Page images
PDF
EPUB

most powerful afloat, would be laid down at once, one at Pembroke and one at Chatham. They would be 4400 tons, double-screws, twelve and a half knots speed, plated with 12-inch and 14-inch armour, carrying four 25-ton guns, and costing 286,000l. each. Another turret-ram-an improved "Hotspur "-and two or three vessels of the "Stanch " class completed the ship-building programme of the year, and when it was carried out we should have forty-seven armoured vessels afloat, with 598 guns; and these, with sixty-six efficient unarmoured ships, and a large number of vessels of the old type, Mr. Childers maintained (without going into close comparisons) would give us a navy stronger than that of any other

nation:

Mr. Corry vindicated the policy of the late Board which, he showed, before it went out, had prepared for a reduction of 658,000Z. on last year's Estimates, leaving only 365,000l. to Mr. Childers's credit. Criticising the programme of the year, he expressed serious doubts whether the reductions in the Admiralty establishments were wise, and strongly objected to the laying down of two new turretships until the "Captain" and "Monarch" had been tried at sea. From the description given by Mr. Childers of these vessels, he predicted that they would be useless, either as sea-going ships or coast defences. Sir J. Elphinstone disapproved strongly of the proposed reductions, both at the Admiralty and in the dockyards. Sir J. Pakington also thought that some of the reductions had been made with unnecessary harshness.

The main features of the Estimates were favourably received. The recent changes in the organization of the Admiralty did not, however, escape criticism. Mr. Corry found fault with most of them, observing that they were entirely opposed to all the canons of Admiralty management laid down by Sir J. Graham. He objected chiefly to the entire ship-building policy of the country being in the hands of the Controller of the Navy, to the absolute power given to the First Lord, and to the accumulation of work on the head of the First Sea Lord.

Lord H. Lennox, Sir J. Elphinstone, and Sir John Hay commented with some severity upon the manner in which the economical reductions had been carried out.

On the vote of 1,086,0447. for the dockyards, there arose a rather sharp controversy on the programme of the Government in regard to ship-building.

Mr. Childers defended his proposal to build at once two powerful sea-going turret-ships, without masts, capable of going to all parts of the world. The Admiralty was not prepared either to desist for a time from building powerful ships of war or to build wooden ships or iron broadsides, and he assured the Committee that the most. eminent scientific authorities and naval officers were satisfied that these ships would be decidedly successful. It was unnecessary, he added, to wait for the trials of the "Captain" and "Monarch," because there were no useful elements of comparison between them.

Mr. Corry read numerous letters from naval officers, unanimously condemning the Admiralty designs as certain to end in failure. There was no need to commence the ships at once, for as only 10 per cent. of their cost was taken in this year's estimate very little progress could be made with them by the time the "Captain" and "Monarch" were ready for trial. Mr. Corry gave effect to his views by moving to omit from the vote the sum of 30,000l. relating to the two turret-ships.

Admiral Erskine supported the amendment, deprecating the irrepressible propensity of the Admiralty to try experiments. He agreed with Mr. Corry as to the probable failure of these ships, or, at least, that so many experiments were to be tried that some of them must fail.

The propositions of the Government were supported by Mr. Laird, Mr. Samuda, and Captain Egerton; but were disapproved by Admiral Seymour. An amendment, moved by Mr. Corry, was rejected by 122 to 46. The other votes were readily passed.

In connexion with the administration of the navy, the attention of the House of Commons was directed before the close of the Session to certain changes in the system of making contracts which the present Board of Admiralty had introduced. In answer to inquiries on this head, Mr. Baxter, the recently-appointed Secretary to the department, explained the new system of contracts and purchase which he had established, and gave instances of the saving already effected in various departments. With regard to the contracts-he mentioned that he had already discovered the existence of some corrupt practices, both at Somerset House and in the dockyards, and he added the general observation that his short official experience had already convinced him that, without putting down a single ship or sailor, immense reductions might be made in our overgrown establishments.

