring, ample opportunity would be afforded for ascertaining the powers and qualities of those ships. When, however, so much had been said about the ships built by the Surveyor of the Navy, it should be recollected that the Admiralty did not confine themselves to ships built by that Officer. The Admiralty had ordered sixty-eight ships to be built during the course of the three years they had been in office—of these twenty-nine were to be constructed by the Surveyor of the Navy, and thirty-nine by other naval architects. Of these four were ships-of-the-line, not by the Surveyor of the Navy; six frigates, namely, five of 50, and one of 36 guns, not by the Surveyor of the Navy; six smaller vessels not by the Surveyor of the Navy; and no less than twenty-three steam-ships, not by the Surveyor of the Navy; it was obvious, therefore, that the Admiralty had shown every disposition to give trials to ships by other builders. Among other vessels which were constructed not by the Surveyor of the Navy, were four of the brigs composing the late experimental squadron, which afforded satisfactory proof that the experiments they had mane were not ill-considered, and answered one of the questions which the gallant Commodore proposed to refer to a Committee—namely, whether ships of modern, were an improvement on those of old construction—for the whole of the new brigs proved themselves on that occasion to be decidedly superior on all points of sailing to the Cruiser, one of the best of the class which the gallant Commodore stated in his speech to be almost the only good class of vessels ever built by the Navy Board. But our steam vessels were the especial object of the censure of the
430
gallant Commodore, who had stated that there was not one steam vessel in the service which deserved the character of a man-of-war. It might be very presumptuous in him to differ on such a subject from the gallant Commodore; but he must observe that the opinion of naval men with respect to it were by no means unanimous, and there was no subject on which a greater difference of opinion existed than among naval men with respect to naval architecture. To illustrate this he would contrast the opinion entertained of our steamers by a French Admiral with that of the gallant Commodore. The illustrious Admiral to whom he alluded was the author of a paper which appeared last year, in which the following passage occurred:—
"When the Gorgon and Cyclops sailed from the ports of England, we were struck with their force as ships of war, as well as with their admirable qualities as sea boats; and we therefore evinced a laudable anxiety to procure designs and other data required for the reinforcement of our navy with vessels of a similar description. The attempt proved a complete failure, and there are not now in the whole French navy six steam-vessels that can be compared with those in the English navy. To form a notion of the actual force of this steam navy (the English), it is necessary to have observed how formidable is its armament, and with what care and skilful foresight everything has been studied. The English war-steamers have not been built and warranted good for all descriptions of service indiscriminately. In building them there has been but one thought, one object—war. They unite great speed and a powerful armament, with vast accommodation for troops."
He did not for a moment mean to say that our steam vessels were perfect, but great improvements had been made in their construction within the last few years, and almost every steamer that was launched was an improvement on the one which preceded her. The gallant Officer, the Member for Brighton, had found fault with the Admiralty for having kept the Rattler for two years at Woolwich. Now this had been done advisedly, for the purpose of carrying on a series of experiments as to the adaptation of the screw to steam vessels. If these experiments, the result of which had been to increase the speed of the Rattler from about 7½ to nearly 10 knots an hour, had not been carried on to the extent to which they had, he doubted very much whether they would have succeeded in making the screw generally applicable; whereas it was now determined

431
to apply it to the whole of the steam vessels ordered to be built in the ensuing financial year. Therefore, so far from the Admiralty deserving censure for keeping the Rattler at Woolwich, they were entitled to praise for carrying on these experiments on board that vessel. As for the complaint of another gallant Officer with reference to the Daring, it was true that that vessel was in a leaky state; but he felt it due to the officers of Portsmouth vard, where that vessel was built, to state that the Admiralty had no reason for suspecting that timber of inferior quality had intentionally been used in her construction. He would not take up more of the time of the House than to observe, that the construction of ships of war might safely be left in the hands of those who were responsible for the administration of the affairs of the Navy, and who were far better qualified to discuss the subject than any Committee that could be selected.
Captain Harrissaid, that the difference of opinion on the subject of naval architecture was not confined to naval men, but seemed also to have extended to the editors of newspapers. He thought that the gallant Admiral could not do better than enable those editors to form their opinions of the respective merits of those vessels by providing them with berths in the next experimental squadron. The editor of the Times might be accommodated on board the Daring. The editor of the Morning Chronicle might be provided with a berth on board the Mutine, and he dared say that the editor of Punch would find himself quite at home on board of the Pantaloon. With respect to the Motion of the gallant Commodore, he did not think that he would attain his object in the way he proposed. But looking to the state of naval architecture, and to the improvements in steam navigation, he thought that great advantage would be derived from the appointment of a Commission, to consist of scientific men—good mechanics—good engineers, and good naval architects—to investigate the whole subject. Let the Surveyor of the Navy be on that board, and let them receive communications from all parts of the world as to all well-sustained improvements; and he thought that great advantage would be derived from a Commission of that kind. Everything appeared to him to be given up to sailing. Even proper stowage of the boats was sacrificed, and he was convinced that many valuable lives had been lost for want of quarter boats in the new flush
432
ships; indeed, he saw an instance of the kind on board the Columbine, when he had the honour of sailing, under Sir Thomas Hardy; a man fell overboard and was drowned, who might have been saved, had that sloop been fitted with quarter boats. The poop also, was sacrificed, which was a most important part of the vessel; and he remembered sailing round Cape Horn during the equinox in a sloop of war, which would not have weathered the tremendous sea she encountered, or have been able to scud with safety, had it not been for the protection which the poop afforded her. With respect to the Surveyor's frigates, though he did not complain of their building lines, he was reminded of one most material fault, that of not proportioning the quantity of metal to the timbers of which the ship was built. First, the 36-gun frigate, which was the Surveyor's crack class. In the event of a war with a great naval power, after the first brush and general action, we should expect to compel our enemy to keep his own shores, and the larger vessels would be chiefly occupied in blockading, but not so the frigates, the true chivalry of the seas, who would be roaming on the ocean for the protection of British commerce, and on whom chiefly would fall the task of maintaining the honour of the British flag. It was most important, therefore, that these vessels should be fitted up in the most efficient manner for the hour of actual conflict. Now compare the Pique with the Winchester. The Pique, of the new class, was 1,636 tons burden, carrying thirty-six guns, 32-pounders. The Winchester 1,487 tons, with fifty-two guns, not of the same weight, but throwing the same shot. Now every hon. Gentleman who would refer to our naval history, would perceive that after our frigates once got alongside their enemy, the battle seldom lasted an hour; and for so short a time the fifty-two guns of the Winchester would tell more effectively on her opponent than the thirty-six guns of the Pique. The same observation applies to the modern twenty-six-gun class of frigates. Take the Carysfort, with twenty-six guns, 32-pounders. Her tonnage was 911, whereas the Belvidera, of forty-two guns, one of the old class, was but 946 tons, being only thirty-five tons difference but having sixteen more guns. This alteration first took place in consequence of the class of vessels we were called on to compete with during the American war, and he admitted that some

433
alternation was necessary, but he did not think it ought to be carried to the present extreme. He believed one of the Lords of Admiralty had expressed himself favourable to the adoption of the screw in steam-vessels, but he was also of opinion that the greater space now given in the orlop deck, in consequence of the adoption of chain cables, would enable them to apply the screw with great advantage to line-of-battle ships, as they would now have ample room for the machinery; and, though he did not expect a greater propelling power than four or five knots an hour, yet that would be of the greatest value, as all who were acquainted with the details of the battle of Trafalgar would readily admit. Doubtless it might be said, if we adopted the plan, the French and other Powers would adopt it also. All would then depend on the skill and nerve of the officers in command, and he hoped the British officers would do their duty. He would not sit down without expressing his great satisfaction at the efforts which the Admiralty had for some time past been making to increase the naval force of this country, and particularly our steam power. The hon. and gallant Member concluded, by paying a high compliment to the late Secretary of the Admiralty, and by expressing his confidence that his successor would follow in his footsteps.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that hon. Members on both sides of the House had expressed their gratitude to his hon. and gallant Friend for bringing forward this Motion, which entitled him to the gratitude of that House and of the country. He was quite certain that the labours of the hon. and gallant Commodore on that, as well as on other occasions, had eminently entitled him to the gratitude of the country, which, beyond a doubt, he would carry with him. The country would be deeply grateful to his hon. and gallant Friend for bringing forward this subject. True, it was not the first time that it had been before that House; but the discussions had formerly been conducted in such a manner that no good had resulted from them, and out of doors it was thought that, however they might fight when they were in earnest, in that House all was "sham fighting." It was time now that a subject of this magnitude should be taken up seriously; it was one on which the public felt the greatest interest, for the naval service was the loved, the favourite, the honoured service of this country, and no sum of money
434
could be voted in that House to which the public would object, provided that it were to maintain that service. In it they beheld the bulwark of their country, and they had ever been anxious to support it in a manner commensurate with the great interests involved. The gallant Commodore in the course of his speech had condemned a great many ships in his own peculiar and most forcible manner. In his opinion, one ship had received a great many shots in her hull,—he meant that old ship "The Admiralty," and he did not think that she would readily recover the damage which she had received unless those who manned her would take upon themselves to inquire how it was that so much money had been wasted in the dockyards of this country in the building of ships that were absolutely unfit for service. He had listened with the greatest surprise to the charge (and he should never forget it) which the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Captain Rous) had brought against the dockyards. The hon. and gallant Captain said, that he believed ships had been built in those dockyards which had cost one-tenth, ay, even one-eighth of the national debt, and which had never gone and were never fit to go to sea. That was the declaration of the hon. and gallant Captain, who had obtained for himself great renown in the naval service, and whose name was respected wherever it was known. That hon. and gallant Officer always spoke his mind freely in that House, and every one had the advantage of understanding what he meant when he did address the House. With regard to the Committee for which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Marylebone had moved, he thought that the appointment of such a Committee would not be suitable to the emergency that existed; for he did not believe, if a Committee were appointed, that it would be possible for it to arrive at any practical result. Unless they selected Naval Officers, whom could they get to understand the subject under investigation? If they had Naval Officers, most likely they would be jealous of one another, and in all probability there would be such serious conflicts, and such firing of broadsides from one side of the Table to the other, as were never known in that House before. But then the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster had told them that as for the Lords of the Admiralty, why they scarcely knew one ship from another; and he said it in such a manner as to indicate to him (Mr. Wakley) that there were some of

