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

their opinion on questions of difficulty ; and I may mention
that some of these officers have already been desired to sub •

-- -- ----
mit plans t® the Admiralty for vessels for the defence of the
coast. My hon. and gallant friend seems to hold that what
we want is not men for the work, but work for the men. I

can assure my hon. and gallant friend that in the dockyards,
so far from onr having too little work for the men, the
arrears of repairs of ships have accumulated greatly, owing
to the large amount of building which has taken place
within the last few years. We have a very large body of
men now employed on repairs which ought to have been
effected a considerable time since. My hon. and gallant
friend, in referring to the evidence of my right hon. friend
the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), spoke as ',if the
Admiralty had power to construct public works without the
sanction of Parliament. It may be perfectly true that the
Victualling-yard at Devonport was built in a great mea-
sure without the control of Parliament, but times have
changed very much since that was done. The Admiralty
have now no power to commence any work without the
sanction of the Treasury. That is a great check, to which
my hon. and gallant friend did not allude, and it consti-
tutes a great difference between the present times and those
during which the Admiralty hat' the power of constructing
works without any control or sanction. It is also said that
the late Controller made complaints that he had no control
as to the stock of timber in the dockyards. I believe that
there was some justice in those complaints. There has
been great inconvenience experienced, but it has arisen
from this fact, that our departments are separated, and
that, whereas they ought to be all under one roof and in
daily communication with each other—(hear, hear)—we
have the Controller of the Navy at Whitehall, while the
storekeeper, an officer intimately connected with him in all
business, is at Somerset. house. Constant communication
between those officers has ceased from the day on which
the Controller was removed to Whitehall. It is one of the
recommendations of the commission, in which I heartily
concur, that the departments should be re-united. The
Admiralty is a great war department, and although we may
struggle on in time of peace, yet if w:-..r broke out to-mor-
row it would be found absolutely necessary that all its
parts should be brought under one roof. This matter is
considered by tho Board of Admiralty to be so important
that we are already in communication with the Treasury
upon the subject, and I hope that before long a great and
beneficial change will be made. The hon. and gallant ad-
miral the member for Devonport thinks that the recom-
mendation of the commission, th%t there should each year
be laid upon the table an estimate of the cost of ships to be
built, could not be carried out. I differ from him. I believe
that it can be done; but it can only be done when you have
a correct account of what ships cost ; therefore, if I were
now to lay upon the table an estimate of the cost of what we
propose to do this year it would be only deceiving the
house. My noble friend the Duke of Somerset has, in order
that we may comply with the general wish of the house that
we should give all the information which we can, em-
powered me to give a sort of rough estimate of what we are
really going to do, and that estimate I should be glad to
communicate to the committee when we get to Vote 10. I
cannot oppose the motion of my hon. friend. At the same
time I do not think it is necessary, because it is the desire
of the Admiralty to carry out the recommendations of the
commission, and as I understand that if it is carried we
shall not be able to go into committee of supply to-night, I
hope that he will not press it to a division. (Hear, hear.)
Admiral WALCOTT was glad to hear that the recom-
mendations made by the Royal Commission were to be car-
ried out, and should in consequence abstain from entering
into details with which he had intended to trouble the
house. Many of the evils which were now complained of
were the natural results of the constitution of the Board of
Admiralty, and others had arisen from the Controller of
the Navy not being allowed so complete an authority as
ought to be attached to so important and so responsible an
office. The hon. and gallant admiral took occasion to state
that the perusal of the evidence given by Sir B. Walker
before the commission had convinced him that it was quite
unnecessary that that gallant officer should have remained
in England to be examined by the committee which was
now sitting to inquire into the Admiralty.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY could not help thinking that any
expression of opinion as to what the executive authority in-
tended to do with respect to the report of this commission
was somewhat premature. That authority had not as yet
had time to consider, still less to act upon the recommen-
dations of the commissioners. He had no hesitation in say-
ing that time sufficient had not elapsed to allow the autho-
rities to consider, and still less to carry out, the recommen-
dations of the commissioners, though the noble duke at the
head of the service was not only able but most willing to
advance any measure calculated to promote the interests of
the service. (Hear.) The report of the Royal Commission
had been somewhat strangely dealt with. It was sent to the
Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 11th of
March, and on the 12th it was placed on the table of that
house, so that, without even being read by her Majesty's
Ministers, it was subjected to a good deal of criticism both
in and out of doors. It was true that on the whole that re-
port had been well received—(hear)—but he thought the
distinction had not been sufficiently noticed which was
drawn between the cash and value accounts—a difference,
nevertheless, which was very important, as affecting impu-
tations cast on officers in the dockyards. These officials
were charged with keeping extremely loose and careless ac-
counts—(hear)—and the commissioners, in making that
horo CreTatvalidn'7lv-ErCitelea'rily- showed Wed that- the'Value.
accounts were not worth a farthing. Persons out of doors
supposed that such a state of accounts necessarily led to
purloining the public money, whereas the cash transactions
were altogether apart from the value accounts, as the com-
missioners took care to point out. And although these
value accounts were thoroughly unsound, the house was not
to fall into the error of supposing that they were of no im-
portance whatever, as without them the house had no means
of knowing the cost of any ship, or of comparing one with
another. Mr. Watts, the chief constructor, told the
commissioners that he had looked to these accounts
