stated that, in consequence of the count-out on Friday last, it was necessary that he should move that the House immediately resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Control and Management of Her Majesty's Naval Yards; and to move—

"That it is expedient that such reforms should be made in the control and management of the Naval Yards as will tend to promote greater efficiency, and, consequently, to ensure greater economy in those establishments."

The Commission to whose Report he desired to draw the attention of the House was appointed to inquire into the state of our naval yards; it was composed of very able men; it sat for a considerable period; and it examined no fewer than seventy-two witnesses, to whom 11,299 questions were put. He ventured to assert that there was not one of the witnesses who did not admit that the management of our dockyards was inefficient; the evidence accumulated proofs of everything that was stated in the Report of the Commissioners. It appeared that there was no harmony of action between the leading officers of the dockyards. The Controller of the Navy, who was responsible for the management, had no control over the Storekeeper; in fact, between these two officers there was scarcely any communication which could lead to accurate proceedings. The accounts, though minute, were mystified and irregular, and, as stated by some of the principal witnesses, they were of little or no value for any practical purpose. To show the House how true this was, and how long the system described had existed, he would quote some of the evidence given before the Commission; among others that given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham). The right hon. Baronet stated to that Commission that so little control was there over the appropriation of the public money that, wile he was First lord of the Admiralty, or before he was First Lord, a large building was erected, for which no Vote was given by the House, and of which, in point of fact, the House was not even informed. The right hon. Baronet stated, moreover, that this state of things still continued, and that there was no check against such an enormity recurring. There was similar evidence given by the Accountant General of the Navy, Sir Richard Bromley, that, though the House of Commons had details of small sums—of £100, £200, £2,000, and so on—they were not aware that the Accountant General had no means of knowing whether a ship cost £120,000 or £220,000. This was not the case in any mercantile firm. A mercantile firm would be ruined if its accounts were kept in that way. There was also this striking and startling fact in the evidence of the late Controller of the Navy (Sir Baldwin Walker), that at various times after his programme had been approved by the Board of Admiralty and he had sent orders to the dockyard to commence a certain vessel then for the first time. He discovered that the materials for the vessel he had ordered were not in store; and he stated further, that on several occasions, for want of seasoned timber, works were stopped, and that on other occasions unsound timber had been used in the construction of ships of war. Now, this was a state of things deeply to be regretted and deplored. He did not know what answer his noble Friend opposite (Lord Clarence Paget) would give to the Motion before the House. He might say that the evidence did not hear out the recommendations of the Commissioners, or he might state that a Committee was, now sitting upstairs on the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, or he might assert that it was the intention of the Government to carry out many of the recommendations of the Commissioners. He only hoped he might hear this latter statement from his noble Friend opposite; but, with regard to the examination by the Committee upstairs into the Board of Admiralty, this had not much to do with the question now before the House. If the noble Lord should say there was not sufficient evidence to support the recommendation of the Commissioners, on that point he joined issue with the noble Lord. He should be very reluctant to bring forward a blue book containing 11,229 questions, or to quote much from it; but there were a few answers that he should like to read to the House. Not many Members had time to read the whole of the evidence and the Report. Probably the noble Secretary of the Admiralty had not been able to examine it minutely. But it was a question of such importance to the country, to the taxpayers, and to the House of Commons, that it ought to be thoroughly sifted and examined; and he hoped he should obtain the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while he brought forward some of the recommendations of the Commission. One change recommended by his noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty himself was that there should be another Lord of the Admiralty specially charged with dockyard management. In that he (Sir Frederic Smith) agreed; and he regretted that this was not recommended by the Commissioners, for it would solve one of the great difficulties at present existing, by putting the Controller of the Navy in perfect harmony with the Storekeeper. It was recommended by the Commissioners that the Storekeeper General should be placed under the Controller. Probably his noble Friend would tell him that the Controller would be sorry to have that responsibility placed upon him. He certainly had a great deal to do at present; but he (Sir Frederic Smith) thought the point of so much importance that he doubted if the House would begrudge one or even two additional Lords if such, an advantage could be attained. What the House wanted, and what the Country wanted, was that their money should be well spent, that they should know how it was spent, and that they should get their money's worth for their money. But this was not the case at present. For instance, take the manner in which contracts were made:—it was done in a very slovenly manner. For instance, let us look at the case of the Warrior. The Warrior was a vessel of an entirely new construction. The drawings were prepared by the Surveyor of the Navy, and by him sent out to certain builders calling upon them for tenders. He was about to propose that his noble Friend opposite should institute a system by which there should be an estimate of all the great ships We construct. He trusted that his noble Friend Would not Say it was not possible to draw out these estimates, because if he did he (Sir Frederic Smith) would join issue with him on that point also. Well, then, if it Were possible to prepare such estimates, we ought to have them. If it should be said that the preparation would occupy some time, then, he said the course taken with regard to the Warrior was most improper. The Ship was most difficult of construction; everything about the vessel was quite new; the iron was of unusual dimensions; the scantlings were the largest ever known—in fact, the whole of the work was quite of a new character. Well, how long did the House suppose the builders were allowed to make up their minds as to the price they Would charge for different portions of the work? A month? No. A week? Not a week. Four clear days only Was the time allowed for all their calculations. One was not, then> astonished to find that alteration after alteration was made in the Warrior with vastly increased cost as the consequence; all because sufficient time was not allowed at first. In fact, it was impossible for any set of men to make in four or five days, or, in fact, in four or five weeks, an accurate tender for such works as those of the Warrior. Some calculations must have been, made also by the Admiralty; else how could an opinion be formed by the Controller with regard to the prices of the tenders f The lowest tender was not the one accepted. And why was that? Because the builders offering the lowest tender required sixteen of eighteen, months for the Completion of the vessel; whereas the tender which was accepted was for the work to be completed in eleven months. The lowest tender was thrown aside and another accepted at 50s. a ton higher, because the contractor undertook the ship in eleven months. whereas the contractor whose tender Was the lowest required eighteen months. But was the Warrior built in eleven months? No, nor in twenty-four. In fact, it must have been evident on the slightest consideration that it could not be done, the Warrior being the first of the kind) and a pattern of her class. Another blunder was in not allowing the contractor to get his iron beams where he liked, but insisting on his taking them of the Butterley Company. Then take the case of the gunboats. Of the 276 gunboats mentioned in the book now in the hands of hon. Members only 27 were built which did not require alterations. And these alterations, of course, involved increased cost, and the country was the loser. The most startling paragraph in the Report was this:—"We regret to state that in our opinion the control and management of the dockyards is inefficient," and this inefficiency the Commissioners attribute to "the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, the defective organization of the subordinate departments, and the want of clear and well-defined responsibility." Now, after the number of years our dockyards have been carried on, and considering the number of able men who have been at their head, one was astonished to hear such a statement in the Commissioners' Report; The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) made some improvements in the dockyards while he held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, for which the country was indebted to him; but, then, he told us, in his examination before the Commission, that an entire building had been constructed without any authority whatever. And then the Commissioners went on to say that in their opinion that inefficiency was caused by the constitution of the Board of Admiralty; and Sir Baldwin Walker testified to the want of control over the subordinate departments. The Commissioners complained of the general want of control and well-defined responsibility, and Sir Baldwin Walker repeated this over and over again in his evidence. The Report further stated that there were no means of checking the expenditure, and Sir Baldwin Walker and Sir Richard Bromley gave evidence on that point. Sir Baldwin Walker, the late Controller, said that during the thirteen years he had held that office he had seen six or seven changes in the general management of the dockyards, each new officer altering what had been done by his predecessor. It appeared from the evidence that it was competent for one member of the Board to give the order for large Works without the knowledge of the First Lord, and it was competent for two members of the Board to alter contracts without the authority of the Board. Sir Richard Bromley said he had known fifteen First Lords Since 1829, and altogether as many as ninety-seven changes in the Board of Admiralty. It really was, then, time that some well organized system was settled, by which these unfortunate changes should be avoided. He thought there should be a Minister of Marine, who should be held responsible for the control and management of the dockyards. The dockyards should be looked upon as a large manufacturing establishment for the building and repairing Her Majesty's ships; and the Minister should have the appointment of the Controller, not for his own tenure of office only, but during the good conduct, or during the life of the person appointed. The Commission recommended that the Controller General should have the appointment of Superintendents of the dockyards;, but here he differed from them, and he thought these appointments should be in the hands of the First Lord. The suggestion if adopted would be likely to saddle the country with an unnecessary number of officers. The Report proceeded to set out complaints which were general in the dockyards as to the mode in which the stores were kept. Sometimes the complaint was that the article required was not to be found; in others, the timber was deficient and of bad quality, or was not supplied according to order. Sir Baldwin Walker gave evidence on this point. Then the Commissioners said, with regard to the accounts, that "the system of accounts is elaborate and minute, but as far as we can judge its results are not to be relied on for any practical purpose." The accounts not trustworthy! It was really a great pity that there should be a management to produce such results. Then the Commissioners went on to say that the Accountant General said he could, if he were permitted, put the accounts on a better system, but then he must have an increased number of clerks. Well, how many had he now? Why, no less than 177. He (Sir Frederic Smith) could not imagine what he could want with a larger staff. He rather thought it was the number that created the difficulty, and that if 100 were taken off, and the work done with the remaining 77, it would be better done. Not that he wished to discharge any of the present corps; but he really thought that as they died off the vacant places should not be filled till a great reduction had been arrived at. Why, in the different Departments in the Metropolis there was a whole. army of clerks; and if the Admiralty and War Office clerks alone were armed with rifles, and sent to the outskirts of London, they would form a respectable force for its defence. Altogether there were 650 clerks in the Admiralty, and to be told that the accounts could not be efficiently kept because there was not a sufficient number of clerks to do the work, did seem extraordinary. The Commissioners went on to say that the Accountant General had never had the control of the Dockyard accounts since 1832. Next, that the valuation of the stores was made in the office of the storekeeper, but was not checked in any way. In point of fact, the audit at present instituted was of no kind of use. It was an internal audit; and an audit to be effectual ought to be external. The opinion had been repeatedly expressed that large retrenchments might be effected in the present Dockyard expenditure, and he hoped his noble Friend would tell them what improvements they were which were to be productive of economy; for the House was entitled to have the work done at the least possible cost. It was not enough to say that there was no peculation. He agreed with his noble Friend that there was none; but unless they could infuse into the different Dockyards the spirit of economy nothing could be done. The inquiry recently made showed the system to be defective in many points. One defect seemed to him to be that the experienced men at the head of the building department in our Dockyards were not now called upon to make drawings and plans for the ships which they constructed, although they were quite competent to do so. These drawings and plans were now made by one man or in one central department; but if the Dockyard builders were allowed to make them, it would, he thought, produce among them a spirit of emulation and of rivalry which Would lead to ships being not only well built, but economically built, and would altogether be productive of the best results. At present there was no proper control over the expenditure of the navy. They ought to have an estimate of what every ship was expected to cost, together with an account of its actual cost, and they ought to require a strict account of the reason if the actual exceeded the estimated expense. But there was no man in the House, and scarcely any man out of the House, who could imagine how the work was apportioned out to the workmen. He remembered that in the year 1825 he was appointed to superintend a department in the Tower, and soon after his appointment the clerk of the 'works asked him to come down to the Tower, as he could not find work for the men. His answer was, "Why I thought the proper course would be be supply men for the work, and not work for the men." But he was told, "Oh, no, that is not the practice here; we first engage a certain number of men, and then our business is to find work for them." He said he would certainly alter that practice, and he would begin by reducing the men now engaged. Oh, but, he was told, he could not do that, for the men were all Queenborough voters. That was the system in 1825; he hoped there was nothing of that kind now. But he might read an extract from the evidence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, who stated that one of the buildings at Devon-port—a very useful one—was built without the sanction, he might say without the knowledge, of Parliament; certainly they did not know out of what fund the money was taken to defray the cost, which was the Vote for Victualling. If that was the state of things, it was surely time to make inquiry. Again, in order to show the want of proper communication between the departments, Sir Baldwin Walker stated that there were many things of which he ought to have been informed, but which were brought to his knowledge for the first time by his reading them in The Times. Another point Sir Baldwin Walker had very strongly insisted on was the want of the necessary control over the Dockyards. A very extraordinary question was put to the builders in several of the Dockyards, as to whether they felt themselves at liberty to make suggestions upon the designs of vessels submitted to them from which to build. They one and all answered that they should not think of such a thing, for they knew they would be told to mind their own business. He thought this was not a right state of things; for, however able Mr. Watts might be, there could be no harm in having other opinions. He also objected to the present practice of the tenders being opened by the Controller of the Navy, and throwing upon him the responsibility of advising the Board which tender should be accepted. This was a very invidious position to place him in. As he had before stated, in the case of the Warrior, the lowest tender was not taken. The alleged reason for that was that while the contractor employed undertook to con- struct the Warrior in eleven months, the party offering the lowest estimate required sixteen or eighteen months. Now he thought the Admiralty ought to have made time an element in the contract itself, so that all builders might have been placed on the same footing, and might know what they had to expect.

