SIR FREDERIC SMITHrose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Control and Management of Her Majesty's Naval Yards; and to move—
That it is expedient that such reforms should be made in the control and management of the 2 Naval Yards as will tend to promote greater efficiency, and, consequently, to ensure greater economy in those establishments.The Commission to whose Report he desired to draw the attention of the House was appointed to inquire into the state of our naval yards; it was composed of very able men; it sat for a considerable period; and it examined no fewer than seventy-two witnesses, to whom 11,299 questions were put. He ventured to assert that there was not one of the witnesses who did not admit that the management of our dockyards was inefficient; the evidence accumulated proofs of everything that was stated in the Report of the Commissioners. It appeared that there was no harmony of action between the leading officers of the dockyards. The Controller of the Navy, who was responsible for the management, had no control over the Storekeeper; in fact, between these two officers there was scarcely any communication which could lead to accurate proceedings. The accounts, though minute, were mystified and irregular, and, as stated by some of the principal witnesses, they were of little or no value for any practical purpose. To show the House how true this was, and 3 how long the system described had existed, he would quote some of the evidence given before the Commission; among others that given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham). The right hon. Baronet stated to that Commission that so little control was there over the appropriation of the public money that, wile he was First lord of the Admiralty, or before he was First Lord, a large building was erected, for which no Vote was given by the House, and of which, in point of fact, the House was not even informed. The right hon. Baronet stated, moreover, that this state of things still continued, and that there was no check against such an enormity recurring. There was similar evidence given by the Accountant General of the Navy, Sir Richard Bromley, that, though the House of Commons had details of small sums—of £100, £200, £2,000, and so on—they were not aware that the Accountant General had no means of knowing whether a ship cost £120,000 or £220,000. This was not the case in any mercantile firm. A mercantile firm would be ruined if its accounts were kept in that way. There was also this striking and startling fact in the evidence of the late Controller of the Navy (Sir Baldwin Walker), that at various times after his programme had been approved by the Board of Admiralty and he had sent orders to the dockyard to commence a certain vessel then for the first time. He discovered that the materials for the vessel he had ordered were not in store; and he stated further, that on several occasions, for want of seasoned timber, works were stopped, and that on other occasions unsound timber had been used in the construction of ships of war. Now, this was a state of things deeply to be regretted and deplored. He did not know what answer his noble Friend opposite (Lord Clarence Paget) would give to the Motion before the House. He might say that the evidence did not hear out the recommendations of the Commissioners, or he might state that a Committee was, now sitting upstairs on the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, or he might assert that it was the intention of the Government to carry out many of the recommendations of the Commissioners. He only hoped he might hear this latter statement from his noble Friend opposite; but, with regard to the examination by the Committee upstairs into the Board of Admiralty, this had not much to do with the 4 question now before the House. If the noble Lord should say there was not sufficient evidence to support the recommendation of the Commissioners, on that point he joined issue with the noble Lord. He should be very reluctant to bring forward a blue book containing 11,229 questions, or to quote much from it; but there were a few answers that he should like to read to the House. Not many Members had time to read the whole of the evidence and the Report. Probably the noble Secretary of the Admiralty had not been able to examine it minutely. But it was a question of such importance to the country, to the taxpayers, and to the House of Commons, that it ought to be thoroughly sifted and examined; and he hoped he should obtain the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while he brought forward some of the recommendations of the Commission. One change recommended by his noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty himself was that there should be another Lord of the Admiralty specially charged with dockyard management. In that he (Sir Frederic Smith) agreed; and he regretted that this was not recommended by the Commissioners, for it would solve one of the great difficulties at present existing, by putting the Controller of the Navy in perfect harmony with the Storekeeper. It was recommended by the Commissioners that the Storekeeper General should be placed under the Controller. Probably his noble Friend would tell him that the Controller would be sorry to have that responsibility placed upon him. He certainly had a great deal to do at present; but he (Sir Frederic Smith) thought the point of so much importance that he doubted if the House would begrudge one or even two additional Lords if such, an advantage could be attained. What the House wanted, and what the Country wanted, was that their money should be well spent, that they should know how it was spent, and that they should get their money's worth for their money. But this was not the case at present. For instance, take the manner in which contracts were made:—it was done in a very slovenly manner. For instance, let us look at the case of the Warrior. The Warrior was a vessel of an entirely new construction. The drawings were prepared by the Surveyor of the Navy, and by him sent out to certain builders calling upon them for tenders. He was about to propose that his noble Friend 5 opposite should institute a system by which there should be an estimate of all the great ships We construct. He trusted that his noble Friend Would not Say it was not possible to draw out these estimates, because if he did he (Sir Frederic Smith) would join issue with him on that point also. Well, then, if it Were possible to prepare such estimates, we ought