"If the present pressure continues at the close of the Session,-if, in point of fact, we find that the late Government was right, and that they did not exaggerate the requirements of the country, I shall have no hesitation in coming down to the House before Parliament is prorogued." could not amend the Estimates to which | duty to do so, and if I had not done so I the Government was pledged. The alarm should have merited impeachment. I canwould not have been greater in July last not but think the right hon. Baronet has than it was in February. The Government incurred grave responsibility by the loss of were not pledged to their Estimates, be- those nine months, for, although of course, cause the right hon. Baronet, in April, no one will object to the Vote now asked when moving them, said,for, yet money is not time. The loss of time cannot be recovered. I will not longer trespass upon the patience of the Committee, but I think that I have shown that I state of the French navy-that I did take was neither negligent or ignorant of the means which the right hon. Gentleman thought unnecessary to increase the power of our dockyards-that when I quitted the Admiralty our shores were in an adequate state of defence-and that, if from any unfortunate circumstances there should be at the end of the year 1859 any inadequacy of line-of-battle ships to meet any force that France could bring against us, such inadequacy is not fairly to be attributed to any neglect on my part before the spring of 1858. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I am aware that of all the questions which come under the consideration of the House none are of so painful a character, and none are so distasteful to the House as allusions of In July the right hon. Gentleman knew, not only that we were right, not only that we had not exaggerated the requirements of the country, but he knew that which we did not know and could not know, that during the whole spring the French had been making such exertions as to diminish very materially that superiority in large ships which we had when I quitted office. He knew in July all the facts which he knows now, and he ought then to have done what he had pledged himself to the House and the country to do, that is to ask for a supplemental Estimate if there was any necessity for it. But what did he really do? He took the men off job and task work and thus reduced the amount of a personal character. I do not blame the the work done at the very moment when right hon. Baronet, if he think the stateit was most urgent to increase it. I think ments which I recently made with respect the right hon. Baronet assumed a very to the condition of the navy bore hardly grave responsibility when he omitted to do upon him, for entering upon a defence; as he said he would-come to this House but I think he has imputed to me charges for additional means to enable him to in- which I never made; and, next, I think crease the building powers of the country. he has failed in his endeavour to vindicate If he had done so he would not have lost, his own administration of the navy. The as he now has lost, nine valuable months. right hon. Gentleman has extended his obEven if he did not choose to do that heservations to such a length that, at this should have employed additional men, and hour (a quarter past five), I fear I shall it was his duty to have incurred the risk scarcely be able to reply to them so fully of exceeding the Estimates sanctioned by as I could desire. He complains of this Parliament. If he had done so, and had made a statement of his reasons in the fol-passage in my statement on introducing lowing February, the House would, I am sure, not only have sanctioned his proceedings, but they would have applauded them. In my own case, in 1855, after Parliament was prorogued, and we had ordered the construction of a certain number of gun-vessels, we found that the Russians were building at a faster rate than he had expected, and I then consulted my noble Friend then at the head of the Government, and he agreed with me as to the course I should take, which was to order the construction of a large number of additional gunboats, which cost somewhere about half a million sterling. It was my these Estimates : addition to the cost of ship-building, because I am "I may state at once that we ask for this great bound to say that when I succeeded to office I did not find the navy of this country in a proper and adequate state for the defence of our coasts and the protection of our commerce.' These phrases were intended to cover all the various functions which the navy of England has to perform, and, taking that free and extended view of them, I beg to say I adhere literally to that statement. I also said, "I cheerfully do justice to former Governments, and especially to that which immediately preceded us, to which in regard to many points great credit is due; and while they left many things still to be done, it is but fair to say that there were strong and obvious reasons connected with the Russian war why certain reforms should not then have been adopted." Surely there was no want of courtesy to the right hon. Gentlemen in that. I added, "It will be seen that during the time that that right hon. Gentleman was at the Board of Admiralty considerable additions of the smaller vessels were made, such as corvettes, sloops, and, above all, gunboats. I am not sure whether the addition of gunboats had not commenced in the time of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle; but our present gunboats were chiefly added by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax, and I do not think a more valuable addition has ever been made to the navy than those gunboats." Was that an attack on the right hon. Gentleman ? I will trouble the House with one more extract. I said, "Those additions were chiefly made in 1856; they had reference to the war then going on with Russia; and the right hon. Gentleman very naturally added vessels of a class suited to the emergency of the moment; but while a considerable force of those gunboats and