435
them who scarcely knew a three-decker from a Newcastle collier. If that were the position of the Lords of the Admiralty, he really did not think that promiscuous Members of that House were likely to be in a much more enlightened state with regard to naval architecture, or naval capabilities and resources. He really did think, therefore, that the appointment of a Committee would be useless. But was there to be no inquiry? The right hon. Gentleman opposite who had addressed the House (Captain Corry), and who had lately been promoted from being a Lord of the Admiralty to be Secretary—by the bye he (Mr. Wakley) did not understand such promotion as that from a Lord to a Secretary,—but the right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, leave it to us; leave it to us; we'll make it all right." But he thought that they had left it to them too long, and leaving it to them had resulted in all the mischiefs and evils that had been complained of. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood) said, "Leave it to the Admiralty," too; but the hon. Member—why he had been Secretary to the Admiralty, and Secretaries made a point of helping one another. They said, "You help us when we're attacked, and, as your time must some day come, we'll help you then." Not in so many words, perhaps; but there was an implied engagement, perfectly well understood between the interested parties, ex-Secretary on one side, and Secretary on the other side. The question, however, was of too much importance to be got rid of in that way; for he felt confident after the statements of Officers in that House of so much renown, whose names were identified with the honour and glory of their country, and who had declared that their ships were built in such an outrageously bad manner as to be a disgrace to the nation—after those statements from such gallant and distinguished men, he did say that the people of England would require at their hands a complete and searching investigation. Then, if that investigation were not to be made by a Committee, how was it to be made? Would Government consent to a Commission? No; all was to be left to the Admiralty. A gallant Officer had alluded to the experiments that had been made by Sir W. Symonds: but he had omitted to say that the ships that went out on those trials had not their full complement of stores and provisions, and, consequently, that they did not draw so much water as if they had been on actual service,
436
when they would require full complements both of men and stores: those experiments, then, it must be evident to every one, could not be regarded as fair. The right hon. and gallant Officer, the Member for Ripon (Sir G. Cockburn), a Lord of the Admiralty, had addressed the House at some length with regard to war steamers; and he confessed that he had never heard before that they were to go to such enormous expenses in building steamers that they might carry four guns, two at the bows, and two at the stern; was that really the case? Because, if they were to carry no more guns than four, of what earthly utility could they be, if they encountered a squadron of steamers with broadsides? A quotation had been made from the pamphlet of a foreign Admiral, to prove that our Steam Navy was in an effective and powerful condition; but did the right hon. Gentleman who read that extract know that the object of that foreign Admiral being to create a great steam power in his own country, it was his policy to overrate as much as possible the force of a country with which it was possible, in the case of war, his own country might have to contend. The foreign Prince looked through the wrong end of the telescope in order to make our power appear to his country even as small as possible. He meant that he looked through the right side of the telescope to make our power appear as small as possible. [Cries of "Large, large. No; small—small."] Really, they were very merry; but they were mistaken, and he was correct. The Prince for his own sake wished to ascertain our real dimensions, but he got his countrymen to view us through the telescope, in order that our power might appear to them as small as possible. [Renewed Laughter.] Really, after all, they were right. He was wrong; he meant as large as possible. It was, therefore, vain to rely on such testimony; it was our duty to see that our Navy was put into the most perfect and efficient state, and to put a stop to those monstrous practices, and the recurrence of those monstrous evils which had been so forcibly described. He admitted that we were now on the road to improvement, but we moved far too slowly in it; and he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that, whilst all other countries were eagerly availing themselves of the aid of science, we neglected it far too much, and that the re-establishment of the School of Naval Architecture in this country was most de-

437
sirable The Navy was evidently not in the condition in which it ought to be, considering the situation of this country. A searching inquiry was requisite, and whilst he asked his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion for a Committee, he would recommend him to more an Address to Her Majesty, that a Commission might be appointed by the Crown to conduct such an inquiry; and for the proper construction of Such a Commission and due fulfilment of its duties, the Executive Government would be responsible.
Sir Charles Napierhad repeatedly heard of such and such persons being described as good debaters, but he had never heard a good debater who had indulged in perverting language. The hon. Member for Halifax had done so with regard to him. The hon. Member had said, that he had taken down his words. The hon. Member had asserted, that he (Sir C. Napier) had Condemned all the ships built by the present Surveyor of the Navy, except the last class of three-deckers and the 18-gun brigs. Now he distinctly denied that he had said anything of the kind. He had said that all the three-deckers—and he excluded the 98's—were good. That all the 74's were good, except the "Forty Thieves." He had said that the 50's, or two-deckers, were useless, and that the 32 and the 28-gun frigates were good for nothing. He also said, that the 28-gun donkeys were good for nothing, and that the 10-gun brigs were good for nothing. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Halifax should presume to put words into his mouth which he declared upon his honour he did not use. The hon. Gentleman stated, that he had praised the 16-gun brigs, and the 56-gun frigates, the Vanguard and the Vernon; but did he suppose that he (Commodore Napier) was not capable of giving Sir W. Symonds praise for the good which he had effected, because he had found fault with Other matters. It never was his intention not to accord the fullest praise to that Gentleman whenever he thought him entitled to it. The hon. Gentleman had read a letter which he had received from the master of the Vanguard, stating that it was quite absurd to suppose that he had struck down two guns in order that Jack might have a ball-room in the gallery. It was quite impossible that any naval man could do anything of the kind; and the hon. Gentleman should have
438
known that before he had thought it necessary to make such a communication. The hon. Gentleman next said, that when he (Commodore Napier) had spoken of the expense of the Rodney, he had perverted the amount by transposing 67,000 l. into 76,000 l. He wished the hon. Gentleman would, whenever he brought such charges against him, be more accurate in stating what he did say. He had still the notes before him from which he had stated the amount, and he found in it the expense of the Rodney put down at 76,448 l. The right hon. and gallant Admiral at the head of the Admiralty had also misunderstood him. The gallant Admiral stated that he had supposed that the vessels called the "Forty Thieves" were in good condition, and that he had blamed the Admiralty for cutting them down. So far from having done so, he was only attaching blame to those who had left them so long in their original state. The right hon. and gallant Admiral was perfectly right in cutting them down, as he had, by doing so, succeeded in making very good frigates of them. He had certainly found fault with the Queen and the Albion, and on this subject he should repeat that he considered the trial that had taken place of the Queen was no trial. In the return there was not a favourable thing of her said. The gallant Admiral said these matters were open to competition; but if they were, where, he asked, was there an instance of it? Suppose that any one individual had the manufacture of all the silk used in the kingdom, and that another individual had the manufacture of all the cotton in the country, would any one tell him that these manufactures would, under such circumstances, have ever arrived at the perfection to which they were now brought? In the same manner, if the Navy Department had been open to general competition for a number of years past, he was convinced that hundreds of thousands of pounds would have been saved to the country. From the nature of the Board it was impossible but that some neglect or mismanagement should take place. The gallant Admiral himself could not possibly attend to all the duties that devolved upon him. He had enough to do before the labour of the Navy Board attached to him, and he had now also got the steam department to attend to. So that, in fact, if he could cut himself into pieces it would be impossible for him to have a part every-

439
where he was required. There was one other subject on which he wished to offer a few remarks. He alluded to the Queen's Yacht. He believed it was now generally known that that steamer would not steer within eight points of what should be her proper course, and yet her machinery cost a sum of 40,000 l., according to the account furnished by the Admiralty. It was well known that that Yacht, at the time Her Majesty embarked in her, was perfectly and completely unsafe. She could not be relied on to go within eight points of her course, according to the statement of her own captain. They were also, he was informed, unable to go more than six knots an hour during the night, because her crew could not be accountable for her machinery. He was not quite certain as to the precise distance, but he thought it was six or eight knots an hour, and he believed it was the former number.
Sir George Cockburnsaid, it was considered by the Admiralty wrong for any vessels to proceed quicker than eight knots an hour during the night while navigating the North Sea, as it was generally covered with colliers, and they had accordingly issued orders to that effect.
Sir Charles Napiercontinued to say, that the same operation which had been performed on the Queen ought also to have been tried on the Royal Yacht, in order to endeavour to increase her speed. He also hoped that Her Majesty would not again venture on board her yacht, until it was first ascertained that she would answer her helm. He also wished to explain, that he had never said steamers ought to be made for going as fast as they possibly could. On the contrary, he stated that he thought they should be well armed, and that speed should not be their only qualification. If a man-of-war came up to an enemy, and found that she was not able to fight her, then it was her duty to get away as fast as she could, and, therefore, speed was most desirable, but it was not, he repeated, the only point to be considered. No attempt had been made to show that all that he had stated about steam-vessels was not the fact, and the Admiralty knew, as well as he did, in their hearts that some of the steam-vessels in the Navy were not worth anything. The Prince de Joinville wished to do in Faance precisely what he (Commodore Napier) had for the last twenty years been endeavouring to have effected
440
in this country, namely, to give a good steam navy to the empire, and he trusted they would come to that most desirable result at last. He believed he had nothing further to add in the way of reply. The gallant Admiral opposite seemed to think that he (Commodore Napier) had been rather too severe upon him; but he could assure him that nothing could be further from his intention than doing so. He knew that it was by no means an agreeable recreation to be at sea in the month of November; but when the Government took the trouble of sending out three three-deckers and a ninety-gun ship, they ought to have endeavoured to stay out for some time longer than they did, in order to be better able to judge of the merits of the vessels. If the gallant Admiral had kept the squadron out a little longer, he might perhaps be able to convince his colleagues that the Albion was a good ship, and thus the work which had been put a stop to might have been allowed to go on for some time longer. It seemed to be the wish of some hon. Gentlemen near him, that he should not occupy the House longer with that Motion. Many of them wished him not to divide upon it, and though he should be happy to yield to whatever he saw was the feeling of the House, still he felt satisfied that it was not likely that any decisive step would be taken by the Admiralty. No public Board wished to show forth its own weakness, and from a significant shake of the head which he saw given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he believed it was not likely that a different course would be taken in the present instance.
Mr. C. Woodbegged to explain that he did not wish to pervert the meaning of what any hon. Member said, or to find fault with any particular class of vessels. It was quite consistent with the argument he had used that these vessels alluded to should have a good character.
The House divided.—Ayes 22; Noes 93: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gisborne, T.

Aldam, W.

Gore, hon. R.

Barnard, E. G.

Granger, T. C.

Blewitt, R. J.

Layard, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Mangles, R. D.

Collett, J.

Mitcalfe, H.

Duncan, G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Forster, M.

Morris, D.

Gibson, T. M.

Morison, Gen.

441

Pechell, Capt.

Walker, R.

Plumridge, Capt.

Wallace, R.

Ross, D. R.

Wawn, J. T.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Williams, W.

Scott, R.

Yorke, H. R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Thornely, T.

TELLERS.

Trelawny, J. S.

Napier, Sir C.

Wakley, T.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Hayes, Sir E.

Baillie, Col.

Heathcote, G. J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Hinde, J. H.

Barrington, Visct.

Hodgson, R.

Bateson, T.

Hope, hon. C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hope, G. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Jermyn, Earl

Boldero, H. G.

Jones, Capt.

Borthwick, P.

Langston, J. H.

Botfield, B.

Leslie, C. P.

Bowles, Adm.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Boyd, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bruce, Lord E.

Lockhart, W.

Buckley, E.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Busfeild, W.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Cardwell, E.

McGeachy, F. A.

Christie, W. D.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.

Manners, Lord J.

Clifton, J. T.

Masterman, J.

Clive, Visct.

Newdegate, C. N.

Clive, hon. R. H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Packe, C. W.

Connolly, Col.

Patten, J. W.

Copeland, Mr. Aid.

Peel, J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Cripps, W.

Praed, W. T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pringle, A.

Darby, G.

Repton, G. W. J.

Denison, J. E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Denison, E. B.

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Dickinson, F. H.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Douglas, Sir H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Drummond, H. H.

Somes, J.

Eastnor, Visct.

Spooner, R.

Egerton, W. T.

Stewart, J.

Entwistle, W.

Stuart, H.

Escott, B.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Tennent, J. E.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Godson, R.

Tollemache, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Greene, T.

Wodehouse, E.

Grimsditch, T.

Wood, C.

Hale, R. B.

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Halford, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Lennox, Lord A.

Hawes, B.

Young, J.