seconded the Amendment.

admitted the great importance of the subject, but said that the great difficulty of this question was to decide the particular reform which should be adopted. The question had been much discussed in Parliament for many years past, and had been considered by various Commissions and Committees—there was a confidential Report on the Navy in 1848; there was a Report of a Committee on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates; and since then there had been several Committees on the states and managements of our Naval Arsenals and Naval Expenditure—but no proper system of dockyard accounts had yet been adopted. He had no doubt, however, that the Accountant General, with the advantage of the able Report just made, would be competent to introduce very efficient reforms; but having been himself at the head of two dockyards he knew the difficulty of the subject, and great caution ought to be exercised in entering on a system of accounts which, while it added greatly to the cost of the establishment, might not furnish the remedy which was required. In 1853 a new system of manufacturing account-keeping was introduced into Her Majesty's dockyards, which led to the employment of an increased number of clerks and of course to increased expense; but, as it seemed to have no reference to the annual audit, he never could see the advantage of it. As for naval expenditure, that was a matter which we could not shrink from, whilst not only France but the United States are largely increasing their naval ex- penditure. There had been numerous instances of important aid in building ships being afforded by private yards, and, as an Englishman, he was proud that the country possessed firms which could assist the Government in cases of emergency. The mode of keeping accounts in France was inquired into about the year 1851, and in consequence of those inquiries a better system was substituted. As to the estimate for ships to be built, he thought the best groundwork was to be found in the actual cost of ships already built. Although they might lay down ships of the same class and of the same character in the same yard, there must be a difference in their cost, on account of the varying cost of materials and labour. The Warrior was a great and new experiment, and he was not able to express any opinion as to the cost, but he hoped accurate accounts would be kept of the cost of the iron ship ordered to be built at Chatham, which would afford valuable data for future reference. He thought the Accountant General was perfectly qualified to determine what accounts should be furnished, but he could not conceive it necessary to go into details to, the extent of returning to the Admiralty elaborate accounts of the repairs of the innumerable articles which are repairable and kept in store for reissue. He concurred in the importance of keeping full and dear accounts, but he was not prepared to say that minute details though duly recorded, should be carried forward when they do not form the basis of annual audit.

I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham for bringing the important subject of the control and management of Her Majesty's dockyards under the notice of the House. But he has not quite done justice to me in assuming that I am opposed to the Report of the Royal Commission. I have made no remark with regard to that Report, beyond expressing my approval of it and my regret that marginal references, fey which Members might more easily refer to the evidence upon which the recommendations of the Report are founded, have been omitted.

said, he had made no comments on the subject.

The hon. Gentleman, I thought, rather assumed that I was opposed to that Report. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: No!"] All I can say is that, so far from it, the Admiralty are extremely obliged to the Commissioners for their valuable and able Report, and for the careful consideration which they have given to this important subject. The Report contains a number of very important recommendations; and, first of all, with regard to the constitution of the Admiralty. It is obvious, however, that, as the subject is now under the consideration of a Committee composed of the most able Members of the House, it would not be advisable for the Admiralty at this moment to make any changes in the constitution of the department as regards the control and management of the dockyards, even if they deemed any necessary. I come now to the recommendation of the Commission, which it is in the power of the Admiralty to give effect to at once, namely, the important question of accounts. There is no doubt that the accounts of the ship-building departments have not been kept in a satisfactory manner. I make that statement without implying any disparagement of the officers of that department. I am bound to say that I do not think the Commissioners for a moment entertained the idea that there had been any mal-practices in regard to pecuniary matters. The object of the Commissioners was to point out the necessity of keeping the accounts in such a form that the Admiralty and the House of Commons should know what each ship in the navy costs the country. There are, undoubtedly, great difficulties in doing so. If we turn to the French accounts we find that they are complicated by excessive minuteness of detail, and that they are attended with the further drawback that they cannot be produced till two years after the transactions to which they refer. What the Commissioners desire is that the Admiralty should be enabled annually, as soon after the close of the financial year as possible, to present to the House an account of the cost of every ship in Her Majesty's dockyards during the past year. With the view of carrying out the proposal of the Commissioners the Accountant General, who well deserves the encomiums which my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Chatham and Devonport have passed upon him, has, at the desire of the Board of Admiralty, prepared a form of accounts by double entry, and devised a scheme by which all the bookkeeping and accounts of the ship-building departments shall be entirely committed to the change of one officer and an assistant at Somerset House. These accounts will thus be brought into one focus at the Admiralty, and from these accounts an annual statement will be made to Parliament of the public expenditure for ship-building. This proposal, which I am happy to say involves not much expense, has been submitted by the Admiralty to the Treasury; I have little doubt that the Treasury will agree to it, and that within a few days this great reform will be commenced. My hon. and gallant Friend, in referring to the system of contracts, is in error in stating that the responsibility of inviting parties to make tenders for Admiralty contracts, and of deciding which tender shall he accepted, rests upon the Controller. That is not so. The fact is that the Controller only submits a list of names to the Board, from which they select those who are to be invited to compete, according to their own judgment; and when the tenders are sent in it is for the Board, and not the Controller, to decide which shall he accepted. I admit that there is much difficulty connected with the time-contracts to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. In the case of the Warrior there were other tenders which were less than that which was accepted; but the contractors who got the order for the vessel undertook to build it within a shorter period than any of the others. I can quite understand that the Board of Admiralty, under the urgent circumstances of the case, should deem it advisable to accept a tender rather higher than some of the others, in order to get the vessel as soon as possible. It has not been completed within the specified time; but it is certainly not the fault of the late Board, nor of any department of the Admiralty, that the contract has not been fulfilled. The case of the Warrior is a very peculiar one. It is a vessel on an entirely novel plan, and its construction has necessarily been attended with many difficulties. My hon. and gallant Friend has said, with a great degree of truth, that every consideration should be given to all the details of such a vessel before its commencement; but it is almost impossible, in dealing with a new class of vessels, where we have had no experience to guide us, to avoid changes in the original plan. As I stated on a former occasion, certain necessary alterations were ordered by the Admiralty in the Warrior, as to ports and other details; and, while I cannot hold the contractors blameless, I must admit that there were reasons for the delay which has taken place in the com- pletion of the vessel. It is quite true, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, that some of the dockyard officers, in their evidence before the Commission, unite in stating generally that any proposals which they have submitted to the Admiralty for improvements in shipbuilding have not been encouraged. I believe that the Admiralty would be wise to call together the master shipwrights and other officers of the dockyards, and gather their opinions on questions of difficulty; and I may mention that some of these officers have already been desired to submit plans to the Admiralty for vessels for the defence of the coast. My hon. and gallant Friend seems to hold that what we want is not men for the work, but work for the men. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in the dockyards, so far from our having too little work for the men, the arrears of repairs of ships have accumulated greatly, owing to the large amount of building which has taken place within the last few years. "We have a very large body of men now employed on repairs which ought to have been effected a considerable time since. My hon. and gallant Friend, in referring to the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) before the Commission, spoke as if the Admiralty had power to construct public works without the sanction of Parliament. It may be perfectly true that the Victualling Yard at Devonport was built in a great measure without the control of Parliament; but times have changed very much since that was done. The Admiralty have now no power to commence any work without the sanction of the Treasury. That is a great check, to which my hon. and gallant Friend did not allude, and it constitutes a great difference between the present times and those during which the Admiralty had the power of constructing works without any control or sanction. It is also said that the late Controller made complaints that he had no control as to the stock of timber in the dockyards. I believe that there was some justice in those complaints. There has been great inconvenience experienced, but it has arisen from this fact, that our departments are separated, and that, whereas, they ought to be all under one roof and in daily communication with each other, we have the Controller of the Navy at Whitehall, while the Storekeeper, an officer intimately connected with him in all bus ness, is at Somerset House. Constant communication between those officers has ceased from the day on which the Controller was removed to Whitehall. It is one of the recommendations of the Commission, in which I heartily concur, that the departments should be re-united. The Admiralty is a great war department, and although we may struggle on in time of peace, yet if war broke out to-morrow it would be found absolutely necessary that all its parts should be brought under one roof. This matter is considered by the Board of Admiralty to be so important that we are already in communication with the Treasury upon the subject, and I hope that before long a great and beneficial change will be made. The hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Devonport (Sir Michael Seymour) thinks that the recommendation of the Commission, that there should each year be laid upon the table an estimate of the cost of ships to be built, could not be carried out. I differ from him. I believe that it can be done; but it can only be done when you have a correct account of what ships cost; therefore, if I were now to lay upon the table an estimate of the cost of what we propose to do this year it would be only deceiving the House. My noble Friend the Duke of Somerset has, in order that we may comply with the general wish of the House that we should give all the information which we can, empowered me to give a sort of rough estimate of what we are really going to do, and that estimate I shall be glad to communicate to the Committee when we get to Vote 10. I cannot oppose the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend. At the same time, I do not think it is necessary, because it is the desire of the Admiralty to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, and as I understand that if it is carried we shall not, by the rules of the House, be able to go into Committee of Supply tonight, I hope that he will not press it.

I see most clearly that the gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith) who has introduced the present subject of discussion to the attention of the House, has devoted a careful and patient perusal to the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the control and management of the Naval Yards. He has deduced several very important points for consideration on the part of Government with respect to the future administration of those departments. I have no intention of following preceding speakers over the same ground, or repeating arguments so ably urged; I will simply reiterate the fact that since the year 1829 no less a number than seventeen First Lords, sixty-seven naval and civilian Lords, and seventeen Secretaries have held office under the uncertain tenure which is the condition of membership of a Board of Admiralty? Every such change, the late Controller of the Navy (Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker) conclusively proved, had necessitated a different arrangement and constant alterations in the Royal Dockyards. One paragraph of that evidence I must instance as affects the supply of timber—

"A short time ago (Sir Baldwin Walker observed) I discovered that at one of the yards they had not got the necessary description of timber to proceed with the works ordered. I called upon the officers of that yard to report why my department had not been made acquainted with the fact. They referred me to several letters on the subject which had been sent forward, but which I had not seen. I then called for copies of all letters sent from the several yards during the previous twelve months, in which the want of timber was pointed out, when I discovered that no less than 114 letters had been forwarded, only ten of which had been seen by my department. Under such a system how is it possible to carry on the duties in a satisfactory manner when the head of the department, who is responsible that the works ordered are performed, is not made acquainted with the state of affairs in the establishment in which the most important of these works are executed."

Economy, in the fluctuation of opinions contained in the Report, upon the part of the highest authorities examined, is, it appears to me, a simple impossibility. To such constantly changing Boards we commit the sacred trust of our navy—the very right arm of our national strength—with all its manifold departments—the manning of the fleet, the supervision of dockyards, the building, equipment, and repair of vessels, the determination of the best mode and materials of construction, and naval architecture, the supply of stores, the control of expenditure, and, in a word, the maintenance of our navy in a state equal to any emergency, which is indispensable to the security of our commerce, the safety of our shores, and the continuance of our honour and freedom as a nation. This plain statement of the mischievous results which are the consequences of the irresponsible constitution of the Board of Admiralty and the frequent changes of the Board, has a force of argument which no expressions of mine could deepen. The evil is pressing as it is serious, and I need not assure the House that, without party spirit or invidious reflection upon toy individual, I speak merely for the welfare of a service whose well-being is bound up in that of the empire itself. I will only further observe that a perusal of the evidence given by Sir Baldwin Walker before the Commission has convinced me that it was quite unnecessary that that gallant officer should have remained in England to be examined by the Committee which is now sitting to inquire into the administration of the Admiralty.