to have them. If it should be said that the preparation would occupy some time, then, he said the course taken with regard to the Warrior was most improper. The Ship was most difficult of construction; everything about the vessel was quite new; the iron was of unusual dimensions; the scantlings were the largest ever known—in fact, the whole of the work was quite of a new character. Well, how long did the House suppose the builders were allowed to make up their minds as to the price they Would charge for different portions of the work? A month? No. A week? Not a week. Four clear days only Was the time allowed for all their calculations. One was not, then> astonished to find that alteration after alteration was made in the Warrior with vastly increased cost as the consequence; all because sufficient time was not allowed at first. In fact, it was impossible for any set of men to make in four or five days, or, in fact, in four or five weeks, an accurate tender for such works as those of the Warrior. Some calculations must have been, made also by the Admiralty; else how could an opinion be formed by the Controller with regard to the prices of the tenders f The lowest tender was not the one accepted. And why was that? Because the builders offering the lowest tender required sixteen of eighteen, months for the Completion of the vessel; whereas the tender which was accepted was for the work to be completed in eleven months. The lowest tender was thrown aside and another accepted at 50s. a ton higher, because the contractor undertook the ship in eleven months. whereas the contractor whose tender Was the lowest required eighteen months. But was the Warrior built in eleven months? No, nor in twenty-four. In fact, it must have been evident on the slightest consideration that it could not be done, the Warrior being the first of the kind) and a pattern of her class. Another blunder was in not allowing the contractor to get his iron beams where he liked, but insisting on his taking them of the Butterley Company. 6 Then take the case of the gunboats. Of the 276 gunboats mentioned in the book now in the hands of hon. Members only 27 were built which did not require alterations. And these alterations, of course, involved increased cost, and the country was the loser. The most startling paragraph in the Report was this:—"We regret to state that in our opinion the control and management of the dockyards is inefficient," and this inefficiency the Commissioners attribute to "the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, the defective organization of the subordinate departments, and the want of clear and well-defined responsibility." Now, after the number of years our dockyards have been carried on, and considering the number of able men who have been at their head, one was astonished to hear such a statement in the Commissioners' Report; The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) made some improvements in the dockyards while he held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, for which the country was indebted to him; but, then, he told us, in his examination before the Commission, that an entire building had been constructed without any authority whatever. And then the Commissioners went on to say that in their opinion that inefficiency was caused by the constitution of the Board of Admiralty; and Sir Baldwin Walker testified to the want of control over the subordinate departments. The Commissioners complained of the general want of control and well-defined responsibility, and Sir Baldwin Walker repeated this over and over again in his evidence. The Report further stated that there were no means of checking the expenditure, and Sir Baldwin Walker and Sir Richard Bromley gave evidence on that point. Sir Baldwin Walker, the late Controller, said that during the thirteen years he had held that office he had seen six or seven changes in the general management of the dockyards, each new officer altering what had been done by his predecessor. It appeared from the evidence that it was competent for one member of the Board to give the order for large Works without the knowledge of the First Lord, and it was competent for two members of the Board to alter contracts without the authority of the Board. Sir Richard Bromley said he had known fifteen First Lords Since 1829, and altogether as many as ninety-seven changes in the Board of Admiralty. It really was, then, time that some well 7 organized system was settled, by which these unfortunate changes should be avoided. He thought there should be a Minister of Marine, who should be held responsible for the control and management of the dockyards. The dockyards should be looked upon as a large manufacturing establishment for the building and repairing Her Majesty's ships; and the Minister should have the appointment of the Controller, not for his own tenure of office only, but during the good conduct, or during the life of the person appointed. The Commission recommended that the Controller General should have the appointment of Superintendents of the dockyards;, but here he differed from them, and he thought these appointments should be in the hands of the First Lord. The suggestion if adopted would be likely to saddle the country with an unnecessary number of officers. The Report proceeded to set out complaints which were general in the dockyards as to the mode in which the stores were kept. Sometimes the complaint was that the article required was not to be found; in others, the timber was deficient and of bad quality, or was not supplied according to order. Sir Baldwin Walker gave evidence on this point. Then the Commissioners said, with regard to the accounts, that "the system of accounts is elaborate and minute, but as far as we can judge its results are not to be relied on for any practical purpose." The accounts not trustworthy! It was really a great pity that there should be a management to produce such results. Then the Commissioners went on to say that the Accountant General said he could, if he were permitted, put the accounts on a better system, but then he must have an increased number of clerks. Well, how many had he now? Why, no less than 177. He (Sir Frederic Smith) could not imagine what he could want with a larger staff. He rather thought it was the number that created the difficulty, and that if 100 were taken off, and the work done with the remaining 77, it would be better done. Not that he wished to discharge any of the present corps; but he really thought that as they