COMMISSIONERS OF GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
Mr. C. Hopemoved for leave to bring in a Bill for enabling the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital to grant leases of coal and minerals for forty-two years, and for making a railway or tram-
442
road from Greenwich Colliery to Berwick Bridge. The hon. and learned Gentleman was understood to say that the latter portion of his Notice only, was that with which he intended to persevere, and that though some objection had been threatened to the Bill, he did not think the present a time when it should be entered into.
Mr. Humewished to know, if there was any exception in railway matters in favour of public bodies, or whether the rule applicable to Private Bills did not include cases such as the present. He could not understand under what Rules of the House the present Motion was brought forward.
The Speakersaid, he considered the proper course to take in the present instance was to apply for leave to bring in the Bill. The Bill was brought in for the improvement of private property, and must necessarily, under the peculiar circumstances, be applied for by Motion, and not by Petition. After the Bill was, however, brought in, and read a first time, it would in all future stages be treated as any other Private Bills.
Mr. Humerepeated, that he could not see why a distinction should be made.
Mr. Hodgson Hindedid not intend to offer any opposition to one part of the Motion of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice, but, if he understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, he only intended to press that part of his Motion which referred to the construction of a railway, and to that he entertained the most serious objection. He was perfectly confident that if the Government, or if the hon. Gentleman himself was aware of the real nature of the Bill for which he applied, and of the evils which it was calculated to inflict, it would not be persevered in. He laid a statement before the Board of Trade on the subject; and he trusted the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of that body, would pay attention to what he now had to observe. It was well known in that House, that the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital were possessed of considerable property in mines and other estates. On one of these estates in the North of England, an extensive coal field had been let, a number of years ago, to some individuals who had worked the collieries without, he believed, much remuneration to themselves. They now thought that if they could obtain a Bill permitting them to make a railroad between their coal

443
fields and Berwick Harbour they could obtain a better and more convenient harbour for their coals, and then, that which was now a losing speculation, would turn out to be profitable. He had no objection to see those individuals similarly circumstanced as other adventurers who embarked in the working of mines, and he admitted that they had a right to endeavour to obtain access to the best shipping places; but he did say they were not entitled to any favour or privileges that other private individuals would not be shown. The hon. Gentleman by whom the Motion was brought forward was, he should be permitted to say, entirely misinformed, when he stated that the opposition to the Bill would be trifling. As far as he could ascertain, every landowner along the line would oppose it. The Corporation of Berwick, who were the lords of the manor along the line by which it was intended to pass, and the Harbour Commissioners of the same town, were both opposed to the Bill. It was quite true that it was intended to remove a lane to a better position behind some houses in the town, but that was not to be done under the authority of that Bill, but would be effected by virtue of an arrangement with the owners of the property. The compulsory power sought by that Bill would enable the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital to lay that railway for a considerable distance along by a public road, and he thought much inconvenience would arise from such a power being vested in them. He was perfectly certain the Government would not, when they learned the particular circumstances of the case, press the Bill on the House.
Mr. Forsterexpressed his entire concurrence in the observations that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House. He was quite sure if the Bill had been investigated previously it would never have been introduced. He would wish to know whether, if referred to a Committee, the Bill would come under the investigation of the General Committee, or under a distinct Committee.
The Speakersaid after the Bill should be read a first time, it should be referred to the Committee on Private Bills. If all the Standing Orders were complied with, the Bill would then be proceeded with in the same manner as any other private Bill, and it should afterwards pass through
444
a Committee of the whole House, so that it would be perceived no specific advantage whatever was given to it in allowing the present Motion.
Mr. Forsterwas perfectly satisfied that after the House had investigated the matter they would find that all the observations made by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hinde) were perfectly correct. He could not understand why a public body, like the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, should interfere to force a compulsory railway through private property. He would feel it to be his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill, unless, indeed, he heard much stronger reasons advanced in favour of it than any which had been given to them that night.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid he would much prefer seeing the Bill withdrawn at once, as he had no doubt it would be thrown out on the second reading. Two public bodies had been in communication with him on the subject—namely, the Corporation of Berwick and the Harbour Commissioners of the same town, and both expressed themselves decidedly opposed to the Bill.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, the opposition to the Bill appeared to him to be the most extraordinary he had ever witnessed. In fact, the nature of the opposition convinced him that the Bill ought to be introduced, as one of the arguments against it was, that certain large coal fields had been worked for a considerable time at a loss, and that the proposed railway would, if completed, enable the parties to bring their coals to a better market.
Mr. Collettcomplained that the original Notice of Motion was for a Bill to enable the lessees to make a railroad; it was now proposed that the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital should make it. He should like to know which was really intended.
Mr. C. Hopereplied. He said he did not state that there would be no opposition to the Bill; but that there would be no material opposition to it up to a certain time. During last year, when it was intended to bring the Bill forward, the Town Council of Berwick did not express any intention of opposing it.
Leave given.

EMIGRATION — DR. ROLPH.
Mr. Thornelymoved for a copy of the correspondence between Dr. Rolph and the Co-

445
lonial Secretary, and between the Colonial Secretary and the Governor of Trinidad, relative to the appointment and remuneration of Dr. Rolph, in 1843, as the agent of the Government of Trinidad, for the removal of the coloured population of Canada to that Colony.
Mr. C. Hopehad no particular objection to the production of the correspondence, but wished to put the House in possession of the general facts of the case. In the year 1843, Dr. Rolph, who was then in England, on business relating to the North American Association, with which the Doctor was connected, and which had since become bankrupt, was engaged by the Governor of Trinidad, at a salary of 200 l. a year, as emigration agent in Canada for Trinidad. Dr. Rolph, then in England on his own business, was expected to return soon to Canada, but did not do so till a considerable time had elapsed. But, in the meantime, an intimation was given that the appointment was not allowed, whereon the Doctor made a claim for heavy travelling expenses, &c., and for the full year's salary of 200 l. though the Governor, who engaged him, stated that he was never employed to go to Canada expressly for business connected with Trinidad, but that it was all along understood that he was about proceeding to Canada immediately on his own business. The Doctor, who did not go there for six months after, and who had never procured a single emigrant for Trinidad, then made this heavy claim. It was thought he was entitled to something, and the sum of 100 l. was awarded to him. The correspondence was nearly all in his own hands; he could print it if he chose, and the question for the House was, whether under these circumstances, they would put the public to the expense of printing it. The sum offered the Doctor, but with which he was not content, was 100 l.
Motion agreed to.

RAILWAY COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Lord G. Somersetmoved the Order of the day for a Committee on the Companies Clauses Consolidation Bill.
Mr. Aglionbyhoped the noble Lord would not press the Committee to-night. There were several Clauses requiring explanation, and which could not be satisfactorily disposed of so hastily. Many
446
hon. Members were absent who took much interest in the subject of these Bills.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, the hon. Members had had sufficient notice, as he had on the previous night explained the course he meant to take. It was most important that these measures should pass speedily, or they could not be carried at all during the present Session. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would consent to their passing this evening through Committee, and when the Report was brought up on Wednesday next, he (Lord G. Somerset) would be happy to give every opportunity for explanation and amendment. The Clauses embraced no new principles. They were nearly all Clauses taken from other Bills, some of them modified and simplified, and the only thing new in the Bill immediately before them was the Arbitration Clause, which allowed parties, in cases up to a certain quantity of land, to decide by Arbitration instead of going before a Jury. The noble Lord concluded by reiterating his disposition, by private communication or otherwise, to do everything in his power to meet the views of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to go into Committee to-night.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, one of his objections to these Bills was that the railway companies were not compelled to adopt these Bills, but they had power to adopt one or other, or parts of all, without taking any one complete. He also objected to each of the Bills referring to Clauses contained in the other Bills, and thought that, even at the risk of repetition, each Bill ought to be made complete in itself, by containing all the Clauses which it enacted.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, the first point referred to by the hon. Member had already engaged his attention, and he should endeavour to embody the suggestion in the Bills.
Mr. Aglionbythought the whole Bills should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs, consisting chiefly of Gentlemen of the legal profession. If that were done, he was sure many of the Clauses would be considerably modified; as an example, he might instance the 41st Clause in the second Bill, which required that where a railway crosses a public footpath a convenient ascent and descent should be founded by the railway company for the accommodation of the public in crossing the railroad by this footpath. He was aware that this

447
Clause was not a new one; and he would tell the House how it worked. In one case with which he was acquainted, the railway crossed a public footpath in a level field. The railway was some twenty feet above the level; and the convenient ascent and descent provided by the company was a ladder at one end for the public to go up, another at the other end for them to go down. He merely gave that as an illustration of his objection to the way in which the Clauses were worked. When the proper time came, he should certainly endeavour to have some Clause more stringent introduced for the benefit of the public.
House in Committee.
On the present Clause,
Mr. Haweswished to know how it was proposed that these Acts were to be made to apply to Private Bills—whether they were to be rendered compulsory or not?
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that question had not escaped his attention. His own opinion was that it should be compulsory on railway companies to adopt them as model Bills. But this was considered by others to be too hazardous an experiment at first; and, therefore, what he proposed to do was, that the Bills should be formed, and then that by a Standing Order of the House, the Committees on Private Bills should report to the House whether these Bills had been incorporated by the companies or not.
Mr. Hawescould not conceive a course more liable to objection than this. If the Government really had confidence in their own Bills, they ought to render them compulsory; but the course which was proposed to be taken showed that the noble Lord had no confidence in the measures he was himself recommending.
Lord G. Somersethad every confidence in the general outline of the Bills, as he had no doubt that if they were once passed by the House, ninety-nine out of every hundred Railway Companies would be but too happy to incorporate these Clauses into their Bills. But if it should be the opinion of the House that these Bills ought to be made compulsory, he should not be very sorry; though, for the reasons he had given, he did not think proper to recommend it in the present instance.
Mr. Wakleythought that these Bills ought to be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee up stairs. Consi-
448
dering the object these Bills were intended to fulfil, was it possible they could be satisfactorily carried through the House without being subjected to the consideration of a Committee? Ought not these Bills, which were intended to save the public expense, and to save a very considerable portion of the time of the House, to be made perfect as model Bills, and ought they not afterwards to be made compulsory? He was sure the gentlemen of the learned profession would not object to serve on such a Committee as that proposed, and he would undertake to serve on it himself, for he was of opinion that the speeches of the learned gentlemen would be compressed within a reasonable length.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, if the Bills were sent to a Select Committee, it was clear they would be of no use during the present Session. It was, therefore, for the House to determine whether they would take the Bills, with such emendations as might be suggested in the House, without sending them to a Committee up stairs, or whether they would give them up for the present Session. It appeared to him that there was something like a contradiction in the opinions of the gentlemen opposite; one Member contending that the Bills ought to be made compulsory, and another arguing that the Clauses were so imperfect that they ought not to be passed at all.
Mr. Jervissaid, the great evil of which they had at present to complain was, that one railway company modelled their Bill upon that of some preceding company, with the alteration of certain words, which appeared at first to be unimportant, but which affected the whole legal bearing of the clauses. He, therefore, agreed with the noble Lord that it was of great importance that model clauses should be framed, not by a Select Committee of the House, which he thought was the most unfit tribunal that could be selected; but that they should be settled on the responsibility of Government, with the advice and concurrence of their law officers, and that then they should be applicable to all railways. The noble Lord said there was a difficulty in the way of making these Bills compulsory, but he did not say wherein the difficulty lay. He was sure it did not lie on the part of the public. Take the case of landowners for example. If there was one clear uniform model Bill

449
by which railway companies would be authorised to purchase land, the landowners would not need to seek after the Private Bill. They could at once refer to the model and see how they would be affected by the operation. But if these Bills were not compulsory, the owners of land through which the railway passed, would never know whether the Company had adopted this model Bill or not; and they would be put to as much trouble, expense, and inconvenience as they were at present.
Mr. Wakleywished to know if the Law Officers of the Crown had been consulted in the framing of these Bills?
Lord G. Somersetsaid that they had not; but they had been submitted to a very competent Officer of this House. He saw that it was impossible in the present feeling of Gentlemen opposite, of which he did not complain, to pass the Bills through Committee to-night. How far it might be in his power afterwards to render them compulsory, he could not at present say. For himself, as he had said, he was rather of opinion they ought to be compulsory. He thought, therefore, it would be the most judicious course to move that the Chairman report progress; and by Monday next, if not sooner, he would inform the House whether he would render the Bills compulsory or not.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths,—Sat first.—Baron Stanley (commonly called Lord Stanley).
BILLS. Public,—1a. Service of Process; Service of Process (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Redesdale, from Churcham, and Bulley, for Protection to Agriculture.—By Lord Normanby, from Physicians and others, of Kingston-upon-Hull, in favour of Medical Reform.—From Protestant Dissenters of Leeds, for Inquiry into the Treatment of Baptists of Bahama Islands, and the Island of Exuma.—By Lord Hatherton, from Proprietors of Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation, complaining of the disproportionate Charges on Railways.