said, he could not help thinking that any expression of opinion as to what the Executive authority intended to do with respect to the Report of this Commission was somewhat premature—that authority could not have had time to consider, still less to act upon the recommendations of the Dockyard Commissioners. He had no hesitation in saying that time sufficient had not elapsed to allow the authorities to consider, and still less to carry out, the recommendations of the Commissioners, though he felt convinced that the noble Duke at the head of the service was not only able, but most willing to advance any measure calculated to promote the interests of the service. The Report of the Royal Commission had been somewhat strangely dealt with. It was sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 11th of March, and on the 12th it was placed on the table of that House; so that, without even being read by Her Majesty's Ministers, it was subjected to a good deal of criticism both in and out of doors. It was true that on the whole that Report had been well received, but he thought the distinction had not been sufficiently noticed which was drawn between the cash and value accounts in the dockyards—a difference, nevertheless, which was very important, as affecting imputations cast on officers in the dockyards. These officials were charged with keeping extremely loose' and careless accounts, and the Commissioners, in making that charge, very much understated the effect of the evidence brought before them, which clearly showed that the value accounts were not worth a farthing. Persons out of doors supposed that such a state of accounts necessarily inferred purloining the public money; whereas the cash transactions were altogether apart from the value accounts as the Commissioners took care to point out. And al- though, these value accounts, which pretended to apportion the expenditure between the different offices, were thoroughly unsound, the House was not to fall into the error of supposing that they were of no importance whatever, as without them the House had no means of knowing the cost of any ship, or of comparing one with another. Mr. Watts, the chief constructor, told the Commissioners that he had looked to these accounts for guidance as to the cost of ships for many years, and was not in the habit of making any special inquiries unless the cost of two particular ships was found to be very disproportionate. For his own part, he very much doubted whether the Storekeeper General had sufficient control over his own storekeepers, and whether that department, consequently, did not require scrutiny. The storekeepers again stated that they had not a sufficient number of duly qualified assistants, and that they were obliged to hand over the figures to inexperienced clerks. But it was undoubtedly true that some of the attempts at partial amelioration had resulted in leaving things worse than they were at the beginning, while Boards very often did not follow out their own schemes for improvement. The effect of the change by which an accountant was sent to each yard was to take away the check which previously existed on the storekeepers' notes; and at Woolwich lately a good many errors had been detected by recurring to the old system. He hoped the distinguished Accountant General, Sir Richard Bromley, would do something towards ameliorating the present system of accounts, and that the noble Duke at the head of the department would succeed in restoring a greater degree of harmony between the principal officers. The Controller, Storekeeper, and Accountant General were all pulling different ways, and the jealousy between them was carried to a pitch little short of absurdity. A Board, as a Board, he had always thought a bad governing body where manufactures on an enormous scale were carried on, requiring the firm hand and sound head of a single responsible person; but, assuming a Board of some kind to be a necessity in connection with the Admiralty, the noble Duke, with the assistance of his colleagues, might do much, he thought, to set matters on a better footing. The prevailing impression with regard to the unsatisfactory state of the accounts of the department had been produced in a great degree by the evidence of the Accountant General, and he therefore trusted that gentleman maintained the same unhesitating language elsewhere. Parliament had voted, within the last eleven years, £42,000,000 far ships and services; and it was not to be wondered at that a great desire should exist in the public mind that a better system of accounting for that money should be devised. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had truly stated that in the course of the inquiry nothing in any way bearing the semblance of malpractice had transpired; had anything of the kind come to light, from the determined spirit with which the Commission was entered upon, it would certainly have been clearly and distinctly reported.

said, it was not his intention to press his Motion, which he accordingly begged leave to withdraw.

said, he could not help thinking that the information given by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty with regard to the intentions of the Government was excessively meagre. He had stated, in effect, that the Government were precluded from doing anything by the fact that a Committee on this subject was sitting upstairs. The public thought that the Admiralty was in a bad state, and no half measure would do. The gallant Admiral the Member for Devonport (Sir Michael Seymour) seemed to think that, provided our ships were well built, the dockyard accounts were of trifling importance. He concurred with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that our ships ought to be well built, but he also held that the accounts were of vast importance. What the country required was that our ships should be built of the very best materials and in the best manner; and what the House of Commons was bound to do was to see that economy should be enforced in the dockyards. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) had expressed considerable confidence in the good intentions of the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty. He (Mr. Dalglish) had no doubt that the noble Duke was a very able administrator, but he should be glad if any one would point out in what respect the Admiralty had been improved within the last two years—if any one would point out one step that had been taken to improve it since the time when it was under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich. What improvements had been made in the Department since those for which we were indebted to that right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle? It had undergone no change for the better during the last two years, nor did he believe it would during the next two. The Admiralty was now extensively engaged in manufacturing. They would soon be manufacturing their own steam engines. The reason given for this was that such a system provided a check against overcharge by contractors. But it failed in supplying any correct standard of the charges in consequence of the unsatisfactory state of the accounts, which were kept in the most extraordinary way that ever accounts had been kept. It had been stated that everything manufactured in the Royal dockyards cost 50 per cent more than if manufactured by contract. What was the system adopted in the French navy? They manufactured almost no article in the dockyards which they could get from private manufacturers which they could contract for. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had assured the House that no department of the Government was to blame for the length of time which the Warrior had been under construction. He did not know the facts of the case himself, but he had every reason to believe that after the Warrior was contracted for the changes in respect to details were incessant, and that to those changes the delay might almost entirely be attributed. He found, for instance, that the weight of the screw had been altered from 24 to 42 tons, and that was a change which necessarily involved a very great loss of time. The plan of the ship was drawn by Mr. Watts, of the Admiralty, and perhaps it was the best that could have been adopted; but not one of the great shipbuilders who had furnished designs was asked a single question with regard to the plans which they had designed. With respect to the question of tenders generally, he had no doubt that the system had been very much improved. He believed that the most important step in the direction of that improvement had been taken by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, and he had no hesitation in saying that the country was very much indebted to that right hon. Gentleman. He should like to have seen the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty carry out his views of reform. He could not suppose that it was owing to any lukewarmness on the noble Lord's pact that he had not dose so. He believed it was out of his power, and that the noble Lord, to whom that House looked for everything in connection with naval reform, had no more power than a mere clerk.

thought some further and clearer explanation was required from the Government with reference to this subject. The House had clearly before it this fact, that for some years past millions of the public money had been voted to be expended in these dockyards, and that money could not now be accounted for in any way. Such was the explanation given by the noble Lord the Secretary to, the Admiralty. The noble Lord admitted that the Report of the Commission was perfectly correct, and the only excuse he could give was, that he was satisfied there had been no embezzlement on the part of any of the officials connected with the dockyards. But that was not a reason which ought to induce that House to vote any further supplies of money on account of these dockyards, until they had received an assurance from the Government that there should be immediately instituted a proper superintendence with regard to these moneys. In order to show the enormous disproportion between the cost of superintendence in these dockyards and that of other Government establishments, he would compare in this respect two of the prominent dockyards with two of the principal factories under the control of the War Office. If they took the dockyard at Woolwich they found that the number of workmen employed was 1,821, while the number employed in the Royal Laboratory was 3,827. The expenditure on account of wages in the dookyard was £109,000, and in the Royal Laboratory £155,000. The cost of superintendence in the dockyard was £18,517, and in the Royal Laboratory £10,681. The number of clerks provided to furnish these accounts was twenty-three in the dockyard, and in the laboratory only nine. Therefore, there had been no stint whatever in providing clerks for the purpose of furnishing the accounts. In the dockyard at Portsmouth there were 3,303 workmen employed, and the cost of wages was £206,000. In the gun factory in the Woolwich Arsenal 3,775 were employed, and the expenditure on account of wages was £196,000. The" cost of superintendence in the dockyard was £24,201, as against £7,302 the cost of superintendence in the gun factory. He could not understand why they should wait for the Report of the Committee that was sitting up stairs before they made any change in the present system of dockyard management. He trusted the Admiralty would take the matter in hand at once, and effect a change of system. A Committee of that House had recommended that an Artillery officer should be held responsible for the manufactures carried on in connection with the Army: and why should an Admiral of high standing not be placed in charge of these Naval Dockyards, and held responsible to the Admiralty for all that was done in them?

said, that the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Jervis) was under a misapprehension with regard to what had been stated by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. He did not say that he could not tell in what way the monies voted by Parliament had been expended; what he stated was that the value accounts, not the cash accounts, had been so kept that it was impossible to state definitely how much was charged to one ship and how much to another. Neither did his noble Friend say that before any steps were taken in the system of keeping accounts it would be necessary to wait for the Report of the Committee sitting up stairs. On the contrary, he distinctly stated that active measures would be taken for introducing a system of book-keeping by double entry. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite was very much mistaken if he thought that was a simple and easy process that could be effected without much labour. He (Mr. Whitbread) did not believe it was possible to institute a fair comparison between the cost of superintendence for dockyards, and that for those establishments under the War Office, because the establishments were so essentially different in their character. The heads of expenditure in the dockyards must be very much more in number, and he was not prepared to admit that the superintendence was at all in excess of what it ought to be. With respect to the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had made no improvement in the administration of that department since his accession to office, he would remind his hon. Friend that the noble Duke had made important changes in the position of the Controller of the Navy—changes which had been since found to be beneficial to the service.

said, he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) should have been so easily persuaded to withdraw his Motion, for he would venture to say that the Report which had been laid on the Table of the House had been more freely discussed out of doors than any other Report presented to the House since he had a seat in it, and no wonder, for it contained very grave charges against the present system of the Board of Admiralty. He was not satisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, for though the Report stated that there had been in eight months, at one dockyard, no less than 8,000 errors discovered in the accounts, the noble Lord had not taken any notice of this grave charge, or stated whether the Report was correct or not. No less than £4,000 had been omitted to be charged for wages, and £1,200 had been charged twice over; while the sum of £5,210, expenses incurred for boilers, had not been charged against the ships to which they had been supplied. He should be glad to know whether these statements, which appeared in the Report, were true or not; more especially as the evidence given to the Commissioners was chiefly given by witnesses from the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) said the Admiralty were going to adopt another system of accounts, and he (Mr. Lindsay) was glad to hear it; but it was not a sufficient answer to tell the House that a system of double entry was about to be instituted; for if the dockyards were inefficiently superintended a new mode of keeping accounts would not enable the Admiralty to build ships at less cost than before, and the House ought to know in what respect they were to be made efficient, and who was to be responsible. The Commissioners said they were not able to ascertain the cost price of any one article. Now he (Mr. Lindsay) thought they ought to know the cost of every article, and with a proper system of accounts and responsible superintendance they would know the cost of every article. Both the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Willoughby) had said there was no reason to suppose there had been any malpractices; and he (Mr. Lindsay) would not say there had been any; but they could not say there had not been malpractices when they found that certain sums had been charged twice for wages, and that other sums had been omitted to be charged altogether. In short, the accounts were kept in such a manner that it was impossible to say whether there had or had not been malpractices. He should like to know whether it was a fact that the average cost of the vessels built at Pembroke during the ten years 1848–59 was £33 3s. 5d. per ton for the bare hulls? If it was, then the cost was at least £13 per ton more than it ought to have been. He found that the number of vessels built in those ten years was 44, of which 11 were from 230 to 420 tons register, 11 from 500 to 800 tons, 5 from 1,000 to 1,200, 10 from 2,000 to 2,500, and only 7 of the largest class, from 3,000 to 3,700 tons. Now, he considered that vessels of the smallest class could have been built in private yards in every respect equal to those of the Government at £10 per ton; and those of the next class might have been built equally good for £12 per ton. Taking the price of the smallest craft, however, at £20, the next at £22, the next at £24, and the next at £26, the real cost of the seven largest vessels would have been no less than £49 per ton. He had often stated in the House and he would now repeat it, that with a perfectly organized system at the Admiralty, and a proper system of accounts, the country would receive as much for £8,000,000 as they now did for £10,000,000—or in other words, he conscientiously believed that £2,000,000 could be saved by the adoption of a better system. He was glad to hear that the Admiralty were about to invite suggestions from master shipwrights and other competent persons when they determined upon laying down vessels of a large size. He thought the Admiralty might with propriety go a step further. Our new ships, built after the Warrior, would, he believed, cost from £350,000 to £400,000 each before they were finished. If it were important to invite designs from all quarters for our public buildings, why should we not invite the science of the age to give us the best models of new ships before we embarked on such a vast expenditure for naval architecture? A handsome premium should be offered to induce naval architects to compete. Considering the value of obtaining the best form and lines for new iron ships, a premium of £5,000 would not be too much for the best model; and he would not debar the servants of the Government from competing. It might be doubted whether the right form for iron-plated ships had yet been obtained. In the naval intelligence of the leading journal of the 9th of May it was stated that the Warrior, although lying in the still water of the Victoria Dock, showed unmistakeable indications of being top heavy in her present trim. He was talking the other day with a gentleman from the Southern States of America, who accounted for the bloodless operations at Port Sumter by the fact that the fort and a battery in the harbour were lined with case iron of about 2 inches in thickness placed at such an angle that the shot glanced off without doing any mischief. It was worthy of consideration, therefore, whether the sides of our new iron ships could not be built of a form so that shot might glance from the armour sides either into the air or the water. At all events, a great advantage would result from throwing open the question of form to the competition of naval architects in all parts of the world, and it would be well to make experiments upon iron plates at different angles, and see the effect of shot upon them.

thought that a good deal of the present discussion would have been, more appropriate in Committee upon the particular Votes; but after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), some of whose observations were rather hard both on the present Board of Admiralty and on preceding Boards, he could not allow the conversation to close without saying a few words. He concurred with the hon. Member that it was impossible to overrate the importance of the matter which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had brought under the notice of the House; and, undoubtedly, no Report lately presented had attracted more attention out of doors than this had done; but he could not think that the criticisms passed upon the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty were quite just, or that the present Board of Admiralty was open to the charge of not having met the inquiry in a fair spirit. The hon. Member for Sunderland had gone more into details on the subject matter of the Report than was necessary, and had said much which, proceeding from a Gentleman so competent to judge in matters of this kind, was calculated to excite considerable dissatisfaction, if not alarm, with respect to the alleged extravagance in the dockyards. The hon. Gentleman stated that the cost of building men of war in the dockyard at Pembroke was £33 per ton, while they ought to have been built for £20 per ton. He did not know upon what authority the hon. Gentleman rested that opinion; or whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to the cost of the mercantile marine.

