The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-12 00:00:00

DOCKYARD EXPENDITURE.

Lord C. PAGET moved as a resolution, " That, in con-
formity with the practice of public departments of laying
before the house detailed estimates for works costing above
£l,OOO, it is desirable that a statement showing the pro-
posed expenditure in the construction and conversion of
her Majesty's ships be annually laid before this house with
the Navy Estimates." He believed his resolution was
founded both in reason and good policy. If the rule that
applied to all other public works were adopted with regardto
the building of ships of war, the country would not be liable
to those periodical panics that now frightened the public
from its propriety. With respect to all other works, such
as docks, warehouses, or piers, if the Minister thought them
necessary he told the House of Commons what he proposed
to do, and asked for the money to do it. The expenditure
for great works of this kind was generally spread over seve-
ral years, and the House of Commons had year by year,
and most wisely, become more jealous of any tampering
with those estimates. If any additional votes of money were
asked for on account of these works they were always met
with some inquiry in the house ; but if the works to be con-
structed were vessels of war the house knew nothing about
them. In the present Navy Estimates more than £2,100,000
was asked for on account, they were told, of the cost of
materials for shipbuilding ; but they were not told whether
it was to be used for building frigates, fine-of-battle
ships, or corvettes. They were asked for the gross sum,
but they had no means of judging whether the money
would be wisely laid out, or whether it had been
wisely laid out in former years. He admitted that the First
Lord of the Admiralty had this year to some extent broken
through the old routine and reserve ; he had actually told
the house what he wanted to do, and consequently they were
ready to vote him the money he required. But at the Admi-
ralty they were all aghast at the innovation ; they could not
believe there that the First Lord had told the House of
Commons what he was going to build—what, in fact, he was
going to do with the public money. The object of his mo-
tion -was to oblige—not the right hon. gentleman, who, he
believed, would be quite ready to do it, but his successors
—(laughter)—to adopt the same course. (Hear, hear.) He
wished to have it placed on record as a rule not to be broken
through, that the House of Commons should have the same
control over shipbuilding as over the construction of docks
and barracks. The expense of those works could not always
be estimated ; their cost was liable to be increased by un-
foreseen circumstances—an irruption of water, or defective
foundations. But the cost of ships of war could always be
exactly calculated ; and he wished the house to have, every
year, a list of the ships the Admiralty was going to build,
of those it had built m the past year, and of those it in-
tended to build in the year following. Me believed the state-
ment the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) made on
a former night had created a most painful sensation out of
doors. After laying, out £20,000,000 on a steam navy,
simply for the construction of the ships, and exclusive of
the cost of their engines and machinery, there was nothing
to show that the public had got 20s. in the pound for the
money. There was another reason, and a very strong one,
that induced him to propose this resolution. There had been
a system of extravagant expenditure pursued by the ship-
building department of the Admiralty, which, he main-
tained, ought to be thoroughly looked into. (Hear.) In the
statement he was about to make the figures he should have
to quote to the house really appalled him. (Hear.) If the
right hon. gentleman could correct or controvert them no
one would be more pleased than himself. He had last year
brought this subject under the attention of the house during
the discussion of the Navy Estimates ; the Government
was then asked why it did not furnish some detailed state-
ment of this expenditure for its own credit. He had looked
with some anxiety for this year's estimates, hoping that
the right hon. gentleman, in deference to the opinion of
several members who spoke last year, would have given
some little information in those estimates as to what ships
he was going to build. He had looked carefully through
the estimates, and only in vote No. 10 could he see anything
to show what the Admiralty was building. The only item
for ships in course of construction was for two dredging
machines and some mud barges—(hear, hear, and laughter)
—that was all there was to show what was being done for
£2,000,000 of money. (Hear; hear.) The item really
looked like a derision. He had been requested to go into
an examinatiou of the expenditure under this head, and he
had done so. He had taken the expenditure of four years,
and he had gone through the dockyards to see what the
public had got for its money. The right hon. gentleman
the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) had moved for a re-
turn of the number of steam vessels added to the navy
since 1848, or during a period of 11 years. The result from
this return was that we had during those 11 years built in
the dockyards 24 line-of-battle ships, 21 frigates, 36 cor-
vettes and sloops, one floating battery, two gun vessels, 14
gunboats, two troopships, two tenders, and one yacht.
During the same period, we had converted from sailing
ships to screw-steamers nine line-of-battle ships, seven
blockships, four mortar ships, and one troop and store ship,
and we had also purchased a great many vessels. By the
courtesy of the First Lord of the Admiralty he had obtained
from the Surveyor's-office a statement of the cost of build-
ing these vessels. The line-of-battle ships were as to cost
divided into two classes, represented by the Duke of
Wellington, which cost, for the hull, £106,291, masts, yards,
rigging, sails, and stores, £19,224 ; total, £125,515 ; and the
Agamemnon, which cost for hull, masts, and yards,
£106,000. Taking the mean between these two sums (which
was rather favourable to the Admiralty)—viz., £116,000—
the cost of the 24 line-of battle ships would be £2,784,000.
