The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-17 00:00:00

" The store of timber, tfiiek•staff plank, (aitiViltialc f not
--sufficient to"lneet the ordinary denrinds- of
en.sur:efh,:iie.ficing properly., reits4neid bettiit'beipg c(,n-•
iE
i'erted:" ''"4"7 t; • - , r.7:4
e 3 t... 111
They ‘c,il
"In all the 3•4rds the conifiiititeloiANlFttiVeAun<l 1 tibi- ,
'foim want of large timber and dccl. deals." s-•%, •
To six : perr7rien.aTisaa(l-rnany of the flinn -
o
oTalielitetter was referred. All the di4futes"Which hadtzkr}n
0
phee,b?tween the -varion..3 parties win tnricl,'l kis-report _
thAlcounter-rep-ort—dhis blast and ceunter blast, had b;Cli.
hib4nr.- They all agree(l that the labour was costly
and thitt it was well done. i e was 41.:.;eroliejj sr, -16
whether it cost more titan it cuelit to. cIP. 2P.vvallioVr'
a monient-deubt that_ just.iu proi:orti6a. ts the IrMoitr:
they ought to be careful that the materiel on whialt vi
it Was expended was good and properly seasoned. A gvcat
(Leal iriissai(lly-GoYornment of work that was done cheaply
tb.:-;.ihne;:s‘C‘a7o4plieTl e;

ihan in labour. Seann•ring in labour was more easily
and more 'easily remedied if -diseor•Jrcd ;• but
the timber used
oiriflsdtin:,i:Nd-aSorrntoiSlet d_esutr:iiertaiivtei....
tia:
made the ship rotten; it 'dust then .be, opened, and it was
did the minute
the
say
very difficult to say what the cost of that aright be. What
this subject ?
, " They (the committee) observe the shipwright officers
devote their attention too much to 411 e quality and rapidity
of the work, and too little to the cost."—(Par. 93.5.) " lrt
this remark the committee seem to have overlooked the c,,-
sential difference between ships of war and merchant ships.
Wherever the services of a ship of .war arc required it is in-
dispensable that the ship should be in all respects eflii4Crit,,
The question of cost, however important, is insignifiqant
compared with the efficiency, because the value of the .
services cannot be estimated by a price in money. 'rho,de-
tention of the ship for'some necessary repairs may be a na-
tional calamity; its inferiority as a ship of war may be at-
tended with national dishonour."
(Hear, hear.) This was a great truth, and theydid not often
meet with one expressed in better language. • But did not •
this apply equally to the timber of which a ship_ was made
as to_the, laborite expended on-her? • Whatwp.s the usc -of
plying such good labour to improper materials ? One of the
• ,
five gentlemen who hai to make this report dissented from
his colleagues. What did he say -as to timber?- Mr. Chat-
field, master shipwright, says, at, p. 118