died off the vacant places should not be filled till a great reduction had been arrived at. Why, in the different Departments in the Metropolis there was a whole. army of clerks; and if the Admiralty and War Office clerks alone were armed with rifles, and sent to the outskirts of London, they would form a 8 respectable force for its defence. Altogether there were 650 clerks in the Admiralty, and to be told that the accounts could not be efficiently kept because there was not a sufficient number of clerks to do the work, did seem extraordinary. The Commissioners went on to say that the Accountant General had never had the control of the Dockyard accounts since 1832. Next, that the valuation of the stores was made in the office of the storekeeper, but was not checked in any way. In point of fact, the audit at present instituted was of no kind of use. It was an internal audit; and an audit to be effectual ought to be external. The opinion had been repeatedly expressed that large retrenchments might be effected in the present Dockyard expenditure, and he hoped his noble Friend would tell them what improvements they were which were to be productive of economy; for the House was entitled to have the work done at the least possible cost. It was not enough to say that there was no peculation. He agreed with his noble Friend that there was none; but unless they could infuse into the different Dockyards the spirit of economy nothing could be done. 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 not now called upon to make drawings and plans for the ships 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, but economically built, and would altogether be productive of the best results. At present there was no proper control over the expenditure of the navy. They ought to have an estimate of what every ship was expected to cost, together with an account of its actual cost, and they ought to require a strict account of the reason if the actual exceeded the estimated expense. But there was no man in the House, and scarcely any man out of the House, who could imagine how the work was apportioned out to the workmen. He remembered that in the year 1825 he was appointed to superintend a department in 9 the Tower, and soon after his appointment the clerk of the 'works asked him to come down to the Tower, as he could not find work for the men. His answer was, "Why I thought the proper course would be be supply men for the work, and not work for the men." But he was told, "Oh, no, that is not the practice here; we first engage a certain number of men, and then our business is to find work for them." He said he would certainly alter that practice, and he would begin by reducing the men now engaged. Oh, but, he was told, he could not do that, for the men were all Queenborough voters. That was the system in 1825; he hoped there was nothing of that kind now. But he might read an extract from the evidence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, who stated that one of the buildings at Devon-port—a very useful one—was built without the sanction, he might say without the knowledge, of Parliament; certainly they did not know out of what fund the money was taken to defray the cost, which was the Vote for Victualling. If that was the state of things, it was surely time to make inquiry. Again, in order to show the want of proper communication between the departments, Sir Baldwin Walker stated that there were many things of which he ought to have been informed, but which were brought to his knowledge for the first time by his reading them in The Times. Another point Sir Baldwin Walker had very strongly insisted on was the want of the necessary control over the Dockyards. A very extraordinary question was put to the builders in several of the Dockyards, as to whether they felt themselves at liberty to make suggestions upon the designs of vessels submitted to them from which to build. They one and all answered that they should not think of such a thing, for they knew they would be told to mind their own business. He thought this was not a right state of things; for, however able Mr. Watts might be, there could be no harm in having other opinions. He also objected to the present practice of the tenders being opened by the Controller of the Navy, and throwing upon him the responsibility of advising the Board which tender should be accepted. This was a very invidious position to place him in. As he had before stated, in the case of the Warrior, the lowest tender was not taken. The alleged reason for that was that while the contractor employed undertook to con- 10 struct the Warrior in eleven months, the party offering the lowest estimate required sixteen or eighteen months. Now he thought the Admiralty ought to have made time an element in the contract itself, so that all builders might have been placed on the same footing, and might know what they had to expect.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words '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,'"—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURadmitted the great importance of the subject, but said that the great difficulty of this question was to decide the particular reform which should be adopted. The question had been much discussed in Parliament for many years past, and had been considered by various Commissions and Committees—there was a confidential Report on the Navy in 1848; there was a Report of a Committee on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates; and since then there had been several Committees on the states and managements of our Naval Arsenals and Naval Expenditure—but no proper system of dockyard accounts had yet been adopted. He had no doubt, however, that the Accountant General, with the advantage of the able Report just made, would be competent 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 accounts which, while it added greatly to the cost of the establishment, might not furnish the remedy which was required. In 1853 a new system of manufacturing account-keeping was introduced into Her Majesty's dockyards, which led to the employment of an increased number of clerks and of course to increased expense; but, as it seemed to have no reference to the annual audit, he never could see the advantage of it. As for naval expenditure, that was a matter which we could not shrink from, whilst not only France but the United States are largely increasing their naval ex- 11 penditure. There had been numerous 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 keeping 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 of the same character in the same yard, there must be a difference in their cost, on account of the varying cost of materials and labour. The Warrior 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 ship ordered to be built at Chatham, which would afford valuable data for future reference. He thought the Accountant General was perfectly qualified to determine what accounts should be furnished, but he could not conceive it necessary to go into details to, the extent of returning to the Admiralty elaborate accounts of the repairs of the innumerable articles which are repairable and kept in store for reissue. He concurred in the importance of keeping full and dear accounts, but he was not prepared to say that minute details though duly recorded, should be carried forward when they do not form the basis of annual audit.