explained that what he had intended to convey was that, taking vessels of several sizes, the larger sizes cost £49 instead of £33 per ton; but that the average price of all the ships of different sizes to which he referred was £33 per ton, whereas it ought not to have been more than £20.

said, the hon. Gentleman still left the House uninformed of the basis upon which his calculations proceeded. If the hon. Gentleman was comparing these vessels with those of the mercantile marine, the comparison was not a fair one; and if he professed to give the average cost, he must recollect that the average cost would be taken on vessels of different sizes. They might have a frigate of 3,000 tons, as well as a three-decker of 3,000 tons, but no one conversant with the subject would suppose that the one vessel could be built at the same cost as the other. A different rate of man of war involved an additional number of decks, and the number of decks was not included in the tonnage. At the same time he was ready to admit that there were some startling facts in the Report, and it must be admitted that the Gentlemen attached to the Commission had discharged their duty in a manner to deserve the best thanks of the public. He agreed that that Report, as it stood before the public, imposed a serious responsibility on the Board of Admiralty. The question was, whether the way in which the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had met these statements was such as the circumstances in which he was placed required? He did not see how the Admiralty could have met the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend in a fairer or more complete manner than they had done. In point of fact, the Report involved two points—the constitution of the Board of Admiralty as regarded the care and superintendence of the dockyards, and the mode in which the dockyard accounts were kept. Upon the first point it was a very fair answer to say that the constitution "of the Board of Admiralty was under the consideration of a Committee up stairs. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) impugn the constitution of that Committee on the ground that there Were too many persons on it that were now, or had formerly been connected with the Board of Admiralty. Whenever the Report of that Committee came before them he hoped it would be shown that the Committee were entitled to the confidence both of the House and the country. His hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) said it was a matter for question Whether this great public department of the Admiralty could be best managed by a Board, and he (Sir John Pakington) had ventured on former occasions to intimate the same doubt. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had stated that this Report proved that there was a want of adequate official control in the dock yards, and he (Sir John Pakington) very much shared in that opinion. The hon. Member also said that there was a want of adequate responsibility, and he (Sir John Pakington also shared that opinion. But he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis), when he said this was a most simple and easy matter, and that nothing would be more easy than for the Board of Admiralty to appoint an Admiral to superintend the dockyards. If the hon. and gallant officer were a Member of the Select Committee he would soon discover that this was a matter not so easily disposed of. This Was a most complicated and difficult question, and required most anxious and dispassionate consideration on the part of those to whom this duty had been delegated. He was one of those who thought that the Government would have done well if they had taken the matter into their own hands, and had decided to investigate the administration of the navy themselves. While he held that opinion, on the other hand he thought it would be in judicious in the Government, after referring the question to a Committee upstairs, to undertake suddenly to reconstruct the naval department. With regard to the other part of the Report of the Commissioners relating to the accounts, it was to be inferred, from what had fallen from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the Government were directing their attention to the important matter, and he was sure that the hon. Members for Glasgow and Sunderland would admit that that difficult and complicated subject could not be in more competent hands than those of Sir Richard Bromley, the Accountant General at the Admiralty. The House had heard, likewise, that the Duke of Somerset Was engaged in endeavouring to carry out the substance of the Report of the Commissioners, and in effecting those improvements in the accounts which the Report proved to be so necessary. He should have thought the Admiralty to be guilty of a neglect of duty if it had postponed for one day longer than absolutely necessary the consideration of the evils which had crept into the dockyard accounts; but, after the assurance of the noble Lord, and knowing how competent the Duke of Somerset was to deal with the affairs of his department, he was bound to believe that the Admiralty was doing all in its power for the purpose of obtaining an accurate system of accounts.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been received that the Austrian Government are removing the troops of the late Duke of Modena from the territory of Venetia; and also, whether that Government are transferring troops from Mantua, and other fortresses in Venetia, to Hungary, for the purpose of the collection of taxes in the latter country? In bringing the subject before the House he reminded hon. Members of the present relative position, of Austria and Hungary, and of the refusal of the Hungarian Parliament to recognize the constitution which had been promulgated by Austria, and that they claimed their ancient rights. If the conduct of Austria should prove to be harsh towards the Hungarian people, it Would drive them to the verge of war. The constitution of Hungary was of as great antiquity as our own, and the people of that country BOW demanded their rights. That demand was not made by the extreme democratic party but by the moderate party. He had visited these countries, and knew the feelings of the Hungarians. If Kossuth should go into the Carpathian mountains, he could bring about such scenes as Were enacted m 1848, for the attachment of the people to him was very strong. Our policy was undoubtedly one of strict impartiality, and it was to be hoped that some constitutional mode would be found of settling the present difficulties. He should be glad if the noble Lord would reply to his Question.

In reply to the Question which has been asked by the hon. Member, I have only to say no information has been received at the Foreign Office with respect to the removal of the troops of the late Duke of Modena from the territory of Venetia, or that the Austrian Government are transferring troops from Mantua and other fortresses in Venetia to Hungary, for the purpose of collecting taxes in that country. I do not think I am at all called upon—nor do I think it would be for the convenience of the House that I should enter upon the question of Hungary. I can only say that the hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood what I said on a former occasion on this subject. I gave no opinion in favour of Austria as against Hungary; I only expressed the wish that Hungary may be in the enjoyment of liberty according to her ancient constitution, and that the enjoyment of those liberties may be compatible with the maintenance of the present dynasty. I gave no Other opinion than that: but the hon. Gentleman seems to think that the Emperor of Austria has decided upon taking a course hostile to the interests of Hungary; but I am far from, thinking that Such is the case. I am not disposed to doubt the decision which the Austrian Government has arrived at, nor can I, of course, say what policy it is intended to pursue;

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If there has been any communication between the British and the Prussian Governments, subsequent to the 4th day of March last, with respect to the case of Captain Macdonald, who was arrested and imprisoned at Bonn; and, if so, is there any objection to the production of such Communications? He could only repeat his conviction that the Prussian Government were right in this affair, and that the authorities of this country were wrong. He had reason to believe that the discussion of this question, and the tone adopted by the House of Commons in connection with it, had much rankled in the minds of the Prussian Government and people.

In answer to the question of my hon. Friend I have to state that since the Correspondence was laid before Parliament a despatch has been communicated to the British Government, written by Baron Schleinitz to Count Bernstorff, the Prussian Minister in this coun- try. An answer to that despatch is now on its way to Berlin, and when we know that that answer has been received there will be no objection to its production.

moved that the first item—£949,371 for timber—should be reduced by £300,000, The sum voted last year, he said, was £722,758, and for a long series of years prior to 1859 the average amount did not exceed £350,000, That was a time, moreover, when we built nothing but wooden ships. In 1859, when it was found necessary to reconstruct the navy, the sum asked for was £450,000, and the amount actually expended was about £600,000. Our wooden fleet was now considerably larger than all the navies of the world combined, and it had been resolved that no more wooden line-of-battle ships should be built. Why, then, should Parliament be asked to vote the enormous) sum of nearly £1,000,000 for timber? He hoped it would not be said that the timber had already been contracted for; because if the Government had really ordered the timber without the knowledge or sanction of Parliament, they had interfered with the most important privilege which the House of Commons possessed—that of controlling the public expenditure. But he might be told that it was necessary to have a large stock of timber on hand. In 1859 the stock on hand amounted to 64,000 loads, and the sum which he was willing to vote would enable the Government td purchase a much greater quantity, and thus have a larger stock than on any previous year, even though they had not a single load at the present moment.

said, he thought this one of the most objectionable Votes that had been submitted to Parliament for many years. He had himself given notice of his intention to move that the Vote be reduced by £285,000, in order to equalize the sum with that voted by the House last year; but he thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee that he should merge his Amendment in that of the hon. Member for Sunderland, which he, therefore, cordially seconded. As this would probably be the last opportunity they should have of discussing the Naval Estimates, he thought it necessary, before speaking to the particular Vote under consideration, considering the immoderate demands now made on the public purse, to take a survey of the position in which we stood. The discussions which had taken place this Session showed that, so far from our fleet being insufficient, the maritime superiority of this country never was so undoubted or so overwhelming as at the present moment. It had been shown that we possessed more steam line-of-battle ships and more sailing vessels than all the other Powers of Europe put together. Of men and boys serving in the Royal Navy we had more than there were in the whole mercantile marine of France. The merchant ships of England were increasing in every sea, while the mercantile marine of France was steadily falling off at the rate of about 20,000 tons annually. After the discussions that had taken place in that House, hon. Members must have read with surprise the remarks in the French Senate, from which it appeared that our neighbours had begun to be seriously alarmed lest they should not be able to find men for the Imperial Navy. The boasted maritime inscription of France was every year more and more felt as a hardship and oppression; its effect was to deter men from engaging in seafaring pursuits; it weakened rather than strengthened the maritime power of that country. Witnesses who had been examined before the Royal Commissioners asserted that a general ignorance and misapprehension prevailed in this country respecting the great naval preparations going on in France. He had formerly read some extracts from a book published by a gentleman who had visited the naval yards of France, but the noble Lord at the head of the Government attempted to throw ridicule on the statements because they had appeared in a newspaper. Since then, however, the noble Lord the Member for Totnes (Lord Gifford) and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), who had to-night made an ad- mirable practical speech, had visited the great ports of Cherbourg and Toulon, and they told precisely the same thing—that the stories which had frightened so many good people in this country, and to which the Government had given undue encouragement, were mere moonshine. There never was a time when the navy of Great Britain was more thoroughly equipped, or more powerful in proportion to the navies of the other Powers, than at the present moment. In point of fact, we had too many ships. We had a steam reserve in ordinary in the Medway of 69 ships, carrying 1,522 guns, and of 17,558 horse-power; and at Portsmouth of 51 ships, carrying 1,235 guns, with 10,728 horse-power, totally irrespective of the Channel Fleet, the Mediterranean, Pacific, and other squadrons. The French, on the other hand, had no Channel Fleet at all; while, according to the hon. Member for Glasgow, hardly anything was doing at Cherbourg. There might be something mysterious in concealing from the view of Englishmen what was going on, but he at least had failed to discover the formidable phantom squadron which had raised the alarms of so many hon. Members. In such a position, he asked what, in the name of common sense, was the use of voting the large sum now demanded for Naval Stores—£285,000 more than was voted last year? We had so many ships of war that we might station them within two and a half miles of each other all round the coast of Great Britain and Ireland, and yet nearly £1,000,000 was asked for timber this year—£300,000 more than was expended by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich when he reconstructed the British navy. It was one thing to ask the money and another to get the timber. He at first thought there had been some mistake in the estimate for this enormous supply of timber, and he had, therefore, taken up the Report of the Dockyard Commission, where he found some remarkable evidence on the question of the supply of timber. The hon. Member quoted the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker and the hon. Richard Dundas, Storekeeper General of the Navy; the latter of whom, in reply to Question 961 said—

"I believe we got every load of timber which any amount of money would have got. If we had had more money we could not have got more timber of the requisite dimensions and quality."

And again, in reply to Question 966,

"If we had had double the sum of money I do not think that we could have got the timber; we have contracts outstanding; we have money provided for timber which will not come because we cannot get it."