"It is a fact not generally known, perhaps, but which
ought not to be overlooked, that the, value of timber alone
in building a-ship is nqual to the value of all the other
stores and the labour added together."
In this grave matter of the deficiency of timber, on which
the evidence was uncentradieted, not one of the six superin-
tendents took notice whether the report was true or false.
Was it wrong to call that a grave charge ? The First Lord
of the Admiralty himself, alluding to the allegation of the
committee, that the store of timber was insufficient to meet
the ordinary demands of the service, said, and said very na-
turally, that, if that statement was correct, it conveyed "n
grave censure upon the Board of Admiralty." Curiously
enough,.the Controller of the Navy did not condescend to
notice that charge at all, although he made comments on
the finding of the committee on two other points. Mr.
Chatfield also wholly passed by it. When, therefore, men
holding high official positions, while treating the report as
highly condemnatory of the system, remained silent upon a
charge which they admitted to be grave, one was almost.
compelled to assume that they assented to its truth. What
was the evidence on which the charge rested ? The matter
was not only serious in itself, but doubly serious because
the Board of Admiralty hal come to a decision upon it that
was not founded on any evidence before the house. They
might have good grounds for their conclusion, but they had
not set them forth. The three master- shipwrights at
Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham—,gentlenien who
must be supposed competent to 'give ,an opinion on- this
subject—had borne testimony to the same effect. Mr. Lang,
master-shipwright, stated that the large English timber
had always been aeficient, and that there ought to be three
years' stock. At Portsmouth there ought to be a larger
store than at present ; it should be equal to four years'
consumption. Mr. Eadie, mastereshipwright, said the stock
ought to be doubled. Mr. Moore, foreman at Devonport,
said that, as a rule, the large timber was not seasoned. Mr.
Peaks stated that they were very short of large timber at
Devonport; that they were using this year's supply. The
timber-inspector at Sheerness said they were so short that
they were actually using green timber. Mr. Rice, master-
shipwright at Woolwich, said they had not sufficient store ;
that some pieces were used as they came in. It was mane- .
cessary to trouble the house with the opinions of the other
gentlemen, but there was the concurring testimony of 18
witnesses, all in Government employ, to the purport already
described. It was, however, only fair to notice the evidence
of the four gentlemen, also in the service of the Government,
who made qualified statements on the same point. Mr.
Brown, who had acted as foreman at Portsmouth, stated
that he did not know how the store steed at present, but his
impression was that the timber lately converted was dry and
seasoned, except the sternposts of the large ships. That \yes
cot a t e-ry unimportant exception. (A.laugh.) Next,- Ir.
Laslett, timber-inspeetor, said, in his jieli.seient, the Meijer
etight to be two years in store, except " the large and com-
pass timber." The storekeeper at Woolwich said they were
pretty well off except in " sternposts and runposts." Mr.
Watts, first assistant to the Suirveyor-General, gaVe rather
odd evidence. He thought they had between twe and three
years' average consumption in stock. The master-ship-
wright said it ought to I.e four years'; so that Mr. Watt.'.;
testimony was not very strong. But Mr. Watts went fur-
ther, and added, " We want 60,000 leads this year ;" and he
expected to get only 30,010. That evidence was given in
1859. Now, the Storekeeper-General said that in 1859 the
consumption would be 55,000 loads. The witnesses who
made the qualified statements to which he had just 'Titan d
did not therefore in any degree shake the immense mass of
testimony on the other side. He now came to the mode in
which the Admiralty had met this question. Tho First
Lord had drawn up a memorandum on the subject, which
was afterwards confirmed by the Board. The Board took
no notice of the matter, except by passing—as Was probably
the ordinary course—a short minute agreeing to what the
First Lord said. The First Lord, in his memorandum, ob-
served that the finding of the committee as to the insuffi-
ciency of the stores, if correct, implied a grave censure cn
the Board of Admiralty ; but he added that the committee
did not explain " what they considered to be the ordinary
demands of the service." The First Lord continued—and
this was a passage deserving the special attention of the
house—" The Storekeeper-General has given a satisfactory
answer to the statement." That was the only thing on
which the First Lord founded himself. He showed that
although the expenditure of timber during the last two
years had been unprecedented, yet the stores had been in
excess of the establishment; and he went on to say it was
to be hoped that such a high rate of timber expenditure
would not be necessary in future years, and therefore it was
not expedient to increase the permanent establishment of
shipbuilding timber. Strangely enotegh, the First Lord of
the Admiralty, following, it was to be supposed, in the
wake of the Storekeeper-General, made no allusion what-
ever to the question of the timber being seasoned ; and,
from the way in which the Storekeeper-General treated the
matter, he did not seem to regard it at all the business of
his department to express any opinion as to the . seasoning
or not seasoning of the timber. He merely answered all
the claims made upon him, and if a man asked him for a
stick of timber he gave him one, whether it was fit to use
or not.. That was a proceeding about as sensible as to give a
pair of shoes to a man who wanted a pair without any re-
gard to the size of his foot. (A laugh.) It was to be doubted
whether anybody, looking curiously at the report of the
Storekeeper-General, would agree with his Grace the First
Lord that it was satisfactory because that report appeared
entirely to confirm the statement of the committee. The
Storekeeper-General commenced his paragraph in answer
to the committee by setting out a long array of figures
showing what had been the supply of timber in various
years, and giving the actual consumption from 1830 down
to 1858 inclusive. He then went on to say, " I need scarcely
observe that the expenditure of shipbuilding timber since
the year 1853, and still less within the last 12 months, can-
not reasonably be regarded as meeting only the ordinary
demands of the public service." Ho did not notice that part
of the report which referred to the timber being seasoned
and fit for, consumption, but went on to say that the present
' consumption of shipbuilding timber of large scantling was
unprecedented, that the consumption of timber during
the years. 1857 and 1858 was double that of the years
1837 and 1838, while the receipt of shipbuilding timber in
those years was more than five times what it was in 1837
and 1838, and that the stock of timber on the 30th June
ldaisdt
allw ast
hiins ecxoemeesstoo ? u
ftheepstiaebltihshembeegnitnbnyin6g,soofo
tlhoaedyse.arWlBhsaBt
what was called the establishment of timber was 53,000
not the Storekeeper-General afterwards the figures
loads ; in that year it was raised to 60,000 loads. Had
given
he should have thought that the reference to the years 1837
and 1838 was intended to mystify, and throw dust in the
(Tea of the house, because of all the evils which followed
the Reform Bill there was nono which was greater, and
none which more conduced to the removal of the Reformers
from office than their shameful neglect of the navy. (Hear,
he tr.)- Ho believed it was now admitted on all hands
these two years, 1537 and 1838, formed the crowning period
of the deficiency of timber, and that during those years the
store was so fabulously low that it was hardly possible to
conceive how any ono could have had—he was going to say
the impudence—but, at all events, the face so to have dimi-
nished the stock of materials for the Queen's nary. (Hoare
heat) Ho did. not know whether the returns which had
been supplied to the house were worth the paper upon which
they were printed, because in the answers as well as he tho
evidence things peeped out which raised a doubt whether
these accounts were very correct. For his own purpose,
however, he was entitled to use Thom as figures supplied by
the Government, and to treat them as correct. As he
understood the minute of the First Lard, a store •of 60,000
lOads of timber was sufficient for the future. He had al-
ready shown by the evidence taken before the committee,
and he would endeavour to show by other figures, which
would not easily be disputed, that whether they looked to
the number of men in the navy, to the number of vessels; to
their quality, or to the greater wear and tear in screw
such as stare, Was
vessels, as comrop,:,airietdi