POLITICAL EXPOSURES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume X, Issue 603, 14 August 1858, Page 3

POLITICAL EXPOSURES.

(From the Times, April Io.J

Whatever may be said of the unrelenting 1 constancy with which the press makes ;>ubiic the weakenesses, deficiencies, or 'faults of the country, it must be .allowed 'chat members of the House of Commons are not far behind the daily newspapers. 'A. Minister of tb'e old school might .also reel his teeth chatter at the indiscretions of mch politicians of the present day-as Sir John Pakington, Sir Charles Wood, and Sir Charles .The debate on the Naval Estimates' on Monday night wns certainly as free-spoken as anything that has appeared in these columns. What we have, what we have not, what we are going to do, why we are going to do it, what enemy we are preparing against, and why we thiuk it r.eeessary to prepare against him, w;>re all given to the world with rotund m.mth by the present and ■ late .First Lord .of the Admiralt} 7-, by the-late Commarider of the Baltic Fleet, and the late Prime Minuter of England. It has always been so, and it is now becoming more the national custom than ever. In this we see 'tittle cau-e for dissatisfaction. Nothingis to be gained by kf'e^ing* secret what everybody knows, and hesitation to utter what ev.f-r»'lio.ly "-thinks. It is a false dignity which refrains from dis2iissing that the whole country is interested in^ and a false delicacy which keeps one's own people in darkness in order that neighbours may not be offended with the light. The fact is, that the people to whom the state of our army and navy is likely to be a secret, are the general public of the three kingdoms, and mystery as to our deficiencies and their remedies would only tend to deceive the nation, and to bring on another of those tits of economy which are declared to work such ruin on our establshments.

The maxim that efficiency should be combined with economy, is certainly trite and trivnl enough, but still it maj 7 be questioned whether it has ever been realized in the war administration of this country. We have alternative efficiency and economy for many a year, but hardly at anytime combined- them. The ball has thus been driven backward and forward between the military and naval enthusiasts, who inveigh against the nath nil parsimony, and the thorough-going- retrenchment men, who are for cutting down evei-thing 1, from the Mediterranean Fleet or the army on home service to the salaries of clerks and tidewaiter?. Now it seems to us that the people of England preserve a very fair mean between these two extremes. They will certainly not let the warlike professions and their chiefs have things entirely their own way. that way being simply to increase every rising indefinitely,—to have more Gens.'raU and Admirals, and regiments ami ships: They consider, justly, that a nation which wears itself out with excessive taxation in time of peace cannot hopn for success in war, and that there must be a limit which financial prudence forbids a sensible Government", to pass. On the other hand, it is felt that, neither armies nor fleets can be extemporised, and that in the present state of Europe the country must 7nakn some sacrifices in order to insure safety to its people. In the old day's. wher.no one knew much about the Ann v <r navy, we were content to leavn all actual administration in the hands of the Uoveinmant, and merely to exercise the liberty of cutting down the estimates when they appeared unreasonable. John Bull, in fact, very much resembled the, camel as described a day or two since in onr columns. At every fresh burden laid on him he give a groan or a cry, but when the whole load was completed he rose nu and wont steadily and ui;e.;mplainiugly

*©n his journey. But then there seems no, reason why we should content ourselves with merely accepting* or refusing1 nvliat is laid before us. It is very well to ■say that the army and navy belong* to the ■Crown, but we know that the Crown is •merely a name for the supremacy of a ;small knot of professional men, who thus Jiave the privilege of saying- to Parliament .-and the country, "We propose this j you imay reject it if you like, but we cannot allow 3 Tou to originate anything- yourselves." Why .should not the "House assert for itself a control and initiative in •the actual administration of affairs, and mot merely confine itself to paying*-the bill -for what has been done, or stating- that it will not pay the bill for what is proposed -to be done? The greatest military system which the world has ever seen was •organised by the committees of the National Convention in France, and there is -every reason to believe that the fresh, Tinprejudiced intellect of laymen,-would enlarge the scope of professional views, -which in this country arj often narrow •enough. It certainly would seem that civilian inexperience could hardly make greater blunders than some that have been committed by purely professional authorities. The navy has been always more popular than the army in the House of Commons, having its chief in the Cabinet, has been able to get money on easier terms. -And a fine waste the First Lords, with -their councils of Admirals and Post Captains, have been !