ABSENT DEBTORS
Lord Campbellsaid, a serious grievance had long been permitted by the operation of the present Law of England, which did not allow of any proceedings being taken against debtors unless they were within the jurisdiction of the Court wherein those proceedings originated. Thus, a person who was indebted to others in this country might be living out of the reach of the law, whilst enjoying an income of 10,000 l. a year, and his creditors all the time might be starving in a gaol. The remedy which he had proposed to institute in cases of this description was, that by permission of the Court, obtainable upon a proper representation of the fact, process might be served upon such absent debtors
348
in the foreign countries where they resided, and that then they, being thus made cognizant of the steps taken to recover what was due from them, might either appear and defend the action, or, failing to do so, suffer judgment to be recorded against them. Their Lordships had unanimously approved of the measures which he had introduced last Session to effect this object, and the Bill had been sent down to the other House of Parliament; but in consequence of what took place there, by an unfortunate misunderstanding, it was lost: by the effect of a clause introduced into it after the Bill had left their Lordships' House, Scotland was exempted from its operation, and thus Holyrood would still have been enabled to throw the protection of its precincts over absent debtors. The clause so introduced had not met with their Lordships' assent when the Bill returned to their House, and thus it was lost. He had, however, recently had a communication with his hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for Scotland, who had stated to him that the alteration in the Bill arose from a misunderstanding, and that he should not oppose its progress through Parliament. He now, therefore, had great hopes that both Bills would pass without any further opposition. He was sure it would be productive of great good. A Bill was not necessary for Scotland, where a suit to recover debts went on without the necessity of serving the process in the manner prescribed by the Law of England, and therefore, he should confine his efforts to the introduction of two Bills, one for England, and the other for Ireland. The noble Lord then presented a Bill to authorize in certain cases the Service of Process issuing out of Her Majesty's Courts of Common Law at Westminster, on persons resident out of the jurisdiction of the said Courts: and a second Bill to the same effect for Ireland.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that before the noble and learned Lord proceeded with the Bills of which he had given notice, he wished to communicate on the subject with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate.
Lord Campbellobserved, that his noble and learned Friend could take an opportunity of doing so before the second reading of the Bills.
Bills read 1a and to be printed.

RAILWAYS—GOODS AND PASSENGERS' TARIFF.
Lord Hathertonpresented a Pe-

349
tition from the Company of Proprietors of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation, complaining of the disproportion which existed on the different lines of railway between the rates charged for the transmission of goods and those imposed on passengers. The noble Lord said he had given notice to his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade of his intention to present this Petition, as the subject of it had excited great attention amongst the manufacturing and productive classes of the midland and adjacent counties, where the circumstance to which it alluded had occasioned much discontent and many complaints; the persons whose interests were thus affected, stating that the railway companies were carrying on the traffic branch of their trade at a great and certain loss, there being a difference of no less than 1,200 per cent. between the charges imposed upon passengers and those imposed upon goods. When the first Railway Bill was in progress through Parliament, namely, that for constructing the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, not a word was said in the Committee on the Bill respecting the charges to be made for passengers, traffic being the principal object then in view, and so little being known of the matter as regarded the conveyance of passengers. The secret, however, soon became known, that passengers were the first objects to be considered; and their accommodation was the first thing studied, the railway company having from that time the strongest aversion to the carriage of goods. Indeed, it was only in consequence of the engagements they had previously entered into in their original charter, and, in order to conciliate the interests that were involved in the question, that they consented to carry any goods at all, though they did so at a ruinous loss. He had already stated that the disproportion between the charges on goods and passengers was no less than 1,200 per cent. in favour of the former, the charge being 1d. per head per mile for passengers, whilst it was 1d. per ton per mile for goods; and as twelve passengers with their luggage weighed a ton, there was consequently a difference of exactly 1,200 per cent. in the two charges. He doubted whether the carriage of goods was less expensive than that of passengers, the only observable difference in regard to the latter being the greater cost of the carriages used for carrying passengers as compared with that of luggage trucks; whereas, on the other side, there
350
were the expenses incurred by the railways for the keep of horses and carts, and the cost of men for the collection and distribution of the goods, all of which rendered this branch of their business more expensive than the passenger portion of it. Such being the case, it must be a matter of wonder how the railway companies could afford to meet the expenses to which the carriage of goods necessarily subjected them;—they were only enabled to do it by raising the cost of transit to the passengers. It was this of which the canal companies complained. They did not complain of the new rivalry which had sprung up in the carrying trade of the kingdom; but what they did complain of, and with justice, as he (Lord Hatherton) conceived, was, that it was an unfair rivalry, and they certainly did call upon Parliament to devise some means for preventing the railway companies from charging passengers with the losses they sustained by the carriage of goods. The immediate effect of the system to which the petitioners referred would be to make passengers pay the whole cost of the carriage of goods throughout the kingdom, and the next result would be to drive all the carrying trade from the canals. Such being the case, he felt authorized in calling upon his noble Friend opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, to direct his attention to this important subject, with the view of providing a remedy. The complaint made by the petitioners was not a new one. When canals were first constructed, the road-carriers complained of the same system having been adopted by their new rivals; and the Legislature introduced an enactment into the Canal Bills to the effect that the canal companies should not be at liberty to raise their tolls after having once lowered them. They were only to be enabled to do so by the consent of Commissioners appointed to regulate this branch of traffic. The clumsy machinery thus constituted was soon abolished, and another mode of checking the canals was adopted, which had likewise suggested itself to the petitioners in question; namely, of enacting that when the tolls of a railway company were lowered, they should all be lowered equally throughout all its branches. He only threw out this suggestion for the noble Earl's consideration. He knew that the subject would excite the attention of the railway companies and of travellers. He knew, moreover, that the noble Earl's attention had been called to the subject generally; and

351
he hoped he would take the circumstances he had referred to into his consideration.
The Earl of Dalhousiewas by no means surprised at the complaints of the petitioners, nor at their desire for some relief. At the same time, the House was aware the Government had no authority, nor did the Department over which he presided possess any, to interfere in the matter. There were involved in it questions of great importance both to the commercial and productive classes, and also to the travelling part of the community, and the Government would not fail to give it a due share of attention. Beyond that, he was sure his noble Friend would not expect him to say anything.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, in presenting, in pursuance to the notice he had given, the Report of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade on the Kentish and South-Eastern railway schemes, it was not his intention to enter into the consideration of the principles which had guided that Department, in coming to the conclusions which had been from time to time laid before the public. His object was simply to ask their Lordships' permission to lay before them a few statements as to the constitution of the Railway Board in question, and the course of procedure which that Board had adopted. It would be in their Lordships' recollection, that in the last Session a Committee was appointed by the other House of Parliament to make certain inquiries upon the subject of railways. Among the many other important points involved in the question, the Committee took into their consideration the practice of Parliament in respect to railway legislation. He need not recite the various arguments which they advanced in the course of the discussion which followed; but he would content himself with stating, that after a very full review of the difficulties of the subject, and a patient canvassing of the inconveniences and deficiencies in the then existing system of Railway legislation in the House of Commons, and the Committees connected with that House, they had arrived at the conclusion that it was desirable that to some Board in connexion with the Executive Government, there should be committed the task of instituting a preliminary inquiry into the merits of all rail-
352
way projects to be brought before Parliament. The Report of that Committee embodying these views, was adopted by the House of Commons, and, in consequence, the alterations in the Standing Orders necessary to carry it into effect, and for bringing the forms of the House into accordance with the proposed arrangements, were duly instituted, and the matter having been referred to the Lords of the Council for Trade, arrangements were made, by which the Railway Board was formally constituted, for the purpose of performing various duties connected with railways, and of taking into its consideration the details of the various Railway Bills previous to their coming under the consideration of Parliament itself. Their Lordships were aware that there previously existed a Department in connexion with the Board of Trade charged with the supervision of railway matters, composed of a superintendent, an inspector-general, and a secretary. To these were added an assistant-inspector and another secretary; and these gentlemen, presided over by the President or the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, were constituted the new Railway Department of the Board of Trade. The Minute reciting this arrangement had been laid by the Lords of the Council before Parliament. The Board thus constituted immediately proceeded with its duties. He need not trouble their Lordships with the details of their proceedings. They entered into the consideration of the different railway projects laid before them, and had been so engaged up to the present time—notifying from time to time the fact of their decisions; but reserving for the Report to be submitted to Parliament, a detailed account of the reasons which had led them to the conclusions at which they had arrived. Such was a brief narrative of the circumstances which had led to the institution of this Board, and an outline of the course which that Board had pursued. It was necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with these details, in order to introduce the points at which he wished to arrive. From what had passed out of doors, and also from what had occurred in another place since the Session had commenced, it was quite evident that a great degree of misapprehension prevailed as to what was the real jurisdiction of the Railway Board, and as to what was intended by Parliament and by Government—as well as to what was conceived by the Board itself — to be the real authority with

353
which it was invested. He knew that it had been urged in another place, that to constitute a Board of this description, in connexion with the Executive Government, consisting of five gentlemen in the employment of Government, from whom there should issue Reports conclusive and absolute as to the merit and fate of the several railway projects—that to intrust to such a body the power of deciding whether a railway scheme should go on or not—to entrust to such a tribunal the power of directing or distributing enormous amounts of money, exceeding indeed the value of all the property contended for before, and disposed of by all the Judges in Westminster Hall—to give to such a Board such an authority, would be objectionable and dangerous in the very last degree. Then, again, it was maintained, that if the Reports of that Board, connected as it was with Government, were to be adopted by Government as measures of Government—if the Cabinet were to lend to them the whole weight of their Parliamentary influence, thus attempting to convert their Reports into judicial decrees—that the practical effect would be to substitute mere Reports of a Board for positive enactments of the Legislature itself. And if the facts had been so—if it had ever been in the contemplation of Parliament, or dreamt of by Government, or imagined by the Board itself, that any such authority had been, or would be given to it—then, indeed, every objection which he had just recited would be reasonable and just, and no one would have urged them more cordially than himself. But, in point of fact, nothing could have been further from entering into even the imagination of Government, than that their authority should be decisive, and their conclusions absolute. He was at a loss to conceive how any person who had even read the circumstances of the constitution of the Board—how any person who had ever given any attention to public proceedings, could have taken up such an impression as that of the decisions of the Railway Board being absolute. Had it been raised out of doors merely, he should not have deemed himself called upon to notice it; but the question had been raised in the other House of Parliament, and its discussion there had produced from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government a strong disclaimer of the correctness of the views then expressed, as to the duties and authorities of the Railroad Board. But it was still impossible for him
354
to tell whether such an impression might not prevail among their Lordships, and if it did prevail, then it was clear that all Reports issuing from the Board must be received with a jealousy and suspicion which would not exist if the real character of that Board was understood. He had considered it his duty to state, in his place in Parliament, the views entertained by that department of the Government over which he presided, with respect to the proceedings of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade. The Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, after the recital of the reasons in favour of the appointment of such a Board, went on to state, in the most distinct manner, that its Reports were, on no account, to be considered as anything but aids to Parliament for investigation, and for the purpose of expressing an opinion whether there were public reasons against the propriety of forming such and such a railway, and which of any two competing lines appeared to be the best suited for public use and convenience. In the Standing Orders, it was stated that the Committee to which railway schemes were to be referred should state what portions they had adopted, and what portions they had rejected of the Reports of the Railway Board — an instruction of course carrying with it the inference that it was in the power of those Committees to reject the whole or any part of their Reports. And when he moved for such alterations in their Lordships' Standing Orders as were necessary for the establishment of the Board, he had expressly stated that the Reports were to be held as nothing more than evidence, and to be dealt with by the Committees as in their wisdom they might think fit. Now, as to the proceedings of the Board, he thought that those parties who had been in communication with it would remember that when on various occasions it was stated by deputations which had attended it, that their Reports would be most influential, and that whatever the decision of the Board of Trade might be, they would implicitly bow to it — he himself had distinctly intimated that they assumed no such authority—that it was for Parliament to say what weight was to be given to their decisions—and that whether they, the Company from which the deputation attended, did or did not go to Parliament, it would make no difference in the proceedings of the Board; that if they did go it would not make

