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

counts to the St trveyor (now Controller) of the
Navy.
31. The account No. 8, which professes to give
the detailed cost or each ship when built, is made
up by the storekee per, 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 bookkee per of the factory, and transmit-
ted to the Controller's department.
33. The accounts of the other manufacturing
establishments area 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 accounts, 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 Accoutitau-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 :
lat. 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
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 o
timber oon,ortod on the Ist January, rolo.
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 f 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 shpuld 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 erpress 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
Jan., 1855. In Dec., 1857, being at that tirse 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 Immortalite 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.
6in. 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 be converted as duplicates
of the Encounter, Conflict, and Desperate. By
others 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 co;
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
Curagoa, of 1,569 tons.
The Petrel was ordered to be built at Devonport

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 onlypone-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 alteratiob 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 powderFwas 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.

53. 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 asto 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 lest 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 DALGLISH. (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 know 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 ptodigions system of jobwork, with a
hundred thousand tests, has only entailed the fur-
ther cost of infinite measurement. There has been
no check 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 mach 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 out of the comparison. In all
the calculations of cost that have been attempted,
about a score of items enumerated in the report, and
necessary to the estimates of a private shipbuilder,
have been wholly omitted. It has been thought
sufficient to add up the artisan's wages and the
material used. The convenient item of "general
expenditure" has been always at hand to balance
any account. These are not doubtful or contro-
verted points ; they seem to be admitted on all
sides, and none are so anxious to extricate the Ad-
miralty from this "Slough of Despond" as the
department itself. At present they are powerless.
They feel their situation to be ignominious. It is
one the difficulties and miseries of which must ever
increase. The greater and the more urgent the
demands of our naval defences the less check:will
there be on the cost.
The recommendations of the Commissioners
amount to the same change as that which has
been lately accomplished, under the pressure of
a similar necessity, in the Departments of War and
in the Government of India. We have never yet
had a Naval Minister, and till we have one neither '
the House of Commons nor public opinion will ever
have a real voice in the management of the Queen's
Dockyards. It is therefore proposed to have a