We should not, be behind any nation in -the size and power of our first-rates. Sir .John Pakington compared such, ships as the Caledonia and the St. Vincent, of about 2600 tons, with the Marlborough Victoria of 4000. The Diadem, he said—a mere frigate of the present day—' -was of 2300 tons, only 100 less than "the 120-gun ships of a few years back. We rare told that now France is building very large vessels, and that we must have others to match. So that it is evident "the size of these stupendous machines of war must increase year by year. If any -country chooses to build a man-of-war as Jarg%e as the Leviathan, we also must Jiaye our fleet of Leviathans. The question is, where is tliis to end ? Is there no certain size -at which a vessel of war reaches perfection ?—at which the maximum of combined strength, speed, ~and manageability are reachpd ? Our Admiralty, it seems to us, has never 'endeavoured to solve this question. It ihas always been an imitator. Whatever the French or Americans have originated in the way of line-of-baf.tle ship?, frigates, or gunboats, it has set about to /rival, and by the time we have built a ileet after one foreign model, another «omes into fashion, and we set about building- another fleet according-ly. The latest idea is the construction of enormous line-of-battle ships and frigates. This, -we are told, must lead to the entire recon--struction of the docks we build them in. ■Hear Sir John Pakington on the subject: -■—"lam sure the honorable member for Lambeth will admit that it is absolutely impossible to construct, and repair our present gigantic steamships in the same dockyards in which were constructed and repaired our smaller sailing ships of some years ago." Hf.nce, more land, larger -dockyards, additional hands, large charges for machinery., and all the items which -have tended to.raise the estimates to their present vast amount. Yet there are people who say that these great line-of-battle ship* are comparatively of little use, that -they require an enormous number of men, consume vast quantities of coal and stores, and are yet serviceable on hardly any con-' "tingoncy.^ It is whispered that gunboats •with the improved guns which are coming into use would destroy the magnificent hulls which afford them so broad a target, sand that consequently this fleet, which is jiow being built up at* such an unheard of is a delusion like others which have gone before it. Besides the transit partisans there are the blockshin parmans. Sir. C. Napier is for moderately zSized vessels plated with iron, and wishes nn expsrmient to he nvuU as to the cana■bilities. of each. Yet, with all these ■various : opinion* abroad, the Admiralty go.>s oain.it-> course unheeding, and, bi'oships being the rage, big ships it will have°, until some other power proves that something el-e is bettw, and t.lmn tlip. Marlborough and the Royal Albert will be laid np iri"?ordin;iry for ever. .; SirJT.. Pakington referred.at someleno-th to, ; theiwnste of refitting ships nnd pve- ■ Winß'^liem fov sea. When a ship returns Uiowe VRtJr her perfect, her ofti-

cers and men working* well tog-ether, and the whole well acquainted with the vessel and its qualities, she no sooner conies into port than the result of three years' continuous skilled lahor are all dispersed, the ship dismantled, and it costs between £20,000 and £30,000, and some nine or ten months of labor to get a new and untried crew in place of the splendid machine which was broken up in a single day. Such thing-s as these almost make us believe that the authorities regard the navy as existing- for the dockyards, and not the dockyards for .the navy. When we look upon the enormous and increasing* cost of this branch of the national defences, the confessedly deficient results which are obtained, and the uncertainty which prevails even respecting the kind of vessels of which a fleet should be composed, we think it is time that the country instituted a stricter control over the whole system of naval administration.