was bound to ask the public to suspend their judgment.

Sir J. Pakington, after making some personal explanations as to his own conduct, said he concurred in the motion, observing that the position of the First Lord of the Admiralty made an inquiry desirable, that position being one which might be difficult and painful in case of a serious difference of opinion between himself and the rest of the Board. He hoped the Government would be careful in the constitution of the Committee, that it should be composed of gentlemen desirous to conduct the inquiry in the most dispassionate manner.

Sir F. Baring explained the system under which the business was conducted at the Board of Admiralty, the first Lord having the general direction, the responsibility resting with him. Faults, he observed, were imputed to the Board of Admiralty in matters with which they had nothing to do. He admitted that the Government were quite right in granting the Committee; but he did not consider some of the proposed changes in the system of administration to be improvements. He agreed that it was of the greatest importance to ensure responsibility; the House, however, must not be deceived by words; a Minister must not be made the nominal head of a department, yet practically without control over the permanent officers belonging to it.

Mr. Henley quite agreed that what was wanted was the system which gave most responsibility and real efficiency. The statements brought forward against the Admiralty all stopped short

of proving that the present system was the cause of the alleged evils. The inquiry would show whether they arose from the want of power in the department, or of concert in the different parts of the system, or from faults in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. If this should be the result, it would be for the Government to propose a remedy.

Sir Charles Wood expressed his belief that the Committee would not find that any great change was required in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty.

Mr. Disraeli was glad that this Committee was to be appointed, but he did not apprehend that the result would be any great alteration in the Board of Admiralty. He should be sorry if they recommended that the head of the Board should be a naval officer; the next step would be to take the chief of that great department out of the House.

After a few more observations from various members, the motion was adopted.

Another motion proposed about the same time by Sir James Elphinstone, was for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of naval officers, and to report what changes therein would be desirable, with a view to the increased efficiency of the naval service. There was no class of officers in the Royal Navy, he observed, who had not just and serious grounds of complaint; and he ran over the principal grievances, to show, he said, that, he did not move for a Committee

for insufficient reasons. He first detailed individual grievances, affecting particular classes, and then specified general complaints applying to the whole.

Mr. Cochrane seconded the motion.

Sir H. Stracey expressed his belief that great discontent existed in the Navy, arising from causes connected with pay, promotion and retirement, which he explained, referring to special cases of hardship, and he suggested means of removing the discontent.

Sir F. Baring defended the arrangements made by himself, when he presided at the Admiralty.

Admiral Sir Michael Seymour supported the motion. He stated that for some reason or other there was not that degree of zeal existing in the service which for merly actuated naval officers.

Sir John Pakington said the motion was very much the same as one he had made last year, and there were additional reasons for inquiry now. It was a great national evil that British officers should have just causes for dissatisfaction.

Admiral Walcot also supported the motion.

Lord C. Paget admitted that the pay of the officers of the navy was inadequate, but the means at the disposal of the Admiralty were limited; and he complained of Sir J. Pakington, who had been at the head of the Admiralty, and had enjoyed an opportunity of giving effect to his opinions, coming down to the House, and fomenting discontent in the Navy. The motion, he said, had two distinct bearings, one regarded promotion,

and this subject might be brought before the Committee already appointed; the other related to pay, and he warned the House that, if this motion were agreed to, the Committee would report in favour of a general increase of pay throughout the Navy. He entreated the House not to assent to the motion.

Lord Palmerston said he should not be going too far if he asserted that all the services. in the country were underpaid; but he warned the House that, by consenting to the inquiry, they would be led much further than they expected.

Upon a division, the motion was carried against the Government by 102 to 97.

An important debate took place with reference to the controverted question of iron or wooden vessels of war, upon a motion made by Mr. Lindsay in the House of Commons on the 11th of April. The hon. member moved resolutions to the effect that it was expedient to defer any further expenditure on the construction or conversion of wooden line-of-battle ships; or to incur, during the present year, the expenditure requisite for the completion of the line-of-battle ships now on the stocks, or to commence the construction of any wooden vessels which carried guns on more than one deck; and that it was inexpedient, without further experience, to sanction the expenditure of any money for the purpose of adapting Her Majesty's dockyards for the construction of iron vessels. In his argument in support of these resolutions, based upon details, he stated that we had 22 wooden line-of-battle ships more than all

the world, France included, and nine frigates more than France, ours being vastly superior to the French; that with regard to iron ships France had only one ready (La Gloire), two nearly ready, and three building, six in all; while we had seven building, and the two launched were equal to four La Gloires, our vessels being of much larger tonnage than those of France. He compared the expenditure of the two countries upon their navies, showing that ours was last year double that of France, or as 10,000,000l. to 5,000,000, while this year the Navy Estimates amounted to 12,029,000l. He pointed out the reductions, immediate and consequential, that might be made in the Estimates by the adoption of his resolutions, without any diminution of the votes for the construction of iron ships. In discussing the last resolution, he adverted to the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the management of the dockyards, who were of opinion that iron ship-building should not be carried on in the Royal dockyards under the existing sytem of accounts. He insisted upon the defective state of the accounts and upon the enormous excess of cost in the construction of these vessels, and called upon the House to stop any further outlay till a better system of accounts was introduced, and they could be constructed in the Royal yards, quality considered, at a lower price.

The motion was seconded by Sir M. Peto, who strongly urged the policy of abandoning the construction of wooden ships, which had been abandoned by

France. He also suggested that the hulls of ships should be built in private yards in the Thames, the Mersey and the Clyde, and that the Royal dockyards should be used merely for repairs.

