The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-20 00:00:00

_ .
of ship building in her Majesty's dockyards as compared
with private establishments. This subject had been inves-
tigated by a committee of the house, and they had pointed
out upon a comparison of the cost of certain ships that the
cost per ton in her Majesty's yards was 170 s. per ton,
whereas the cost in a private yard was only 525. por ton.
In other words a ship could be build in a private yard for
one-third the sum it cost in her Majesty's dockyard. That
was a grave charge which the committee had made against
the dockyard department, and required explanation.
Lord C. PAGET said that a very careful inquiry had
been instituted into this subject, and it had been found that

the vessels alluded to had been built in the height and con-
fusion of the Russian war. The noble lord entered into some

details, in the course of which he admitted there was a
w ant of system. It had also been discovered that some of
the clerks, being overworked, had fallen into error in figures,
so that the accounts rendered were incorrect. An investi-

gation was still going on. Ho thought that what had al-
ready transpired showed the necessity of having annual
accounts prepared from these departments for the inspec•

tion of Parliament.
Mr, JACKSON was told by a party connected with the
dockyards that the reason there was a difference between
the cost in one dockyard and another was that in one there
were two masters to every man, and in another one to every
ten men. Its had also been informed that it was no use ap-
pointing committees to inquire into the dockyards, as the
authorities always humbugged them.
Lord LOVAINE severely censured the manner in which
the works were conducted in their dockyards, but ho did not
approve of wholesale charges being made against the autho-
. •

Mr. LINDSAY made no charge against anybody, bu
only relied on the evidence given before the committee.
Lord LOVAINE charged the contractors in their dock
yards with being guilty of practices which were much to be
deprecated.
Mr. JACKSON defended the contractors, who were as
honest as any noble lord in England.
Sir C. NAPIER thought the way to remedy this evil
was to have a proper superintendence and proper salaries to
those engaged in the duty.
After some further conversation on the question on the
various cost of shipbuilding per ton in the English dock-
yards, and on the discrepancies in the estimates, in which
Sir J. Trelawny, Mr. Henley, Lord C. Paget, Sir H. Wil-
loughby, Sir J. Elphinstone, and Mr. Alderman Salomons
took part,
Mr. LINDSAY expressed his surprise that so large a sum
as £1,400,000 was proposed for defraying the expenses of
shipbuilding in their dockyards. He found that the country
was charged 170 s. per ton for shipbuilding in the dockyards,
while in private dockyards similar work was executed for
525. per ton. He felt that he should not be performing his
duty if he did not move that the vote be reduced,—he might
say two-thirds, but he would say by £lOO,OOO.
Adniiral WALCOTT said there was nothing for which
the public were more disposed to liberally vote money than
for the purposes of the navy, provided they were satisfied
that the money was properly laid out; but when they heard
of crippled ships, with no sailing power, they were much
dissatisfied.
Lord LOVAINE referred to the report of the man who
built the gunboats, and said that the very man who built
those boats told them in that report that they could not be
built for £2 Bs., and that their cost altogether, including
their fittings, was £6.
After a few words from Mr. LYGON,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he should be unable to sup-
port the hon. member for Sunderland if he intended to
carry his amendment to a division. He was extremely sorry
to find that the Government had ignored the proceedings of
a committee which had pursued its duties in the most un-
exceptionable manner. The only notice, in fact, which the
Admiralty had taken of that committee was a curt memo-
randum of the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty,
conceived in a very unworthy spirit, and coming from him
with the worst possible grace. No man had made more
serious charges against the naval administration than had
that noble lord. The noble lord had said that £5,000,000
had been wasted by successive boards ; but he had not come
forward either to re- assert his accusations or to verify them.
Those charges had, however, been refuted by Sir Baldwin
Walker, and he very much regretted that the Government
should have thought proper to proceed in the manner it had
with reference to these estimates. At the same time he
thought it highly inexpedient at such a moment as this
not to pass a vote which would have the effect of shackling
their free action in a most essential matter.
Mr. BRISCOE recommended the hon. member for Sun-
derland to withdraw his amendment.
Lord C. PAGET said he could not allow the remarks of
the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, with
reference to the Committee on Dockyard Economy, to pass
unnoticed. When the right hen. baronet said that the
recommendations of that committee had been ignored
by the present Board of Admiralty, he could assure the
house that some of them were now under consideration,
and would eventually be adopted ; one with regard to a
new system of examinations. The right hon. gentleman
said also, that the tone of the noble duke's memorandum
was anything but proper ; but as to that ho (Lord C. Paget)
must be permitted to observe that the tone of the report of
the committee itself was unjust, and somewhat offensive to
the officers of the dockyards. They attributed the evils
which they pointed out to a want of zeal on the part of the
officers, but ho could find no evidence to support that charge.
The committee, in fact, admitted that many of their recom-
mendations were not founded upon evidence, and one of its
members refused to join in the report, which to some ex-
tent weakened its value.
Sir C. NAPIER vindicated the conduct of Sir Baldwin
Walker, who, ho maintained, had not as yet made a single
mistake. If the Government did not retract the charges
whicli they had made against that officer, he ought not to
continue to be Surveyor or Comptroller of the Navy.
Mr. JACKSON explained that he had received every as-
sistance from the noble duke at the head of the Govern-
ment with reference to getting the commission he intended
to move for, and that his persisting in his motion would
have been productive of great public inconvenience.
Mr. MONSELL expressed his hope that the Govern-
ment would turn their attention to the improvement of the
defences of Cork Harbour. Of the enormous increase in
the navy and military estimates he did not believe that one
shilling was intended to, be expended on the improvement
of the safety of Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. BENTINCIC,
Col, DICKSON said that the want of control over the
expenditure of the country produced the impression that
the members of that house were incompetent to discharge
their duty. When they were told that these ships could
hardly go out for six weeks without requiring repairs, it was
high time inquiry should take place. It was a question
whether the style of ships could not be improved, and in
other respects the expenditure of the dockyards be reduced.
He should on that ground vote for the amendment of the
hon. member for Sunderland.
The amendment was then put .and negatived, and the
vote was agreed to.
On the next vote, £63,686, wages of artificers employed
in her Majesty's establishments abroad,
Mr.IWILLIAMS objected that many of the items were
not given for which the money was required.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said the increase arose out of the