sloops was added to the navy, the line-of-battle ships and frigates did not increase in the ratio which the interests of the public service demanded. On the contrary, the result of the war was actually to check the progress which ought to have been made in augmenting the number of line-of-battle ships." Now, Sir, I ask, after reading those extracts and there are no others bearing on the point in question-is the right hon. Gentleman justified in saying that I brought those three charges against him? If I erred at all, it was surely on the side of courtesy, and I am prepared to say that I do think the right hon. Gentleman, partly from the causes to which I have adverted, and partly from other causes, did not take those steps which were incumbent on him, in the position he occupied, with the view to strengthen our navy, and to make up the deficiency in our line-of-battle ships which had resulted from the introduction of steam. In justification of that statement I would refer to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman made in the month of May, 1857, on bringing forward the new Navy Estimates. He said on that occasion, "Nevertheless, it would be unwise not to continue building a certain number of ships of a large size. We must look to what other nations are doing in this respect. It is plain that no great naval engagement could be maintained in the middle of the Atlantic between line-of-battle ships and gunboats. The French are building large and more powerful line-of-battle ships than ourselves; the United States also are building a class of frigates larger than any we have." Then he added a little further on,"He had never said, as had been supposed, that we must bring the numerical proportion of our ships to those of the French up to what it had been during the last war. All he said was, that when our line-of-battle ships only exceeded the French by two that was not the proportion that our fleet should bear." Here I find in May, 1857, a distinct acknowledgment on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that our line-of-battle ships were not what they ought to be when compared with the French force in that respect. Why, I ask, did he not take steps to redress that inferiority, and to restore the strength of the navy to what it ought to be? [Sir CHARLES WOOD: I did.] The right hon. Gentleman says he did: I join issue with him and say he did not. The statement I have just quoted was made in 1847 by the right hon. Gentleman on moving the Estimates; but in that year he took no steps whatever to correct the deficiency the existence of which he had avowed. He did nothing to remedy it, and we have had it from his own lips that in the financial year 1857-8 two line-of-battle ships were launched, which is one less than the maintaining rate of three per annum. So much for the year 1857. I come now to the year 1858, when I succeeded to office. What had the right hon. Gentleman done then? I understood him to say that eight line-of-battle ships were launched in 1858. SIR CHARLES WOOD: What I said was, that eight line-of-battle ships were added to the Navy in 1858, as appears by a Return which I hold in my hand. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I hold in my hand a Return from which it appears that, instead of eight, the number is only four. SIR CHARLES WOOD: Here is a Return, signed by Sir Baldwin Walker, Surveyor of the Navy, showing that of steam-vessels added to the navy in 1858 there were eight ships-of-the-line -namely, four built and four converted. That is the statement contained in paper 65 of the present Session, for which I moved on the 16th of February. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Well, I hold in my hand a printed Return, showing that there were only four addednamely, the Donegal, the Windsor Castle, the Hero, and the Edgar. I can only reconcile the difference by assuming that there were four built and four converted. But that does not affect the argument I was pursuing, which is, that the right hon. Gentleman, having acknowledged that he was then aware of the deficiency, did not take the necessary steps to correct it. The mode in which I prove this position is by SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has made that explanation, I must say I think he was not dealing candidly with the House, seeing that in his statement on the 18th of May, 1857, when referring to the comparative force of the two countries, he included in the list of English of-the-line ships which were only in course of construction, and many of which are not launched even at this moment. I should have had no objection to the right hon. Gentleman making that statement if he had plainly told the House what he actually meant; but he did no such thing. The House will do me the justice to remark, that in my statement the other night I mentioned how many ships we were building and converting, and what the state of those ships was; but the right hon. Gentleman was not so explicit on the 18th of May, 1857, for he merely said we had then forty-two screw ships referring to the course taken by the right | coasts, of course I took into account those hon. Gentleman on the Estimates of last only which could be brought at once into year. What was that course? The right service. hon. Gentleman added £100,000 to the Estimates of the preceding year for shipbuilding. Well, we all know that £100,000, even if the whole of that sum had been available for the purpose, would do very little towards redressing the deficiencies in the navy, having regard to what ought to be its proper strength. But the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to add £100,000 was not really an addition to that amount, for he had taken £30,000 | too little in the previous year, 1857, so that the actual addition to the Estimates of last year was only £70,000; and I leave it to the House to determine whether an addition of £70,000 to our Naval Estimates was sufficient to bring up our force to the position in which it ought to be, considering the state in which it was at that moment. But I have a still