The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH [23, 1861.

counts to the Surveyor (now Controller) of the
Navy.
31. The account No. 8, which professes to give
the detailed cost of each ship when built, is made
up by the storekeeper, and transmitted by him to
the Controller of the Navy, the detail relating to
workmanship being furnished to the storekeeper by
the accountant.
32. The factory accounts are made up by the pay-
clerk and bookkeeper of the factory, and transmit-
ted to the Controller's department.
33. The accounts of the other manufacturing
establishments are signed by the storekeepers, and
transmitted to the Storekeeper-General.
34. Although the expense and factory accounts
are transmitted exclusively to the Controller's de-
partment in London, the late Controller stated that
he did not consider himself responsible for the ac-
counts made up in the dockyards. The fact is that
no one, either in London or at the yards, is respon-
sible for these accounts as a whole.
35. These and many other considerations which
have come out in evidence, such as the intricate
character of the aecounts, and the absence of any
uniform system of classification of heads of service,
causing ambiguity as to the services to which the
expenditure is to be charged, have led us to the
conclusion that these accounts are useless for pur-
poses of comparison, and not to be relied upon as
statements of fact.
36. If the accounts were kept so as to show the
exact cost of ships, a competition in economy would
be established between the different yards, which
would be attended with great benefit to your Ma-
jesty's service.
37. We have already suggested under the head
of " Control," that the whole accounts connected
with the dockyards should be put under the control
of the Accountau-General of the Navy, and that he
should have the appointment of the accountants at.
the dockyards, subject to the approval of the Mini-
ster for the Navy.
38. We would further suggest :-
Ist. That the Accountant-General should be in-
structed to frame a new system of accounts on the
principle of double entry.
2d. That the accounts should be made up in the
dockyards each month, and transmitted to the Ac-
countant-General by the 15th of the following
month.
3d. That an annual account should be laid before
Parliament, giving a detailed statement showing
how the money voted for the dockyards has been
expended on ships and services.
4th. That the forms of account should be care-
fully revised.
sth. That the Accountant-General should con-
sult with the officers and decide upon an uniform
system of classification of heads of service at the
different
.yards, with the view of removing am-
biguity in heading the issue and workmanship
notes, and for the purpose of enabling the Con-
troller-General to institute comparisons between
the cost of similar descriptions of work at the
1 different yards.
6th That the storekeepers should be cashiers,
add should pay the wages at the yards.
7th. That the practice of issuing stores without
vouchers should be immediately checked by the
superintendents of the dockyards.
39. Having pointed out what in our opinion is
essential to secure a proper system of accounts, we
refrain from going further into detail upon this
most important subject, feeling convinced that the
Admiralty possess in Sir Richard Bromley, the
present Accountant-General of the Navy, an officer
well fitted by his great experience and acknow-
ledged ability to remodel this department.
IV.—COST OF BUILDING, CONVERTING, &C., THE
SHIPS OF YOUR MAJESTY'S NAVY.

