found that, so far from decreasing, they was the right way of keeping the accounts had increased from 18,000,000l. odd in generally; and he had taken the earliest 1822, to 22,800,000l. in 1846. He must, possible opportunity of introducing that therefore, say to the lovers of economy system at the Admiralty, after the report that this state of things offered no temp- to which allusion had been made. He was tation to bring these establishments under much mistaken if the accounts of the BriParliamentary control. He believed the tish Navy might not now challenge compractice of bringing these establishments parison with those of any branch of any under the control of Parliament was con- public service. The present Government, stitutional; but then that gave rise to a following up the example of their predecespressure from different quarters which sors, had introduced the same system both prevented reductions from taking place. into the Army and the Ordnance; and he Look, for instance, to the pressure that believed it would be introduced progreshad taken place on the Post Office. He sively throughout all the great departments had been a party to carrying the benefits of the public service. If it was said that of the Post Office into every rural village, no such system had been adopted at the which was certainly a great convenience; Home Office, he would observe, that in but then it could not be done without connexion with the Home Office there was greatly increased expense, so that the re- a branch of the public service with very venue of the Post Office was now nearly large and complicated accounts, viz., the absorbed in its expenditure; and, indeed, Police; and in that department he had the such was the state of things that the satisfaction, aided by Mr. Anderson, of Treasury now exercised a control over the introducing that most approved system of expenditure of Parliament, rather than the keeping accounts. To the principles laid Parliament over the Treasury. The last down in the report of 1831 he adhered. point was the question of appropriations He had not, however, at that time, had in aid. Now, there was no difficulty with practical and official experience; and when regard to this matter; for he believed there that most upright public servant the late was no real advantage to the Treasury Lord Spencer passed the whole subject one way or the other. It was a mere under careful review, he came to the conmatter of opinion; and the reason which clusion that the recommendations in that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given report were opposed by many and great for continuing the present practice was the practical disadvantages. With respect to real reason that it acted as a stimulus to carrying to the account of expenditure the different departments to sell their small receipts arising from sales in the stores to the best advantage, if they re- different departments, that appeared to ceived the credit of them, and were thus him (Sir J. Graham) a matter of minor enabled to show that they kept down their importance; he could not conceive that respective estimates; whereas, if the pro- there would be much objection to give duce of the old stores were thrown at once practical effect to the principle in that into the Treasury, and no credit given to matter, and, for one, he should not object the departments for their careful manage- to see the recommendations of the report ment, they would have no anxiety whether of 1831 carried into effect as far as that those stores sold well or ill. That was the went. There remained the great question real reason of continuing the system-whether the revenue departments should that was the benefit which they received or should not pay the charge for their from continuing this practice; and not, as establishments before paying into the Exthe hon. Member for Montrose appeared chequer the amount of their receipts; and, to suppose, because they were allowed to upon the whole, though his experience was put any money into their own pockets. not so extensive as that of the two right For these reasons he could not support hon. Gentlemen opposite (the Chancellor the resolutions. of the Exchequer and Mr. F. T. Baring), yet he must say, from the inquiries he had made, and from his general knowledge of the subject, that great inconvenience and expense would arise from the adoption of that recommendation. The matter was regarded by Lord Spencer with all his predilection in favour of the adoption of a sound system; and he was only deterred SIR J. GRAHAM was not surprised that the hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) should look upon the report that had been referred to with something like parental affection. With respect to the mode in which the public accounts should be kept, he most cordially and entirely agreed that the system of double entry from adopting it by a regard to practical | the money was gone; but he wanted to considerations. It would be impossible have the accounts looked into before the time and space would forbid it-to go into money was spent. But he would not diminute details of those extensive establish- vide the House; he thought this was one ments. A great deal, too, would escape of those questions that were making pronotice; and, if a public department desired gress. to conceal a job, it would be much easier to do so under a large annual vote than in the course now adopted, under which a most ample account was laid on the Table of the House year by year after the money was expended. Motion withdrawn. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE. MR. HUME rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, for an Inquiry into the state of the Navy since 1832, as regards the building, alterations, and repairs of Her Majesty's Ships.' LORD J. RUSSELL rose only to express his general concurrence in the view taken by the two right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Baring and Sir J. Graham). On The Motion, though comprised in two lines, principle, the better way would seem to comprehended the whole question of the be, that the whole of the receipts should system of naval architecture in this country, be brought into the Exchequer, and the and the manner in which it had been conwhole of the payments made out of the ducted since 1832. He had no hesitation Exchequer; but there was found to be so in saying that the system of naval archimuch practical inconvenience in that, and tecture in this country, and the managethe expense and trouble would be so great, ment under which it had been conducted without any adequate countervailing ad- during that period, had been most unsatisvantage, that that plan, or that part of factory. Unlike every other department the plan, was given up, conformably with in this or in other countries, matters had the opinion of Lord Spencer. The hon. not been progressing from a bad to a good Member (Dr. Bowring) likewise wished system, but had stood still, if they had not that all the departments connected with retrograded; and he should be able to the collection of the revenue should pre- prove to the House, and expose to the sent estimates to be voted in the House. country, mismanagement to a great extent, For the reasons that had been already entailing vast loss upon the nation in given, he (Lord J. Russell) conceived that money, with great discredit in character. that course would not be expedient; and He must first take the House back to the that there would not be any equivalent period when the Navy Estimates were advantage gained. It must not be sup- before them fifteen years ago. The right posed that it was the uniform and unbend- hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was then at ing rule that all public expenses should be the head of the Admiralty, and had most agreed to by vote of the House on esti- unadvisedly put an end to the School of mates; on the contrary, there were a great Naval Architecture, which had existed for number of sums, such as the expenses of about twenty-one years; he had also the Civil List, and pensions and payments openly, in the most extraordinary manner, out of the Consolidated Fund, which were established by Act of Parliament, and were not brought before the House in estimates to be voted year by year. However, he (Lord J. Russell) merely rose to state, with respect to the opinion of his which had been referred to, that although he entirely concurred in that view at the time when he signed the report, he had long since thought that Lord Spencer took the more correct view of the subject, and that he (Lord J. Russell) was in error when he signed that report. DR. BOWRING, in replying, insisted that the departments of receipt and expenditure were kept separate in France, and ought to be so here also. No doubt, hon. Members might trace the 7,000,000l. after depreciated the characters of those who were then pupils in that school; and had committed himself to an opinion which could scarcely have been believed by any one who did not hear it-that he did not consider science could be applied in the way proposed in that school to the purposes of naval architecture; the right hon. Baronet stated that he thought a captain in the Navy was as good as any other person to conduct that department. He had not been aware that he himself had spoken so distinctly and strongly on the subject as he found that he had done; on the 29th of June, 1832, when the subject of Sir William Symonds' appointment came before the House, he stated that the appointment was most unjust to the Gentleman. Before showing the nature of the school and the system which that right hon. Gentleman had destroyed, he wished to explain why the School of Naval Architecture was originally established. He had a strong sense of the injustice done to individuals by its abolition. A breach of public faith, indeed, had, in his opinion, been committed; for the young men who sought admission to that school came forward with qualifications such as those required of young men entering Haileybury College. Promises were made to induce them to induce them to qualify themselves for the public service. Expectations were held out, that offices of emolument would be opened to them, affording opportunities of acquiring distinction as well as of obtaining support. The Third Report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, dated 24th of June, 1806, described the then existing system of education for shipwrights as exceedingly defective, and proposed to alter it, so as to secure the services of persons more liberally educated. The report stated— country, which would be deprived of the scientific skill that might have been available, and that our great naval power would be in jeopardy by being placed in hands utterly incompetent; that he did not wish to disparage Captain Symonds, who was a distinguished naval officer; and that he objected to him, not as such, but as Surveyor of the Navy-an office for which he was unfit, because he was ignorant of naval architecture. The report made in 1806 by the Commissioners on the Civil Affairs of the Navy showed a marked contrast between England and France in the application of scientific principles. There was no department of manufactures which in the present day did not afford numerous proofs of the great progress made in this respect. It was only in applying science to naval architecture that England was backward. He was prepared to prove his case before either a Committee or a Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester had stated when Captain Symonds was appointed, that Captain Symonds was entirely unknown to him, but had been brought under his notice as a man of talent. Objections having been stated to the appointment by himself (Mr. Hume), Sir Byam Martin, and others, the right hon. Gentleman expressed his confidence that when the Navy Estimates were brought forward the following year, it would be admitted that the experiment had been made most wisely. The right hon. Gentleman's words were "He was perfectly unknown to me, except in his profession, and I have selected him on account of the inquiries which have been made, and on account of the highly-approved ships which Captain Symonds has built. But I am perfectly ready to admit that the merits of this appointment are about to be put to what is the fairest test. There is a ship now ready for sea, built under his own immediate inspection, and I am quite willing that the merits of the appointment should rest upon the fate of that experiment. I am quite confident that when I shall meet the hon, and gallant Officer again on the Navy Estimates of next Session, he will admit that the result of that experiment has proved that this appointment was made most wisely." His own opinion, on the contrary, was that it had been most unwisely made; that it had proved lamentably ruinous to the interests of the country; and that the time had arrived when it was necessary to arrest the progress of the evil. The right hon. Gentleman had also observed that he did not believe the Surveyor of the Navy was required to be a practical shipbuilder. Such were the views of the right hon. "We find that apprentices are admitted at the age of fourteen; that at their admission many of them cannot read or write; few have much education. As apprentices they serve seven years; no care is taken to teach them anything during that time but their business as shipwrights. At the end of the apprenticeship they generally serve two or three years, working as shipwrights, after employed as overseers of ships building in the which time those reckoned fit for it are commonly merchant yards. In the whole course we have described, no opportunity will be found of acquiring even the common education given to men of their rank in life; and they rise to the complete direction of the construction of the ships, on which the safety of the empire depends, without any care or provision having been taken on the part of the public that they should have any instruction in mathematics, mechanics, or in the science or theory of marine architecture." Such was the account of the state of naval architecture in 1806, and this was the remedy suggested : "To put an end to this want of foresight and due consideration, which may finally lead to so much danger to the country; to bring into our dockyards apprentices of more liberal education than has hitherto been required; to instruct them while there in mechanics, in mathematics, in drawing, and in everything connected with the science of naval architecture; to employ them during a portion of their time in working with the shipwrights, in the building and repairing of ships, so as to add the practice of the art of shipbuilding to the study of the theory; and, by these means, to enable them to form the plans of our ships of render them at the same time competent to judge war consistently with scientific principles, and of the labour that must necessarily be bestowed on the execution of every part of a ship, the wages that by proper exertion may be earned by | plete success had, he believed, been the those employed on it, and the quality of the work consequence. Yet after twenty-one years' when completed; these we consider to be amongst service they did not receive any one of the most important parts of the duty which your Majesty has been pleased to commit to us, and we those appointments which Government propose what follows as the best plan for the at- had pledged itself to give them. The last tainment of those objects, that, after the fullest Board of Admiralty had allowed them an attention, has occurred to us." opportunity of showing how their art and What followed? His Majesty's Govern- science could be applied. Let naval officers ment, in 1809, stated what were their in- state what was their opinion of the Espitentions on the subject, and, in 1811, égle and the Thetis, as compared with the established the School of Naval Architec- ships of Captain Symonds. Then there ture. At that time, the state of science, were at least five or six who had distinas applied to naval architecture, was so guished themselves by the knowledge they greatly superior in France, that the only had shown of subjects immediately congood ships England had in her service were nected with the branch to which they had copies of ships taken from other countries. devoted themselves, Hon. Members, on Taking such considerations into account, comparing the principles laid down in the and cherishing the spirit of Englishmen, Catechism of Naval Architecture, by Sir who would not allow themselves to be de- William Symonds, with those laid down by pendent upon others, the Commissioners pupils of the School of Naval Architecture, acted wisely in recommending, and the in their publications, would be able to saGovernment acted wisely in establishing, tisfy themselves of the great superiority of the School of Naval Architecture. When the latter. The work of Chatfield seemed the Order in Council was issued on the sub- to throw the character and conduct of Sir ject, the prospect was held out that those W. Symonds, as a naval architect, into the who were studious and attentive would be shade. When had a better treatise been rewarded in due time by appointments to produced than that on masting by a pupil the employments