for guidance as to the cost of ships for many
years, and was not in the habit of making any special in-
quiries unless the cost of two particular ships was found to
be very disproportionate. For his own part, he very much
doubted whether the Storekeepet-General had sufficient
control over his own storekeepers, and whether that depart-
ment, consequently, did not require scrutiny. But it was
undoubtedly true that some of the attempts at partial ame-
lioration had resulted in leaving things worse than they
were at the beginning, while boards very often did not fol-
low out their own schemes for improvement. The effect of
the change by which an accountant was sent to each yard
was to take away the check which previously existed on the
storekeepers' notes ; and at Woolwich lately a good many
errors had been detected by recurring to the old system.
He hoped the distinguished Accountant-General, Sir R.
Bromley would do something towards ameliorating the pre-
sent system of accounts, and that the noble duke at the head
of the department would succeed in restoring a greater
degree of harmony between the principal officers. The Con-
troller, Storekeeper, and Accountant-General were all pull-
ing different ways, and the jealousy between them was
carried to a pitch little sheet of absurdity. A board, as a
board, he had always thought a bad governing body where
manufactures on an enormous scale were carried on, requir-
ing the firm hand and sound head of a single responsible
person—(hear, hear)—but, assuming a board of some kind
to be a necessaity in connexion with the Admiralty, the noble
duke, with the assistance of his colleagues, might do much,
he thought, to set matters on a better footing. The prevail-
ing impression with regard to the unsatisfactory state of the
accounts of the department had been produced in a great
degree by the evidence of the Accountant-General, and he
therefore trusted that gentleman maintained the same un-
hesitating language elsewhere. The noble lord the Secre-
tary to the Admiralty had truly stated that in the course of
the inquiry nothing in any way bearing the semblance of
malpractice had transpired ; had anything of the kind come
to light, from the determined spirit with which the com-
mission was entered upon, it would certainly have been
clearly and distinctly reported. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. SMITH said it was not his intention to press his
motion, which he accordingly begged leave to withdraw.
Mr. DALGLISH said the information given by the noble
lord with regard to the intentions of the Government was
excessively meagre. He had stated, in effect, that the Go-
vernment were precluded from doing anything by the
fact that a committee on this subject was sitting upstairs.
The public thought that the Admiralty was in a bad state,
and no half measure would do. The gallant admiral the
member for Devonport seemed to think that, provided our
ships were well built, the dockyard accounts were of trifling
importance. He concurred with the hon. and gallant gen-
tleman that our ships ought to be well built, but he also
held that the accounts were of vast importance. (Hear.)
An hon. member had praised the noble duke at the head of
the Admiralty. He had no doubt that the noble duke was
a very able administrator, but he should be glad if any one
would point out in what res2ect the Admiralty had been
improved within thelaat two years—if any one would point
out one step that had been taken to improve it since the
time when it was under the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Droitwich. (Hear.) What improvements had been
made in the department since those for which we were in-
debted to that right hon. gentleman and the right hon. bart.
the member for Carlisle ? (Hear.) It had undergone no
change for the better during the last two years, nor did he
believe it would during the next two. The Admiralty was
now extensively engaged in manufacturing. They would
soon be manufacturing their own steam engines. The rea-
son given for this was that such a system provided a check
against overcharge by contractors; but it failed in supply..
ing any correct standard of the charges in consequence of
the unsatisfactory state of the accounts, which were kept in
the most extraordinary way that ever accounts had been
kept, (Hear.) It had been stated that everything manu-
factured in the Royal dockyards cost 50 per cent. more than
if manufactured by contract. What was the system adopted
in the French navy ? They built nothing themselves which
they could contract for. The noble lord the Secretary to the
Admiralty had assured the house that no department of the
Government was to blame for the length of time which the
Warrior had been under construction. He did not know the
facts of the case himself, but he had every reason to believe
that after the Warrior was contracted for the changes in re-
spect to details were incessant, and that to those changes
the delay might almost entirely be attributed. The plan of
the ship was drawn by Mr. Watts, of the Admiralty, and
perhaps it was the boat that could have been adopted; bu

--.....—.
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 steps 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 standing 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 wlott
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 dis.
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 aeton. The next large class could be
built in private yards for £l2 a-ten, 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
OFMlPefslhr2o7cifatfteq itellge oNcla, gv ,showed ilia/P-
-tak ea ble 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 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 Jew 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 hole 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 foie £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 eehich 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-
ling character, 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 hen. 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 started
doubts as to whether this great public department of the
Admiralty could be properly managed by a Board, and he
had himself ventured on former occasions to intimate 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 143 very much shared in that
opinion, and also in the belief that there was an absence of
adequate 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 andeasy 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, atter 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 report 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 hon. members for Glasgow and Sunder-
land would admit that that difficult and complicated subject
could not be in more competent hands than those of Sir R.
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 the Commissioners, and in effecting those improye-