The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-09 00:00:00

THE I)OCKTARD REPORT.

It is as well that the public should bear in mind
the broad facts established by the Dockyard
Report, and the position in which a most impor-
tant financial question is now left. One-sixth of
our whole national expenditure is consumed upon
the Navy.. One-half or so of that enormous sum
is taken to satisfy the demands of the dockyards.
Upwards of five millions of money must be pro-
vided by Mr. Gladstone's forthcoming budget for
the purchase of stores, the construction of works,
and the wages of workmen borne upon these
establishments. Now, what was felt and said all
over the country on this subject was, that such
outlay must needs be excessive, and that equal
results ought to be obtained at a less extravagant
charge. It was not merely the miscellaneous
public that entertained these ideas. Foremost
among the assailants of the system were seamen
themselves, and there was hardly an officer who
was not ready with his assertion that things were
most wretchedly managed, and would never,
until the system was changed, be managed any
better. Nor was the popular opinion without
certain substantial justification. True it was
that nobody could tell exactly what ships ought
to- cost, or even what they did cost, but, besides
the misgivings necessarily suggested by the
overwhelming magnitude of the charges, there
was the fact that we were never in a proper
position, but were always building vessels of the
wrong kind or at the wrong time. France
managed these matters much more economically,
and yet came out periodically a head of us,
simply because the money was applied at the right
point without waste of power. Such being the
convictions prevailing, one out of half-a-dozen
commissions charged with investigating the
administration of the Navy received special
instructions to visit the dockyards, and report
upon the system of control and management,
the method of keeping accounts, the cost of
shipbuilding, and the plan adopted in purchasing
stores for the establishments. The commissioners
devoted six months to their work, and a few
weeks ago presented a report which places the
actual facts of the case beyond any further
question.
Well, do our ships really cost too much money ?
There is lint a doubt about it, although, in conse-,
quence bf a peculiar impediment, the Commissioners
are debarred from returning a specific verdict on
the point. The truth is, they found the dockyard
accounts in such a state that it was impossible to
arrive at the real cost of anything. Of course, there
was no want of pen and ink work ; in fact, the
system of accounts was both "elaborate and mi-
nute," but so ingeniously devised as to be utterly
useless for any practical purpose. So the Commis-
sioners, after painful inquiry, were fain to give this
matter up, and admit that they could neither insti-
tute any profitable comparisons nor get at any
credible statement of facts. However, not only
from what they heard, but what they saw, they do
not hesitate to echo the general opinion of the pro-
fession and the public, that a better system of ma-
nagement would enable us to make large retrench-
ments without any sacrifice of efficiency. That is
exactly what everybody was convinced of, and the
universal persuasion will certainly not be weakened
by what is now disclosed. When a man finds, first
of all, that an item in his private expenditure is
appallingly heavy, and then ascertains that there
is no account to be got of it, he is not long in form-
ing his opinion on the point. If the Commissioners
had proved that every ship in the fleet cost 100 per
cent. above the proper price they would not have
proved more against the system than they have
done now by reporting that the facts could not be
discovered at all. This happy state of general ambi-
guity had its natural influence on the officials em-
ployed. They adopted a belief exactly opposed to
that of the public. The public, knowing nothing,
concluded from the look of the bill that the proceed-
ings must be terribly extravagant. The dockyard
officers, not knowing any more, persuaded them•
selves that they were doing their work with remark-
able cheapness, and that their figures for a ship
were decidedly below those of private yards. This
impression they communicated to the Admiralty,
and the consequence was that the dockyards got
hold of the steam factory work, as well as the old
timber work of the navy, and this new department
was added to the establishments on a very unne-
cessary scale. The. Commissioners are only afraid
that iron shipbuilding may go the same way, and
recommend that the dockyards shall not be allowed
to touch this branch of manufacture, at any rate
till their accounts have been revised. They dis-
approve even the experimental attempt now pro-
ceeding at Chatham, observing, very reasonably,
that, as nobody will be able to tell what that vessel
has really cost, no test of the prices charged by
private builders will ever be forthcoming.
On one of the chief points of investigation, there-
fore—the method of keeping accounts—the report
condemns the existing system absolutely, and leaves
a very easy inference to be drawn as to its economy.
On a third point—that of the administration gene-
rally—the verdict is equally clear. The Commis-
sioners state in distinct terms that the system of
control and management is inefficient, and explain
how this inefficiency has been brought about. The
presiding Board—the Board of Admiralty is ill-
constituted ; the departments under it are defec-
tively organised ; there is no definite responsibility
anywhere, and there are no means of checking ex-
penditure. The results are certainly pretty well
accounted for by these announcements. What
would be the fate of any private establishment
conducted without organisation, responsibility, or
Check upon outlay we need not say. It was long
ago observed that - any ordinary yard managed
upon Admiralty principles would soon send its
proprietors into the Gazette, and enough has now
been put upon record to seal the fate of our Admi-
ralty administration. Who can wonder at the
Estimates being heavy, and who can defend such a
system ? It deserves to be remarked that there is
no'single point:on which the dockyards are acquited.
The Commissioners do, indeed, remark, that the
a ; but that was not
launched,
denied. al workmanship
Nobodyrwknin shsiapidis xtehacteolnt
our ships,
when finally
ere not good specimens of their kind.
c tu
a
was that they cost too much before
launched; and were too often on obso-
letetThhe63 `charge
were
models. Neither is there much excuse offered
on the point of conversions and alterations ; for
the question was not whether these changes
were judicious in themselves, but whether they
might not have been saved by better arrangements
at the outset of the work.
This, therefore, is the state of the case at the pre-
sent moment. We know and feellonly too surely that
our system of Naval Administration cosh; us an ex-
travagant amount of money, and entails upon us a
grievous weight of taxation. We are told, upon
authority which no one can impeach, that the sys-
tem is actually so organised as to render these re-
sults extremely natural, and in this position we are
left. How long are we to continue accepting the
combined conditions of inefficiency and extrava-
gance it is now for:our legislators to determine. We