In 1852–53 the Vote for timber was £270,000; in 1855, it was £451,000; in 1856, £385,000; in 1859, £672,000; and this year—a time of peace—it was no less than £949,000. He thought this demand excessive, and that the Government should not press it when so many Members were absent in consequence of the late recess; but he hoped the Government would learn a lesson from the discussion, and that, now that the defences of the country were admittedly in a satisfactory condition, the Estimates would next year be upon a more moderate scale. He cordially seconded the Amendment of his hon. Friend, who he hoped would take the sense of the Committee upon it.

admitted that it did appear rather anomalous that, when the Vote for labour was reduced, the Vote for timber should be increased; but the explanation was to be found in the unprecedented expenditure of timber that had been going on in the dockyards during the last two years. The result had been that the stock of timber had been reduced to a lower point than was thought to be either safe or prudent by those who were most acquainted with the subject; and that it was absolutely necessary that the country should be put upon a better footing in this respect. During the last year the consumption of timber had been more than double the ordinary rate of consumption, having been 80,000 loads, instead of between 30,000 and 40,000 loads. The consequence was that the stock of timber about a month ago was reduced to 51,000 loads—much below the usual quantity kept on hand. The fair and proper establishment of timber used to be considered 60,000 loads. It was proposed this year to purchase 73,000 loads, while the year's consumption was estimated at 42,000 loads—or somewhat more than the usual average expenditure of former years—so that at the end of the financial year it was hoped that the stock of timber would be increased to 82,000 loads, or about two years' consumption. He was bound in candour to say—though under the threat of the serious displeasure of the hon. Member for Sunderland, if the Admiralty should have engaged the country in expenditure before the sanction of the House of Commons had been obtained—that the House was pledged to that expenditure of timber; but, although it might appear objectionable to ask the House of Commons to consider Estimates to which they were already pledged, yet there were particular circumstances which rendered such a course necessary. The hon. Member for Montrose had referred to the evidence of the Storekeeper of the Navy, who had given a complete answer to the objection by saying that there was no possibility of finding more timber in the country, even were a much larger sum voted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had last year made a most important statement about the danger and impolicy of allowing the stock of timber to be reduced to too low an amount, and, impressed by that statement, the Admiralty had taken pains to increase the stock. It might be said, What is the use of coming to the House with Estimates when contracts had been already made for its supply, and the House has no power to reduce them? But an unanswerable argument was afforded in regard to the necessity of taking time by the forelock in making these contracts, in the quotations read by the hon. Member for Montrose from the evidence taken before the Dockyard Commission, showing the difficulty of obtaining the quantities of timber required. The process of getting a quantity of timber of the kind, required in most cases two years, in some three, and in none less than one year. He found, from a report which had been made to the Admiralty, that, of the whole stock of timber, less than one-fourth was English timber; therefore, it was apparent that the great bulk of the timber required for the purposes of the navy had to be fetched from distant countries. Moulmein and Malabar teak could only be obtained after a long interval, and if the Admiralty were compelled to obtain the sanction of Parliament previous to making a contract for that timber, it would be impossible to procure the timber in time for its needs. It was necessary, therefore, to have running contracts for two or three years in advance. What would be the case if the Government did not anticipate the Vote of the House of Commons? They had now a gunboat building by a firm who came lately to the Admiralty to ask them to supply English oak and other kinds of timber, because none could be obtained elsewhere, and they had been supplied, not only with English oak, but Dantzic oak, teak, and other timbers, which they had been unable to purchase in the market. Could this be done if they did not order their timber from the sources from whence it came to this country? The Thames Iron Company, also, who were building the Warrior, said they had no means of getting Dantzic onk plank, and they were supplied by the Admiralty. It was necessary, therefore, that a large stock should be maintained, and it would be perfectly impossible that the great business of the Admiralty Department could be carried on unless they had their contracts out in time. There was generally, however, in these Votes, a margin left to allow of reductions if the House thought fit; but with regard to this item of timber not only was the House pledged to the present amount, but they were pledged also to a considerable sum for next year again. It was not only in the case of timber that contracts were made before the Estimates were submitted to Parliament, but also in the case of steam machinery. The sum which the House was now asked to agree to did not cover the whole contract which the Admiralty had entered into for machinery, but there remained at least one-third that would have to be paid for in a future year. Let him only add that he made these frank statements because he thought it respectful to the Committee that they should be made aware of the amount of all liabilities they had incurred, and he hoped and believed that due confidence would be placed in the department which was responsible for the provision of materials for the navy.

asked, why Government, if the money was already spent, did not at once take a larger Vote?—for it must be remembered that not only was the money spent in the present year, but the House was committed to expenditure for future years also. He considered the House of Commons ought distinctly to know the extent and nature of the contracts into which Government had entered. At present the House was treated with contempt. He wished to know if the whole of the Vote of last year was spent? and if it had not been spent, because the timber could not be procured, where was the necessity of asking for a larger sum now? He also wished to know if it was the same with respect to hemp, canvas, metal articles, coal and fuel, as with respect to timber, and that the supply was purchased for Some years in anticipation, and if, when they had purchased it, they were to hand it over to private firms?

said, that timber was an article that required to be seasoned, and, therefore, it was necessary to have a large supply of it in store. But if it was necessary to look ahead, these contracts should have been entered into last year, in which case the Government would have been able to consult the House of Commons. The largo sum of £1,000,000 now asked for was said to be equivalent only to a two years' supply; but that supply was estimated on the old scale of consumption, when we were building none but wooden ships, whereas iron ships were now superseding the use of wooden ones. He could not concur altogether in the opinions expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. Baxter) as to the present efficiency of the navy. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) on a former occasion made a speech to show that in any naval engagement iron ships would destroy wooden ones very easily. If that were so, he doubted whether our navy could be considered equal even to the navy of France. He considered, however, that the Government had not acted in a very constitutional manner in entering into these contracts, and incurring such large pecuniary liabilities without the knowledge and concurrence of Parliament.

said, he was extremely sorry to see the state of the House whilst this subject was discussed. There were some hon. Members who sat below the gangway present; but behind the Government he saw nobody, and behind the Opposition but very few hon. Members; and he did not think that it was to the credit of the House that when they were discussing a subject of so much, importance, both financially and in reference to the defence of the country, there should be so thin a House. He must also regret that when the noble Lord was forming his Government he did not send the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to the Admiralty, for if he had been a Member of the Board they would have been spared several of these discussions. The hon. Member had rather ungenerously attacked him in reference to the cost of the iron-cased ships. He (Sir John Pakington), however, had never concealed from the House what the cost of those ships would be; and, indeed, in proposing the building of such ships, he had stated distinctly that they would be the most costly vessels ever built.

explained, that he had not attacked the right hon. Baronet—he had only said what the cost would be, and expressed his opinion that the science of the age should have been brought to bear upon the matter.

And the science of the age was brought to bear to the utmost extent possible. His opinion was that there were much higher questions at stake than, whether they would vote the amount asked by the noble Lord for timber, and that the real question was whether or not England was to remain the first naval power in the world? If the House wished that we should maintain this position they must not indulge in these hot and cold fits about expense; because a great and increasing cost was an indispensable condition of that supremacy. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had referred to him directly in reference to the supply of timber, and had alluded especially to the course which he took two years ago. The hon. Member stated that even during the endeavours made by the Government of which he was a member to increase the strength of the navy he only asked for £672,000 for timber, whilst the present Government asked for £1,000,000. He was bound to state that that item of the Estimates of 1859 was not limited with any reference whatever to money, but solely by the belief at that time as to the possibility of obtaining timber. The Government of that day were deeply impressed with the absolute necessity of obtaining the greatest supply of timber which they could obtain, and they were sending to all parts of the world for it. And even after they had made that Estimate and presented it to Parliament, an unforeseen opportunity of obtaining a large quantity of teak presented itself, and the Government immediately bought the wood. Nothing struck him more when he entered into office in 1858–9 than the deficient supply of timber in the dockyards. When he came to draw upon that stock in order to increase the navy, it proved to be utterly insufficient, and the consequence—the unavoidable consequence—was that unseasoned timber had to be used. The deficient stock of timber left the Admiralty no alternative. Now what was the motive which instigated the Government of 1859 in increasing our navy? There was no use in concealing the fact that it was our feebleness in comparison with France. He found not only that Trance was going ahead of us in the building of ships, but that every yard in France was amply supplied with a stock of timber. He thanked the present Board of Admiralty for the efforts which they were making to increase the stock of timber, and he hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay) would reconsider his Amendment, and that he would believe that, in endeavouring to increase our stock of timber for the supply of our dockyards, the Government were doing no more than it was their bounden duty to do. He had spoken strongly upon this matter because he was convinced that the Admiralty were perfectly right.

The right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) has expressed his regret at two circumstances—the thinness of the House and the small interest which appears to be felt in this matter. I also regret another circumstance—that two hon. Gentlemen who I know are most anxious for the prosperity, the welfare, and the honour of the country, and who are peculiarly conversant with the great importance of the maritime trade of the country to our political existence, should come down here with a Motion tending to cripple that navy, on the existence and the power of which, I will not say our prosperity, but our very national existence depends; for, after all, the question is not whether we shall spend £600,000 or £900,000 on timber; the bottom, the marrow, the tendency, and the effect of the Motion is whether we shall have a navy at all? ("Oh, oh !") I say it is so, because, if you deprive the Admiralty of the means of constructing ships, you deprive the country of a navy. My noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty has stated that even if the supply of timber is obtained which we now ask for, we shall only have two years' consumption in our stores; and I remember when this question was discussed last year it was maintained that we ought at least to have three years' consumption on hand. It is now said that iron ships only ought to be built; but hon. Gentlemen appear to run away with the idea that iron ships are built entirely of iron. My two hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment, must, I am sure, be perfectly aware that an iron ship has a vast quantity of wood in its construction, and it is absurd to say that, because iron ships are to be built, you will not require a stock of timber. Then it is said, yon ought to take example from France, who has abandoned all idea of rivalling us in our navy; and that it is absurd for us to have the stock of timber which this Vote would enable us to obtain, seeing the total abstinence of France from anything like an attempt to rival our Navy. But do hon. Gentlemen know what is the amount of timber now in stock in the French arsenals? This Vote would give us a supply of 80,000 loads; but the French, with a smaller navy, and smaller demands for timber, have 160,000 loads in stock—just double that which we should have if this Vote be granted. The reasons given by my noble Friend, and supported by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), for making contracts when opportunity offers, are unanswerable. You cannot go into the market and order a supply of timber like a supply of coals, or any other article of which the supply is ready and general. It is well known that timber fit for certain purposes grows only in certain positions, and if when an opportunity offers for making contracts you do not take advantage of it, other people step in, and you are left without the material necessary for the maintenance of your navy. Under these circumstances I hope the House will see that no reason has been shown for diminishing this Vote, or for blaming the Admiralty for making contracts for the material necessary to the maintenance of that navy, without which the country would be utterly ruined. Only imagine for a moment the condition in which we should be placed if any foreign Power, or any combination of foreign Powers, were to obtain complete command of the sea. What would become of those imports upon which our commercial industries depend? What would become of those exports without which our industries would be employed without fruit? What would become of all those elements of our national existence for the maintenance of which it is absolutely necessary that we should have free command of the great highway of nations? Independently of all considerations of internal defence and the means which an enemy would have of attacking our shores if we had not power to resist him by sea, I am sure the two hon. Gentlemen who are so well acquainted with all our various commercial interests, cannot seriously wish that our navy should be deprived of the means which are essential for the maintenance of its efficiency. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

