The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-17 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1863.

The motion of Mr. SEELY last evening found a
good many supporters, and it will probably be ap-
proved out of doors as well as in the House ; but as
it interfered with the patronage system always in
favour at the Admiralty, the Government contrived
to prolong the debate until they had recruited their
ranks, collected their scattered forces, and reversed
the minority of two by a majority of twenty-seven.
Nevertheless, Mr. SEELY had- reason on his side, and
was able to support his motion not only by argu-
ment, but by fact. There can hardly be a difference
of opinion as to the enormous expense yearly in-
curred in our dockyards, and the Secretary of the
Admiralty and the Junior Lord have often had con-
siderable difficulty in defending the mismanagement
of their subordinates, and in making the worse
appear the better cause. Mr. SEELY attributes a
great part of this extravagance to the incompetency
of the superintending officers, who are always naval
men, and consequently, in his opinion, not qualified
to supervise machinery and shipbuilding. Without
casting any aspersion on the intelligence and public
spirit of these gentlemen, he considers that the mere
fact of there being naval officers did not necessarily
constitute them judges of the efficient and econo-
mical management of the dockyards. The hon. mem-
ber did not object to the appointment of naval men
provided they were duly qualified, and he urged that
they should be possessed of the requisite technical
knowledge to enable them to exercise a sharp super-
vision over the proceedings of their subordinates.
" It was not his wish to confine such appointments
to civilians, but if given by preference to officers of
the Navy, it ought to be seen that they possess the
requisite qualifications. They should not be ex-
cluded, but the most competent men, whether
sailors or civilians, should be selected to control and
direct the expenditure of the Royal dockyards."
This is only the language of prudence and common
sense, and the terms of the motion were equally so
—" That it is inexpedient to continue the practice
of appointing naval officers who are not possessed of
a technical knowledge of the business carried on in

her MAJESTY'S dockyards to the office of superinten-
dent thereof, and the practice of limiting their tenure
of office to a period of five years." Mr. SEELY
pointed out that the successive Boards of Admiralty
had been perfectly aware of the mismanagement
prevailing, for they have been constantly appointing
commissions and committees ever since 1796. They
would not, however, adopt the true remedy of put-
ting a practical man of business at the head of their
works, and perhaps this shows that the fervour
of their reforming spirit is not very great. Mr.
SEELY, in the long list of figures which he
quoted last evening, gave ample evidence of the
extravagance going on in our dockyards—a fact
with which the taxpayers of this country are already
painfully familiar. Quoting from the last return
on Dockyards and Steam Factories, he showed that
at Chatham boats were fitted out at half the rate
book price, while at Portsmouth they cost double
the rate book price, or four times as much as at
Chatham. But his revelations of the cost of the
Lead Mills were more extraordinary, of which the
following is a sample :—The labour in making
11,730 cwt. of melted load, Admiralty cost 2s. 6d.
per cwt., was equal to £1,466 ; ditto, in the market,
would be 3d. per cwt., equal to £146 ; 3,322 cwt.
pipe lead, Admiralty cost 4s. 10d. per cwt., equal
to £BO2 ; ditto, in the market, 3d. per cwt., equal
to £42, difference £760. So that the loss to the
Admiralty, and the consequent waste of the public
money on these heads alone during 1861-2, was no
less than £2,080. The other items are, for the most
part, on the same scale, and when this goes on in
all the Royal Dockyards we need not wonder at the
ever-growing estimates. The prices paid for the
articles bought correspond to the outlay at the mills.
The Admiralty are now paying for anchors of a
certain weight 60s. per cwt., while the average
price of four makers is 335. 4d. Mr. SEELY
made a calculation by which he showed the
House that 25,400 cwt. of anchors cost
the Admiralty £60,330, while the same
size anchors, bought in open market, would cost
£36,458. If we are to go on spending £20,000 too
much in every £60,000, there is not much hope of a
reduction in the estimates ; but when we come to
the repairs and alterations, matters are even worse.
The case of the Wasp, built in 1850, which has
since cost in repairs over £46,000, and might be
bought now for £40,000, is a fair sample.
It is very clear that vigorous reform is needed;
and when Mr. SEELY estimated the annual waste at
the Admiralty to be nearly a million of money, he
was probably not far from the truth. Yet
we go on, year after year, complaining and remon-
strating, but doing nothing towards amendment.
Even after Mr. SEELY'S industrious exposition,
Lord CLARENCE PAGET'S unsatisfactory answer,
and Mr. BRIGHT'S vigorous and sensible address, the
House consented to negative the motion. As Mr.
BRIGHT very justly pointed out, nothing could
be more reasonable than the motion, which did not
stipulate that civilians must necessarily be at the
head of the dockyards, but merely that when a
naval officer was appointed he should be fully com-
petent to discharge the public duties which he un-
dertook. If the House, observed the hon. member
for Birmingham, rejected this motion it would be
tantamount to declaring that it was right to
appoint a naval officer, who knew nothing of
the business which he undertook. Mr. BRIGIIT
recommended the Government to accept the resolu-
tion, and certainly, considering Lord C. PAGET'S
reforming antecedents, it would have been more
consistent to have done so. It was easy, however,
to escape on general grounds, and to talk about the'
importance of getting good articles rather than
cheap ones—only the unfortunate thing is that there
is no proof that the articles purchased or produced
by the Admiralty are any better than the cheaper
-ones elsewhere. The matter now rests with the
electors, who, we hope, will obtain from their repre-
sentatives some definite pledge of bestirring them-
selves to effect some substantial reform.