40. Such being the very unsatisfactory condition
of the value accounts of the dockyards, we abstain
from expressing any opinion upon this head, based
upon data furnished by these accounts.
41. Various views have been expressed to us by
some of the witnesses that we have examined as to
the cost per ton for building, converting, &c., the
shins of your Majesty's Navy, and as to the causes
of the discrepancies which are admitted, on the
face of the accounts, to exist between the cost of
building, &c., at the different yards. But as these
opinions have been offered in reliance upon the
accuracy of the accounts, we do not think it ad-
visable to enter more minutely into the question.
42. With a view, however, of obtaining some-
thing like an approximation to the cost of building,
per ton, which should be, as far as possible, unin-
fluenced by the erroneous system of accounts, we
called for a return from Pembroke, which is solely
a building-yard, stating-
1. The total expenditure for all services at Pem-
broke Dockyard from the Ist January, 1848, to the
31st December, 1859.
2. The valuation of vessels on the slips and of
timber converted on the Ist January, 1848.
3. The amount (included in the first item) ex-
pended on the slips, dock, buildings, and machinery,
between the Ist Jan., 1848, and the 31st Dec., 1859.
4. The valuation of vessels on the slips, and of
timber converted, on the Ist January, 1860.
5. The total tonnage of vessels launched at Pem-
broke during the period from the Ist January, 1848,
to the 31st December, 1859.
43. From this return, which will be found in the
Appendix, it appears that, without taking into con-
sideration the sum of £323,210, which has been
expended upon works, dock, slips, buildings,
machinery, &c,, since 1848, the vessels built at
Pembroke Docyard during that period, amounting
to 65,435 tons, have cost £33 3s. sd. per ton for the
hulls alone, and exclusive of fitting, which is always
done at other yards.
44. We are of opinion that the system, or task
and job, as at present carried on in the dockyards,
is open to great abuse. It is based upon schemes
of prices consisting of 94,762 items. This can hardly
fail to lead to numerous errors in pricing the work
done. Another grave objection is the multiplicity
of measurements required.
45. If task and job is to be continued, we would
suggest that it should be employed only when ships
can be divided into sections, and the exact amount
of labour to be paid for in each section estimated in
the constructor's office. But if the sectional system
cannot be applied in the dockyards, we recommend
a return to day pay, with increased superinten-
dence, and that task and job should only be re-
sorted to in cases of emergency, and even then
should be confined to the building of ships, and
should not be applied in cases of fitting, altering, or
repairing.
46. We recommend that with the submission for
building of a ship, the Controller-General should
also submit a carefully prepared estimate of the
entire cost of the ship, distinguishing materials,
labour, fitting and rigging, and engines.
That in all cases where alteration or repair of a
ship is proposed a similar estimate should be prepared.
That these estimates should be signed by the Con-
troller. General, the Constructor, the Engineer-in-
Chief of the Navy, and the Master Attendant,
Master Shipwright, Chief Engineer, and Store-
keeper of the dockyard where the ship is to be
built, altered, or repaired.
V,—THE EXPENDITURE IN CONVERTING AND
ALTERING THE SHIPS OF YOUR MAJESTY'S
NAVY.

47. So far as we are able to express an opinion
upon a question so purely professional, we believe
that the workmanship in the dockyards is excel-
lent ; but we are of opinion that, under a proper
system of dockyard management, large retrench-
ments may be made in the expenditure, without im-
pairing the efficiency of the yards. We base this
opinion partly upon the evidence, and partly upon
the personal observations which have been made in
going round the dockyards.
48. We have felt it to be our duty to inquire
what alterations have been made in vessels from
their original designs, in the course of construction.
Excluding the cases of conversion of sailing ships
to screws, either before or after they have been
launched, the only instances we find of such alte-
rations are,—

The Howe, ordered to be built at Pembroke in
lan., 1855. In Dec., 1857, being at that time only
in frame, it was decided to lengthen her 15ft. by the
bow. The cost of this alteration is said to be £384
ss. 3d.

The Immortalit6 was commenced as a sailing ship
in 1849. In June, 1856, being then in frame, she
was ordered to be lengthened 14ft. by the stern, 33ft.
bin. in midships, and 4ft. 6in, by the bow, in order
to adapt her for the screw. So far this ship is in-
cluded in the class of alterations from sailing to
screw ships. But a second alteration took place by
an order dated Feb., 1858, by which she was again
lengthened 14ft. by the bow. The difference of ex-
pense between lengthening the bow 18ft. 16in. at
one operation and doing it in two, has been esti-
mated in the Controller's•office at about £2OO.
On the Bth of February, 1845, a drawing was
sent to Pembroke to build the Encounter, and on
the 19th of May of the same year the Conflict and
Desperate were ordered.
On the sth of March, 1846, the Enchantress and
Harrier, and on the 11th of September, 1846, the
Falcon, were ordered to he converted as duplicates
of the Encounter, Conflict, and Desperate. By
orders of the 15th and 19th of July, 1848, the Des-
perate was altered and lengthened 7 feet by the
stern.

From the memoranda of the superintendent of
Pembroke, of the 21st of July, and the 22d of Sep-
tember, 1851, it appears that portions of the frames
of the Enchantress, the Falcon, and the Harrier
No. 1, then lying in Pembroke dockyard in a con-
verted state, were ordered to be appropriated for
building the Swallow of 484 tons, the Ariel, of
486 tons, the Harrier, No. 2, of 747 tons, and the
Curacoa, of 1,569 tons.
The Petrel was ordered to be built at Devonport