The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-24 00:00:00

not one of the great shipbuilders who had furnished designs
was asked a single question with regard to the plans which

they had designed. With respect to to the question of ten-
ders generally, he had no doubt that the system had been
very much improved. He believed that the most important
step in the direction of that improvement had been taken by
the right hon. the member for Droitwich, and he had no hesi-
tation in saying that the country was very much indebted to
that right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) He should like to have
seen the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty carry
out his views of reform. He could not suppose that it was

owing to any lukewarmness on the noble lord's part that he
had not done so. He believed it was out of his power, and

that the noble lord, to whom that house looked for every-
thing in connexion with naval reform, had no more power
than a mere clerk. (Hear.) _ .

Capt. JER VIS did not think the explanation of the noble
lord the Secretary to the Admiralty sufficient to satisfy the
house that they ought without hesitation to grant the large
votes now asked for dockyard expenditure. (Hear, hear.)
It would be desirable to have the house put in possession
.of accurate information as to the cost of the ships that had
recently been built in the Royal dockyards, for that would
enable them to judge whether ships could be built cheaper
by the Admiralty than by contractors. The cost of super-
vision in the dockyards was an important item, and if they
-compared it with the supervision in the War•office factories
they would find an enormous disproportion as against the
dockyards. He hoped the Board of Admiralty would take
some decisive stops in bringing about a change of system,
instead of waiting for the report of any committee of that
house. A committee of that house had recommended that
an Artillery officer should be held responsible for the manu-
factures carried on in connexion with the Army ; and why
should an Admiral of high staading not be placed in charge
of these Naval Dockyards, and held responsible to the Ad-
miralty for all that was done in them? (Hear.)