which existed in the of the same institution? Where had dockyards. The Commissioners of Naval papers appeared like those of Mr. Cruize? Revision recommended that the number of The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, had students should be so great as should be thought proper to put an end to the publisufficient to supply the places of officers cation of those papers, which had proved who might die or be removed. The situ- so beneficial, Having ascertained the total ations to which they might aspire were the number of ships built since 1832, and following:-Master Measurer, since abol- having obtained, so far as he could, the ished; Foreman of Shipwrights, Master history of each ship, he was prepared to Boatbuilder, and Master Mast-maker, now prove that in almost every instance there foremen of the yard at 250l. per annum; had been a failure in construction; that the Assistants to Master Shipwrights, 400l. objects required in respect of stowage, per annum; Mechanist in the office of In- floatage, fighting-everything requisite in spector-General of Naval Works, abolished; a ship of war-had in the great majority of Civil Architect and Engineer, 8001. per instances been completely missed. Then annum; Assistants to the Surveyors of the the alterations were interminable; the exNavy, abolished; Master Shipwright, 6501.; pense was enormous; and scarcely any of per annum; Second Surveyor of the Navy, the ships answered the purpose for which abolished; Inspector General of Naval they were built. Such being the case he Works abolished; First Surveyor of the wished to bring his charge, not against Sir Navy, 1,000l. per annum. These were W. Symonds, but against the Admiralty, the prizes which were held out to the young who had allowed such proceedings. Could men who should enter the service. The it be said that they had exercised a sound right hon. Gentleman had said the school discretion? One of the statements in his had entirely failed. It was a proper matter possession set forth the amount of money for inquiry whether imperfections existed voted for wages and naval stores during in the establishment; but why destroy it? fifteen years. If it had been properly apWhat ship had been produced worthy of plied, he should have thought little of the being called an improved ship under Cap- largeness of the sum, which amounted to tain Symonds? And what was the result 22,000,000l. He was prepared to prove when the pupils of the School of Naval that a large portion of that had been Architecture were allowed to try their wasted. Since 1833, 8,000,000l. had skill in the construction of ships? Com- boen voted for wages, and 14,000,0007. Mr. Blake (late master shipwright), Ports- for naval stores; making 22,000,000l. | Frigates, on Sir W. Symonds' models....... Frigates, on designs by Mr. Fincham, laid down in 1843.. On Sir W. Symonds' designs, laid down since 1831 On designs by the late Surveyors, laid down in 1820 to 1828. On the French model of Pestal, laid down in 1828 On design of School of Naval Architecture, laid down in December, 1844 On design by Admiral Hayes, laid down in 1836.... On design by Captain (now Admiral) Elliot, laid down in 1842 Total launched Corvettes, on designs by Sir W. Symonds, laid down since 1834. On designs by the late Surveyor, Sir R. Seppings, laid down in 1830 On designs by Professor Inman, laid down in 1827..... mouth Mr. Lang, junior, Woolwich Total Corvettes, on Sir W. Symonds' model 9 Brigantines, on Sir W. Symonds' model 10 10 1 1 2 1 15 1 11 1 The steam navy was not included. The 1charge was, that failures in building ships. had taken place to au enormous extent. 20 Scarcely one ship had been laid down by Sir W. Symonds which had turned out 1 other than a failure. The Vernon was the first great ship, and had already been made a subject of remark in that House. On the 4th of March, 1842, Captain Rous 15 6 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 -" condemned the Pique as a bad sea-boat, and not a good ship at her anchors. She floated one foot deeper than the calculation, with only four months' provisions (he commanded her). She shipped so much water as to wash away her headrails, and put four feet water on the main-deck. Obliged to be put two feet by her stern to make her dry and easy. He said the Vanguard was endeavoured to be improved from this. His steamers would be swamped if caught in a heavy gale of wind. (The Gorgon he referred to)." 4 With regard to the Vernon, he was prepared to prove that in the first cruise, under Sir F. Collier, she pitched so heavily that she even broke off her head-rails short, leaving the fastenings secure, and the quarter-gallery from the stern; her laboursome qualities were fearful. When she bore the flag of Sir G. Cockburn, she pitched her bowsprit-cap into the sea, and shipped so much water in the forecastle 1 that it ran down to the gunner's-room below, and nearly drowned his mate; the seas she was accustomed to ship at her fore-channel on the left of the bow when dipping into the water before she was able 2 to rise again, ran aft to the quarter-deck; her lines were similar to a frigate constructed more than fifty years ago, and found not to answer. In fact, she was the copy an old French vessel that had been tried, and had completely failed. He, therefore, said, that the right hon. Baronet, in get4 ting hold of Captain Symonds, rested his merit-if any merit he had-upon a test which had completely failed. He thought he could show that, in 1831, Captain Symonds stated he knew nothing about shipbuilding, and that the Pantaloon was built on lines supplied to him by another. He was then unworthy to take the place of men whose education had fitted them for Total..... 23 the duty, and who had subsequently proved |