Chinese war.
The vote was agreed to. •
On the next vote of £3,201,434 for naval stores, for
building repairs, &c.,
Lord C. PAGET said he would take that opportunity of
making some reply to the important statement of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire on a
previous evening. The right hon. gentleman said that in
consequence of the neglect of successive Boards of Admi-
ralty the stock of timber necessary for ship-building few-
poses had been allowed to fall far below what it ought to
be—that whereas it was formerly the practice to keep three
years' supply in stock, for the purpose of thoroughly
seasoning it, we now kept only two years' stock, which
was insufficient to give properly • seasoned timber. In
reply to that statement he might certainly, if he chose to
do so, make the same reply to the right hon. gentleman as
was made to him by his colleague, the late First Lord of
the Admiralty, last year, namely, that that right hon.
gentleman only asked for a supply equal to two years'
stock last year. But he would not do that; on the con-
trary, he was prepared to show that two years' stock in
hand was now amply sufficient for all practical purposes.
The right hon. gentleman seemed to be under the impres-
sion, derived from the evidence of some of the witnesses be-
fore the dockyard committee, that ships were built of timber
not properly seasoned, and that we ought to have a larger
stock. Undoubtedly, if we were to continuo building ships
at the rate we had recently done, that might be true. But
ho took the average quantity of 60,000 loads of timber per
annum for building; that was the quantity he asked for the
current year. We had'nearly the same quantity in stock at
the commencement of the present year, and we would have
the same at its close. In other words they would have two
years' stock in hand. Circumstances had very much changed
since it was considered necessary to keep up a three years'
stock. In those days the use of hard woods and foreign
wood was almost unknown. Their great supply was almost
confined to English oak, which being purchased on the spot
required a longer seasoning. But Italian oak and other fo-
reign woods were partly seasoned on their voyage to this
country. Not less than two-thirds of the whole of the woods
used in ship building were now foreign woods, and did not
want any seasoning at all. That made one great cause of
difference as to the amount of stock required to be kept in
'hand. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think also that
a very long time was required for seasoning, but there was a
difference of opinion on that point. Mr. Green, one of our
largest shipbuilders, said that two years were spite suffi-
cient for English oak to season, as after that it began to de-
teriorate. But the right hon. gentleman talked as if the
Government had nothing to do but to come to the house and
ask for another £lOO,OOO in order to get an additional
£lOO,OOO worth of timber. That was not the case—they
could not get it. There was not enough of the large sized
timber we used to meet a larger demand within one year.
(" Hear," from Mr. Henley.)
It was, however, very desir-
able that we should get a more regular and a larger supply
from abroad, and ho could state to the right hon. gentle-
man that the Government was taking steps for that pur-
pose which it was impossible for him to state In detail. But
he hoped they would shortly succeed in tkat object. With