The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-18 00:00:00

THE DOCKYARD COMMISSION.

The committee appointed to investigate the system
pursued in her Majesty's dockyards have published
a voluminous report, on which a vast amount of
care and labour has evidently been bestowed. The
field of inquiry was large, diversified, and compli-
cated, and he who only has made the division of
labour in these huge establishments a special
study is fully competent to pronounce on their
merits.and demerits. 'We therefore approach the
subject with a full consciousness of our unfitness
to pronounce any decided judgment on the various
points involved, and shall narrate rather than
criticise ; and indeed the fact of the committee not
being unanimous would alone inspire us with more
than ordinary caution. We have no doubt that
the Lords of the Admiralty selected the committee
with every due regard to the interests of the public
service, and that the several members have given
their opinions with an entire conviction of their
correctness ; nevertheless we cannot but attach
considerable weight to the objection raised by Mr.
Chatfield in his dissent from the report. That gen-
tleman is the master shipwright of Deptford, and
he says, " while I alone have represented the Go-
vernment shipbuilding department, there have
been two officers of the committee who are profes•
_ .

sionally engineers, and to this circumstance, per.
haps, may be attributed the proposal of the ma-
jority to regulate the dockyards upon factory prin-
ciples, and to adopt the systems practised in the
private trade. It is also proposed so to mix up the
duties of the chief engineer with those of the mas-
ter shipwright, that, if the suggestion be adopted,
delay, confusion, and divided responsibilities would
result therefrom, to the great practical inconve-
nience of both departments." As a dissent has
been recorded it is proper to state that the com-
mittee consisted of five members, of whom Rear-
Admiral SniFixt was chairman ; with him were as-
sociated Mr. Chatfield, whose professional standing
we have mentioned ; Mr. Murray, chief engineer
of Portsmouth ; Mr. Laws, storekeeper of Chat-
; iind Mr. Robert Bowman, civil engineer and
ship-builder. One of the principal recommenda-
tions of the majority of the committee, composed
of all the members except Mr. Chatfield, is to
enlarge the sphere of the superintending duties
of chief engineer in the dockyards, and con-
tract those of the master shipwrights. In mat-
ters of this description much allowance must,
be made for that bias in favour of parti-
cular systems which is, with rare exceptions, ob-
served in persons trained in different habits of life;
but Mr. Chatfield appears to us to use the language
of plain common sense in asserting that whatever
is essentially a part of the hull of a ship is legiti-
mately within the province of the master ship-
wright, while whatever constitutes a portion of an
engine falls within the business of the chief engi-
naer. However, the committee have decided other-
wise, considering that the dockyard smitheries, the
saw-mills, and the block-mills should be transferred
from the shipwright to the engineer department.
They also recommend that the dockyard mill-
wrights shop be abolished in all the yards where
there is a factory, and that the locksmiths, plumbers,
braziers, and others of this class of operatives,
should be transferred to the factory. To all these
changes Mr. Chatfield objects, arguing that if the
chief engineer is to have the superintendence of
these several departments he ought also to have the
control and selection of the machinery in the victual-
ling yards, and the appointment of the men in the
flour-mills,bakerv, and chocolate and mustard mills,
since he is bound to keep in good working order the
engines and boilers which supply the motive power,
and to repair defects in the machinery. Mr. Chat-
field, in' support of his dissent in reference to these
departments, quotes the decision of the Admiralty, of
the 12th February, 1849, which placed the whole
smithy department under the master shipwright,
the chief engineer being distinctly made subordi-
nate to him ; but the majority of the committee
propose to reverse this arrangement. This is the
main; but by no means the sole, point of difference,
and we have put it thus prominently forward that
the general reader may perceive at a glance the
leading. features of the controversy, which turns on
the division of labour.
The instructions given to the committee are spe-
cially to report on expenditure, so as to unite effi-
ciency with economy, and their attention was in
consequence directed to the cost of constructing a
man of war. This comes home to the pocket of
every tax-payer, as a contributor to the navy esti-
mates.. It appears that the cost for shipwrights'
labour on eight corvettes of 1,462 tons each, lately
built in the dockyards, and not fitted for sea, ave-
raged 109 s. 81d. per ton, and on one of those fitted
for sea it was £173 lls. per ton. Statements, how-
ever, have been furnished to the committee show-
ing that two ships of this class, but slightly infe-
rior in tonnage, named the Cossack and the Tartar,
originally contracted for by the Russian Govern-