Of the frigates, the Shannon cost £91,000. There had been
21 ships built called frigates, most of which were much
smaller than this vessel ; but as the Mersey, Orlando, and
one or two others were larger, he had taken the cost of all
at that amount, which would make the expenditure upon
frigates £1,911,000. Of corvettes the surveyor reported
that there were three classes, the Pearl class, the Hazier
class, and the Swallow class. The Pearl cost £46,850; and
it was worthy the attention of the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty that, while this ship cost that sum for labour and
materials alone, exclusive of the charge for plant and stock,
a similar ship with the same scantling, only longer in the
bow, of 1,524 tons builder's measurement, and surveyed by
the surveying officers of the dockyards, was built for the
Portuguese Government for £40,624. The 35 corvettes
were built at a cost of £1,050,000 ; the floating battery, the
iron plates for which were taken from the vessel which was
burned in Mr. Scott Russell's yard, £30,000 (this amount
he got, not from the Surveyor of the Navy, but from a pri-
vate yard where one of these vessels was built) ; two gun
vessels, £26,000 each, £52,000 ; 14 gun-boats, £B,OOO each,
taking the mean cost of the different classes, £112,000 ; two
tenders, £2,000 each; and one yacht, the Victoria and Al-
bert, £50,000—£54,000. The whole amount paid for build-
ing during the 11 years was therefore £5,993,000, or in
round numbers, six millions. These votes, Nos. 8,9, and
10, comprised three several businesses of the Admiralty—
viz., building, converting, and maintaining (including re-
fitting, and repairing). He now came to the conversions.
During the 11 years we had converted in the dockyards 9
ships of the line, 7 blockships, 1 troopship, and 4 mortar-
ships, making a total of 21 ships. The right hon. baronet
stated the other evening that the cost of converting these
ships ranged from £lO,OOO to £40,000. He had taken
the average at £30,000, which he believed was much above
the real cost, but in whichpie intended to include masts and
sails. That gave a total forthe2l ships of £630,000. He now
approached a part of the subject in which he was sure that
no practical commercial man would have any difficulty in
following him ; but which perhaps the right hon. baronet at
the head of the Admiralty, not being a practi :Al sailor, might
not so well understand, viz., the cost of the maintenance of
ships. He could, however, assure the right hon. baronet
that he had not arrived at the results which he was about to
state to the louse without consulting
.practical men both in
the Government dockyards and in private establishments.
He was ashamed to trouble the house with these details—
(hear, hear)—but he was convinced that unless theyonce for
all went into details upon this subject, some day or other
there would be a catastrophe. (Hear, hear.) The House of
Commons and the country would willingly give to the Go-
vernment any amount of money which might be required,
if it could only be assured that it was spent with decent eco-
nomy ; but it was right to look into these matters, and re-
quire the Government to give them a proper debtor and cre-
ditor statement. (Hear, hear.) In arriving at the cost of
ships in commission, he had been obliged to resort to the
system of average. He had obtained from the Admiralty a
list of the ships in commission on the Ist of January, 1848,
Ist of January, 1855 (at the height of the war), and the Ist
January, 1869: The line-of-battle ships in commission were,
in 1848, 17 ' in 1855, 35 ; and in 1859, 25 ; the blockships in
1848, 1 ; in 1855, 4 ; and in 1859, 9 ; making the total line-
of-battle ships (because he wished rather to err for than against
the Admiralty, and would therefore count all these vessels
as of that class) in 1848, 18 ; in 1855, 39 ; and in 1859, 34.
The mean of these numbers was 30, and that he had taken
as the average number of line-of-battle ships in commission.
The question was the per centage of wear and tear which
occurred to one of her Majesty's ships when in commission.
Upon that point he had consulted men who had nothing to
do with the Admiralty, and also men who had a great deal
to do with it, and he believed he was as near the truth as
possible when he stated that wear and tear at 6 per cent.
The mean number of line-of-battle ships in commission
during the last 11 years was 30 ; the average cost of each
was £116,000, and 6 per cent. on this would be about £7,000,
which would represent the annual wear and tear of each of
the 30 line-of-battle ships. This was exclusive altogether of
the machinery, for the subject was so great that to mix up
the inquiry into those two heads would be to spoil the in-
quiry in both. If he met with any encouragement from the
house he would undertake to investigate into the steam de-
partment, where things were much worse, he believed, than
in the shipwrights' department. (Hear, hear.) This gave a
total of £2,310,000 wear and tear of the 30 line-of-battle
ships in the 11 years. The mean number of frigates during
the 11 years was 18; the wear and tear of them for 11 years
would be £1,089,000. Of corvettes and other vessels of the
smaller classes, the mean number was 192, and the wear
and tear of them in the 11 years was £2,530,000, making
total of wear and tear of the 240 ships in commission during
these 11 years of £5,929,000. We had now about 500 old
ships in ordinary, each of which cost something a-year,
say £lOO, which would give £550,000 for the 11 years.
main-
taininghis gave a grand total of building, converting, and main-
taining ships for
t the 1
might
be
sletyrieagrhst ; f
of Xolr3,iltow2,asooohi.
sTdheissidroecuthmactnat
he h- shown to a great many people, in order that any
errors in it tn
perfectly faithful statement might be laid before the public.
The only point which had been suggested to him was, that
there might be an excess of stores over the year 1848, which
might amount, perhaps, to
xwih which
om,oigoohtilniarvoeunbedennubmuilbet
lowed £500,000 on that
£300,000. However, he had
head,al-
lowed and £400,000 for sailing ships
forrs in thi
tshteinalle'ymeaakinrs. gTahtaottaZaosf
the creditor Sie, and now for the debtor side. The money
which had been voted by Parliament during that time to
build and maintain these ships was contained in votes 8,9,
and 10 ; at least he only took these votes, because he
wished only to reckon the material and the labour em-
ployed on it, leaving out of eight altogether the percentage