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI 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 notice 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 remark with regard to that Report, beyond expressing my approval of it and my regret that marginal references, fey which Members might more easily refer to the evidence upon which the recommendations of the Report are founded, have been omitted.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETThe hon. Gentleman, I thought, rather assumed that I was opposed to that Report. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: No!"] All I can say is that, so far from it, the Admiralty are extremely 12 obliged to the Commissioners for their valuable and able Report, and for the careful consideration which they have given to this important subject. The Report contains a number of very important recommendations; and, first of all, with regard 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 constitution of the department as regards the control and management of the dockyards, even if they deemed any necessary. I come now to the recommendation of the Commission, which it is in the power of the Admiralty to give effect to at once, namely, 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. I make that statement without implying any disparagement of the officers of that department. 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. 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 enabled annually, as soon after 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 Commissioners the Accountant General, who well deserves the encomiums 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 by double entry, and devised a scheme by which all the bookkeeping and accounts of the ship-building departments shall be entirely committed to the change of one officer and an assistant at Somerset House. These accounts will thus be brought into 13 one focus at the Admiralty, and from these accounts an annual statement will be made to Parliament of the public expenditure for ship-building. This proposal, which I am happy to say involves not much expense, has been 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. My hon. and gallant Friend, in referring to the system of contracts, is in error in stating that the responsibility of inviting parties to make tenders for Admiralty contracts, and of deciding which tender shall he accepted, rests upon the Controller. That is not so. The fact is that the Controller only submits a list of names to the Board, from which they select those who are to be invited to compete, according to their own judgment; and when the tenders are sent in it is for the Board, and not the Controller, to decide which shall he accepted. 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 tenders which were less than that which was accepted; but the contractors who got the order for the vessel undertook to build it within a shorter period than any of the others. I can quite understand that the Board of Admiralty, under the urgent circumstances of the case, should deem it advisable to accept a tender rather higher than some of the others, in order to get the vessel as soon 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 has 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 consideration should be given to all the details of such a vessel before its commencement; but it is almost impossible, in dealing with a new class of vessels, where we have had no experience to guide us, to avoid changes 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 delay which has taken place in the com- 14 pletion of the vessel. It is quite true, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, that some of the dockyard officers, in their evidence before the Commission, unite in stating generally that any proposals which they have submitted to the Admiralty for improvements 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 their opinions on questions of difficulty; and I may mention that some of these officers have already been desired to submit plans to 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 our 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 James Graham) before the Commission, 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 measure 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 constitutes a great difference between the present times and those during which the Admiralty had 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, we have the Controller of the Navy at Whitehall, while the Storekeeper, an officer intimately connected with him in all bus 15 ness, 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 war broke out to-morrow it would be found absolutely necessary that all its parts should be brought under one roof. This matter is considered by the 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 Admiral the Member for Devonport (Sir Michael Seymour) thinks that the recommendation of the Commission, that 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, empowered me to give a sort of rough estimate of what we are really going to do, and that estimate I shall be glad to communicate to the Committee when we get to Vote 10. I cannot oppose the Motion of my hon. and gallant 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, by the rules of the House, be able to go into Committee of Supply tonight, I hope that he will not press it.