355
them more rigid, or if they did not it would not make them less rigid, in their examination of the claims laid before them. In any case, the representations of a projected company would meet with their best attention. But there was another consideration which ought not, in forming an estimate of the character of the Railway Board, to be overlooked. It was the instruction addressed to it by the House of Commons, that on no account should it enter into the consideration of private interests—but that all such matters were to be reserved for the exclusive consideration of Parliament. Now, how could Reports be imagined to be conclusive and final, in schemes like these, when all matters of private property were excluded from its deliberations? He had only to repeat, most distinctly, that it was never intended by Parliament that the Reports of the Board should be of a conclusive character, but that they should merely be regarded as evidence, to be used in aid of Parliament, and as recommendations to be dealt with by Parliament as in its wisdom it might think just and proper. He would now beg their Lordships' permission to advert to one or two other objections which had been raised, as to the course of procedure adopted by the Board. It had been objected that the tribunal had a secret character—that their proceedings were involved in mystery—that their deliberations were conducted with closed doors — and, in fact, that their whole plan of proceeding was repugnant to the ordinary regulations and spirit of our tribunals. Now, the meaning of all this simply was, that the Board had not been constituted as an open court—that it had not been invested with the power of summoning witnesses, of hearing parties, and going into minute investigation. In answer to all this, he would maintain that if the Board had been armed with such powers, or if it had arrogated such powers to itself, it would have been a grievance to the public, instead of being the possible means of affording useful assistance to the deliberations of Parliament, and would justly have been open to suspicion, and liable to jealousy. If they had proceeded to the examination of witnesses, if they had called parties from a distance, if they had proceeded to cross-examine them, the effect would only have been the production of a vast expense, to be defrayed by the parties interested, in addition to the heavy expenditure already requisite to conduct a Railway Bill. Again, if they had assumed
356
the form of a public tribunal—if they had proceeded as a Committee of Parliament, there might have been just cause for suspecting that their intentions were to usurp the functions of Parliament; and people would be apt to give their decisions as much weight as those given to the judgments of a Parliamentary Committee, and conceive the case already settled, ere Parliament had once interfered. But then it was said, that if they had not done so, at least they might have confronted the parties, and heard the case discussed. Now, their Lordships could not but be aware of the state of feeling existing between contending companies, and he could not think that to bring two such parties together before any authority, would much tend to elicit the truth. They all read the newspapers, and he would, therefore, just ask their Lordships to conceive a case in which the provisional committee of the London and York Line, and the directors of the Midland Counties Railway, should be confronted and called upon to discuss before the Railway Board the merits of their respective schemes. Could any body believe that such a meeting would be calculated to promote the calm consideration of the subject, or perseveringly to elicit facts; or that it would have led to anything like a careful and just apprehension of the real merits of the respective schemes? He apprehended that such a course, if once adopted, would never be tried a second time. But then, again, it was said, if this was not done, at least we should have heard all parties who desired to be heard, one against the other; and it had been urged out of doors, and not only there, but in another place, that they never attempted anything of the kind, and indeed that he himself had admitted that it was physically impossible for them to hear all the arguments and objections of contending schemes. Such language had been ascribed to him; and it was said, improving on the first version, that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had admitted that it was physically impossible to enter on anything like a satisfactory inquiry. Now, with respect to this second edition of the statement in question, he had merely to reply that he had never said any such thing — that he had never made any such admission as that it was impossible for the Board to institute anything like a satisfactory inquiry. As to the former statement, even that did not quite correctly convey what had fallen from him. He begged not to be understood as wishing to

357
lead their Lordships to suppose that there had been anything like intentional misrepresentation. He did not think that there had; but the version of the statement did not convey correctly what he said, and which, as it bore very closely upon the whole of the objections raised against the Board, he would now repeat. It was stated, then, that in reply to a gentleman who attended with a deputation from a railway scheme, on that gentleman expressing the disappointment of himself and his friends that they had not been summoned to state their objections to another scheme, and that he had understood that the fullest opportunity would be given for it, he had stated that such was not the course proposed to be taken by the Board—that from the mass of business before them it was physically impossible for them to attempt any such thing; and the inference drawn from this was, that he had admitted that it was impossible for them to hear the objections to any given scheme. Now no such statement was in reality made. What he said was this. On the gentleman in question stating that they had been disappointed—that they had understood that every opportunity would be given for competing parties to enter into the case of their opponents, and that personal interviews would be given for that purpose, he (Lord Dalhousie) replied that it was physically impossible for them, with the enormous amount of business before them, to receive all deputations—that was, to grant them personal interviews—as often as they chose to apply for them—that they had commenced operations by receiving parties to state their case, but, finding that they applied for interviews two or three times, and then only to say again what they had said before, or to urge anew objections already stated, the Board had on that account been obliged to decline repeated interviews, and to ask the parties applying for them to state what they wished to say in writing; but at the same time they had been told that if on any occasion they had really any fresh objections to urge, the board would still be ready to receive their visits. He had said all this to the gentleman in question, and he added that his own presence as an objector was the best possible proof of the readiness of the Board to receive them. Now, the difference between the two statements was this, that whereas it had been said that they had acknowledged they could not receive parties to make ob-
358
jections, what he really stated was that they were willing to receive them to make objections, but not as often as they pleased to apply. Let their Lordships for an instant conceive the practical working of such a plan of operations as the reverse of this. Let them take the case which he had already alluded to. They were aware that to supply with railway accommodation the district between London and York there were three schemes in the field—the London and York, the Direct Northern, and the Cambridge and Lincoln railways. Had a second interview been granted to the Direct Northern, then the London and York and the Cambridge and Lincoln would have applied; then the Direct Northern would have applied again, followed by the other two, for interviews to be granted again and again. Such a case as he was stating was not an ideal one. It was a representation of many applications addressed to them. The party who came first came again, saying—"You have received such and such a party, we desire to have an opportunity of repeating our Statement." Then the other party in turn would exclaim—"As a second interview was granted to them, we should have one too:" and so on ad infinitum. Such would have been the case with respect to the four Goole lines; such would have been the case with the Syston and Peterborough, and the Swinton and Lincoln schemes, and all the others, each one of which would have thought itself entitled to come and come again—until, if they had ten departments of the Board of Trade, and ten times the length of time which they had, the business could not have been gone through. They must draw the line somewhere, and they drew it here. They received parties to make statements, and then parties applied to state objections. Interviews were granted to such, and objections received from competing schemes; but, on these parties applying for second interviews, they were told that unless they had anything new to communicate, the request must be refused. At the same time, if parties had new objections to make, or urgently pressed for a second interview, they were received. Such had been their rule—a rule which they had acted on throughout. It was quite possible to transact business by written documents, and it was by these that much business had actually been transacted. Their Lordships would judge that there had been no lack of information supplied to the Railway Board, when

359
he told them that, for some time past, they had been receiving at the rate of nine thousand papers a year on railway schemes. Of documentary evidence they had, therefore, abundance. He now came to another class of objections, in regard to which he was desirous of addressing a few words to their Lordships. It had been asserted in various quarters that the Board did not possess the confidence of the public, and that neither was it entitled to that confidence. And it had been asked by way of question, to which it was supposed that no sufficient answer had yet been given, whether certain members of the Board had not a direct personal and pecuniary interest in railroad property, which had occasioned the display of a spirit of favouritism towards certain railway companies, to the prejudice of others; and it had been said, that either gross mismanagement had prevailed, by which information had been obtained previous to the publication of the decision of the Board upon any given scheme which had enabled parties to go to the Stock Exchange, and operate there in a manner highly beneficial to themselves, but unfairly and injuriously as regarded the public generally. Now, had that statement been confined to mere vague rumour, or to the public journals, he should not have considered it his duty to refer to it in that House. No man was more ready than he was to admit that the public journals had a perfect right to scrutinize and comment upon the conduct of public men; and although they might in some instances exceed their privilege in this respect—that that right of scrutiny was in general a useful check against abuse he was not prepared to deny. But the statements that had gone forth as to the conduct of the Board in question and its members, affecting their efficiency as a Board, and their characters, had not been confined to mere vague rumour, or to the columns of the public journals, but had been sounded aloud in the ear of Parliament. The attack had been directed more especially against one gentleman connected with the Board. Their Lordships would believe that had the attacks been levelled only at him (Lord Dalhousie) personally, they would have been utterly disregarded until they were made where he could at once meet them, viz., in his place in Parliament. But the case was different where the attacks were made on one who had not the advantage of a seat in Parliament, where he might meet the charges made against him. He was sure their Lordships would not
360
think he occupied their time improperly while he endeavoured to vindicate the reputation of an able and honest public servant, and that they would require from him no apology for detaining them upon such a subject, when they remembered that he was defending one who had no opportunity of defending himself. Now, it was asked—not directly stated—is it not the case that members of the Board have a personal and pecuniary interest in railway shares? To that question he was in a condition to give an answer—an answer most direct and conclusive. With regard to himself, he did not possess, nor had he ever possessed, any share or shares in any railway scheme; and, with respect to his colleagues, Mr. Porter, General Pasley, and Mr. Laing, they did not possess, nor had they ever possessed, any railway shares whatsoever. Then as to Captain O'Brien, it was true that he had possessed railway shares, but did not possess any now, having ceased to possess them as soon after his appointment as a member of the Board as he could divest himself of them. He (Lord Dalhousie) happened to have been present when his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade offered Mr. O'Brien the appointment, and upon that occasion, he (Captain O'Brien) voluntarily stated that he did then possess railway shares; and he also voluntarily stated that he would part with them at the earliest opportunity. The interview of which he spoke took place on the 26th of July; on the 6th of August he was appointed to the Board, and on the 2nd of September he had irrevocably parted with every and all his interest, whether immediate or contingent, in any railway shares whatever. This was on the 2nd of September. The Board did not attempt to go into the consideration of these railway schemes until the second week in December; so that Mr. O'Brien did not possess a single railway share for three months previous to the meeting of the Board for proceeding with the investigation of any railway scheme. That, he conceived, would be taken as a sufficient answer, by those who were not disposed to reject any answer whatsoever, to the allegations which had been made with regard to the position of the Members of the Board. Then it was said a spirit of favouritism had been shown by this Board to certain railway companies. That allegation, had it remained a general one, he need scarcely have noticed, because when a Board was appointed to decide between competing schemes, however correct

