spect to ships intended for coast or harbour | crease in the amount of the Military Estidefence, but the great bulk of our navy mates, had declared, at the same time, that must, as heretofore, consist of seagoing whatever was necessary to the safety of the ships, fit to be sent wherever their services country ought, at whatever cost, to be promight be required, and combining all the vided; and he would remark, that the anconditions essential to the efficiency of a nual Vote for works had not participated man-of-war. One of those conditions was in the general increase of the Navy Estispeed, and as the enormous weight iron- mates. Comparing a period of comparacased ships had to carry required great tively low expenditure with the present, he area of midship section, the fineness of found that in 1845-6-7-8 the average of lines necessary to speed could not be ob- the annual Estimates was £7,522,000; the tained without great length, and it did not gross sum voted in those four years was therefore appear to him that any great £30,088,000. diminution in the length of our seagoing iron-plated ships was to be expected. But even if, at a great sacrifice of speed, we contented ourselves with vessels of the Defence class, of the length of only 280ft., or 100ft. shorter than the Warrior, that would not affect his argument in any way, for, in the enumeration he had made, he had included docks of 280ft. long; and he contended, that whether we built ships of the length of 280ft. or of 380ft., additional accommodation for keeping them in repair would be imperatively necessary.

With respect to the necessity of providing docks on our distant naval stations, he should not trouble the House with any remarks of his own, as he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, whose opinion would carry with it so much greater weight, would state his views respecting it before the discussion concluded. It was perfectly clear, that if we were to employ on those stations iron ships requiring to be docked at least once a year, the necessary accommodation for that purpose would be indispensable. He had endeavoured to answer by anticipation some of the objections with which he might be met; but he had no doubt that the great objection which would be made to the extension of the dock and basin accommodation he thought necessary would be one of a financial character. He did not think he would be told that our present dock accommodation was sufficient, but he would, in all probability, be asked, Where was the money for its increase to come from? In reply to such a question he would ask if additional docks were necessary for the maintenance of the efficiency of our fleet, and if an efficient fleet was indispensable to the safety of the country, had we come to such a pass that we could not afford the small additional outlay necessary to provide them? His hon. Friends who sat near him, and who had commented on the great in

The sum voted for works in the same period was £2,200,000, or more than 7 per cent of the whole amount. In 1859-60-1-2, the average of the annual Navy Estimates was £13,000,000. The gross sum voted in these four years was £52,000,000. The amount voted for works was £2,024,000, or less than 4 per cent of the gross amount of the Estimates, and actually £176,000 less than the sum voted for works in the years from 1845 to 1848 when the entire amount of the Navy Estimates was so much smaller. The disproportion would have been greater but for the Estimate for works in the year 1859, proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), which was £188,000 more than the average of the last three years. If the Government would only revert to the Estimates for 1859, and apply the £188,000 thus to be obtained to the construction of docks and basins, in addition to the sum of £70,000, which had been the average so applied in the last three years, we should have upwards of £250,000 a year available for these works, which he thought would meet the necessities of the case. He was by no means an advocate for an extravagant extension of the dockyards. He had seen plans for an extension of the works at Keyham, providing three docks and ten acres of basins, the estimate for which was £500,000; a plan for the extension of Portsmouth, giving four docks and twenty-six acres of basins, estimated to cost £750,000; and another alternative plan for works in Southampton Water, estimated at £500,000. A sum of £1,500,000 would probably provide for all he considered absolutely necessary at Devonport and Portsmouth, and at an annual expenditure of £250,000 the works might be completed in six years. When the Navy Estimates were £12,000,000 a year, surely it was absurd to say they could not afford that small addition to the amount, when it was required to give full efficiency