Mr. WHITBREAD said his noble friend the Secretary

to the Admiralty had not stated that he could not tell in
what way the money was expended in the dockyards, but
that the value accounts were so complicated that it was im-
possible to say how much was charged to one ship and how
much to another. Neither did his noble friend propose to
wait for the report of the committee of that house before
taking any steps towards effecting important changes in the
mode of keeping the accounts. (Hear, hear.) He hoped
in a few days to be able to take measures for introducing a
system of double entry into the bookkeeping of the dock-
yards. But, if gentlemen thought that this was an easy
process, and one which could be completed without much
labour, they were greatly mistaken. (Hear, hear.) The
honourable and gallant officer (Captain Jervis) compared
the expense of superintending the dockyards with that
of the manufactories connected with the army ; but it
was really impossible to institute a comparison between
two establishments so essentially different. (Hear, hear.)
When the honourable member for Glasgow asked wl,at
the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty had done
to improve the system of the Admiralty, he seemed to have
forgotten that the noble duke had introduced changes in the
Controller's-office, by which the superintendence of the
dockyards had been very greatly improved. (Hear.)
Mr. W. S. LINDSAY was surprised that the hon. mem-
ber for Chatham should have been induced so easily to with-
draw his motion. No report had ever been so much die.
cussed out of doors as this report on the dockyards ; and no
wonder, for it contained very grave charges against the pre-
sent system of the Board of Admiralty. (Hear, hear.)
These charges were founded on evidence supplied by the
Admiralty ; and it was not a sufficient answer to them to
tell the house that a system of double entry was about to
instituted. (Hear, hear.) A new mode of keeping the
accounts would not enable the Admiralty to build ships at
a less cost than now. Nothing short of a totally new sys-
tem would effect that object. The noble lord and the chair-
man of the commission said they did not know of any mal-
practices; but were they prepared to say that no
malpractices did exist ? (Hear, hear.) He held in his
hand a list of the ships built in Pembroke yard between the
years 1848 and 1859. They were 44 in number, and the
average cost was £33 3s. sd. per ton. But there were 11
of the number, ranging from 230 to 420 tons' register,
and hulls as good as those could be built in any private
yard for £lO a-ton. The next large class could be
built in private yards for £l2 a-ton, so that the cost of
building the seven largest vessels, instead of being £33, was
no less than £49 per ton. He had often stated in that house,
and he would now repeat, that the public ought to receive
for £10,000,000 as much as they now obtained for a naval
expenditure of £12,000,000. (Hear, hear.) He was glad
to hear that the Admiralty were about to invite suggestions
from master shipwrights and other competent persons when
they determined upon laying down the lines for new ves-
sels. He thought the Admiralty might with propriety go
a step further. The Warrior would, he believed, cost from
£350,000 to £400,000 before she was finished. If it were
important to invite designs from all quarters for our public
buildings, why should we not invite the science of the age
to give us the best models of new ships? A handsome pre-
mium should be offered to induce naval architects to com-
pete. Considering the value of obtaining the best form
and lines for new iron ships, a premium of £5,000 would
not be too much for the best model; nor would
he debar the servants of the Government from com-
peting. It might be doubted whether the right
form for iron-plated ships had yet been obtained.
In the naval intelligence of the leading journal
of the 9th of May it was stated that the Warrior, although
lying in the still water of the Victoria Dock, showed unmis-
takeable indications of being topheavy in her present trim.
He was talking the other day with a gentleman from the
Southern States of America, who accounted for the blood-
less operations at Fort Sumter by the fact that the fort and
a battery in the harbour were lined with case iron of 1 in.
or II in. thickness, placed at such an angle that the shot
glanced off without doing any mischief. It was worthy of
consideration, therefore, whether our new iron ships should
not be built of a new form, to allow of their plate armour
being affixed at an angle say of 45 degrees, so that every
shot might glance off either into the air or the water. At
all events, a great advantage would result from throwing
open the question of form to the competition of naval archi-
tects in all parts of the world. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought that a good deal of the
present discussion would have been more appropriate in
committee upon the particular votes, but after what had
fallen from the hon. member for Sunderland, some of whose
observations were rather hard both on the present Board of
Admiralty and on preceding boards, he could not allow the
conversation to close without saying a few words. He con-
curred with the hon. member that it was impossible to over-
rate the importance of the matter which the gallant member
for Chatham had brought under the notice of the hou e,
but he could not admit that the criticisms which had been
uttered in reference to the conduct of the noble Secretary to
the Admiralty were quite justified, or that the present Board
of Admiralty were open to the reproof of not having met
the present amendment in a fair spirit. One remark had
been made which, proceeding as it did from so competent a
judge in matters of this kind as the hon. member for Sun-
derland, was calculated to excite dissatisfaction, if not alarm,
with regard to the supposed system of extravagance in the
dockyards. The hon. member stated the cost of a man- of-
war in Pembroke dockyard at £33 per ton, though it ought
to have been built for £2O per ton.
Mr. LINDSAY explained that what he said was that,
taking vessels of several sizes, the larger sizes cost £49 in-
stead of £33 per ton, but that the average price of all the
ships of different sizes to which he referred was £33 per ton,
whereas it ought not to have been more than £2O.
Sir J. PAKINGTON did not know whether the hon.
member arrived at that result by a comparison with the cost
of the mercantile marine, but he could not admit such a
comparison to be fair. The hon. member must recollect
when he gave the average price, that the average was taken
with respect to vessels of very different sizes ; and a differ-
ence of size in men-of-war involved the number of decks,
and the number of decks was not included in the tonnage.
He, however, admitted that the report was of a most start-
Hug charaotcr, and he thought that the gentlemen who
acted on the commission were entitled to public thanks for
the manner in which they had discharged their duty. (Hear,
hear.) He agreed with the hon. member for Sunderland to
the extent of thinking that the report imposed a very serious
responsibility on the Board of Admiralty. (Hear, hear.)
The report involved two points,—the constitution of the
Board of Admiralty, as regards the superintendence and care
of the dockyards, and the way in which the dockyard accounts
were kept. With respect to the first point, he thought it a
fair answer to the present motion to say that the constitution
of the Board of Admiralty was at present under the consider-
ation of a committee upstairs, and notwithstanding what
had fallen from the hon. member for Glasgow, to the effect
that many persons connected with former Boards of Admi-
ralty were on the committee, he did hope that the report of
that committee would be found entitled to public confidence.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Evesham had st,rted
doubts as to whether this great public department of the
Admiralty could be properly managed by a Board, mind he
had himself ventured on former occasions to intimatb simi-
lar doubts. It had been said that the report of the commis-
sioners disclosed a want of efficient control in the dockyards,
and he need not say that he very much shared in that
opinion, and also in the belief that there was an absence of
adeluate responsibility. (Hear.) He could not, however,
agree with the hon. and gallant member for Harwich, who
seemed to think that this was a most simple and easy matter,
and that the present Board of Admiralty had nothing more
to do than to appoint an admiral to superintend the dock-
yards. If the hon. and gallant member were a member of
the Select Committee he would soon discover that this
matter could not so easily be disposed of. He was one of
those who thought that the Government would have done
well to take the consideration of the whole matter upon
themselves; but he now thought that it would be an extremely
injurious course on the part of the Government, after consent-
ing to refer the subject to a committee upstairs, to undertake
a simultaneous inquiry of the same nature. With regard to
the other part of the retort of the Commissioners relating
to the accounts, it was to be inferred from what had fallen
from the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the Government
were directing their attention to the important matter, and
he was sure that the bon. members for Glasgow and Sunder-
land would admit that that difficult and complicated subject
could not be in more competent hindi than those of Sir H.
Bromley, the Accountant-General at the Admiralty. The
house had heard likewise that the Duke of Somerset was
engaged in endeavouring to carry out the substance of the
report of tho Commissioners, and in effecting those