Sir J. Elphinstone questioned the right of the Government to take credit for some of the savings which they claimed. Mr. Liddell, however, congratulated the Ministry on the success of their efforts. Mr. Candlish, Mr. Rathbone, and Mr. Mundella recommended the infusion of a greater amount of the "man-ofbusiness" element into the departments. Mr. Henley predicted that the system of private purchase would speedily make the Government highly unpopular.

Mr. Childers, in reply to some criticisms of Sir J. Elphinstone, defended his administration of the navy, which, he said, had given England a stronger fleet than she had possessed since the French war; and a remark from Mr. Mundella, that the army purchase system was devised for corruption, called up Mr. Cardwell, who showed that it was virtually the model for the changes being made at the Admiralty.

In the Parliamentary proceedings of 1868 an account will be found of the measure by which the Government was authorized to purchase the undertakings of the various Telegraph Companies, with a view of placing them under the management of the Postmaster

General. A valuation was taken in pursuance of that Act of the property of each Company to be paid for by the public, and it became necessary in this Session to authorize the Executive by Bill to raise and appropriate the necessary funds. It devolved on the Marquis of Hartington, who had succeeded to the office of Postmaster-General, to introduce this Bill, which he did shortly before the end of the Session, and made, in so doing, a prefatory statement explanatory of the financial operation and its estimated results. Premising that the basis of the arrangement of last year was twenty years' purchase of the net profits up to June 1869, he explained the steps taken by the Post-office authorities to ascertain these profits and the value of the stock to be taken over. The chief result of these had been to reduce the claims of the Telegraph Companies from 7,035,9777. to 5,715,0477., an abatement of 1,320,930., and of this 5,220,1097. would be for the purchase of profits, and 494,9387. for other items. The purchase of the rights of the Railway Companies he put at 700,0007., the expense of extensions at 300,000., and, including compensations to small companies, necessitated by the monopoly clause which the Bill would contain, he calculated the whole cost of the transfer at 6,750,000. The inquiries of the Post Office showed that the business of the Telegraph Companies was rapidly and steadily increasing-in one case at 18 per cent., and in another at 32 per cent. per annum ; but calculating the average increase at 10 per cent., this sum of 6,750,000%. would represent not 20, but only 17 years' purchase of the profits of 1869. The annual revenue he put at 673,8387., and the expenditure at 359,4847., giving a net profit of 314,3547.; and the interest on 6,750,000l. at 4 per cent. being 270,000l., and at 3 per cent. 236,3507., in the one case there would be a surplus of 44,000l., and in the other of 77,000l. The Bill would give power to raise the purchase money by Exchequer bills or bonds, or by the creation of consolidated stock or terminable annuities, and he anticipated that it would be raised at the lower rate of 3 per cent., so that the surplus would be 77,000l. He calculated that by the revision of tariffs and additional facilities the number of messages would be raised from 6,250,000 annually to 8,815,000, which, at an average rate of 18. 2d., would give an annual revenue of 514,2347. The revenue from Continental and Atlantic telegraphs he estimated at 109,6047., from private wires at 25,000l., and from transmission of news at 25,000l. After assuring the House that the estimates had all been framed on the most moderate basis, he concluded by a justification of the monopoly clause, mentioning, among other arguments, that the number of offices would be increased from one in 13,000 to one in 6000 of the population.

After some remarks from Mr. Ward Hunt, who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had charge of the measure of 1868, and from Mr. Crawford and other members, the resolutions moved by the noble Marquis were adopted by the House.

The Bill founded on these resolutions met with some animadversions in its passage through Committee.

Mr. W. Fowler insisted that the Government was making a very improvident bargain, and one of the proofs on which he dwelt most was the rise in the price of the shares in the various companies since the moment when the idea of Government purchase was first started. Applying the ordinary rules to the transaction, he held that 12 years' purchase, with 25 per cent. for compulsion was an ample price to pay, and that all above that was thrown away. In addition to this he urged that the bargain did not include all the ultimate rights of the railway companies, and that in a few years they would bring in a large bill against the State. He characterized the Bill as a leap in the dark, and he justified his interposition at this stage by a prediction that the State might be called on in due time to undertake the water supply of the country.