would involve any considerable expendi- | in which the Achilles, one of the largest ture beyond that adverted to. So much for class of vessels, was actually being the question of basin accommodation. He built, but which he would not include, would next pass to a consideration of the because there was not water in the dock question of docks. He readily admitted to float that vessel when she was loaded. that no one was better entitled to offer an But would his hon. and gallant Friend opinion upon that subject than his right the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) hon. Friend, who had throughout his tell him that he could not repair his ship whole political life been connected with the after an action in a dock with 23 feet navy, and who might fairly be called the 6 inches of water because she drew father of many of the great works in our 26 feet of water? Why, his hon. and dockyards. His right hon. Friend was a gallant Friend would take out his guns great advocate for brick and mortar works and stores, and, having lightened his in our dockyards; but he would remind ship, would repair her in the dock. [Sir his right hon. Friend that the moment JOHN HAY: At a great loss of time and people began to tamper with brick and much expense.] He did not assert it mortar they never knew where their would be done without inconvenience; labour and their expenditure would end. but he thought he should astonish his His right hon. Friend had quoted Admiral naval friends when he told them the exRobinson to show that the country that tent of our dock accommodation. There could soonest repair its iron-cased ships were three iron-cased vessels of the Aginafter an action would conquer the seas. court class, 400 feet long, built or buildHe had the highest respect for this opinion; ing, and three of the Warrior class, makbut when officers like Admiral Robinson ing six vessels of the first-class. There were examined before Committees, they were either built or building four docks, were asked for their opinion on some par- which would take in these vessels when ticular want of the service, and not on the loaded, or nearly so, besides the dock at general question of economy or relative ex- Chatham, which would take them in after penditure. If the question had been put to lightening. If it were said that four Admiral Robinson, whether, with Estimates docks of this size were not enough, he of the present magnitude, it would be would ask whether it was not worthy of right to propose an addition of £1,250,000 consideration whether the Admiralty were for docks, his answer might have been to go on building an indefinite number different. That was a question for the of vessels of such extreme length and difHouse of Commons to consider. The ficulty of handling? This was a ques right hon. Gentleman truly said that tion that he would not enter upon at steam ships required docking and repairs present, but he would take our whole much oftener than sailing ships. It was iron-cased fleet, which he would put also true, no doubt, that owing to the de- at twenty-five ships. Well, there were structive character of modern ordnance, a now built or building seventeen docks, fleet would require much more extensive which would take in these twenty-five repairs than was formerly the case after ships, including all the classes of ironan engagement. He would admit, more- cased ships now building or already built. over, that iron-cased ships would require [Mr. CORRY said, that the noble Lord had docking much oftener than wooden vessels. included the floating batteries.] If the He would now proceed to state to the right hon. Gentleman excluded the floatHouse the exact amount of our dock ac- ing batteries from the calculation, the commodation, and in doing so would con- proportion of dock accommodation to fine his observations to the larger class of the number of vessels was so much the vessels. The right hon. Gentleman had greater. The question, then, was whegiven a list of iron-cased ships, and of the ther, looking to the present wants of docks for their reception, but he had the navy, these seventeen docks were omitted to include the docks that were not enough. At Chatham there were building. [Mr. CORRY: No.] Then the two docks which would take in vessels right hon. Gentleman had made a great of the Royal Sovereign or the Prince error in his figures. We had, irrespective of the intended enlarged dockyard at Chatham, either built or building in our dockyards, four of the largest docks, which would take in the largest class of ships. There was in addition at Chatham a dock

Albert class. His right hon. Friend had told them that at Sheerness there was nothing; but at that place there were two docks, which would take in either the Royal Sovereign class or the Prince Albert class.

MR. CORRY explained that he had particularly referred to iron-plated scagoing ships, such as the Defence and vessels of that class. The Royal Sovereign, cut down to the water's edge, could not be called a sea-going vessel.

cased ship at high water in neap tides. These were matters of detail which he was obliged to go through; for, when the right hon. Gentleman alarmed the House by stating that this country was totally unprepared for anything like a European war, he thought he was bound, on the part of the Government, which had carefully considered these matters, to show that such was not the case. In considering the question of dock accommodation, and in comparing the amount possessed by this country with the amount possessed by France, the great advantage to be derived from the English commercial ports ought not to be over. looked. If the French fleets were disabled, it had nothing to fall back upon but the Government dockyards alone, for there did not exist in France great commercial ports which might be used in aid of the Go

LORD CLARENCE PAGET considered that ships of the Royal Sovereign class were perfectly fit to go to sea, and so were those of the Prince Albert class; and the right hon. Gentleman, if he came back to the Admiralty, and told the officers in command of those ships that their vessels were not able to go to sea, would greatly surprise them. He was perfectly willing to admit that those ships did not carry stores and coals suitable for service across the Atlantic; but for the purpose of going out and fighting a battle in the Channel they were just as fit as any ships in the Royal Navy. He had figures in his hand, furnished to him by the autho-vernment dockyards. Of all the commercial rities at the dockyards; but, in order not to detain the House, he would only repeat that there were seventeen docks, built and building, for the general purposes of ironcased ships. This was in addition to the new dockyard to which he had alluded, and to which the House had already agreed, at Chatham, or rather, the extension of that dockyard, in which, he believed, would be contained something like four docks. These, though they could not be counted as docks just yet, were, nevertheless, authorized by Parliament. His right hon. Friend made a great case of the usual comparison with the French docks. No doubt the French had a vast amount of dock accommodation; but, with respect to the Atlantic seaboard, the French were very little better off than the English. In their Atlantic ports the French had altogether sixteen docks. He was referring to the larger class of French docks. His right hon. Friend had told the House that the French ships could actually go into their docks at all times of the tide; but, in reality, the French had, at the present moment, only one dock in their Atlantic ports, and that was at Brest, into which their large-sized vessels could go, except at spring tides. At Havre, which was a mercantile port, he believed that additional dock accommodation was preparing. Such was the present state of the French; and, let him add, that the English were actually in the same position, for there was but one port-at Devonport -which would take in a first-class iron