When people take up ideas they are very apt to
make mistakes and run into extremes. The dogs
in the metropolis seem likely this year to fall vic-
tims to the fears and fancies of certain prejudiced
parties. Last night Mr. DA3IER went so far as to
ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether he did not think it advisable to bring in a
bill to enable the police to destroy by strychnine or
other means " all dogs going about without collars
and the addresses of their owners thereon." Sir G.
GREY replied in a proper manner to this extrordi-
nary proposal. He said that the Metropolitan
Police Act already provided that if any dog was
allowed to go at large, if it was in a rabid state, its
owner might be fined five pounds, and also the
owner was amenable to common law for the injuries
inflicted by such dogs, and the right hon. baronet
added that he did not see what further provision
could well be adopted. He did not say that the
" fact of a dog having a collar round his neck, with
the name of the owner, would render him less dan-
gerous," nor can any one else see it, we should
imagine. Sir G. GREY said that a good plan would
be to enact that dogs at large should wear some
kind of muzzle which would prevent them from
biting without confining their mouths. The French
have a very ingenious kind of muzzle which answers
this purpose, and it would be well if those owners
of dogs who can afford it would procure this desir-
able requisite. The manufacturers and tradesmen
might also, with advantage, avail themselves of this
idea. It naturally suggests itself to the mind, when
hearing and reading of all these complaints and
tirades against the dogs of the metropolis, that
if more care and consideration were adopted
there would be less risk to the public, and
infinitely less likelihood of so many dogs going mad.
What is more likely to produce a rabid state among
these animals in sultry weather than the cruel man-
ner in which they are often treated? Boys and
men hunt and drive them about for their amusement
in the most reckless fashion, and get up a cry that
some poor creature is mad, until they create the
evil they pretend to dread. The manner in which
dogs are treated at race-courses is disgraceful, and
reflects the greatest discredit upon all the authori-
ties of those places of public resort and amusement.
The neglect to provide the animals with water is
often carried to a culpable degree, but it is satis-
factory to know that by the latest arrangements at
the cattle-markets the cattle are enabled to quench
their thirst ; but until very recently they were
kept for hours in a wretched state, suffering greatly,
and all from their mismanagement and gross care-
lessness. If the police direct their energies to put-
ting down the cruel sport of hunting about stray
dogs they will be more usefully employed in de-
stroying them causelessly. There is nothing so
absurd and .unreasonable as to go to such extreme
lengths without taking the trouble to consider over
the matter a little. According to the theory of
these alarmists it would be safer and better to de-
stroy all dogs, and thus the most faithful and intel-
ligent animal that the CREATOR has bestowed upon
man would be sacrificed without a cause, for want
of due precaution and necessary vigilance. Such
folly is quite beneath the intelligence of the present
day, and it would be more profitable and praise-
worthy for social and domestic reformers to enter
upon a crusade for the extinction of cruelty than
to wage warfare against a race of animals whose