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTI see most clearly that the gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith) who has introduced the present subject of discussion to the attention of the House, has devoted a careful and patient perusal to the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the control and management of the Naval Yards. He has deduced several very important points for consideration on the part of Government with respect to the future administration of those departments. I 16 have no intention of following preceding speakers over the same ground, or repeating arguments so ably urged; I will simply reiterate the fact that since the year 1829 no less a number than seventeen First Lords, sixty-seven naval and civilian Lords, and seventeen Secretaries have held office under the uncertain tenure which is the condition of membership of a Board of Admiralty? Every such change, the late Controller of the Navy (Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker) conclusively proved, had necessitated a different arrangement and constant alterations in the Royal Dockyards. One paragraph of that evidence I must instance as affects the supply of timber—
A short time ago (Sir Baldwin Walker observed) I discovered that at one of the yards they had not got the necessary description of timber to proceed with the works ordered. I called upon the officers of that yard to report why my department had not been made acquainted with the fact. They referred me to several letters on the subject which had been sent forward, but which I had not seen. I then called for copies of all letters sent from the several yards during the previous twelve months, in which the want of timber was pointed out, when I discovered that no less than 114 letters had been forwarded, only ten of which had been seen by my department. Under such a system how is it possible to carry on the duties in a satisfactory manner when the head of the department, who is responsible that the works ordered are performed, is not made acquainted with the state of affairs in the establishment in which the most important of these works are executed.Economy, in the fluctuation of opinions contained in the Report, upon the part of the highest authorities examined, is, it appears to me, a simple impossibility. To such constantly changing Boards we commit the sacred trust of our navy—the very right arm of our national strength—with all its manifold departments—the manning of the fleet, the supervision of dockyards, the building, equipment, and repair of vessels, the determination of the best mode and materials of construction, and naval architecture, the supply of stores, the control of expenditure, and, in a word, the maintenance of our navy in a state equal to any emergency, which is indispensable to the security of our commerce, the safety of our shores, and the continuance of our honour and freedom as a nation. This plain statement of the mischievous results which are the consequences of the irresponsible constitution of the Board of Admiralty and the frequent changes of the Board, has a force of argument which no expressions of mine could deepen. The evil is pressing as it is serious, and I need not assure the House 17 that, without party spirit or invidious reflection upon toy individual, I speak merely for the welfare of a service whose well-being is bound up in that of the empire itself. I will only further observe that a perusal of the evidence given by Sir Baldwin Walker before the Commission has convinced me that it was quite unnecessary that that gallant officer should have remained in England to be examined by the Committee which is now sitting to inquire into the administration of the Admiralty.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he could not help thinking that any expression of opinion as to what the Executive authority intended to do with respect to the Report of this Commission was somewhat premature—that authority could not have had time to consider, still less to act upon the recommendations of the Dockyard Commissioners. He had no hesitation in saying that time sufficient had not elapsed to allow the authorities to consider, and still less to carry out, the recommendations of the Commissioners, though he felt convinced that 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. 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 Report had been well received, but he thought the distinction had not been sufficiently noticed which was drawn between the cash and value accounts in the dockyards—a difference, nevertheless, which was very important, as affecting imputations cast on officers in the dockyards. These officials were charged with keeping extremely loose' and careless accounts, and the Commissioners, in making that charge, very much understated the effect of the evidence brought before them, which clearly showed that the value accounts were not worth a farthing. Persons out of doors supposed that such a state of accounts necessarily inferred purloining the public money; whereas the cash transactions were altogether apart from the value accounts as the Commissioners took care to point out. And al- 18 though, these value accounts, which pretended to apportion the expenditure between the different offices, were thoroughly unsound, the House was not to fall into the error of supposing that they were of no importance 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 inquiries unless the cost of two particular ships was found to be very disproportionate. For his own part, he very much doubted whether the Storekeeper General had sufficient control over his own storekeepers, and whether that department, consequently, did not require scrutiny. The storekeepers again stated that they had not a sufficient number of duly qualified assistants, and that they were obliged to hand over the figures to inexperienced clerks. But it was undoubtedly true that some of the attempts at partial amelioration had resulted in leaving things worse than they were at the beginning, while Boards very often did not follow 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 Richard Bromley, would do something towards ameliorating the present 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 Controller, Storekeeper, and Accountant General were all pulling different ways, and the jealousy between them was carried to a pitch little short of absurdity. A Board, as a Board, he had always thought a bad governing body where manufactures on an enormous scale were carried on, requiring the firm hand and sound head of a single responsible person; but, assuming a Board of some kind to be a necessity in connection 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 prevailing 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 19 General, and he therefore trusted that gentleman maintained the same unhesitating language elsewhere. Parliament had voted, within the last eleven years, £42,000,000 far ships and services; and it was not to be wondered at that a great desire should exist in the public mind that a better system of accounting for that money should be devised. The noble Lord the Secretary 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 Commission was entered upon, it would certainly have been clearly and distinctly reported.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, it was not his intention to press his Motion, which he accordingly begged leave to withdraw.