said, that he thought the Committee, whatever they might think of the Motion of his hon. Friends, would admit that if the Vote was five times as great as it was, the speech of the noble Lord would have been equally applicable. The noble Lord had not condescended to go into any figures, and he would excuse him for saying that he did not place the slightest reliance upon his opinion. The noble Lord told them that the French had 160,000 loads of timber in their yards; he (Mr. Bright) could not contradict him, but remembering how often the noble Lord had misled the House by exaggerated statements with regard to the French navy, without something more satisfactory he would not be disposed to vote an extravagant sum of money for this item simply on account of the noble Lord's statement. Members of that House, who had recently been in the French dockyards, and who were the best authorities on this subject, had not seen there that stock of timber which the noble Lord described, and he had no doubt that, if the matter were inquired into, it would be found that just as before the noble Lord had talked before of a phantom French fleet, so now he was bringing forward phantom stocks of timber. The noble Lord had spoken of the danger to our commercial marine by refusing this Vote. But he would venture to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had twenty times as much property on the water as the noble Lord—and, therefore, he did not think that his hon. Friend would not do anything to make that property less secure, nor, with regard to the country, that he would be less patriotic than, the noble Lord himself. The question before the House was a simple one for any person who knew anything of figures. He did not expect the Admiralty to know anything of figures, for they admitted they did not. Turning, however, to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, who ought to know something of the matter, he appeared with regard to this Vote to be proceeding upon a manifest error; for he asked how they could carry on the great business of the Admiralty without this Vote? Well, if he regarded the great business of the Admiralty as a permanent business at the rate at which it had been carried on for the last two years, or since the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) did so much to create a panic with regard to the state of the navy —if the noble Lord imagined that to be a permanent condition of affairs at the Admiralty, he (Mr. Bright) had not very much to say about it, for upon that supposition they were evidently getting into a condition of expenditure which would not be pulled up by any arguments in that House, but only by some action in the country which would bring the Government and the House to their senses. It was evident from what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord that there had been an expenditure exceeding that of former years. The question was whether that expenditure was to be maintained or diminished? It had been stated, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not denied it—that this country had more ships of every class than all the rest of the world together, and if this were so, it could not be thought by any man outside a lunatic asylum that they were to go on during the next five or six years increasing their navy as they had done during the last two. And if not, how could they ask the House for a Vote for timber of more than £200,000 in excess of the Vote of last year, which was itself greater than that of any former year? Mr. Dundas, the Storekeeper General, who was spoken of as an authority whenever he was quoted by the Government, said, that he contemplated that in the year now going on the consumption of timber would be reduced one-half. Well, when they were reducing the consumption of timber one-half for this year, and he presumed for several succeeding years, what could be the necessity for increasing so largely the Vote for timber? Mr. Dundas said that 60,000 loads was the usual stock considered necessary for the navy, and that at the commencement of this year the stock was about 50,000 loads—which was 10,000 loads less, or in consequence of the extraordinary consumption of those years. But then Mr. Dundas proposed by this Vote—which he was careful to say he did not recommend himself—what he said was, that he knew what was desired by the Board on the subject—what would be necessary for the purchase of 70,000 loads, which with the stock on hand made 120,000 loads. Now, as only one-half the usual consumption was to be used this year, it was evident that at the end of the year the stock would be greatly above what was ordinarily required in the navy. He had not the least reason to suppose, from what the noble Lord at the head of the Government said—for he was in a very "Rule Britannia" mood to-night—that the Vote next year would be lees; for all his arguments were in favour of a larger Vote next year, especially if there should be a good harvest, and if the export trade should be increased. Still, with the views of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he (Mr. Bright) had the drawing up of those Estimates, and if he wished to raise the stock from 50,000 to 60,000, or even 70,000 or 80,000 loads, the best course would be to propose a moderate sum this year and a moderate sum the next to make a gradual increase, and thus replenish the stock, without coming down in that particular Session with so enormous a Vote; because it was quite clear upon all the evidence, and upon all the facts stated by the hon. Members for Sunderland and Montrose, there could be no reason for the extravagant Vote submitted to the Committee. The fact was that the business of the Admiralty was perhaps the most extraordinary in the way of extravagant and reckless expenditure that any legislative Chamber had ever had to consider. It was clear from all the evidence brought before the Commission that there was not a particle of substantial control over the expenditure of the Admiralty. There were a good man me of business there—he would not put the question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who had a supreme contempt for any matter like that, or he would not have addressed such observations as he had done to the Committee—but suppose they took the level of the largest class of business firms of Lancashire or Yorkshire, they would find that £100,000 a year might be set down as their average expenditure in raw material, repairs, wages, &c. A million of money would give ten of those firms, and £12,000,000 would stand for 120 of them. And how were these firms managed? There were 120, or more probably 240 managers of those firms—men who thoroughly understood their business—they had the greatest-possible interest in its success; they rose at six o'clock in the morning, and continued at their task until six o'clock in the evening—and, in short they were incessantly employed in the management of their business transactions many of which had a good deal of what might be called routine in them, for there were steam-engines at work, cotton to put in and take out, but not a great deal of change; and yet all that labour was gone through that at the end of the year there might be a profitable result. But what had they here? An expenditure of £12,000,000; and managed by whom? Why, the other day the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) was the President, presiding genius, general manager, and controller of the expenditure of £12,000,000 in the Department, of which—speaking without offence—he knew literally nothing. The right hon. Baronet knew just as much as he (Mr. Bright) knew, as the average of the Members of that House knew, and no more. Well, now they had a noble Duke in the other House of Parliament who knew no more than the right hon. Baronet did—little accustomed, probably, to extensive bookkeeping, and not at all to ship-building. If they were to go back many years, and take all the First Lords of the Admiralty, and put them to manage one of the business firms which he had alluded to, in all probability in the course of two or three years they would find them very anxious to get out of them. But here they had this great business of £12,000,000, which Was managed, not by First Lords only, but by civil Lords and sea Lords—as they were called—who did not agree well together either as to what they should do and what they should leave undone. And then they had the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty who sat in that House, but who, it was said, had no great authority at the Board, and was often driven to the painful necessity of defending in that House things which his own judgment would not recommend, and of abstaining from doing things which his own judgment Would have led him to do. If they were to go down to the dockyards they would find confusion from beginning to end, and it was nothing but the love for labour of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, which nothing could surpass, that could have induced him or any other man to plunge into these inquiries with the idea of disentangling this chaos into which the finances of the country were brought by the present extravagant and reckless expenditure. Yet if a Member of that House, representing a large constituency oppressed with taxes, rose in his place to complain of this enormous expenditure, he was told by the noble Viscount that he was not patriotic, and he did not care a farthing about the supremacy of his country at sea. The noble Viscount had even the effrontery to say that Gentlemen whose great transactions were upon the sea were not even careful about the security of their own property; and that he was the man to take care that they were not ruined by their economic fancies. He said the noble Viscount was not treating this subject as he ought to treat it in his eminent and responsible position, and probably, ere long, the noble Viscount would find that £70,000,000 a year of taxes was much more than the people of this country ought or could pay. The noble Viscount would allow him—and with no unfriendly feeling—to tell him that he had placed his Chancellor of the Exchequer last year and this year in whatever difficulties he had found himself in contesting his policy with his opponents in that House. If last year the noble Viscount had had the good sense not to go beyond the extravagant expenditure of his predecessors, and if this year he had with a firm hand cut off some of these extravagant Votes, such as that which had been objected to by his hon. Friend that night, he would have left the finances of the country in that condition that all the ingenious and intense hostility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer manifested on the other side of the House would have found itself wholly baffled in the attempt to have found any fault worth listening to with the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman either in this or last Session of Parliament. He (Mr. Bright) was quite sure that there was no more honest Friend to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, than the Member of that House, whether he sat on the benches below the gangway or the benches behind him, who told him that he did not sufficiently care for the extravagant expenditure of the country, and was not sufficiently conscious of the fact that every hundred pounds which was expended more than was absolutely necessary, whether it be brought about through a wrong policy abroad, or through a reckless management at home, came out of some man's labour, some man's sweat, and was itself the purchase money of the sufferings and misery of some portion of the people. He (Mr. Bright) had not meddled much of late in this matter, because he found that the House was not well disposed to listen to arguments in favour of economy; but he must indeed be a blind, an ignorant, and a foolish man, who did not see that the time was coming when the expenditure would have to be diminished, and when the taxes would have to be more reduced than was even now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or there would be a contest between the people of this country and its Government, such as the noble Viscount did not wish to see, and such as he (Mr. Bright) would be as unwilling to see as the noble Viscount himself.

said, that as he had taken some part in a former debate on this subject, he trusted he should be excused if he offered a few observations at the present moment. He should not attempt to follow the lion. Member for Birmingham in his somewhat discursive speech, because it really was a speech on the general expenditure of the country rather than on this particular Vote. If there were those 120 separate heads of Admiralty management of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, each coming for a separate Vote, with 120 responsibilities, they would have to refer again to a Committee upstairs to see how they could contrive to get through the public business. Probably the hon. Member only used it for an illustration, and did not wish to throw the Admiralty into the hands of 120 people, although his speech certainly went in that direction. The immediate question before the Committee was that of timber. Now, upon this point he was of opinion that if there were any one question on which the Admiralty would have no difficulty in defending itself, it was upon this of keeping in hand a sufficient stock of timber. He did not think there was any man—he did not care who he was—but who, on looking at what the consumption of timber had been for the last ten or twelve years, at what had been the orders of the respective Boards of Admiralty, and at what work had not been executed, must see that what was called the establishment of timber was wholly insufficient. Timber, such as we required, ought to be two or three years in store, and if it was not it was unseasoned and unfit for use. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) was looking into his Report; but that Report did not begin at the beginning, and hardly touched upon the question of timber at all. It was gone into at great length by the Committee on Dockyard Economy, and these facts were distinctly brought out—that for ten or twelve years past the consumption of timber in the navy had been ranging at something like 25,000 or 30,000 loads a year; that the Admiralty had been ordering a certain number of vessels, which were not completed; that two-thirds only of the work ordered had been done; and that, consequently, two-thirds only of the timber which would otherwise have been consumed was consumed. There had been no provision during those ten or twelve years for that accruing deficiency, and, therefore, when at the end of ten years there was a sort of spasmodic effort made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) to fill up the gap, and to get ten ships of the line and a number of frigates which they ought to have had, but had not, the store of timber broke down. It was said that it was a great feature in Sir Baldwin Walker's character that he found out there was no timber in the dockyards. Sir Baldwin "Walker might have known that by asking any person who chose to look into the stock of timber and the amount of work ordered by this House. With the Report of the Dockyard Committee, showing how many loads of timber each ship would take, it became as clear as the sun at noonday that they must build with unseasoned timber. It was so apparent to him that he thought it right to call the attention of the House to it. A good deal of unseasoned timber had been put into these ships, and they would require a great deal of repair in consequence. What occurred with the gunboats? They had had to pull them to pieces and do them up again, and did they suppose that these ships of the line would not come into the same category? To put a hot boiler next to unseasoned wood was a safe receipt to produce rot. Whatever expense might be thus occasioned ought to be saved. Whether the French had 50,000 or 100,000 loads was nothing to us. It was the duty of our Government to keep our arsenals full of good timber, so that if the occasion should come there would be the timber ready for use. English oak was not fit for use until it had been three years in the dockyards, and those yards were now cleaned out. There was a very low stock of timber in the dockyards, and it was a first duty of the Government to get that stock up again. He did not want to go into general matters further than to remark, upon the observation of the hon. Member for Birmingham as to the amount of property at sea, that property at sea could be insured, but the honour of the country could not be insured except by proper ships and armaments. They might go to Lloyd's and insure property at sea, and it might be even better to get money instead of goods, but the honour of the country could not be insured except by stout ships and good men in them. He did not believe that any one who had looked into the question, and knew that unseasoned timber was used, would blame the Government for buying any quantity of good timber upon which they could lay hands. As to whether they would hereafter have iron ships, it was an uncertain matter, and the repairs of the ships which they now had during the next eight or ten years would take a large quantity of timber. In one respect he agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham. He did not think that the country would go on standing £70,000,000 a year of taxes. The hot fit had gone on for a long while. He had seen cold fits, and he thought a cold fit would come again. He believed that the Government—he did not care who they were—had been behind rather than before the country in the matter of expenditure, and that no Government could, have held their hands, so determined was the feeling to be satisfied that the national defences were in a proper condition. He thought, however, that before long the pleasure of paying £70,000,000 a year for it would make people think somewhat differently, and there would be a great necessity for a reduction of expense. It was his firm conviction, however, that the Vote for timber was an absolute necessity and an economical expenditure of money, and he should, therefore, cordially support the Government in the Tote.

denied that for the last fifty years the naval supremacy of this country had ever been in doubt. Even when the Navy Estimates were as low as £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 per annum our naval supremacy was as high as ever it was, and at present we had an armament equal to the navies of the whole world. He could not, moreover, admit that our naval supremacy depended on our having these 80,000 loads of timber in our yards. It is stated that an average of 50,000 loads are sufficient to meet all the ordinary requirements, the difference therefore, might be struck off the Vote, as the hon. Member for Sunderland proposed. In respect to other charges, it appears that in the last year's Estimates there were £15,000 for yachts and furniture of superintendents' houses, and £7,943 for boats. Were there, he asked, similar sums in the present Estimates? It seemed from the want of method in our dockyard that it was impossible to determine the exact cost of a ship. In India a system existed which insured an accurate knowledge of the outlay for any particular purpose. Stores were only issued upon induct and against each article issued in a parallel column, the price or cost was attached and the simple addition of this column, gave the total cost for whatever purpose the stores were issued. Could not that be done in the British Navy? Another question he asked of the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget)—had he turned his attention to the machinery which had recently been invented, and by which a boat 33 feet long could be made in ten hours?

said, that the proceedings of the Admiralty in past years showed that they did not pay due attention to the discoveries of science, or take advantage of results which had been clearly seen by others. Year after year they had demanded large Votes for timber, and then, when they had got a wooden fleet greater than the fleet of all the world, they were startled by the announcement that France was ahead of them in iron steamers of a size and power that would blow all their ships out of the water. A revolution had taken place in ship building; iron was substituted for wood, and the result was that Government now came down and demanded a larger Vote for timber than ever they had done before. Could anything be more illogical? He trusted that the hon. Member for Sunderland would test the sense of the Committee on the subject, and if he did he should certainly give him his support.

complained of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty telling the House they had no alternative but to agree to this Vote. He thought the French Government, however despotic, had proceeded in a much more regular way with their naval budget. He wished to know whether, when he stated that the French supply of timber amounted to 160,000 loads, he meant English or French loads? If French, he believed, the amount would be about 90,000 English loads. He hardly thought the French Government could, as a commercial operation, have procured the quantity of timber in the time.