361
their decision might be, it was by no means unlikely that that decision should be complained against as unfair by the party to whose interests it was adverse. Indeed to show this he would mention an instance. The first decision given by the Board was upon two competing schemes—the one proposed by the Great Western Company, and the other by the South-Western; and having pronounced in favour of the former, some gentleman in the country sent him (Lord Dalhousie) a newspaper, having a paragraph, marked with a large black cross to draw his attention to it, stating that the Board were the mere servants of the Great Western Company, and suggesting that one of the badges worn by the porters of the Company should be sent to each Member. He could only say that in his own case the decoration with which the writer proposed to honour him, had not yet arrived. He repeated, that had these accusations been confined to generalities, he should have treated them with that indifference with which they would be met by any man of common sense; but their Lordships would remember that in one instance a special case had been adverted to—he referred to that one, the Report on which he was about to lay on the table. It had been stated that the Board had decided in favour of the scheme of the South-Eastern Company—that Mr. W. O'Brien was the manager of that company—that his brother, Captain O'Brien, was a Member of the Board—and, ergo, that the Board had decided in favour of the South-Eastern scheme, simply because Mr. O'Brien, the manager of the company, was the brother of one of the Members of the Board. He did not see the necessary conclusion which was thus sought to be drawn; but there could be no doubt that it was meant to infer that Captain O'Brien, as a Member of the Railway Board, had been influenced by improper feelings of partiality in favour of the South-Eastern Company, and that those feelings had operated in the decision of the Board. This statement had not been put forward merely in newspapers, but had been stated publicly in Parliament, and therefore it was that he felt it to be his duty, looking at the position he held as Chairman of that Board, not to allow the character of any one of his colleagues to be impugned, and that colleague treated as a knave, while he was in a condition to meet that accusation with a broad allegation of dental, and show clearly that there could be no foundation whatever for the statements which had been put
362
forth to his prejudice. He believed Captain O'Brien to be a man of as pure integrity as any Peer in that House, and as utterly incapable of swerving from the strict line of his duty as any man who sat amongst their Lordships. Captain O'Brien had purposely abstained—so far as his duty would permit him to abstain—from taking any part in the decision upon the South-Eastern scheme, beyond that personal attendance at the Board which his duty required of him. And if their Lordships would but consider the probabilities of the case, they would at once see how absurd the statement was. Granting, for the sake of argument, that Mr. O'Brien had an interest in the South-Eastern Railway scheme, and wished to engage his brother's influence as a Member of the Board to obtain a favourable decision, did their Lordships suppose for one moment that the other Members of the Board, placed as they were directly in the focus of public observation, would have taken upon themselves to become parties to that object, merely because the brother of one of their colleagues was the manager of the company? And if they even conceded this, where could he (Lord Dalhousie) be supposed to be, to permit such a proceeding? Was it to be supposed that he, sitting in the chair of that Board, and responsible to Parliament directly for its acts—being liable to be called upon at any moment to justify and defend all the transactions of the Board—did any sane man suppose that he, setting apart the considerations and feelings by which as an honest man and a gentleman he must be influenced—did any man suppose that, looking at mere prudential considerations, he could have been such a fool as to have allowed the Board to take a course so open to attack, and so liable to observation as that which it had been stated they had adopted? The idea was preposterous. What were the circumstances of the case, the decision upon which had been impugned? The South-Eastern Company had proposed a most comprehensive scheme. Another scheme had been proposed by other companies; on the relative merits of these two schemes he did not then think it necessary to enter, as they were before their Lordships, and open for inspection and observation; but the duty of the Board was to decide upon their respective merits. The South-Eastern Company, adopting the views of the House of Commons of last year, and acting upon their suggestions addressed a letter to the Board of Trade, offering

363
to supply additional advantages if their plan should be sanctioned; to reduce the rate of fares throughout the old as well as the new line, calculating the distance between London and Dover, not on the eighty-eight miles, the extent of their line, but at seventy-four miles, which was the shortest practicable route; they also undertook to make a reduction in the second-class fares, and at the same time to increase the accommodation for second-class passengers; to give greater facilities for third-class travelling, and to provide carriages for third-class passengers, protected from the weather; that they would lay down an electric telegraph along the whole of the line, and go to Parliament for a Bill to enable them to construct a central terminus at Hungerford-bridge, on the Surrey side of the river, which they were willing should form part of a general terminus for all railways on that side of the Thames; and, further, to provide the link which would be wanting, and which was not likely to be undertaken by any other company as a commercial speculation, to complete a continued coast line, which would afford to the Government that which was most desirable for the protection of the coast and an uninterrupted line of railway from the Metropolis to within a few miles of the Land's-end; and they also undertook to place the whole of the old and new lines under the condition of purchase, according to the Act of last year. And the Board having decided in favour of a scheme offering so many and such important public advantages, there were persons who could not account for the decision of the Board otherwise than by suggesting that one of the Members of the Board had a brother who was the manager of the company. The charge was so ridiculous and contemptible, that he should not have alluded to it, but that it might, if not met at once, be sent forth to the public in various shapes, and adopted by them; therefore it was that he felt it due to his colleague, whose character had been aspersed, to make this statement to their Lordships, and to show that there was no ground whatever for the charge which had been made. There was one other point only with which he should trouble their Lqrdships—that was as to the question whether the proceedings of the Board, in reference to their decision on any particular railway scheme, had become known to any party not connected with the Board, as stated, either through carelessness on the part of the Board, or by
364
means of a deliberate communication made by any one of its members previous to the publication of the decision in the Gazette, the effect of which previous information had been, that parties by whom it was obtained had made an improper use of it, turning it to their own account. With regard to that point, so far as the general allegation went, it could only be met by a general denial. With regard to himself, he need not, he was sure, say, that on no occasion, either by implication, word, or gesture, had he given the slightest information of anything that was going on before the Board to any human being; and no human being had received from him the least knowledge or intimation of what was his opinion upon any scheme before the Board not yet decided. And although he was perfectly convinced that he might have made the same statement on the part of every one of his colleagues, without referring to them upon the subject, he had thought it right to call the Board together to lay the matter before them; and he was authorised to say, that each of them asserted, upon his honour, and was willing to repeat that assertion in any more solemn form of adjuration, if any more solemn be devised, that never, directly or indirectly, had he given information or hint of any kind of what was the intention of the Board in respect to any one scheme that had been submitted to them previous to the publication of their decision upon it in the Gazette. He would now pass from this part of the subject, and call attention to the question whether or not it was possible for the intentions of the Board to have oozed out, in some way or another, before it was generally known what their decision would be. Very early in the commencement of the proceedings of the Board, the obligation of secrecy was known to be of the utmost importance. The spirit of speculation that had existed for the last six months in the public mind, in connexion with railway schemes, was apparent; and though it was impossible for the Government or the Board to control it, they were bound in duty to adopt such precautions, so far as they could do so, as should prevent its being unfairly conducted. As he had stated, the Board was not in a condition to enter regularly into the consideration of any of the schemes referred to them until early in the month of December. As soon as they were ready to proceed, their first object was to classify the several schemes, as to their local situation, and

365
the manner in which they bore one on the other. Then they had to consider what course should be adopted in regard to making their decisions known. Two courses were open to them—the one was to reserve altogether any statement of their decisions until they were ready to submit them to Parliament, and then to publish them with the reasons at the same time; and the other, to publish the decisions, from time to time, in the Gazette, as they were made. Against the latter course there were many objections sufficiently strong; but then it was clear the detailed Report could not be published until Parliament met; and if the Board had reserved all declaration of their decisions till Parliament met, the chances of previous revelation of their intentions would have been greatly increased. It was quite clear the decisions upon all the railway schemes could not become to at the same time. Some must be decided upon sooner than others: and when the opinion of the Board upon any particular line became for a long time familiar to its members, the risk was far greater that some intimation of their opinion might accidentally drop out in their communications with the agents of other schemes, and that the information so obtained, might be improperly used. The risk arising from such a mode of proceeding, therefore, would have been far greater than that attending the course the Board had adopted, viz., to take every scheme into consideration in its order, investigate its merits, and decide upon it at once and immediately, and publish that decision in the Gazette; therefore it was that the Board conceived that as the several schemes were taken up and decided upon, they should be made public; taking every care that the decision should be made known to the public and the agents of the parties interested at the same time, but that in no case should it be communicated to the latter, until after the closing of the Stock Exchange on that day on which the announcement should appear in the Gazette, so that no undue advantage should be given. The course of proceeding was this:—When a scheme was taken up, the papers in reference to it were referred to the different officers of the Department, for inquiry as to the public advantages of the line, its local position, its probable traffic, its engineering difficulties, and general character; and upon those papers being returned to him (Lord Dalhousie), with the reports of the various officers to
366
the questions submitted, he considered them, and having done so made a memorandum upon the papers of his opinion upon the scheme in general. This, together with all the information obtained, was circulated amongst the several Members of the Board, each making his own observations upon the scheme, until it had gone the round of the whole of the members, when a meeting of the Board was called. Of course, if during the circulation of those papers, any person other than the Members of the Board had access to them, it would be possible for the intention of the Board to be made known; but to prevent this, every precaution possible was adopted in the circulation of the papers. He (Lord Dalhousie) having examined them and made his memoranda upon them, placed them in a box with a private lock, to which there was but one key (except the master key, which he always carried round his neck); that box he himself placed (together with the key) in the hands of another Member of the Board, who, having examined and made his remarks upon its contents, replaced them, and handed the box and key to another member, and so on throughout the whole of the members, until it came to the last, who, when he had done with it, gave it back into his (Lord Dalhousie's) own hands. Throughout the whole of the proceeding it was never out of the immediate personal custody of the Members of the Board, and it was physically impossible that any access could be had to the documents during their progress in this way from one member to the other. Then as to the mode in which the decisions of the Board were published. The Board assembled to decide on the day on which the decision was to be announced. The minutes were prepared, not in the usual way by clerks and other subordinate officers, but by a Member of the Board itself; and the notices for the Gazette were also prepared by him with his own hand—no other person—no clerk—not even his (Lord Dalhousie's) private secretary was informed, or could be aware, of the decision of the Board in any case until it was published in the Gazette. It might be supposed that when the notice was placed in the hands of the editor of the Gazette the Board would consider that their responsibility ceased. But it was not so. Even then they took every care that the intentions of the Board should not be made known beforehand to any person, so as to

367
form the basis of speculations. They took care that the notice should not be placed in the hands of the editor on the day of publication, until it was so near to four o'clock that if he were disposed to communicate the information, and started at once for the Stock Exchange, he could not possibly by any conveyance reach it before it would be closed for the day. He submitted to their Lordships that if human precautions could do anything, those which the Board had adopted, and which he had detailed to their Lordships, were sufficient to ensure the necessary secrecy. But then it was said, "Large speculations have been recently made in railway shares, and it is singular that since the appointment of the Board large purchases have been made at various times on the speculation of a speedy rise, which rise, on the appearance of the Report, has taken place." But it by no means followed that that speculation was the consequence of previous intimation made to the parties by any person connected with the Railway Board, as to what might be their probable decision on any particular line. It was competent for any man of ordinary shrewdness, and acquainted with such matters, who read the Report of the House of Commons made last Session, and examined the first two or three Reports of the Board, to form a tolerably correct judgment of which was the most likely to meet with the favourable consideration of the Board and Parliament,—he would be able to do this from observing what were the principles on which they had decided in those cases. No doubt this was possible; many newspapers and other publications had put forth speculations and prophecies as to what would be the decision of the Board upon particular lines, almost before they were submitted to it; which speculations and prophecies had turned out to be correct. But that resulted from the tenor of the decisions generally, and the principles upon which they were based being generally perceived, and not from any information furnished to them to which the public generally had not access. He believed he had now adverted to all the points upon which it was necessary that he should trouble their Lordships. As to the efficiency of the Board, or the competency of its Members to discharge their duty, it was not for him to say a word. The Report he should now have the honour to lay on their Lordships' Table, and the other Reports that would follow, were the do-
368
cuments which must decide that question. If it should appear from them that the Board had been guided by sound principles, and that the facts upon which their decisions were grounded were correctly stated, and that they had decided on reporting in favour of those schemes that offered the greatest amount of public advantage, then let those Reports receive the consideration to which they were entitled at the hands of the Committees on the Bills; but if, on the other hand, it should be found that they had been influenced by narrow and feeble views—if their reasonings were unsound and unsatisfactory, it would be for Parliament to treat those Reports, as he should do in such a case, as a mass of worthless waste paper. All he should venture to say in regard to the Members of the Board was, that having had imposed upon them a task of great labour and oppressive responsibility, they had endeavoured to discharge it with diligence and honesty, without favour and without fear. Throughout the whole of their proceedings they had steadily and uninterruptedly kept in view one principle, viz.—regard being had to local and national interests—to report in favour of that railway, or combination of railways, which appeared to them calculated to give to the community the greatest attainable amount of public advantage.
The noble Lord having laid the Report on the Table,
Lord Brougham, said, he considered this one of the most important subjects that had of late years occupied the attention of Parliament, connected as it was with that class of Parliamentary subjects on which, for the public good, it became necessary and expedient from time to time for the Legislature to adopt measures, and to adopt a course that unavoidably led to an interference with private interests. Before he sat down, he should further illustrate the bearing of that remark on the present subject as connected with the Board of Trade and its system; but he must beg leave, in the outset of the few remarks he should make, and which were extracted from him by an anxious and deep consideration of the very great interests involved in the question—he must beg leave at once not only to acquit his noble Friend (Lord Dalhousie) who had made so candid, so luminous, and so able a statement of his case, but also to acquit his colleagues of all blame whatever. Indeed, he

