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

etwesee-see
tttn
efficient navy at the least possible expense, but this they
conld not be said to have at present. The inquiry recently
made showed the system to be defective in many points.
One defect seemed to him to be that the experienced men at
the head of the building department in our dockyards were
110 t now called upon to make drawings and plans for the
chips which they constructed, although they were quite
competent to do so. These drawings and plans were now
made by one man or in one central department ; but if the
dockyard builders were allowed to make them, it would, he
thought, produce among them a spirit of emulation and of
rivalry which would lead to ships being not only well built,
skit economically built, and would altogether be productive
of the best results. The hon. and gallant officer proceeded
to quote from the evidence given before the Royal Com-
missioners by Sir. J. Graham, Sir B. Walker, 'and Sir R.
Bromley, with a view to show the necessity of some more
complete check upon the appropriation of the money voted
by Parliament and the want of proper means for ascertain-
ing the cost of vessels built in the dockyards. He thought
with Sir It. Bromley that in the case of every ship there
should be a capital account and a current account, so that
the cost of building and of keeping her afloat could be at
once seen. With regard to the misappropriation of public
money, the right honourable baronet had refer ed to an ex-
tensive building which had been erected out of funds voted
by this house for some other purpose, and which had been
built without the permission, and even without the '
knowledge of Parliament ; while to show the want of proper
communication between the departments, Sir B. Walker
said he had learned some facts which ought to have been
brought to his knowledge by first reading them in the
i news-
papers. Another point on which Sir B. Walker had insisted
very strongly wasthe want of the necessary control over the
dockyards. Four of the builders were asked by the com-
missioners whether when they were shown the drawings by
the Controller of the Navy they were at liberty to make any
suggestions, and they all answered that they did not think
they were. This ought not to be the case. There could be
no harm in taking the opinions of these able officers. The
Controller of the Nievyeought not to have thrown upon him
the invidious duty of opening all the tenders and of advis-
ing the Board on his own personal responsibility which
should be accepted. It was said that the Warrior was not
built on the lowest tender, and the house ought to know
why. The reason alleged was that the parties whose tender
was accepted offered to complete her in 11 months, whereas
those whose tender was the lowest stipulated for 16 or 18
months. Time, however, was such an important element in
all those calculations that the Admiralty ought to have
specified the time which they would allow. The want of
such a guide placed the parties on an unequal footing. The
hon. and gallant member concluded by moving—" That
it is expedient that such reforms should be made in
the control and management of her Majesty's naval yards
as will tend to promote greater efficiency, and consequently
to insure greater economy in those establishments."
Mr. LINDSAY seconded the motion.
Admiral SEYMOTIR said the great difficulty of this
question was to decide the particular reform which should
be adopted. The question had been much discussed for
many years past, and had been considered by various com-
missions and committees, but no proper system of dockyard
accounts had 3et been adopted. (Hear.) He had no doubt,
however, that the Accountant-General, with the advantage
of the able report just made, would be able to introduce
very efficient reforms, but having been himself at the head
of two dockyards he knew the difficulty of the subject, and
great caution ought to be exercised in entering on a system
of account which, while it added greatly to the cost of the
establishment, might not furnish the information which
was required. In 1853 a new system of manufacturing ac
count-keeping was introduced, but, as it seemed to have no
reference to the annual audit, he never could see the advan-
tage of it. As for naval expenditure, that was a matter
which we could not ran away from. There had been nu-
merous instances of important aid in building ships being
afforded by private yards, and as an Englishman he was
proud that the country possessed firms which could assist
the Government in cases of emergency. The mode of keep-
ing accounts in France was inquired into about the year
1851, and in consequence of those inquiries a better system
was substituted. As to the estimate for ships to be built, he
thought the best groundwork was to be found in the actual
cost of ships already built. Although they might lay down
ships of the same class and the same character in the same
yard, there must be a difference in their cost, on account of
the difference in the cost of material and labour. The War-
rior was a great and new experiment, and he was
not able to express any opinion as to the cost,
but he hoped accurate accounts would be kept of the
cost of the iron ships built at Chatham. (Hear, hear.) He
thought the Accountant-General was perfectly competent
to determine what :accounts should be furnished, and he
could not conceive it necessary to go into details to the ex-
tent of returning to the Admiralty lists of the innumerable
articles which were kept in store, some costing pence and
some pounds. (Hear, hear.) He concurred in the impor-
tance of keeping full and clear accounts, but he was not
prepared to say that minute details could be easily obtained.
Lord C. PAGET.—I am very much obliged to my hon.
friend the member for Chatham for bringing the important
subject of the control and management of her Majesty's
dockyards under the not.ce of the house, But he has not
quite done justice to me in assuming that I am opposed to
the report of the Royal Commission. I have made no re-
mark with regard to that report, beyond expressing my ap-
proval of it and my regret that marginal references, by
which members might more easily refer to the evidence
upon which the recommendations of the report are founded,
have been omitted.