Mr. W. H. Smith, a telegraph director, said that the companies were not at all anxious to part with a valuable property, and had only yielded reluctantly to the general opinion that the public interest would be promoted by this service being in the hands of the Government. Their profits he showed by statistics had been rising rapidly in inverse ratio to their expenditure, so that the bargain now made was only 16 years' purchase of the last year's profits. Mr. Smith quoted from the experience of his own company to prove that by amalgamation the expense of working could be largely reduced.

Mr. Ward Hunt defended the bargain made by the late Government. Public opinion was strongly in favour of transferring this business to the State, and the Government had to make the best terms they could. He admitted that the telegraph companies had been liberally treated, but that did not make the transaction less profitable on the whole for the State, and if the Bill had been delayed for another year the price to be paid would have been proportionately large.

Mr. Crawford held to his old opinion that the terms given to the companies were preposterously extravagant, but at the same time the House was bound in honour by the Bill of last year.

The Marquis of Hartington, on the contrary, maintained that the Bill of last year only affirmed the expediency of acquiring this business for the State, and that the House was quite competent to revise the terms of the bargain. But having carefully examined it, he believed it to be eminently advantageous, and he defended the Post-office calculations against the criticisms which had been passed upon them. The effect of rejecting the Bill this year would only be to compel the State to pay a much larger price hereafter.

An amendment adverse to the Bill, moved by Mr. Torrens, was rejected by 148 to 23, and it soon afterwards became law.

The consideration of the Annual Financial Statement for India was, as usual, deferred until the fag-end of the Session, in consequence of the tardiness with which the accounts are furnished by the Indian Executive. It was not till the 3rd of August that the

Under-Secretary of State for India, Mr. Grant Duff, was able to make his exposition to the House of Commons. This year, however, the Chief Secretary (the Duke of Argyll) somewhat anticipated the statement in the other House by bringing the subjects of Indian finance and railways before the House of Lords on the 23rd July, when his Grace laid certain despatches bearing on these matters upon the table, and addressed the House at considerable length respecting them. The noble duke showed that in the ten years since the mutiny the revenue had increased by over fifteen millions sterling, i. e. at a rate of 45 per cent., the revenue of the year preceding the mutiny having been 33,378,0007., and that of 1867-8 48,534,0007. Of the gross amount of increase 7,315,000l. was due to increased or new taxation, but the remainder to the increase of returns from old sources, such as opium, the land revenue, and the Customs. Indeed, under several heads the increase of profit to the State had been accompanied by a reduction of the burden on the tax-payer, there having been, for instance, a very large reduction of the Custom's duties, while, again, the proportion which the State derived under the item of land revenue, on which there had been an increase in every province of India, did not now exceed 25 per cent. of the produce, as against 50 per cent. formerly. He showed, moreover, that the two years which he had compared were ordinary years, and that the comparison gave no impression of the actual elasticity of which Indian revenue admitted in exceptional years. Turning, then, to the common belief that the Indian Empire had been for years in a state of chronic debt, he denied that this, as a rule, was true, and he explained that in particular it had not been the fact in three of the years since 1860. Contemporaneously, however, with the increase of revenue there had been in the ten years since the mutiny a slightly greater increase of expenditure, leaving a deficit of about 1,000,000l. The increase had been greatest in military expenditure, which he saw but little hope of reducing, except as to the expense, now enormous, of recruiting; but other heads of increased expenditure were law and justice, the machinery of which had been thereby considerably improved; and 2,305,000l. more than before the mutiny was payable in respect of the Indian debt. As to that, however, he reminded the House that we were borrowing now on easier terms than formerly, viz. at 47. per cent., and that the credit of the Indian Empire as it was stood higher than that of any European power. Public works were a serious additional source of expenditure. The total result showed that on the ordinary expenditure there was an annual deficit of one million, and on the expenditure on public works of from two to three millions. Such a deficit gave, he thought, no ground for alarm, our whole Indian debt not exceeding even now two years' Indian revenue; but he held there was ground for caution, and for introducing greater economy where economy was possible. He suggested that the whole subject of State guarantees of the cost of public works required revision. In particular, in respect of the construction of railways,

« PreviousContinue »