said, that the load of timber in France was 40 cubic feet, and those were the loads which had been referred to. The grounds upon which his noble Friend at the head of the Go- vernment had stated that there were 160,000 loads of timber in the Trench dockyards were that, according to the last accounts received by the Government, there were at Cherbourg 29,000 loads; at Brest, 30,000; at Toulon, 37,000; at Rochefort, 26,000; and at L'Orient, 25,000, and 7,500 ordered. Hon. Gentlemen asked what would be the result of this Vote. He trusted that if the Vote was agreed to we should probably have at the end of the year a stock of 82,000 loads. At the rate of expenditure which prevailed last year, that would give us one year's, or at the usual rate two years' stock in hand. It had frequently been said that our navy outnumbered the united navies of the world. Hon. Gentlemen were very much in error if they supposed that any such great superiority of force existed on the part of this country. He had received accounts of what was doing in the French dockyards, which showed that the Government was not only justified from time to time in keeping up the stock of timber, but that they were imperatively called upon to consider what further exertions were to be made in the preparation of iron-plated ships. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) might very possibly be incredulous, but he could give not alone the names of every ship which had been laid down in the French dockyards, but the date of her being put upon the stocks, as well as her, present condition. Since he had the honour of laying the Estimates on the Table of the House nine iron-cased frigates had been either laid down or were being laid down in France. In addition to the six iron-cased ships whose names were given in a former debate, the Provence had been laid down at Toulon in the present month; her model being an improvement on that of La Gloire. The Savoie had been laid down this month, also at Toulon. At Brest, the Revanche was laid down in March, the Magnanime in May, and the Gauloise and Valeureuse at the same port. The Heroine and the Surveillante had been laid down at L'Orient; and there was another iron-cased vessel, whose name was as yet unknown; completing the number which he had stated. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland might laugh; but he did not believe he would do so if he shared the responsibility devolving on Her Majesty's Government. His noble Friend at the head of the Government had been charged with an inclination to sing "Rule, Britannia!" but he did not believe either the hon. Member for Birmingham or the hon. Member for Sunderland would be averse to join in the chorus As the intelligence relating to the construction of these ships in France rested on the very best authority, the Government would be neglecting their duty to the country if they neglected to make corresponding preparations.

said, much stress had been laid on the fact that timber required to be seasoned. But of the £700,000 worth of timber bought last year, £200,000 were expended on teak timber, which it was well known did not require seasoning. English oak was one of the most expensive kinds, but as the large class of ships for which it was principally used were less in favour now than heretofore, he thought a considerable saving might be effected under this head. Unless we were to continue the "spasmodic effort" referred to by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he could not conceive on what grounds this Vote could be asked for.

said, he could not understand the strong opposition to the proposed Vote for timber, of which less would be required in future years if a large quantity were now purchased, the only question being whether the Government should have it in store or not. It might be against the mercantile interest of the timber dealers that Government should have the power of laying in a large stock at a cheap rate, but it certainly must prove beneficial to the country. A case occurred not long since when timber could be bought for 4½d. a foot; but as soon as it was known that Government was in the market, the price rose to 7d. He thought the Government would do well to provide for laying in a large stock, by entering into contracts extending over a considerable period. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman ought not to be looked at as one dealing simply with timber; it formed part of a general scheme to cut down the Navy Estimates by one-third.

said, that this was the first time this Session he had taken any part in the discussion on the Estimates, because he found that a vast amount of time was consumed without any good result. He was confirmed in the opinion he had previously entertained of the hopelessness of attempting to effect a reduction in the national expenditure, by the statement contained in the admirable work of the accomplish- ed gentleman (Mr. Erskine May), who sat by the side of the chairman, that

"With a few exceptions, so trifling as to be almost ridiculous, it will be found that the annual Estimates have been voted without deduction."

And it is stated

"That in 1858 the only instance of a successful Motion of an economical character was afforded by the notable case to which the House eliminated from the Estimates the travelling expenses of the Fine Arts Collector of the Royal Academy."

He grounded his objections to the Vote on the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) himself, who said that contracts had already been made for timber to the full amount asked for. He should be sorry to use harsh language towards the noble Lord, or to say that this seemed like raising money on false pretences; but he put it to the candour and fairness of the noble Lord, whether he ought to submit an Estimate to a Committee for nearly a million sterling, founded upon contracts already made, without placing those eon-tracts before the House. He thought, too, it was something like a false pretence not very creditable to Government that they should pretend to give these Estimates with the minute accuracy of odd figures, "Why, Sir, instead of asking for exactly £949,371, did not the noble Lord say at once that the Government wanted a million to pay for timber which they had entered into contracts to purchase? He did not wish to obstruct public business, or he would have moved that "the Chairman do report Progress," in order that those contracts might be produced before the money was voted. Under any circumstances, he could not see that the honour and glory and supremacy of the country depended upon the House voting the whole amount now asked for timber, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down ought, as a man of business, to have known that contracts for timber, to be of any use at all, must be entered into early in the year. It might be the fault of the Government, though the House was also to blame, that the Estimates were postponed till this time; but if the contracts were delayed till the month of June the consequence would be that no timber would be obtained this year at all. On the general question he might state, as having some knowledge of the timber trade, that the Government could not possibly have selected a better year than the present to make purchases in. The general tendency of the price of timber was to advance, because every year they had to go further into the forests to obtain it; but this tendency was corrected in the present year by the low rate of freights, and the general disorganization of trade.

said, he was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) say that this year, of all others, was the best for laying in a large stock of timber. The average price of teak was from £10 to £11 a load; this year it was from £16 to £17. This was surely no evidence of the present being a favourable season foe the contract. He wished, however, to narrow the discussion. He would not go into the question of the number of French war ships or the quantity of timber in the French stores, though he suspected that there was some mistake in respect to them. But what he wished to fix the attention of the House on was the supply of timber to our own yards for the present year. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty said that this million of money would purchase 73,000 loads of timber, and that we should thus hare 80,000 loads of timber in store. Taking the ten years from 1848 to 1858, he found that the greatest quantity stored in any one of those years was 40,000 loads, and the least 18,000 loads. If those quantities were sufficient when we were building nothing but wooden ships, what did we require with a stock of 124,000 loads—the sum of the 51,000 now in stock, and the 73,000 proposed to be purchased—at a time when the Admiralty admitted that it was not desirable to build wooden ships of a large class, and that we must go with iron vessels? He asked the Committee to take £300,000 off the £1,000,000, and if they did so they would still leave the Admiralty much beyond the amount expended in an average of ten years during which wooden ships alone were being built.

moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. An important constitutional question was involved in what the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) had stated regarding voting on these items. He de- sired that a copy of the contracts which had been entered into by the Government should be laid on the table of the House. It was a sheer waste of time for him to come down night after night to discuss these questions, and for the House to consider them, if they were to be told that the Government stood pledged to these votes, and that the House must how to them.

said, he was sure the House would be ready to hear the arguments which any Gentleman wished to urge upon this question. The particular Vote before them had been already well discussed on both sides, and he hoped that the hon. Member would not persist in the Motion which he had made.

confessed, that he had been much struck by the very unusual language of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. He had supported the Government upon the merits of this question, but he was surprised to hear an argument put forth the tendency of which the House could not but regard with jealousy. The effect of the statement made by the noble Lord was that the House had no option but to agree to a Vote in any case in which the Government had entered into a contract. Of course it must be necessary for the Government occasionally to enter into contracts, but such contracts should be made subject to the approval of Parliament; and, at all events, the argument employed by the noble Lord was not one that ought to be used in that House.

said, it was absolutely necessary to purchase the timber from year to year, and to give the contracts from one to three years in advance—undoubtedly, all contracts were subject to the approval of the House; but it was perfectly clear that they should never find timber contractors willing to go to the expense of sending out ships for a supply of timber if they were told that their contracts would not be binding until it received the approval of Parliament next year. If a plan could be suggested to meet that difficulty, Government would be very happy to consider it. He hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lindsay) would not press the Motion.

asked if there would be any objection to place on the table the particular contracts to which the noble Lord had referred? He did not know that there was any special mystery in the timber trade. Contracts for spirits and other articles were made public, and he did not understand why an exception should be made in the case of timber. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) could tell the House if there did exist any particular mystery about the timber trade, seeing that he had already stated several things which hon. Members had previously been quite ignorant of. He did not see any reason why they should not get the particulars they required in regard to timber. He did not like to say he disbelieved anything that was said on the Treasury bench, but he thought it possible that the contract might not include the whole sum named in the Vote. A million of money for timber was a very considerable sum, and the House ought to be furnished with the fullest information regarding it.

asked if the noble Lord would give the exact price on which the contracts for the timber were made?

held in his hand a statement of the cost of each class and article of timber that was to be provided under the Vote. It was possible that certain portions of the timber might not arrive within the time proposed, owing to ships being lost and other causes.

said, that last year they were told they were bound to fulfil a contract made by the Admiralty. The House of Commons, however, on that occasion decided by a considerable majority that it was not bound by that eon? tract. It was essential for the House to know how long these contracts had been entered into. He doubted whether the Departments ought to enter into large contracts without the sanction of the House of Commons.

wished to know in respect to what other items in the Estimates the Government had entered into contracts? If there were any more contracts, the proceedings of the Committee were almost a farce.

said, that so far as he knew, there was no reason why every contract should not be laid on the table. It would, however, be better that the returns should have a more extended shape, and include all the contracts for transport during the last ten years. If the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) would move for such a return he should cordially second the Motion.

said, he did not complain that the Government had made contracts for moderate and usual supplies, but that they had ordered an unusual quantity of timber under circumstances that did not justify such extensive contracts. He hoped the noble Lord would consent to the return; but, as it would be better to confine themselves ad rem, he saw no reason for gratifying the antiquarian researches of the hon. Member for Bridport.

thought it was not necessary to enter into contracts without the consent of the House when they sat seven months in the year.

said, he had been asked for the date of these contracts. He regretted to have to mention the date of one of them, because it was made when the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) was at the Admiralty, and anticipated the Parliamentary Vote by two years. There were two contrasts for English timber—one for oak, dated January 28th, 1859, and the other for elm, dated January 16th, 1861. The contracts for Italian oak, African timber, and Spanish and Mexican woods, had been taken at various periods, from 1859, to 1861. He had no objection to lay the dates of contracts on the table; but as to the prices he was not sure, without inquiry, whether it would be advantageous that they should be published.

said, he had found no fault with the Government for entering into these contracts; what he said was that it was very unusual that that House should be told that they had no option about passing a particular Vote because the contracts had been already entered into by the Government. He hoped he should never hear such an expression again.

moved that the item of £271,757 for metals be reduced by £71,757. Much of this metal consisted of bolts and knees for wooden ships, and, as it was not considered advisable to go on building large wooden ships, these bolts, &c, would not be wanted. Another charge under this item was for anchors. He would not enter upon the controversy between Mr. Trotman and the Admiralty further than to say it was now ten years since he sat upon a Commission appointed to inquire into the merits of the different anchors. Six of the Members of that Commission were well known and large owners of vessels in the merchant service, comprising Mr. Duncan Dunbar, Mr. G. Marshall, and other eminent shipowners, and the other six were gentlemen connected with the Admiralty, including Admiral Stopford, Admiral Hope, and other competent judges. The Commission took three months to test the various anchors, and the conclusion to which they unanimously came was, that the Admiralty anchor was the worst of the lot. Since that time the Admiralty continued using the condemned anchor and no other, and the manufacture of anchors had never been submitted to public competition. For twenty years one firm had held the contract at the price fixed twenty years ago, though every one knew that Nasmyth's hammer and other inventions had materially reduced the cost of fabrication. For seventeen anchors the Government paid to the contractors £3,434 '17s. 6d.; whereas the market price for such anchors made by the most eminent firms was only £1,428. Such being the case in regard to the cost of anchors, there was reason to conclude that the cost of other articles was also much too great, and he hoped the Committee would not consider him unreasonable in now moving that the present item be reduced by £71,000.

thought some explanation should be given of the reason why Mr. Trotman's anchors were not adopted. It was stated that an anchor of Trotman's, weighing 15 cwt., and costing £90, was equal in every respect to an Admiralty anchor costing £365. He understood that the Admiralty were endeavouring to transform some anchors of Porter's into Trotman's anchors. He thought it would be very much better to discard all the anchors now in use instead of attempting to convert them, and to substitute anchors on Trotman's principle.

said, there were two things which the hon. Member for Sunderland had not told the House-one was, what principle guided him in the reduction of £71,757 which he had fixed upon; the other was, what was the reason why the Commission to which he had alluded considered the Admiralty anchor the worst of the five. The relative merits of these anchors was not a subject upon which a landsman could form a very good opinion. He (Sir John Pakington) had frequently asked different naval officers as to the respective merits of the anchors, and they had invariably told him that Trot-man's anchors when once they took hold of the ground were the best; but that they could not rely on their biting; and that, therefore, upon the whole the Admiralty anchor was the safest, because they could always depend upon it taking the ground.

said, that Captain Denman spoke very highly of Trotman's anchor, and so also did the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, whose opinion he (Sir John Trelawny) had before him in a pamphlet.

said, that Captain Denman's opinion was formed on his experience while in command of the Royal yacht the Victoria and Albert; but, as they all knew, the Victoria and Albert was never exposed to very heavy weather.

wished to know why the contract for these anchors was not thrown open to public competition?