ports along the whole coast of France, it was actually only at Havre that there was at present in preparation a dock available for the great iron ships of the French navy. But what was the case in respect to England? The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) could tell the House that at Liverpool there were built and building at the present moment docks, together with other facilities, which would really count for resources to this country in the case of emergency. At Southampton there was a dock capable of taking in the Warrior. At Cork there was capacious dock accommodation; and also at other ports round the coast, besides those he had mentioned, amounting to something like fourteen or fifteen more in number. Now, let the House compare this state of things with the dock accommodation possessed by the country in former times. He did not mean to say, that if the building of these great ships should be largely developed, it might not be necessary to increase the dock accommodation, but he maintained that they now possessed both docks and ships, and there was nothing the country needed to be alarmed at. He should like to give the House a notion of what their forefathers thought requisite for the docking of their fleets. He would refer to the year 1815, because in that year the country probably had more pendants flying and ships afloat than at any other period of English history. At that time this country had 219 line-of-battle ships, and only fourteen docks capable of taking in those 219 ships, or one dock for

gave his right hon. Friend credit for his exertions; but he asked him now to sit down contentedly, satisfied that succeeding Governments would take pains to increase the dock accommodation wherever it might be required, and not to alarm the House by statements that this country was unfit, in the case of emergency, to assume her proper station.

MR. LAIRD said, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty now admitted that Government were constructing a dock at Bermuda, and a second dock at Malta, though he turned into ridicule the suggestions which he (Mr. Laird) had made upon the subject of docks on a former occasion. [Lord C. PAGET: Not at all.] It was not he, but the noble Lord himself that talked of building docks all over the world. His own observations were confined to our stations abroad. the noble Lord had made that statement, he (Mr. Laird) supposed that his representations had produced some effect, and he should not go into details upon which he should otherwise have entered. There was one point in particular to which he wished to call attention, and his views upon the subject were confirmed by those of the responsible officers of the Admiralty

As

about every fifteen ships. He thought, then that he had shown that though at the present day the wants of the country might be greater, the Government had not neglected those wants. In conclusion, he desired to mention that there was at present a very serious question before the Government in regard to dock accommodation. At this moment they had no means of docking a vessel at Bermuda; and he thought it wise to consider of the best mode of effecting this object, and to determine whether there should be formed one of those floating docks which were deemed advantageous in places where there was little rise or fall of tide. He believed that in the colonies generally there existed no great want of docks. At Malta there was a dock which could take in the Warrior, though he believed that it required some alterations for the purpose. There was also under consideration the question of a second dock connected with great improvements at Malta. The other night the hon. Member for Birkenhead told the House that they ought to construct docks all over the world. The fact was that for this they must trust to their colonial industry, and the colonies had generally got docks. In Australia there were two docks which, though the want of basin accommodation. That they would not take in the heaviest class want had caused a great increase of cost to of ships, were very fit for vessels of twenty the country in the management of the navy, feet draught of water. At Bombay there for when a ship was obliged to refit in the were two fine docks for vessels of a light stream, as the men were obliged to go draught, and there existed likewise docks backwards and forwards in boats, and all at Singapore, Hong-Kong, Amoy, and at the stores had to be taken out, a great part various other points on the coast of China, of the time was lost. So greatly were the which might not, indeed, be sufficient to re- advantages of basin accommodation valued ceive such vessels as the Achilles or War- by the merchant service, that docks had rior, but were nevertheless large enough been constructed in the Thames on both to take in the smaller-sized vessels. It sides of the river. In the evidence which was right that the House should be in- Captain Washington and Admiral Robinson formed of these things, and also that large gave before the Chatham Dockyard Comsums of money were being laid out at mer-mittee, they stated that the want of basin cantile ports in enlarging dock accommo- accommodation was very demoralizing to dation, though the public service might not be proceeding to so great an extent, perhaps, as his right hon. Friend would wish; for the right hon. Gentleman's time at the Admiralty was looked on as the golden age, when he was the Palladio of that establishment. The right hon. Gentleman used then to go down to the Board and propose gigantic works; and in going the round of the yards, if a person asked who constructed this or that great work, he was sure to be answered "Mr. Corry." His right hon. Friend had left his mark upon all the dockyards. He VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.]

the men employed, who lost 20 per cent of their time going backwards and forwards; it added to the expense, and created great difficulty in carrying on the work. The whole basin accommodation now in all the Government dockyards was only about forty acres. And yet an enormous sum of money had been spent on those dockyards, into which they constantly saw that vessels could not enter. About £1,500,000 within a few years had been spent in patching and altering the docks. Would it not be better to see at once whether, by a judicious construction of docks, Ꭱ