369
had never so much as heard until that night—when he heard his noble Friend defend them from it—that any charge had been made against them. He (Lord Brougham) had no connexion with any railway company—God forbid—he had no stock—his noble Friend had thought it fit to exculpate himself from any suspicion of being influenced by sinister motives; he (Lord Brougham) might do the same, and assure their Lordships that he had never possessed one farthing's worth of stock—except, indeed, as he might hold it as a trustee or executor—and, therefore, he was as entirely disinterested on this question as it was possible for any one in or out of that House to be. But now he came to express his surprise that his noble Friend should have gone further, and having disclaimed sinister motives, that he should think he had vindicated the Board from all possibility of pronouncing effective decisions upon the questions submitted to them, and from all shadow of suspicion of influencing decisions elsewhere. Said his noble Friend, "How was it possible that their decisions could be effective, or have any weight? For they did not decide—they did not act judicially, but, as it were, ancillary to Parliament—to examine the case, to speak their minds upon it, and report upon it to Parliament. They had no desire to prefer one railway to another, or cry down one scheme and cry up another. They were not Parliament or a Court of Law. All they did was to examine, decide and report; and having done so, they left the parties to go to Parliament, and Parliament would no doubt vote upon the scheme, as Parliament should be advised." Then he would suppose himself for a moment a party in some one railway. He went to Parliament as a director of that railway, and the very first thing he heard was the question, "What is the use of throwing away your money and your time, and making yourself anxious about nothing? Do not you know that you are reported against—that the Board have decided against you? The Board have examined into the whole case—the parties to the competing lines behind their back, and you behind your back—in secret. It is not known upon what data they have pronounced their judgment, but that judgment is embodied in a Report, and meets you on the Table of either House of Parliament." Let him ask what chance had be under such circumstances to pass his
370
Bill; could he get rid of the Report, and convert it to mere waste paper? Could any man suppose that the Report being before Parliament, that Parliament would so treat it? He would venture to say that the probability, nay the absolute certainty, in all human understanding and in all common calculation of accidents, was, that that Report would be followed to the letter by both Houses of Parliament. Why, the Government were pledged by one of its Members beforehand; the opinion of the Government was already taken upon the question. [Lord Dalhousie: "The opinion of the Government is a different thing."] No doubt the opinion of the Government was different — the opinion of the Board was not the opinion of the Cabinet, but it was that of a part of the Cabinet. His right hon. Friend who had lately resigned was a Member of the Cabinet, and, therefore, before the right hon. Gentleman's inexplicable resignation—which it was very difficult to understand before it was explained, but after the explanation became involved in total darkness—he being at the head of the Board, as well as a Member of the Cabinet, the Government were pledged to the course reported for by the Board. [Lord Dalhousie: "No, no."] He knew that formally it was not so; but we were not living in Utopia, where Parliament was independent of the Government, and Government of the Parliament—when the strictest line was drawn between the Executive on the one hand, and the Legislature on the other, and when the Executive might pronounce an opinion to both Houses, which should bind nobody in either House. That was not the sort of world in which their Lordships lived. They knew well that when the Government had made up its mind upon any question, if it continued a Government, a majority in Parliament must go with it. But no, these were not decisions of the Government, they were told, but they were the decisions, the published opinions of an important Member of the Government, a colleague of the Government, if not in the Cabinet; and he should like to have a Return, for which he would move at the end of the Session, showing how many of the Reports of this Board of five Members acting under the President of the Board of Trade—a colleague of Ministers, though not in the Cabinet—how many of those Reports had been reversed

371
by Parliament. He would venture to predict, arguing on his own experience in similar matters, that it would be found as certain at the end of the Session as though they had now all the Railway Acts of Parliament before them that should be passed, that, speaking generally, perhaps in nine cases out of ten, perhaps in ninety-nine cases out of 100—or, perhaps—and this he thought the most likely—in 100 cases out of every 100, there would be a strict and literal coincidence between the decisions of the Board reported to Parliament, and the decisions of Parliament reported to the country. He had as confident and as decided a guess what the decision of Parliament would be in these cases, as he had when he predicted to their Lordships, some years ago, what would be the decision of any Election Committee, the members of which were taken equally from both parties, when he knew the political opinions of the Chairman. He never used to look to either side, but only to the Chairman, and he was generally pretty certain as to how the decision would go; and he spoke now with equal confidence as to the decision of Parliament on the Reports of this Board—not merely from past experience, and the results of that experience—not merely because he could hardly conceive bow it could be otherwise—not merely because he was arguing with all the probabilities on one way, and none on the other—but why he was so sanguine on the result of his opinion in this matter was, that he had listened attentively not only to the first, but also to the last part of his noble Friend's speech, and the whole of that last part was a demonstration unmistakable of what he now laid down. For observe, the letting out the slightest hint beforehand of what the decisions of the Board would be was reckoned by the Board gross negligence or culpable treachery; the utmost precautions were taken and properly and justly taken (but ineffectually, as he should presently show), to prevent the least whisper from going abroad, by which the probable results of the inquiry might be conjectured out of doors. First, the papers were denied their usual refuge of the cabinet-box, because it was possible that a key might be forged, the box opened, and its contents exposed to profane eyes. Therefore, a special box was made, with a peculiar lock, and a key that could not be forged—all the Bramahs of
372
the day were put into requisition in order to obtain an unimitable key to an unopenable box. Then the Report was taken by a special messenger—the ordinary messenger, of course, could not be trusted—and taken just a quarter before the particular hour when the Stock Exchange closed, that it might arrive at the Gazette office too late to reach the Stock Exchange that night—and the Gazette man was the only man confided in—as the editor of the Gazette was the only person who was entrusted with the Report for this quarter of an hour, and the only human being who could dream of what the decisions of the Board would be. But why all this multiplying of precautions to prevent the most faint whisper getting out before the decisions of the Board were made public, if the decision of the Board was to have no effect upon the final result, but were merely to be taken as the opinions of the five gentlemen who had taken the subject out of the hands of Parliament to prevent Parliament having the trouble of deciding? If the Board were only ancillary to Parliament, and its decisions not influencing Parliament in any way, why all this secrecy? Why they might as well publish the opinions of the Board before hand at Charing-cross, for whoever acted upon them would have themselves only to blame, if they burnt their fingers by speculating on the Stock Exchange. But every body knew that the decisions of the Board would not be a mere dead letter, but that they would influence the final decisions of Parliament on all the railway schemes. Out of this state of the case two observations arose. There were three schemes of railway in competition before the Board. Two of the three must be unsuccessful, and the question was, which one should have the opinion, the confidence, and the support of the Board, and which two shall be condemned. The Board examined the three schemes. His noble Friend appeared at first to say, that the Board did not examine evidence, that they had not power to do so. [Lord Dalhousie: They have not time.] No, but each party came before them with the best case he could get up; the Board examined the parties themselves in favour of their own scheme, but without calling witnesses, which they could not do, but having before them the best information they could obtain, on that they decided. Their decisions were published in the Gazette, and in that decision

373
they condemned two out of the three schemes, and approved of the third. Condemn was not the expression, certainly, but in the Report they recommended one and rejected the others. The Report, then, let it be supposed, was against two of the competing lines, and in favour of one. What was the consequence,—the first and immediate consequence? The moment that this Report was heard of, the moment that even a whisper of it reached the Stock Exchange, instantly every body who had stack in the two lines decided against was anxious to sell out, and every one tried if possible to get a little of the stocks of the third. The consequence was, that the funds fell with respect to the two, and they rose as to the third. That was the necessary, the inevitable result. With the existing regulation such a result could not be avoided. It might be expedient, it might be indispensable, that there should be some regulation as to these things. He admitted that readily; but then the only thing to be regarded was, whether this Was the best way, whether they should not have some regulation which at the same time would provide for the safety, the benefit, and the good of the public, and that should be as little pressing as possible upon the property of individuals. Though his noble Friend himself never speculated is these things, yet if he made up his mind to expend 5,000 l. in railway shares—though this he had never done, nor had any connexion of his ever done—yet if he had, or if any connexion of his had expended 5,000 l. in a railway that was reported against, then he said in that case he should feel most bitterly vexed and grieved by finding, through the means of a sentence published in the Gazette, a sentence, too, With regard to which all possible precautions had been taken; for it was not of that he would complain; but what he would complain of was the publicity, and that by that publicity 5,000 l. in shares would lumble down to be worth perhaps not 500 l.; perhaps not worth 50 l. This he would complain of; whereas, on the other band, he admitted he would feel very much obliged, if it happened that he was the lucky holder of shares in a railway which had been so fortunate as to have a sentence published in the Gazette in its favour, and instead of his shares being Worth 5,000 l., made worth five times 5,000 l. These were matters of very great importance—these were matters that had
374
a very great effect upon trade. Immense capital was involved in them—an immense amount of property was embarked in them; and here, then, was the Board of Trade, which, by publishing a single line, could sink or raise the value of that property—could do that which might ruin one man, and make the fortune of another. Now, this might be all necessary. He did not deny it; but then, let not noble Lords run away with the idea that this was all plain sailing; that no principle was interfered with, that no oppression had been done, and no injustice had occurred. It was very probable that very great injustice might be done, and very great oppression might be inflicted if they did not guard carefully, sedulously, and jealously the operation of such a plan as this. Another observation occurred to him—there was here an opportunity given to two, four, or five individuals, not of telling people that which they had done, or were about to do, but of buying or selling themselves. The opportunity was given to them—he did not say that any one had availed themselves of it; but their Lordships must perceive that this was a very delicate matter, and what he had humbly to suggest to them was this, if it were not absolutely necessary to intrust such a matter as this to none but those who were sworn Privy Councillors, or to a Minister of the Crown, and if they could not have all the benefits of four or five individuals to assist them, yet to have them as witnesses in helping them to come to a proper judgment? He would much rather have the determination of such a matter vested in responsible hands—in those that held a high position in Parliament, that stood high in the estimation of the public—in the hands of those who were, for instance, the sworn Ministers of the Crown—of men who could not betray their trust, because if they did, they would be liable to impeachment. He said he would much rather see the matter in such hands, than left to those who might buy or sell stock, and who, in doing so, could not be subjected to the slightest penalty. If these persons chose to do so, they were subjected to no penalty; they were liable to no punishment; they were not sworn; they were not even bound by the moral obligation of an extra-judicial oath. There was nothing to control those persons in making private speculations. Then there was another mode that might have been

