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

in 1857, like the Pantaloon, of 577 tons. In 1858,
when the conversion of her frame was nearly com-
plete, according to Mr. Peake, the Master Ship-
wright, or only,one-fifth according to the Controller,
she was ordered to be lengthened 9 feet by the bow,
and to be built of the increased breadth of 1 foot 3
inches, thereby increasing her tonnage to 669 tons.
No alteration was made in the Petrel after her keel
was laid down. ,
The Pelican's name first appeared in the list of
vessels ordered to be built at Pembroke in 1854;
she was then intended to be like the Cruiser, of 748
tons. In 1855 she was ordered to be the same as the
Mutine, of 878 tons. In 1858, when her frame was
about three-fourths cut out, she was ordered to be
built of increased length to give her finer lines, and
some of her bow-timbers had in consequence to be
reconverted. The loss was £75.

The Orlando was designed as a 40-gun frigate,
and actually built as a 50-gun frigate. No altera-
tion was made in her at Pembroke in the progress
of building. The bulkheads of her magazine
were put up at Pembroke ; the fittings of
the interior part of the magazine for receiving
the powder were done at Keyham ; and it was not
until these fittings were completed that they found
that the quantity of powder that the ship would
stow was not equal to the quantity which the Ord-
nance Department said she must take as her sup-
ply. The deficiency of room was for about 200 cases.
An alteration was therefore proposed by the officers,
and approved of by the Surveyor, for taking a piece
out of the spirit room and adding it to the after
magazine, and for taking down the light room and
lighting it from the outside of the shaft alley pas-
sage. These alterations were carried out an expense
of about £4OO. The cause of the magazine being
insufficient to hold its powder was partly that the
Orlando was built for 50 guns instead of 40, and
partly that the Ordnance nearly doubled the esta-
blishment of shells to be kept on board the ship.
Other alterations of minor importance were made
in the fittings of the Orlando.
49. The evidence of the master shipwrights on
the subject of the alterations in these ships is that
they were judicious and great improvements on the
original designs, and we see no reason to doubt
their opinion.
50. The policy of converting a large number of
sailing ships to screws can only be justified by the
necessity which existed of constructing a screw
navy with the least delay.
51. In 1854.55 several floating batteries were
constructed with iron defence plates of great thick-
ness. These batteries were never practically tried,
although similar batteries belonging to your Ma-
jesty's allies were used at Kinburn and found
highly efficient:
52. The principle of the protection afforded by
iron defence plates was proved, but no attempt was
made to apply it to ships of war generally until 1858.
Even now the capabilities of an iron ship of war of
the first class protected by iron plates have not been
tested, and it remains to be proved whether such
ships are efficient for service in your Majesty's
navy. _ . _

A We are of opinion that iron shipbuilding
should not be carried on in your Majesty's dock-
yards under the existing system of accounts. It
has been stated to us as a reason for commencing
iron shipbuilding in the dockyards that it is
necessary that your Majesty's Government should
have it in their power to test the cost of that de-
scription of work, so as to have some check upon the
contract prices asked by the private builders.
This object, if attainable, would be useful, but we
believe that under the present system of accounts
no such test could be obtained.

In conclusion, we have to report to your Majesty
that we have received from the Lords Commis-
sioners and the officers of the Admiralty, and the
officers of the dockyards every facility for carrying
out the objects of this Commission.
Witness our hands and seals this 11th day of
March, 1861.

ROBERT DALGLISII. (L.S.)
GIFFORD. (L.S.)
HENRY POLLARD WILLOUGHBY. (L.S.)
ARTHUR PRICE, Secretary.

(From the Times,)