ment, but now in her Majesty's service, " were
built in a private yard on the Thames for about 48s.
per ton for shipwrights' labour; and that the cost
for shipwrights' labour on such ships, if built with
scantlings, fastenings, and workmanship similar to
ships of ber Majesty's navy, and fitted for sea,
would be about 525. only per ton." Allowing, then,
amply for any superiority in the quality of work,
the difference in cost is enormous. A comparison is
instituted between ships of the same tonnage built
at the yards of Devonport, Sheerness, Chatham, and
Woolwich, and not fitted for sea, and the extreme
difference per ton is £4 4s. 6d. and £6 18s. sd. This
large variation applies to the Pearl, built at Wool-
wich, and the Cadmus, at Chatham, arid it should
be noted that both these ships were built from the
same drawings and from the same scheme of scant-
lings, frame bolted and otherwise bolted through-
out. Another case is cited of the Shannon, built at
Portsmouth, and the Chesapeake, built at Chatham.
They were both 51 gun frigates ; the tonnage of
the former was 2,651, of the latter 2,335 ; the Shan-
non cost £5 ss. 10d. per ton, and the Chesapeake
£3 19s. 7d. The Mersey, of 3,727 tons, cost for
shipwrights' labour £14,842; the Orlando, £19,505;
and yet they were of the same tonnage, form, and
dimensions. Such discrepancies certainly demand
a very sifting investigation.
The majority of the committee desire to assimi-
late the management of work in the Royal dock-
yards to the system observed in private establish-
ments. To any such change Mr. Chatfield objects,
and brings forward some very strong arguments
against the practice adopted in the private yards.
He quotes the authority of Mr. Brown, now lead-
ing man of shipwrights at Woolwich, who says
that in the Government yards, in planking a ship,
'every plank is examined most minutely; if there is
any defect it is taken out, and if any rent it is im-
mediately caulked, but no such exactitude is ob-
served in the private yards. Here, then, is one
cause of increased expenditure, but the outlay is
more than compensated by the superiour sound-
ness of the ship. Mr. Brown maintains that the
Government work " is three times as well done and
worth three times the money." Mr. Bascomb (mea-
surer of Woolwich yard) condemns ships built by
contract, and points out many instances in which
shipwrights " scamped the work." This dis-
honesty is corroborated by many other witnesses.
In the gun boats received at Deptford yard
numerous defects were detected ; wormholes were
discovered, causing leaks, the fastenings were im-
perfect, and the caulking inferior. The floating
batteries are exposed to similar censure. One,
named the Trusty, reported on at Sheerness yard,
entirely belied her name. Both the materials and
tie workmanship were bad. Indeed, Mr. Chat-
field does not hesitate to state in emphatic terms,
that " the practices of private trade, if introduced
into the public departments, will be ruinous to the
British navy." He then adduces proofs of the
soundness of ships constructed in the Government
dockyards. He refers to four men of war respec-
tively built at Portsmouth, Devonport, Sheerness,
and Chatham, whose sterns were opened when con-
verted into screw propellers, and their state was
most satisfactory.
We are as much inclined to insist on a strict eco-
nomy as the most exacting Radical, but a mere
money cheapness frequently proves but wanton
extravagance. An article may be dear at any cost,
and we may pay too much for gold. As the great
bulwark of our power, the Royal navy must be effi-
ciently maintained, for if we lost the command of
the seas we should almost be dwarfed into the di-
mensions of a German principality. London
would cease to be the centre of the commercial
world. •The manufacturing districts would lose
their colonial markets. All our transmarine for-
tresses and stations would pass into foreign hands.
The stake is too perilous to be estimated in pounds,
shillings, and pence, and certainly it is not in our
dockyards that financiers, with more presumption
than knowledge, should essay their experiments.—
Morning Herald.

A SWELLMOBSMAN AT THE GREAT EASTERN.—
A well-known Liverpool pickpocket, named William
Samuelson, dressed in the latest fashion, with a mock dia-
mond ring on his finger, and a real gold chain round his
neck, was amongst the visitors to the Great Eastern on
Wednesday, but had no sooner stepped on board thanhe was
accosted by Detective-officer Carlisle, who politely requested
him to walk into one of the cabins, where ho searched him,
and found in his possession a purse containing a railway ex-
cursion ticket, available for a month, £2 in gold, about 30s.
in silver, and a recipe for making mushroom ketchup, also £4
or £5 in loose silver, six empty portemonnaies, and several
cambric pocket handkerchiefs. Upon making inquiries he
ascertained that the purse containing the railway ticket, &c.,
belonged to a Mrs. Purdie, of Shaw-street, Liverpool, who
was one of Sanlnelson's fellow passengers in the steamer
which had brought him alongside. The unfortunate swell
was taken before a magistrate who, after hearing the evi-
dence committed him for trial at the )3eatimaria peewits.