The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-20 00:00:00

DOCKYARD MANAGEMENT.

Mr. SEELY rose to move the following resolution
That in the opinion of this house the control and manage-
ment of the dockyards is inefficient, and that the ineffi-
ciency may bo attributed to the following causes-1. The
constitution of the Board of Admiralty. 2. The de-
fective organisation of the subordinate departments.
3. The want of clear and .well-defined responsibility.
The hon. gentleman took the opportunity of examining
the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the man-
ner in which the different dockyards were conducted,
which he contended was vary inefficient and extravagant.
With respect to the Board of Admiralty they hal six lords,
not one of whom was practically acquainted with ship-build-
ing. They had also a comptroller who knew as little as
either of the lords, and they had a superintendent who
knew less than the comptroller, because he remained in office
a shorter time than he did. Ho contended that business
could not be satisfactorily conducted while such a state of
things existed. The Admiralty accounts were also kept in
such a manner that it was impossible to know the charge
for constructing either a gun-boat or a three-decker. The
system had been condemned by Sir James Graham, and
while he (Mr. Seeley) admitted that they had been kept
in a somewhat improved manner, yet they ware far
from being in a satisfactory state. It was the
system pursued with which he had found fault. It was
true that they got their wages and materials clearly set
forth, yet the "incidental expenses" were all lumped up
together, and spread over the whole of the dockyards, so
that en establishment like Portsmouth got into a far more
favourable position than it ought to do, and at the ex-
pense of another establishment where economy was
more particularly observed. The ships built in her
Majosi-y's dockyards, he contended, cost the coun-
try a far greater sum of money than those
constructed in private establishments, whilst the cost for
repairs was something extraordinary. In one case out of
many he should select the cost of repairing a single boat,
which could have been bought new for about £3O fitted
complete, the- repairs, effected at Portsmouth cost the
country £72. Such a specimen of the way in which the
public money was spent was by no means a singular case.
It had occurred in hundreds of instances, and he thought
the sooner something was done to put a stop to such an
extravagant expenditure of money the butter for the tax-
payers throughout the country. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON, rev:ewlng the charges brought
against his department by Mr. Seely, contended that the
premises of the hon. member were untrustworthy and his
conclusions erroneous. He pointed out that since lie was
last in office, in 1859, great improvements had been intro-
duced in the system of dockyard accounts, of which ho
readily admitted the credit belonged to lrii predecessors.
Ho further a-geed that no fair comparison could be in,ti-
tuted between the ships built in private yards and those
constructed in the Government establishme its, the former
institutions bring worked solely for profit, whilst the Ist-
tes concerned the national honour. At the same time be
granted that rigid economy ought to be practised in the
Government yards. He promised last year that inquiry
should be made into the alleged abuses, and the result had
disclosed a certain laxity of management. This, however,
he had taken steps to correct by a vigorous and effective
supervision of the accounts. Under the circumstances, he
thought he should best meet the resolution of the hon.
member by moving the " previous question."
Mr. STANSFELD continued the discussion with a
minute enumeration of the changes effected of late years
in dockyard management, and an elaborate defence of the
measures adopted by the Admiralty during the period he
had been connected with that department of the public
service.

Lord It. MONTAGU argued in favour of providing a
more effectual check on dockyard expenditure, and a more
perfect supervision of contracts.
Mr. CANDLISH was of opinion that Mr. SEELY was
entitled to the gratitude of the house and the country, for
his persevering efforts to achieve a reform of dockyard
management.
Mr. LEFEVRE had lately visited the American dock-
yards, atAl said the system of accounts in our own esta-
blishments was infinitely superior to that of the United
Mates. There was still, however, room for further im-
provements.

The subsequent conversation was sustained chiefly by
Mr. Scourfield, Mr. Samuda, Mr. Childers, Lord J. flay,
Mr. Otway, and was eventually wound up with a short
speech from Lord 11. Lennox, Secretary to the Admiralty.
Mr. HORSMA.N, then, after eulogising the services
rendered to the public by Mr. SEELY, recommended that
gentleman to be content with the concessions and admis-
sions made by the representatives of the Admiralty, and
withdrew his resolution. To this advice Mr. SEELY ac-
ceded, andthe resolution was withdrawn accordingly.

Leave was given to Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM to introduce
a bill for assessing mines, woodlands, and plantations to
local rates; and to Mr. THOMAS Huonr.s to bring in a bill
to amend the laws relating to selling and hawking goods
on Sundays.
The house then adjourned.