more serious question to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I find in his speech of 1857 a statement to which he has adverted today, but without giving the figures, show-of-the-line, and the French forty. I think ing the comparative strength of the Eng every man who heard that statement of lish and French Navies. That statement the right hon. Gentleman, or read it, was made on the 18th of May, 1857. The would be led to the belief that that was right hon. Gentleman stated the compara- the effective force at that moment; and tive naval force of England and France in nobody could ever suppose that the right 1793, 1817, 1840, and 1857. He was hon. Gentleman was practically, though then speaking of ships-of-the-line. His not intentionally, misleading the House statement was, that on that day, the 18th and the country by stating the number of of May, 1857, the English screw line-of-ships which the country could only supbattle ships were forty-two, and the French pose were effective, but including, in screw line-of-battle ships forty. "In this reality, the ships which now, two years list," the right hon. Gentleman said, "I after, are still on the stocks and yet omit our block-ships, which, though very unlaunched. I think the House and the efficient for certain purposes, could not country have a right to complain of the keep their places in a cruising or block-right hon. Gentleman's statement as wantading squadron. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman where those forty-two lineof-battle ships are? He stated on the 18th of May, 1857, that we had forty-two screw line-of-battle ships, exclusive of block-ships. The right hon. Gentleman himself admits, that in January, 1858, we had only twenty-five screw line-ofbattle ships. SIR CHARLES WOOD: That statement the right hon. Gentleman will find includes the screw line-of-battle ships which were building and converting, as well as those which were afloat. Of those there were forty-two English and forty French. In February, 1858, however, when stating the number of ships immediately available for the defence of our ing in candour and ingenuousness. If the force was then in the state in which he has now explained, it was his duty as First Lord of the Admiralty to have said so frankly to the House. I confess I cannot understand, if that was his meaning, how he could have been so wanting in ingenuousness as not to tell the House that, instead of having forty-two ships afloat, we had on his own showing I know not how many; for, in the following month of January we had only twenty-five effective line-of-battle ships. When I succeeded to office I found a fleet with only twenty-five or twenty-six line-of-battle ships, and that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed an addition of £100,000 to increase the force. What had he done to correct that state of understood what I said on a former evening. I corrected the Estimate after I took office, previously to receiving, so far as I remember, that "submission" from Sir Baldwin Walker which came into the Ad things? Next to nothing. He did add £70,000 to the Estimates when we had only twenty-five line-of-battle ships. I say the right hon. Gentleman neglected his duty. To come down to this House, as the Naval Minister, and propose an in-miralty either at the extreme end of March crease of only £70,000 to the Estimates, or the beginning of April. [Sir CHARLES at a time when we had only twenty-five WOOD: March.] But why was it that we line-of-battle ships, I say was to fall greatly received that "submission?" If the right short of the duty which he owed to this hon. Gentleman had done his duty to the country. The right hon. Gentleman says Board of Admiralty, if he had put the that one of my charges was that he did navy of England on the footing on which not know the state of the French navy at it ought to be, or even proposed to put it that time. I did not make that charge. on the footing on which it ought to be, why But I now say, from the information I have was it, I ask, that the Surveyor of the received since I came to the Admiralty, I do Navy felt obliged to come to me, immenot believe they were apprised of the state diately on my taking office, and make a reof affairs in France with that accuracy monstrance as to the defective state of that with which they ought to have been in- great arm of the public service, and imformed. Again, the right hon. Gentle-plore that I would forthwith proceed to man says I overruled the members of the add to the number of line-of-battle ships? Board. I beg leave to tell him I did no Why, the very fact of that "submission" such thing. We had no difference at that having been made is the most conclusive Board, and I am happy to say we never evidence which can be appealed to in proof had. The right hon. Gentleman next com- of that neglect of the navy of this country plains that on succeeding to office I cut which the right hon. Gentleman has denied. down his Estimates. But, how much? If he had put the navy on an effective footUpon the matter of dockyard labour I took ing, Sir Baldwin Walker would have had off £20,000. I first proposed to reduce no occasion to come to the Admiralty with the Estimate by £100,000. Sir Baldwin such a "submission" on our immediately Walker remonstrated, and said he wished taking office. The remonstrance was made I would add £50,000. I did so. I then in April, and I immediately added £50,000 discovered the error about the £30,000 to to what I had proposed. In the followwhich I adverted, and I added that sum; ing month of May there was another "subso that when I made my statement to the mission" from Sir Baldwin Walker; and House in April the real difference between what did we do then? Why, we immethe right hon. Gentleman's Estimate and diately put our whole dockyard force on mine was only £20,000. But I have said task and job work, and it was owing to the before and I say again, that I would not exertions we then made that we were enhave made that difference, or indeed any abled to have a Channel Fleet of six linedifference, if I