§ MR. DALGLISHsaid, he could not help thinking that the information given by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty with regard to the intentions of the Government was excessively meagre. He had stated, in effect, that the Government 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 (Sir Michael Seymour) seemed to think that, provided our ships were well built, the dockyard accounts were of trifling importance. He concurred with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that our ships ought to be well built, but he also held that the accounts were of vast importance. What the country required was that our ships should be built of the very best materials and in the best manner; and what the House of Commons was bound to do was to see that economy should be enforced in the dockyards. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) had expressed considerable confidence in the good intentions of the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty. He (Mr. Dalglish) 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 respect the Admiralty had been improved within the last 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 Member for Droitwich. What improvements had been made in the Department since those for which we 20 were indebted to that right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle? 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 reason given for this was that such a system provided a check against overcharge by contractors. But it failed in supplying 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. It had been stated that everything manufactured in the Royal dockyards cost 50 per cent more than if manufactured by contract. What was the system adopted in the French navy? They manufactured almost no article in the dockyards which they could get from private manufacturers 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 respect to details were incessant, and that to those changes the delay might almost entirely be attributed. He found, for instance, that the weight of the screw had been altered from 24 to 42 tons, and that was a change which necessarily involved a very great loss of time. The plan of the ship was drawn by Mr. Watts, of the Admiralty, and perhaps it was the best that could have been adopted; but 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 the question of tenders 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. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, and he had no hesitation in saying that the country was very much indebted to that right hon. Gentleman. 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 21 pact that he had not dose so. He believed it was out of his power, and that the noble Lord, to whom that House looked for everything in connection with naval reform, had no more power than a mere clerk.
CAPTAIN JERVISthought some further and clearer explanation was required from the Government with reference to this subject. The House had clearly before it this fact, that for some years past millions of the public money had been voted to be expended in these dockyards, and that money could not now be accounted for in any way. Such was the explanation given by the noble Lord the Secretary to, the Admiralty. The noble Lord admitted that the Report of the Commission was perfectly correct, and the only excuse he could give was, that he was satisfied there had been no embezzlement on the part of any of the officials connected with the dockyards. But that was not a reason which ought to induce that House to vote any further supplies of money on account of these dockyards, until they had received an assurance from the Government that there should be immediately instituted a proper superintendence with regard to these moneys. In order to show the enormous disproportion between the cost of superintendence in these dockyards and that of other Government establishments, he would compare in this respect two of the prominent dockyards with two of the principal factories under the control of the War Office. If they took the dockyard at Woolwich they found that the number of workmen employed was 1,821, while the number employed in the Royal Laboratory was 3,827. The expenditure on account of wages in the dookyard was £109,000, and in the Royal Laboratory £155,000. The cost of superintendence in the dockyard was £18,517, and in the Royal Laboratory £10,681. The number of clerks provided to furnish these accounts was twenty-three in the dockyard, and in the laboratory only nine. Therefore, there had been no stint whatever in providing clerks for the purpose of furnishing the accounts. In the dockyard at Portsmouth there were 3,303 workmen employed, and the cost of wages was £206,000. In the gun factory in the Woolwich Arsenal 3,775 were employed, and the expenditure on account of wages was £196,000. The" cost of superintendence in the dockyard was £24,201, as against £7,302 the cost of superintendence in the gun factory. 22 He could not understand why they should wait for the Report of the Committee that was sitting up stairs before they made any change in the present system of dockyard management. He trusted the Admiralty would take the matter in hand at once, and effect a change of system. A Committee of that House had recommended that an Artillery officer should be held responsible for the manufactures carried on in connection 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 Admiralty for all that was done in them?