was an advocate for opening all contracts as far as possible, but the last contract he would put up to public competition was that for anchors, because the anchor was an article on which the sailor should be able to depend. There ought not to be any risk on an article so important. There was always an annual dispute about anchors in that House, and some hon. Gentleman always described the Admiralty anchor as the dearest and worst. In point of fact, however, Trotman's was really the dearest. Trotman had never made anchors for the navy above the class of from 30 to 49 cwt. The Admiralty anchor cost £2 3s. the cwt.; Rogers' anchor, £2 4s.; Porter's, £2 8s.; and Trotman's, £2 10s;. per cwt; though Mr. Trotman would probably write a letter to the newspapers to-morrow denying the statement. With regard to the question of converting the anchor now in use, Government had in the dockyards a lot of Porter's anchors, which were very similar to Trotman's, and a certain number were being converted into Trotman's anchors. He had little doubt, however, that the Report on them would be that they had certain advantages and certain defects; but that, upon the whole, the defects outweighed the advantages. If an anchor did not bite at once the ship would drive throe or four cables' length, and for anchoring in line of battle they were obliged to have an anchor that would bite at once.

said, a Commission had reported ten years ago that the Admiralty anchor was the worst, and that Trotman's stood highest. Trotman's anchors did not require to be so heavy as others, and, therefore, they were the cheapest, though they might cost more per cwt. One reason why he asked for a reduction of the Vote was because he had reason to know that anchors were manufactured at a much cheaper rate by private makers than by the Government contractors. Believing that there were many other points upon which the Vote might be reduced, he should take the sense of the Committee.

said, he had found Trotman's anchors both convenient and efficient, and never observed that they were slow in biting.

said, he was afraid the Committee were not very competent to decide this controversy. Had he correctly understood the hon. Member for Sunderland to observe that not only were there Admiralty contracts for anchors running twenty years, but that the price charged was the same as that charged twenty years ago?

said, it was not the fact that the price of anchors remained always the same, because they depended on the market price of iron, and the price lists of Messrs. Brown and Lennox were revised from time to time. He also explained that it was owing to more ships being in commission that there was some increase in the Votes.

wished to ask, whether it was the fact that seventeen anchors, which had cost the country £3,434, could be obtained of the trade at £1,428?

had never heard of any such charge; and he might add, that the Admiralty were always open to tenders from the trade.

said, the reason the noble Lord had given of the increase in this Vote was because more ships were in commission; but in a subsequent Vote he had asked £50,000 less for coal; and coal was dearer this year than last.

explained that the Chinese expedition had greatly increased the charges for coal in the last Estimates.

moved the omission of the item of £100,000 for iron for an iron-cased ship to be built at Chatham Dockyard. He had no desire to stop the building of iron-cased ships; but he objected to the Government undertaking the work, because private firms could do it better and for less money, and the workmen in Her Majesty's yards were wholly inexperienced in the art of constructing vessels of iron; and he objected to the selection of Chatham, on account of the difficulty of the navigation of the Medway, and because there were no facilities there for the construction, of iron-cased ships. It was impossible to say where the expenditure at Chatham would end if once commenced, for the dockyard would have to be extended and improved, new plant for the building of iron-cased ships would have to be provided, and the sum of £100,000 included in the present Vote could only be regarded as a third or fourth part of the cost of constructing a single ship. He also agreed with the Dockyard Commissioners in thinking that the building of iron-cased ships should not be carried on in any of Her Majesty's dockyards under the existing system of accounts.

seconded the Motion. The Government were the worst manufacturers in the world, and the work performed by them ought at once to be placed in the hands of private traders. He had seen plans of a proposed extension of Chatham Dockyard, the ultimate cost of which would not be much below £1,000,000. While the Government were insisting on a larger expenditure on timber, they called on the Committee to launch into this new expenditure for making a gigantic dockyard, and for iron ship building at Chatham. He protested against it. He had the strongest conviction that the whole was a most abominable job, if they could only get at the bottom of it.

observed that the proposed extension of the dockyard at Chatham had been recommended by the late Mr. Rennie many years ago, and had nothing whatever to do with the construction of iron ships. Mr. Rennie's object was to increase the floating surface in the yard which is at present very insufficient. There was great space for effecting this means of working economically, and advantages of every kind. The work would be performed by convict labour; and he only objected to the time that would be occupied in completing it. The great value of Chatham Dockyard was in its position, for by reason of its distance from the coast, and the protection afforded by the defences of Sheerness, it was secure against the sudden attack of an enemy's fleet. He thought it most desirable to have one iron vessel built in a Government yard, if only to test of the resources of the public establishments in these matters, and to experiment on the various modes of construction. Any one who has read the correspondence with the builders of the Warrior must be convinced of the advantage that would arise from this. There was no end to the alterations which had to be made, the whole thing being an experiment. There was no reason why an iron vessel might not be as well and economically built at Chatham as in any private dockyard. The Commissioners had stated that the present system of accounts would not enable the Government to form any test of the prices charged by private builders; but they had the assurance of the noble Lord that the system of accounts would be immediately altered, and everything in that respect would be placed on a more satisfactory footing.

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham was scarcely an impartial counsellor in this matter. Possibly if he had been Member for some other constituency a film might have fallen from his eyes, and he might have agreed with the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay). As for the argument about this being a test of expenditure, everybody knew that the building of a first ship was no test of expenditure. The cost of a first ship, a first steam engine, or anything of the kind for which a model was required, was half as much again as any subsequent construction. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might as well set to make his own coat, and having ascertained the cost, think he could better judge whether his tailor imposed on him. This was the most flimsy argument he (Mr. Bright) had ever heard. This Vote reminded him of that which was proposed some years ago for the dock at Key-ham. That Vote remained on the Estimates for nearly twenty years; and at the end of that time, after a million of money had been spent, a Committee of the House reported that the whole scheme was a mistake, and they would not recommend the House to spend another sixpence had it not been for the previous outlay. They did, however, recommend throwing more good money after bad; and what the result was he (Mr. Bright) did not know. He wished to know whose scheme this, was of building an iron ship at Chatham? Who recommended it? Was it the noble Lord or the noble Duke? What were the views of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) on the subject? All that the Committee knew was who would have to pay for it. He thought the matter should be referred to a Committee, upon which he should be happy to see the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Frederic Smith) who might represent the interests of his constituents in the matter—and it would be found whether or not the Government had a good case for going on with the scheme.

observed that the Vote had no connection with the proposed dock at Chatham. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. He was bound to say that part of this iron had been ordered. It had been decided by the Government as a matter of urgency that an iron vessel should be built in a Government yard, and Chatham was chosen, for various reasons, as being the most eligible dockyard in which to commence such a vessel. It was not solely with a view to make comparisons of cost that the Admiralty were building this iron vessel, but to enable them to carry out certain experiments and make any alterations which might become nessary in consequence of the extrardinary problems which were in process of solution in regard to the power of artillery, and the resistance of iron plates during its construction. Chatham was chosen because there happened to be a very large dock finished, all but the gates, and the building of such a vessel in a dock would be attended with important facilities.

observed that the noble Lord, when out of office, found great fault with the Admiralty; but now, when he was in office, his views were quite changed. The ironworks at Chatham consisted of a mere wreck of a smithery—a perfect disgrace to a dockyard—and yet the Admiralty now declared that that yard was best fitted for such works as were proposed. He should support the Amendment, and he hoped the hon. Member would take the sense of the Committee upon it.

thought that experience had shown that the dockyards could not compete with private builders. At present we contracted for steam machinery, and he could not understand why we should not contract for iron ships. If once machinery was created in the dockyard for building iron ships there would be a continual demand for fresh outlay, lest what had been spent should remain useless.

wished to know whether it would be attempted to make wrought-iron plates in the dockyards?

said, the iron skins of ships would be made at Chatham, but the armour plates would be made elsewhere; he believed by the Butterley Company.

thought the Committee should have some information of what the whole expense of new machinery in the yard would be when they were asked to agree to the adoption of a new sort of manufacture. It was said that the plan should be tried for two reasons; first, that the Government should have an opportunity of making changes and experiments; and next, that they might know what the real cost was. But it was desirable that the Committee should not come to any decision until they knew what would be the whole expenditure in the dockyard. If the factory at Chatham was the wreck it was said to be, it was quite clear that other sums would be wanted to make it fit for the operations which were intended to be carried on there.

asked whether the Achilles was only in contemplation of being built or whether the keel had actually been laid?

said, the keel of the Achilles was not yet laid, but a great deal of ironwork intended for that ship had been done. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, he had to say that when last year the Admiralty decided to build the Achilles at Chatham, an application was made to the Treasury for its sanction to expend £4,000 in erecting machinery, and the correspondence upon the subject was printed with the Estimates. Having spent £4,000, they now required £2,800 for further machinery.

thought the question was whether, as our fleet was about to become an iron fleet, we should have the means of repairing the ships in the national dockyards. He regarded this commencement at Chatham as a proper experiment to ascertain whether iron ships could be built and repaired in the dockyards, instead of in private establishments.

considered this was a very important question, involving not a few thousands only, but no less than £1,000,000. No doubt contract work was sometimes cheaper than Government work; but then in shipbuilding in private yards there was never any absolute security for the quality of the article produced. Hitherto the principle adopted had been to incur the greater expense of building in the Royal yards instead of having ships which might be cheaper, but upon which you could not depend when the pinch came; and the gunboats built at the time of the Crimean war were an, unfortunate instance of the latter case. The question now was whether they ought not in common prudence to compete in the Royal yards with private builders in the construction of iron ships. He doubted the wisdom of trusting entirely to the contract system. As he understood it, these were not purely iron ships, but wooden ships covered with iron casing. Then, again, there was as much difference in the quality of the iron supplied as there was in the quality of timber. He was prepared to vote with the Government on this question, thinking that, on the whole, the course they proposed was the more prudent one.

said, no doubt there was as great a difference in the quality of iron plates as there was in the quality of timber, and he feared they should find that the moment the Government embarked in this kind of business they would discover that it was absolutely necessary to begin the manufacture of the iron plates. By sanctioning this Vote, therefore, the Committee would be really establishing another large business. His hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) had shown from the Report that ships cost 50 per cent more in Government than in private yards; but even this calculation did not include the interest of money sunk in plant, and if this were taken into account it would probably be found that a ship cost double in Government what it did in private yards. This would, no doubt, hold good of iron as well as of wooden ships. The factories which would be necessary at Chatham would be of the most expensive character—and, in fact, the House of Commons would be doing in the future what they were continually lamenting having done in the past. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), who had served on the Commission, and who knew all the circumstances, told the Committee that nothing could be more unadvisable than such an expenditure; and they would be embarking in it without any inquiry and without any information beyond the very hesitating and ambiguous information furnished by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. He warned the Committee that this Vote was but an ambuscade, and that year after year they would be led into enormous Votes, until they found that they had spent a million of money, as at Keyham, with unnecessary and reckless waste. No one but the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had shown himself enthusiastic about this expenditure, and he thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government might therefore very well suspend the Vote and allow an inquiry, which, if the Government were right, would only confirm the scheme they had propounded.

I hope the House will consider whether it is wise to build these iron ships at all. A constituent of mine recently called upon me and told me that he had offered the First Lord of the Admiralty to build a gun at his own expense which would throw 1,000 lbs. of shot; and remarked, "What do you think he said to me?" I replied, "God forbid I should attempt to fathom the wisdom of a Lord of the Admiralty." He then said the answer he got was, "It is not in my department." My constituent made the same offer to the War Office; and he said, "Do you know what answer I got?" I replied, "If I were unable to divine the wisdom of a First Lord of the Admiralty, do not fancy I am bold enough to attempt to fathom the wisdom of a Secretary of State." He then said the answer he got was, that if he submitted his plan they would consider whether it was worthy of being accepted. I asked what would be the effect of his gun, and he said it would go through the sides of the Warrior as easily as through blotting-paper. If that statement were true, there would be little wisdom in building vessels like the Warrior.

, in replying to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), denied that the smithery at Chatham was a ruin, and said that it was quite as good a smithery as any in the other dockyards. With regard to the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), if it were even true that a 1,000 lb. shot could be easily sent through the sides of the Warrior, that would not alter the merits of iron-cased ships as compared with wooden ones. If they had only shot to deal with the superiority of the former might not be so marked, but unfortunately they had to deal with shell, and especially with a new kind of shell, filled with liquid iron, which was very murderous, and very destructive to wooden ships. The main superiority of the iron-cased ships was that they were safe against shell.

said, he would make an appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He had given notice that he should move various other reductions; but he did not want to take any step which might appear factious, or uselessly to take up the time of the House. The principle of three of his Amendments had been already discussed, and therefore he did not propose that it should be discussed over again. He was ready to yield these points, provided the noble Lord would consent to postpone the Vote of £140,000 for two troop ships and £60,000 for machinery for those ships until the report of a Committee of which he was Chairman, which would be made in a fortnight, had been laid on the Table.

said, at that hour of the night he could not resist the postponement of the Vote till to-morrow, but he could not consent to the postponement till a Report of a Committee was laid on the Table, as that might be postponing it for an indefinite period.