375
adopted. The persons appointed to make these decisions—that is, they might have persons of great public station and responsibility, persons in high rank in public affairs and in Parliament. Perhaps it could hardly be said that any position could be so high or so responsible as that which was connected with the discharge of the duties of such a Board. He conceived, for his part, that it was not necessary to have recourse to any persons, however respectable, who did not fill the responsible situations of advisers to the Crown, or who, as Privy Councillors, were sworn to the discharge of their duties. He wished, however, to guard himself from any uncharitable construction being put upon the language he had used. He already repudiated the notion that he intended to make any observations against the Gentlemen who were on the Committee of the Board of Trade; he believed them to be most respectable; he believed that none could be more respectable. He did not know more than one of them, General Pasley; and he said a more honourable man there could not be—a better informed man could not possibly be. He did not know the others, but he took the description of them from what had been said of them by his noble Friend. He took that description from what had been said by his noble Friend, and he believed implicitly in it; but then referring to the charge which had been made, and of which he had never heard before that evening, with respect to Mr. William O'Brien, the chairman or manager of a railway, and Captain O'Brien, the Member of the Board—his noble Friend had said that Captain O'Brien was present, but did not take any part in the decisions that had been come to. He (Lord Brougham) did not see the necessity of his being present, when the matter under discussion was connected with the railway in which Mr. W. O'Brien was interested. The Board might have come to a decision without his being present. At the same time he did not charge Captain O'Brien with influencing that decision. His noble Friend mistook the matter at issue, when he entered into the details he had done. The question was not whether the Board was right or wrong in making a Report; but the question was, whether Mr. William O'Brien, the brother, knew that they were going to make a Report. He understood the fact to be, that Mr. O'Brien
376
was unacquainted with what the Board was going to decide, although he had the opportunity of getting at the fact.
The Earl of Dalhousiewas understood to say that it was absurd to suppose that an unfavourable decision was come to on a particular scheme, because Mr. O'Brien had a brother a Member at the Board.
Lord Brougham: If a person had a near relative interested in a particular scheme, and if he were not an honourable man, as Captain O'Brien certainly was, he might have given information; of course, Mr. William O'Brien had not bought stock at the time, nor about the time—he took that the matter was so. Besides, it did not follow that one gentleman was to lose, as connected with a railway, because he had a brother a member of the Committee of the Board of Trade. He had no doubt that it was all right and all proper, and that not the shadow of a suspicion could rest upon the worthy and injuriously-commented-upon individuals. What was or could be a proper regulation of the system to be adopted, or the practice to be pursued, it was not for him to suggest. Happily, it was still open for Parliament to determine it. He rejoiced that its attention had been so early called to it; and before any further mischief could be done, it was open for Parliament to make further regulations. It would not do to deny that the Board must have great influence upon parties and the public—he was sure that their Reports must influence them much. It would not do merely to say that these men were honest and honourable men, and that they never had divulged any secrets of the Board. He was sure that they never had divulged them. They saw that great precautions had been taken—they saw the nature of these precautions to prevent the secret from getting out. They saw that all this had been done ineffectually, whilst the secret itself was of the most important nature—of such delicacy and such importance, that the knowledge of it was certain to inflict the greatest injury upon one, and to confer the greatest benefit upon another. This, then, he said, was enough to make it the bounden duty of Parliament to devise every check and guard that they could possibly conceive and suggest, to prevent the possibility of allowing publicity being given to a secret which would admit of malversation; they should not

377
merely do this, but they should devise a plan, in which they might have an entire and absolute confidence that it would be impossible that any malversation could take place.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved that, from the great multiplicity of transactions connected with railways, it was obviously a matter of the greatest importance that Parliament should have the advantage of some preliminary inquiry respecting them. He certainly did not know, and he was not then prepared to say, that the course suggested as to the construction of the Board was essentially wrong; at the same time it might be a question hereafter whether that construction might not be, in some degree, amended. He must do the noble Earl opposite the justice of saying that he had stated at the time this question had been under the consideration of Parliament, that the decisions of the Board were not to be held as binding upon Parliament. It certainly was not stated that their decisions were to be binding, although a contrary idea might have gone abroad. The object of this Committee, or whatever other tribunal was appointed, was to consider which plan proposed to them was the most perfect, and that their decisions being known, might be a warning to parties, to prevent them from exposing themselves to unnecessary expense, and enable them to withdraw from a contest which might ultimately prove unfortunate. He confessed he did think that purpose had been forwarded by the course which had been pursued by the Board, by their promulgating an authentic decision through the medium of the Gazette, without annexing to it the reasons that had induced them to come to such a decision. It was obvious that parties would be prejudiced in favour of their own scheme; that scheme they would be disposed to imagine had been rejected upon insufficient grounds; they would presume that they had good grounds for being dissatisfied with it, and that their own reasons, when they came to be known, would overpower those of the Board. If the reasons were stated to the public, with the decision as to the grounds upon which it had been come to, then it would afford at the same time useful information to all parties that were interested in the fortunate scheme that had been determined upon; and it might also assist other parties in coming
378
to the conclusion whether or not they would persist with schemes analogous in their nature to that which had been rejected. He could not conceive any objection, unless it was one of a technical nature, which could have prevented the Board from annexing their reasons to each particular decision. He threw out for the consideration of the noble Earl, whether, in making his Reports—if he made them at all—he should not have them made by the Board as fully as possible, because it appeared to him to be the only way in which they could have those advantages which were proposed in the appointment of the Board. He merely rose for the purpose of throwing out this suggestion, and not for the purpose of pronouncing any definite opinion as to the constitution of the Board. Such a Board ought to be constituted and upheld hereafter, or Parliament would never be able to do justice to the treat mass of materials which were cast before it, connected with this one subject. He did not wish to enter at present into the great and grave considerations which were connected with the question of railroads, and their effect upon the general property and the private property in this country. The questions and considerations connected with this subject were of the utmost importance, and must force themselves hereafter, and that, too, at no distant period, upon the attention of Parliament.
Lord Stanleytrusted that a few observations would be pardoned from one who had so recently the honour of being a Member of their Lordships' House. It was, because he was so recently a Member of that House—it was, because he had so much later experience of the mode of proceeding in the other House of Parliament than his noble and learned Friend, that he ventured to correct a misapprehension into which he had fallen, and which, if permitted to go uncontradicted, might have an injurious effect upon the mind of the public. His noble and learned Friend had stated that he intended to move, at the close of the Session, for a return of all the Railway Bills which shall have passed through the House of Commons; and then, because the Reports on Railways had come from Members of a Committee connected with the President of the Board of Trade, and a Member of the Government, that not only nine out of every ten, but ninety-nine out of every hundred, of the decisions

379
of the House of Commons, would be in support of that which had been already come to by the Government. He thought it extremely likely that such might be the result. In the main, he believed, that the opinion of the Legislature would be in accordance with the recommendations of the Board. He believed, that this would be the case; but he could not concur in the conclusion which his noble and learned Friend would seem to draw from that circumstance—that they would be affirmed, because of the support of the Government. If his noble and learned Friend had the later experience which he had of the proceedings in the House of Commons, he would have been aware that since railways had come under the consideration of that House, there had not been one instance in which a single Member of the Government had, directly or indirectly, ever exercised the slightest influence on the votes of Members of the House of Commons upon any single railway scheme. There was not any Railway Bill on which Government had ever taken any part; and if his noble and learned Friend would examine the Records of the other House, he would find that in the great majority of such measures, the Members of the Government had abstained from voting — that in most instances they absented themselves; and that when they were present they voted constantly on different sides; and he might add that the Members of the House of Commons never had been sought, and never would be asked by Government to vote in favour of, or against, any particular branch of railway. With this explanation his noble and learned Friend would assign a different reason from that which he had suggested for the House of Commons coming to the same conclusion which the Board had deliberately arrived at—that Board consisting of highly honourable and highly intelligent individuals, who had been appointed under its own sanction—who had every opportunity of examining calmly and dispassionately into the circumstances of each case presented to them—and who, in their deliberations and investigations into the matters in their charge, were free from the interference of counsel—no small advantage in his opinion—and from the excitement of public proceedings, and who, there was every probability to support the belief, came to
380
their decisions, not because the Board of Trade was a constituent portion of the Government, but because of the advantage which they deemed they could procure for the country. His noble and learned Friend, therefore, combated a proposition which was never enunciated by his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Trade. What his noble Friend said on that occasion was, that it was likely the Legislature would come to the same decision as the Board of Trade in the majority of instances; and he agreed with his noble Friend that it would stultify the proceedings of the Legislature if it did otherwise, appointed as the Committee of that Board has been under its own sanction; if it did not, it would be, as regards their proceedings, only time thrown away, and trouble taken in vain. The noble Marquess had stated, and stated truly—that an essential portion of the duty of the Board of Trade is to avert the expense of fruitless proceedings on the part of those persons engaged in prosecuting railway speculations; but his noble Friend seemed to think that it rather neutralised the effect of this portion of their duty not to publish the reasons on which they came to the conclusions contained in their Reports. His noble Friend had stated the reasons why these decisions had been published. It was conceived that it would be better they should be known at once, lest they should ooze out in any improper manner, and unduly obtain publicity. [The Marquess of Lansdowne asked why the reasons had not been published in the Gazette?] His noble Friend asked why the Board had not made their Reports in the Gazette. They were required to report to Parliament. It was impossible for them to make their reports before Parliament met. They gave the result before the meeting of Parliament, because their decisions might ooze out, and much speculation and great jobbing might have been the consequence of the secret oozing out. It was for that reason the decision was published at once, and without waiting for the Report. But then his noble Friend said, that advantage might have been derived from the Report being known, as it might be the means of saving parties from great expense. He thought his noble Friend argued without foundation. He understood that a recent order had been made in the other House of Parliament, by which time was to be extended to parties concerned in railways, and this for the purpose of

381
parties not involving themselves in expense. It was not three weeks after the decision was known, but three weeks after the reasons on which the decision was founded were known, that were they required to proceed. Parties then would have the full benefit of that time for consideration. They would have that time for determining whether, after hearing the statement of the Board of Trade, they would incur any more expense; whether they would employ counsel, and engage themselves in a strife, by battling in a Committee, often bringing with it an expense of 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. Parties then would have the opportunity for three weeks, not subsequent to the decision, but to the opinion of the Board of Trade, to consider what course they might deem most proper to pursue. He could not, however, help thinking that whatever objections might now be made would have been much better urged at the time that the appointment of the Board was under discussion. He could not, too, but think, that after the reasons of the Board had been submitted in detail to the parties interested in these projects, that they would tend to save litigation; that the result would be to diminish greatly expenses that otherwise would have been incurred; to induce shareholders, influenced by the opinions of the Committee of the Board of Trade, to withdraw from plans which they might otherwise have regarded with favour. That they would induce them to withdraw, and, in many instances, from the satisfactory reasons assigned, not further to involve themselves in loss; to influence them in not opposing the most useful schemes, and that thus the most deserving of the support and the favour of the country would have the opportunity of being carried into effect, without the loss of being exposed to useless and unprofitable litigation—and that by the satisfactory reasons of the Board, there would not be that depreciation of property which his noble Friend deplored; and thus there might be avoided that unnecessary expenditure of money in the payment of agents and counsel, and all that expensive machinery which had hitherto been employed in getting forward with Railway Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdowneexplained. It was quite obvious, that when the Board came to a decision, and had formed an opinion, they could as easily communicate
382
their reasons, as the result of those reasons. As to the order which had been stated by his noble Friend, as having been suggested by the other House, he thought it was very proper, and one the effect of which would be of immense importance in preventing a large portion of the capital of the country being wasted in useless speculations.
The Earl of Dalhousie, in explanation, also said, that it would have been quite as acceptable and quite as easy for the Board of Trade to assign their reasons for the several decisions to which they had come, at the period of their publication as, subsequently, to Parliament; but having been constituted by Parliament, and being accountable to Parliament only for the course they had taken, they were obliged to reserve their explanations for that body. The Board, indeed, would prefer to have reported their reasons and their decisions at the same time; but for the cause he had stated they felt called upon to report them at separate periods.
Report ordered to be printed.
House adjourned.