Lord C. Paget said he should confine himself to showing to the House the inexpediency of acceding to these abstract resolutions. The Admiralty, he said, thought it highly unadvisable to give up altogether the building of wooden ships, and he did not think that any practical naval man, with our present experience of iron vessels, would recommend it. There was no intention to adapt the dockyards to the building of iron ships, which were susceptible of improvements, iron vessels being at present liable to foul. After expressing a hope that the House would not agree to the resolutions, he reviewed some of the details given by Mr. Lindsay, the accuracy of which he disputed. His statement as to the backward condition of the French iron vessels in building he declared to be totally erroneous; all of them, he said, might be got ready during the present summer. The nations of the Continent were making great preparations, and it was necessary for the safety and honour of this country to be alert. With respect to the system of accounts in the dockyards, the Admiralty, he said, had taken steps to rectify the errors before the Commissioners had reported, and he gave explanations in relation to the apparent excess of cost of shipbuilding in the Royal yards.

Mr. Bentinck said he could not rely upon the details given by Mr. Lindsay, and dissented

from his conclusions. The naval requirements of England in time of peace were tenfold greater than those of all other countries put together, and in the present condition of Europe they were larger still. The augmentation of our navy was under compulsion of the increasing armament of France. In his opinion, Mr. Lindsay had adopted a mistaken course in proposing his resolutions.

The Earl of Gifford expressed a qualified concurrence in the resolutions.

Mr. Corry said he could not concur in Mr. Lindsay's opinion that it was impossible for any money to be laid out on the navy in France which had not been voted for that express purpose; for two years ago he had been a member of a Committee, that had occasion to enter into an investigation of French accounts, and they found that, from the year 1852 to 1856 inclusive, the French Naval Estimates were only 19,807,000l., whereas the expenditure was 31,691,6211.

Sir Joseph Paxton and Mr. Dalglish spoke decidedly in favour of iron ships.

Captain Jervis and Mr. Whitbread opposed the resolutions.

Mr. Horsman defended the Admiralty, and maintained that if Lord C. Paget had not done more it was only because he had not the power.

Mr. W. Williams urged a reduction of expenditure.

Sir J. Pakington, with reference to a remark of Mr. Horsman, said that the Report of the Royal Commissioners did not support the statements made by Lord C. Paget in 1859, which had proved to be erroneous. He

(Sir John) had not understood clearly from Lord Clarence the intentions of the Admiralty as to wooden line-of-battle ships. He had stated that we had 67 of these ships; but this number must include those on the stocks, there being only about 53 afloat. Although he concurred in some portion of the resolutions, they might be open to misconstruction, and he should be sorry to take the matter out of the hands of the Executive Government. He gave various explanations regarding the Warrior, showing the infancy of our knowledge on the subject of iron ships, confessing that he saw no prospect of being able to abandon the construction of wooden vessels.

Mr. Finlay thought that further experience was required before the safety of the country was entrusted to iron ships.

After some further discussion Mr. Lindsay consented to withdraw his resolutions.

At a later period of the session, some interesting debates took place in the House of Commons, with reference to the new iron ships of war in course of construction. On the 31st of May, Sir John Pakington called attention to the comparative progress of England and France in the building of armour-covered ships. The right honourable baronet laid before the House some information he had received from Admiral Elliot, the result of his own recent personal obsertion, as to the number of French armour-covered ships afloat or in various states of preparation. He read a list of some of these vessels, and described their great size, strength, and armament, the

aggregate number of these powerful vessels being 24, exclusive of the old batteries. He was not aware, he said, that we had more than six of these vessels. Admiral Elliot had likewise assured him that in every one of the French yards he had visited, the utmost efforts were making to press these preparations forward. Whatever might be the motives of France, let us, he said, look at the practical result, that we were becoming the second maritime Power of Europe. He asked what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject.

Mr. Lindsay thought that Sir J. Pakington would have done better by communicating his information privately to the Government. The statement he had made would do no good, but was likely to do great injury. He (Mr. Lindsay) had taken the greatest pains to obtain the most correct accounts of the state of the French navy, having had personal communication upon the subject with the Minister of Marine at Paris, and they were at variance with the information given to Sir J. Pakington. Mr. Lindsay's comparison of the iron-cased fleets of the two countries made it appear that we were before the French.

Sir J. Elphinstone believed that the Government could from their own observation confirm the report of Admiral Elliot, and he thought it behoved them to investigate the subject of iron ships without delay.

Mr. Dalglish suggested that a Committee of two or three persons might be sent to inspect the French dockyards, and he was sure that the French Government would give them every facility.

Lord C. Paget said it was true that the French were making great progress in the building of iron-cased ships, and that within the last two months they had laid down several new ones. But they were not making any undue exertions, though constantly employed upon this new class of vessels. The French vessels, however, were not of the same size or power as ours. Although he thought it better not to enter much into details upon this subject, he might say that the Government contemplated building five iron-cased ships of a very powerful class.

The discussion then terminated. It was resumed, however, a few days later, when Lord C. Paget definitely stated the intentions of the Government with respect to iron-cased ships. He said they had determined to prepare five more of these vessels, which would raise the number to twelve.

Sir John Pakington considered this statement unsatisfactory, looking at the number of iron-cased ships built, or in course of building, in France.

Lord Palmerston observed that the subject was one of vital importance. Sir J. Pakington had stated very accurately the number of iron-covered ships constructed, or ordered to be constructed in France; but the larger proportion were only recently ordered to be laid down. We had already seven built or building, and the Government thought the most effectual method of proceeding was to take advantage of the timbers of five wooden ships prepared for building, and have them clad with iron, whereby we should have