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Jervis) was under a misapprehension with regard to what had been stated by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. He did not say that he could not tell in what way the monies voted by Parliament had been expended; what he stated was that the value accounts, not the cash accounts, had been so kept that it was impossible to state definitely how much was charged to one ship and how much to another. Neither did his noble Friend say that before any steps were taken in the system of keeping accounts it would be necessary to wait for the Report of the Committee sitting up stairs. On the contrary, he distinctly stated that active measures would be taken for introducing a system of book-keeping by double entry. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite was very much mistaken if he thought that was a simple and easy process that could be effected without much labour. He (Mr. Whitbread) did not believe it was possible to institute a fair comparison between the cost of superintendence for dockyards, and that for those establishments under the War Office, because the establishments were so essentially different in their character. The heads of expenditure in the dockyards must be very much more in number, and he was not prepared to admit that the superintendence was at all in excess of what it ought to be. With respect to the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had made no improvement in the administration of that department since his accession to office, he would remind his hon. Friend that the noble Duke had made important changes in the position of the Controller of the Navy—changes which had been since found to be beneficial to the service.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) should have been so easily persuaded to withdraw his Motion, for he would venture to say that the Report which had been laid on the Table of the House had been more freely discussed out of doors than any other Report presented to the House since he had a seat in it, and no wonder, for it contained very grave charges against the present system of the Board of Admiralty. He was not satisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, for though the Report stated that there had been in eight months, at one dockyard, no less than 8,000 errors discovered in the accounts, the noble Lord had not taken any notice of this grave charge, or stated whether the Report was correct or not. No less than £4,000 had been omitted to be charged for wages, and £1,200 had been charged twice over; while the sum of £5,210, expenses incurred for boilers, had not been charged against the ships to which they had been supplied. He should be glad to know whether these statements, which appeared in the Report, were true or not; more especially as the evidence given to the Commissioners was chiefly given by witnesses from the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) said the Admiralty were going to adopt another system of accounts, and he (Mr. Lindsay) was glad to hear it; but it was not a sufficient answer to tell the House that a system of double entry was about to be instituted; for if the dockyards were inefficiently superintended a new mode of keeping accounts would not enable the Admiralty to build ships at less cost than before, and the House ought to know in what respect they were to be made efficient, and who was to be responsible. The Commissioners said they were not able to ascertain the cost price of any one article. Now he (Mr. Lindsay) thought they ought to know the cost of every article, and with a proper system of accounts and responsible superintendance they would know the cost of every article. Both the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Willoughby) had said there was no reason to suppose there had been any malpractices; and he (Mr. Lindsay) would not say there had been any; but they could not say there had not been malpractices when they found that certain sums had been charged twice for wages, and that other sums had been omitted to 24 be charged altogether. In short, the accounts were kept in such a manner that it was impossible to say whether there had or had not been malpractices. He should like to know whether it was a fact that the average cost of the vessels built at Pembroke during the ten years 1848–59 was £33 3s. 5d. per ton for the bare hulls? If it was, then the cost was at least £13 per ton more than it ought to have been. He found that the number of vessels built in those ten years was 44, of which 11 were from 230 to 420 tons register, 11 from 500 to 800 tons, 5 from 1,000 to 1,200, 10 from 2,000 to 2,500, and only 7 of the largest class, from 3,000 to 3,700 tons. Now, he considered that vessels of the smallest class could have been built in private yards in every respect equal to those of the Government at £10 per ton; and those of the next class might have been built equally good for £12 per ton. Taking the price of the smallest craft, however, at £20, the next at £22, the next at £24, and the next at £26, the real cost of the seven largest vessels would have been no less than £49 per ton. He had often stated in the House and he would now repeat it, that with a perfectly organized system at the Admiralty, and a proper system of accounts, the country would receive as much for £8,000,000 as they now did for £10,000,000—or in other words, he conscientiously believed that £2,000,000 could be saved by the adoption of a better system. 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 vessels of a large size. He thought the Admiralty might with propriety go a step further. Our new ships, built after the Warrior, would, he believed, cost from £350,000 to £400,000 each before they were 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 before we embarked on such a vast expenditure for naval architecture? A handsome premium should be offered to induce naval architects to compete. 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; and he would not debar the servants of the Government from competing. It might be doubted whether the right form for iron-plated ships had yet been obtained. In the naval 25 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 unmistakeable indications of being top heavy in her present trim. He was talking the other day with a gentleman from the Southern States of America, who accounted for the bloodless operations at Port Sumter by the fact that the fort and a battery in the harbour were lined with case iron of about 2 inches in thickness placed at such an angle that the shot glanced off without doing any mischief. It was worthy of consideration, therefore, whether the sides of our new iron ships could not be built of a form so that shot might glance from the armour sides 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 architects in all parts of the world, and it would be well to make experiments upon iron plates at different angles, and see the effect of shot upon them.