Sir F. SMITH said he had made no comments on the
subject.
Lord C. PAGET.—The hon. gentleman, I thought,
rather assumed that I was opposed to that report.
Sir F. SMITH.—No.
Lord C. PAGE T.—All I can say is that, so far from it,
the Admiralty are extremely obliged to the commissioners
for their valuable and able report, and for the careful con-
sideration which they have given to this important subject.
(Hear.) The report contains, in the first place, very import-
ant recommendations as to the constitution of the Admiralty.
It is obvious, however, that, as the subject is now under the
consideration of a committee composed of the most able
members of the house, it would not be advisable for the
Admiralty at this moment to make any changes in the con-
stitution of the department as regards the control and man-
agement of the dockyards, even if they deemed any neces-
sary. (Hear.) I come now to the recommendations of the
commission, which it is in the power of the Admiralty to
give effect to at once. Although they occupy a good deal of
space in the report, they are really very few in number.
First of all, there is the important question of accounts.
There is no doubt that the accounts of the ship-building
departments have not been kept in a satisfactory manner;
but, in justice to the officers of those departments, I am
bound to say that I do not think the commissioners for a
moment entertained the idea that there had been any mal-
practices in regard to pecuniary matters. (Hear.) The
object of the commissioners was to point out the necessity
of keeping the accounts in such a form that the Admiralty
and the House of Commons should know what each ship
in the navy costs the country. There are undoubtedly
great difficulties in doing so. If we turn to the French
accounts we find that they are complicated by excessive
minuteness of detail, and that they are attended with the
further drawback that they cannot be produced till two
years after the transactions to which they refer. What the
commissioners desire is that the Admiralty should be en-
abled annually, as soon alter the close of the financial year
as possible, to present to the house an account of the cost of
every ship in her Majesty's dockyards during the past year.
With the view of carrying out the proposal of the commis-
sioners the Accountant-General, who well deserves the en-
comiums which my hon. and gallant friends the members
for Chatham and Devonport have passed upon him, has, at
the desire of the Board of Admiralty, prepared a form of
accounts liar double entry, and devised a scheme by which
All the bookkeeping and accounts of the shipbuilding de-
partments shall be entirely committed to the charge of one
officer and an asetatant at Somerset-house. These accounts
will thus be brought into one focus at the Admiralty, and
the cost of every ship readily and accurately ascertained.
say involves not much
expense, has been
This proposal/
which I am
submitted by the Admiralty to the
Treasury. I have little doubt that the Treasury will
agree to it, and that within a few days this, great reform
will be commenced. (Hear, hear.) My hon. and gallant
friend is in error in stating that the !esponeibilih,
of
inviting patties t 3 make tenders for Admiralty contracts,
and and of deciding what tender shall be accepted, rests upon
the Controller. The fact is, that the Controller only
inbmits a list of names to the Board, from which theyselect
those who are to be invited to compete, according t? their
own judgment ; and when the tenders are sent in, it is for
. the Boarkand not the Controller, to decide which shall be
UtePtrede I admit that there is much difficulty connected
with the time contracts to which my hon. and gallant friend
referred. In the case of the Warrior there were other ten-
ders which were less thanthat which was accepted ; but the
contractors who got We -miler for the vessel undertook to
build it within a shorter pee ka than any of the others. I
can quite understand that:the Btiard of Admiralty, under
the urgent circumstances, of the *case, should deem it advis-
able to accept a tender rataer higher than some of the others,
in order to get the vessel as goon as Possible. It has not
been completed within the specified time, but it is certainly
not the fault of the late Board; nor of any department of the
Admiralty, that the contract his not been fulfilled. The case
of the Warrior is a very peculiar one. It is a vessel on an
entirely novel plan, and its construction has necessarily
been attended with many difficulties. My hon. and gallant
friend has said with a great degree of truth that every consi-
derati▪
on should be given to all the details of such a vessel be..
fore its commencement; butit is almost impossible, in deal-
ing wi▪ th a new class of vessels; where we have had no expe-
rience to guide us, to avoid, .}ranges in the original plan. As
I stated on a former occasion, certain necessary alterations
were ordered by the Admiralty in the Warrior,'
as to portS
and other details ; and, while I cannot hold the contractors
blameless, I must admit that there were reasons for the de-
lay which has taken place in the construction of the vessel.
it is quite true, as my hon. and gallant friend has said, that
some of the dockyardofficers, in their °Mance before the
commission, unite in stating generally that any proposals
which they have submitted to the Admiralty for improve •
meats in shipbuilding have not been encouraged. I believe
that the Admiralty would be wise to call together the master
shipwrights and other officers of the dockyards, and gather