had known then what I of-battle ships in August. The right hon. know now of the inefficient state in which Gentleman says it was my duty to have the navy was left by the right hon. Gentle- come down to the House in July and ask man. He talks of my speech of the 12th for an increased Estimate. But, Sir, it of April. How long had I then been in was only at the extreme end of July, just office? Why, not a month. And yet the towards the close of the Session, that we right hon. Gentleman says, that after full discovered that which the right hon. Gendeliberation I did so and so. Why, the tleman ought before to have discovered,truth is, I had not then had a full oppor- namely, the rapid strides which the French tunity of ascertaining the state of the navy was making. Why did not the right English, much less that of the French hon. Gentleman find that out? Why was navy. I only said then that I was unwill- it reserved for us in the month of July, in ing to adopt large Estimates without first consequence of inquiries prosecuted during satisfying myself of their necessity; but, the summer? We then learnt the state undoubtedly, if I found that necessity I of the French navy and the rapid advance would ask for an increased Vote. The which it was making; but when those disright hon. Gentleman says I pursued the coveries were made Parliament was on the course which I did in spite of the remon-point of breaking up, and we could not then strances of Sir Baldwin Walker. No such have come before the House with a Supple thing. The right hon. Gentleman has mis- mental Estimate without taking a course Committee report progress. House adjourned at two minutes before Six o'clock, HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, April 7, 1859. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Public Offices Extension; Indemnity. 2 East India Loan; Savings Bank (Ireland) Act. 3a Patents for Inventions (Munitions of War); Common Rights, &c. (War Department). EAST INDIA LOAN BILL. SECOND READING. which was unusual, and unless we had been SIR CHARLES NAPIER said, he on the eve of war, or some great national thought that both the late and the preemergency, we should not have been justi- sent First Lord were to blame. The late fied in creating the alarm which such a step First Lord was to blame for having paid would have produced in the country. What off seven sail-of-the-line at the end of the did we do? Did we neglect the occasion? Russian war; and the present First Lord No. We immediately took the most active was to blame for diminishing the dockyard and effective steps to adapt our position to it; Vote of last year, notwithstanding the we proceeded to convert our line of-battle three " submissions" which had been sent ships, which are now practically added to to him by the Surveyor of the Navy. our navy, and so endeavour to restore to House resumed. it that efficiency which we found did not exist when I came to the Admiralty. And now that we have come to a new Session of Parliament, and have had to frame our own Estimates, we have not, like the right hon. Gentleman, made a proposal to take a Vote of £70,000, when we had only twenty-five effective line-of-battle ships; we have taken a very different line, and I suspect that is the real cause of the speech we have heard to-day from the right honGentleman, and of the sensitiveness he has shown with regard to charges which were never made. Instead of taking a Vote for £70,000, we have proposed to take one for £1,300,000, which will enable us to add twenty-six powerful men-of-war to the navy, and to redress, so far as it is possible to redress, that positive and relative deficiency in our naval force which the late Government had allowed to exist. Sir, under the pressure of time (nearly a quarter to six o'clock) I have had to advert to the topics embraced in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am not aware that I have omitted to notice any of the more important of his observations. I think I have satisfied the House that the right hon. Gentleman had no reason to complain of what I said the other night, and that if I erred at all it was on the side of courtesy. I could not conceal the state in which I found the navy when he had acceded to office. I explained that matter to the House, however, in a manner which was as fair towards the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as it was possible it could have been consistently with an adequate discharge of the duty which had devolved upon me. I hope, too, I have satisfied the House that, considering the state of things which I found on succeeding to office at the Admiralty, it was impossible, under the circumstances, and with every desire to discharge our duty, to do more than take the steps we have done, with the view to bring the navy to a pitch of efficiency commensurate with the requirements of the times in which we live. VOL. CLIII. [THIRD SERIES]. Order of the day for the Second Reading read. THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in moving the second reading of the East India Loan Bill I presume your Lordships would hardly wish me to go again over the ground which I traversed a few days ago, in laying before you a revised estimate of the Indian finances, and in stating the increased amount of the deficiency for which it was then calculated that we should have to provide in the course of the ensuing year. I then mentioned the amount to which that deficiency would, in all probability, extend, and what were the means on which the Government of India relied for reducing the estimated deficiency of £11,500,000 for the year, so that they might require a further assistance from Her Majesty's Government only to the extent of somewhere about £4,000,000. It will also, no doubt, be easily understood by your Lordships that although upon the present occasion I am asking your assent to the second reading of this Bill, I am, in point of fact, only asking what may be considered a grant on account, because, as I have already stated, it will be necessary at a future period to ask for a further sum of 3 B |