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought 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 (Mr. Lindsay), 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 concurred with the hon. Member that it was impossible to overrate the importance of the matter which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had brought under the notice of the House; and, undoubtedly, no Report lately presented had attracted more attention out of doors than this had done; but he could not think that the criticisms passed upon the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty were quite just, or that the present Board of Admiralty was open to the charge of not having met the inquiry in a fair spirit. The hon. Member for Sunderland had gone more into details on the subject matter of the Report than was necessary, and had said much which, proceeding from a Gentleman so competent to judge in matters of this kind, was calculated to excite considerable dissatisfaction, if not alarm, with respect to the alleged extravagance in the dockyards. The hon. Gentleman stated that the cost of building men of war in the dockyard at Pembroke was £33 per ton, while they ought to have 26 been built for £20 per ton. He did not know upon what authority the hon. Gentleman rested that opinion; or whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to the cost of the mercantile marine.
MR. LINDSAYexplained that what he had intended to convey was that, taking vessels of several sizes, the larger sizes cost £49 instead 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 £20.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman still left the House uninformed of the basis upon which his calculations proceeded. If the hon. Gentleman was comparing these vessels with those of the mercantile marine, the comparison was not a fair one; and if he professed to give the average cost, he must recollect that the average cost would be taken on vessels of different sizes. They might have a frigate of 3,000 tons, as well as a three-decker of 3,000 tons, but no one conversant with the subject would suppose that the one vessel could be built at the same cost as the other. A different rate of man of war involved an additional number of decks, and the number of decks was not included in the tonnage. At the same time he was ready to admit that there were some startling facts in the Report, and it must be admitted that the Gentlemen attached to the Commission had discharged their duty in a manner to deserve the best thanks of the public. He agreed that that Report, as it stood before the public, imposed a serious responsibility on the Board of Admiralty. The question was, whether the way in which the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had met these statements was such as the circumstances in which he was placed required? He did not see how the Admiralty could have met the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend in a fairer or more complete manner than they had done. In point of fact, the Report involved two points—the constitution of the Board of Admiralty as regarded the care and superintendence of the dockyards, and the mode in which the dockyard accounts were kept. Upon the first point it was a very fair answer to say that the constitution "of the Board of Admiralty was under the consideration of a Committee up stairs. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) impugn the constitution of that Committee 27 on the ground that there Were too many persons on it that were now, or had formerly been connected with the Board of Admiralty. Whenever the Report of that Committee came before them he hoped it would be shown that the Committee were entitled to the confidence both of the House and the country. His hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) said it was a matter for question Whether this great public department of the Admiralty could be best managed by a Board, and he (Sir John Pakington) had ventured on former occasions to intimate the same doubt. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had stated that this Report proved that there was a want of adequate official control in the dock yards, and he (Sir John Pakington) very much shared in that opinion. The hon. Member also said that there was a want of adequate responsibility, and he (Sir John Pakington also shared that opinion. But he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis), when he said this was a most simple and easy matter, and that nothing would be more easy than for the Board of Admiralty to appoint an Admiral to superintend the dockyards. If the hon. and gallant officer were a Member of the Select Committee he would soon discover that this was a matter not so easily disposed of. This Was a most complicated and difficult question, and required most anxious and dispassionate consideration on the part of those to whom this duty had been delegated. He was one of those who thought that the Government would have done well if they had taken the matter into their own hands, and had decided to investigate the administration of the navy themselves. While he held that opinion, on the other hand he thought it would be in judicious in the Government, after referring the question to a Committee upstairs, to undertake suddenly to reconstruct the naval department. 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 noble Lord 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 Sunderland would admit that that difficult and complicated subject could not be in more competent hands than those of Sir Richard Bromley, the Accountant General at the Admiralty. The House had heard, 28 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 improvements in the accounts which the Report proved to be so necessary. He should have thought the Admiralty to be guilty of a neglect of duty if it had postponed for one day longer than absolutely necessary the consideration of the evils which had crept into the dockyard accounts; but, after the assurance of the noble Lord, and knowing how competent the Duke of Somerset was to deal with the affairs of his department, he was bound to believe that the Admiralty was doing all in its power for the purpose of obtaining an accurate system of accounts.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.