If nothing of note has been done or promised thus
far in the session, our legislators have just been
provided with occupation not only for the Easter
Recess, but for the year 1861. If we mistake not,
this year will be marked in our annals with the
Reform of the Admiralty. The Report of the Com-
missioners appointed to inquire into the control and
management of her Majesty's Naval Yards reveals
a mystery and a chaos compared with which the
administration of the various war departments was
order itself, and the Government of India responsi-
bility. It would be hypocrisy to affect either sur-
prise, or delight, or consternation, or satisfaction,
or any other feeling on the perusal of this marvel-
lous document. The truth is everybody knew how
it was—that is, everybody at all in the secret of
public affairs. For many years men who had
been Lords of the Admiralty themselves de-
nounced the Board as a mere cloak for irresponsi-
bility. We have lately heard a Secretary of the
Admiralty estimating at five millions the expendi-
ture which he could not check or control. We
could any time have filled our paper with stories of
dockyard waste and embezzlement, gangs of men
idling the whole day, timber and other materials
passed and shortly after disposed of as old stores,
accounts in hopeless arrears—always with the pro-
viso that we were not to mention names, but were
ourselves to take the part of public prosecutor.
We believe there is no man who ever was in office,
and not even an intelligent member in either house,
who does not know this to be the ordinary state of
things in every one of her Majesty's dockyards.
The difficulty is how to get at the mischief—how
to bare it without making a wound still worse than
the original sore. That difficulty has now been
boldly met. The slough has been exposed to the
light. Here it is—a region without form, and void
—void of order, organisation, light, and even offi-
cial life. It gets worse and worse as we go on. One
may understand it taking two or three years to
systematise and audit the accounts of the Russian
War. One may excuse the accounts of the Irish
Famine Relief having never been audited. One is
prepared for a Duke running into debt a good mil-
lion without knowing exactly how. What almost
surpasses the power of imagination is that in this
businesslike country and this age, wide awake to
every failure and every fraud, the management of
our naval yards should for many years have had no
other check than the one single limit -which the
public impatience might impose. It has had, and
still has, ten thousand leaks, without an attempt to
stop them. At this moment, with all this, hue and
cry, there does not appear to be any means of stop-
ping any amount of waste and fraud. For any-
thing we can see, all the employes in all the dock-
yards, seeing the sword of Damocles now actually
descending upon them, may resolve to make hay
while the sun shines, and this very Easter, before
Parliament can apply a remedy, pillage the nation
of another million.

The accountants employed by the commission
have discovered errors by thousands in every
account--errors as to quantities, errors as to times,
errors running up from a few shillings to several
hundreds, and even to several thousands. Very
large items have been omitted in the cost of ships ;
items omitted, or repeated, always to the injury of
the public. There have been no proper vouchers and
receipts. A prodigious system of job work, with a
hundred thousand tests, has only entailed the fur-
ther.n_n_to
cost of ; measurement. There has been
no cheek on the fulfilment of contracts for material.

Immense accounts have been neither audited nor
put to any practical use, till Parliament asks for the
cost of some one work, when the accounts are found.
insufficient. In the only yard where the calcula-
tion could be made, it has been found that, exclud-
ing the cost of fitting up, excluding, too, the
immense expenditure on the yard itself, the cost of
the mere hulls has been at the rate of £33 a ton.
The work has certainly been well done, if that can
be a satisfaction where so much has been done only
to be undone, or to be altered, or to be superseded
and thrown away altogether. But the cost has been
so enormous, and the want of check so clearly
proved, that the commission are forced to express
an opinion against the dockyards undertaking our
new iron-plated ships, As there are not the means
of ascertaining the cost of a ship built in. the Queen's
' dockyards it can never be ascertained whether
work can be done cheaper there than elsewhere,
even with the plant the superintendence, and any
other expenses left cut of the comparison. In all
the calculations of cost that have been attempted,
about a score of item; enumerated in the report, and
necessary to the estimates of a private shipbuilder,
have been wholly omitted. It has been thought
sufficient to add 11} the artisan's wages and the
material used. Tha convenient item of "general
expenditure" has ben always at hand to balance

any account. Thee are not doubtful or contro-

vested points ; they seem to be admitted on all
sides, and none areso anxious to extricate the Ad-

miralty from this "Slough of Despond" as the
department itself. At present they are powerless.
They feel their sitiation to be ignominious. It is

one the diflicultiesand miseries of which must ever

increase. The grater and the more urgent the
demands of our naval defences the less check:will
there be on the cat.
The recommendations of the Commissioners
amount to the ;ame change as that which has
been lately acconplished, under the pressure of
a similar necessit7, in the Departments of War and
in the. Governmelt of India. We have never yet
had •a Naval Mitister, and till we have one neither

the House of Ccx'mons nor public opinion will ever
hay e a real voict in the management of the Queen's
Dockyards. It is therefore proposed to hem)