MR. LINDSAYrose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty in 1860 to inquire into the control and management of the Royal Dockyards, and to move "That, in the opinion of this House, the recommendations of the said Commissioners ought to be carried into effect." He would first remind the House that in 1858 the right hon. Gentleman, who then presided over the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), seeing the necessity of economy combined with greater efficiency, appointed a Committee of practical men to inquire into the state of Her Majesty's dockyards. That Committee instituted the most diligent inquiries, and made a Report to the Admiralty of great length; and that Report was afterwards laid on the table of the House. Though a very lengthy document, he read it with great interest and 1074 much surprise. He had always suspected that there was great mismanagement in our dockyards, and that the country did not receive value for their money in the naval yards; but he had no idea when he read the Report that our ships cost so much as they did. He trusted hon. Members who took an interest in naval matters would get the Report and judge for themselves. The Committee reported that the cost of labour of eight ships, of 1,462 tons each, lately built in Her Majesty's dockyards, and not fitted for sea, was on an average £5 9s. 8d. per ton, and, when fitted out for sea, £8 13s. 10d.perton; while two vessels of the same class, originally constructed for the Russian Government, and now in possession of Her Majesty's Government, were built in a private yard for 48s. per ton for shipwright's labour, and that the cost, if fitted for sea in a manner similar to those that had been built in Her Majesty's dockyards, would have been 52s. per ton. It would appear, then, from that Report, that while ships built in Her Majesty's yards would have cost £8 13s. 10d. per ton, they could have been built, and ought to have been built, for £2 12s. The House, therefore, had a right to know what had been done to reduce this enormous outlay on vessels constructed in Her Majesty's yards. The year after that Committee was appointed, the late Government were thrown out of office. He did not know whether the present Government took any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee; but there was a great outcry in the country, and a strong feeling in the House, that some radical changes ought to be made; and accordingly a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of the dockyards. The majority of those. Commissioners were Members of that House, and were gentlemen thoroughly competent for the duties which they had to perform; and he wished to draw the attention of the House to one or two of their recommendations. Their Report was issued in March, 1861, and in it would be found the following paragraph:—
We regret to state that, in our opinion, the control and management of the dockyards are inefficient, and that inefficiency may be attributed to the following causes:—First, the constitution of the Board of Admiralty; secondly, the defective organization of the subordinate departments; thirdly, the want of clear and well defined responsibility; and fourthly, the absence of any means, both now and in times past, of effectively checking expenditure, from the want of accurate accounts,1075 He had no doubt the House would want to know, before going into the Estimates, whether anything had been done by Her Majesty's Government to carry out the Report of the Committee appointed by the late Government, or the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed by themselves. The Commissioners remarked upon the constant changes at the Admiralty—as well they might—and they recommended the appointment of a Minister for the Navy, who should be alone responsible to Parliament and the country; that he should appoint the chiefs of the great departments, who should be responsible to him, and that those chiefs should appoint their subordinates, subject to his approval. That recommendation was a good one, as the Minister would be responsible to the House, the chiefs of departments to the Minister, and their subordinates to them, and in that way responsibility would extend from the Minister down to the lowest employé in the dockyards. Again, the Commissioners said the system of accounts was elaborate and minute, but the results were not to be depended on. It was due to his noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty to say, that immediately upon the appearance of the Report he made the most strenuous exertions to remedy the evils thus pointed out; but, notwithstanding the noble Lord's exertions, it was to be feared that we were not getting what was done at the lowest possible cost consistent with efficiency. The Commissioners called attention to the fact that, in one of Her Majesty's dockyards, in the course of eight months there were no less than 7,900 errors in the accounts, in sums ranging from Id. to £490; that £1,200 for labour was charged twice; and that a sum of £5,210 was not charged at all. He should expect his noble Friend to show, before any money was voted, that it was not possible that such a state of things as existed previous to 1859 was in existence now. There had been some difficulty in finding the cost per ton of ships built in Her Majesty's dockyards, owing to the circumstance that repairs as well as building were carried on in the same yards. But at Pembroke, where no repairs were going on, that yard being devoted solely to building, it was found that 65,400 tons of shipping cost at the rate of £33 5s. 3d. per ton for the hulls alone, exclusive of fittings. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to show either that that charge was not too high, or that he had been able to effect some re- 1076 duction. No money would be grudged by the country for the navy, but the people required to know that the money was expended by the Executive to the best advantage. A great part of the extra cost of constructing and repairing ships was owing to the system of task and job work in the dockyards, and that system was based on a scale of prices consisting of no less than 94,000 different items. He did not know whether that state of things existed now. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: No.] He was glad of that, and he hoped his noble Friend would explain the system which he has now adopted. The Commissioners wound up their Report by recommending that iron shipbuilding should not be carried on in Her Majesty's dockyards until great changes were made. Now, unless his noble Friend was in a position to show that great changes had been made, and that the construction of iron ships could at present be carried on economically and efficiently in the dockyards, he (Mr. Lindsay) must do his best to stop any Vote of money for creating vast Government establishments for the construction of iron-plated ships. He did not mean to say that such vessels should not be built, but his opinion was that they could be built in private yards more economically and effectively than in Her Majesty's dockyards. Therefore, it was desirable to take care that what was called the "plant" in Her Majesty's dockyards for building iron ships was not increased year after year until some accounts, different from any hitherto presented, should be laid before the House. In some respects there was a great improvement in the accounts, but still they did not give that information which he, for one, desired. They constituted a great mass of figures even more elaborate and intricate than those of which the Commissioners complained, and did not enable him to grapple with the growing evil of the enormous extra expenditure in the dockyards. For example, the accounts relating to shipbuilding, repairing, the employment of labour, materials, &c., in the naval dockyards, contained an immense amount of details, which were in some respects extremely ludicrous. He found by one account that the expenditure on the Achilles in 1862 and 1863 was £67,850 for materials, £35,723 for labour, the number of men employed being 613; but all the account stated to show how this large sum of money was expended, was the simple statement for "putting frames and bulkheads together, and plating bot- 1077 tom;" it was impossible from this to discover whether real value was obtained for this expenditure of above £100,000—yet this was the kind of information they got throughout the whole book. According to a paper laid before the House, the number of effective steam-vessels in the navy on the 1st of February, 1863, was 566, including armour-plated ships, and the number of effective sailing vessels was 103, making a total of 669 effective ships. On the 1st of February in the present year, the number of effective steam vessels was 544, and of sailing vessels 86, making a total of 630 effective vessels so that at the time when they were anxious to know how far they would be able to maintain their position on the ocean, it appeared that they actually had 39 fewer effective ships than last year. It was perfectly true that some ships had been worn out and lost, but a large sum of money was voted last year, and he wanted to know what became of it. The details in the accounts, to which he had referred, did not give the information in that satisfactory manner which they were entitled to expect; and the people had a right to complain that, while they were heavily taxed, they did not know whether they got fair value for their money. He concluded by moving, as an Amendment to the Motion to go into Committee of Supply, a Resolution declaring that the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners in reference to the naval dockyards ought to be carried into effect.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty in 1860 to inquire into the control and management of Her Majesty's Naval Yards ought to be carried into effect,"— (Mr. Lindsay,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he wished to call attention to a matter of local and departmental importance—
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that there was a Question already before the House, which must be disposed of before the hon. and gallant Member could proceed with his notice.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he would confine himself to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland. 1078 Since he had been in the House he had heard all sorts of complaints made against the Admiralty for their shortcomings in regard to furnishing information; but now his hon. Friend blamed them for giving too much information. For his own part, he was very well satisfied with the Admiralty in that respect. There was more, perhaps, in the papers than any one Member wanted; but then each did not require the same thing, and provision must be made to content the whole body of Members. Then, fault had been found with the Admiralty for keeping their accounts in a slovenly manner; but his hon. Friend opposite seemed to think that they were now kept too perfectly. It was said to be unnecessary to give the cost of so many small articles, but they must remember that these details were important, because they rose to a large amount in the aggregate. In his opinion the incidental items were set forth in a most clear and business-like manner in the papers presented to the House. As to the comparison between building expenses in private and in public yards, it should be borne in mind that the Government possessed certain works and plant which had already been paid for, and which might as well be used. He thought his hon. Friend was unreasonable in charging the Admiralty with non-compliance with the recommendations of the Commission, because they had done a great deal in that way since the Commission reported. The question was—Was the work in the Royal dockyards well done and economically done, and was there proper control under the present system? Unless his hon. Friend could show that the departments were badly managed, and the work badly done, he would not make out his case. Taking everything into account, he (Sir Frederic Smith) thought the work was well and economically done; and, on this occasion, he should support the Government.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTThe hon. Member for Sunderland had stated that iron ships could be built cheaper in the mercantile yards than in the Royal dockyards, but as to this question he was not about to enter into any controversy with him. He would simply ask, Would such yards be capable of meeting all the exigencies which might arise? He believed it to be absolutely essential that the country should have dockyards in which all kinds of vessels, large and small, could be built for the service of the Royal Navy. They should remember that Cherbourg was nearly oppo- 1079 site to Portsmouth, and that if the French should ever contemplate an invasion of this country, they would first try to win their way by an action at sea. Now, supposing such a warfare, and that neither side gained a victory, but that the ships of each country should have to return to their respective ports for repairs; then if England had no Royal dockyards, where assistance would be waiting, the ships must be sent to the Thames, to Glasgow, Liverpool, or other places far distant, whilst France would have Cherbourg, and there her ships would be repaired forthwith, and ready for service, whilst ours would be lying disabled hundreds of miles away. Under such circum-Btances—and they might occur—was it not, as he had said, absolutely essential for the interests of the naval service, and the country at large, that they should possess Royal dockyards with the means of rendering assistance in every emergency which may arise, and for fulfilling every demand which may be made upon them. He must also remind the House that, should we depend upon mercantile yards, they might, at the moment required, be filled with merchantmen under repair, for the removal of which for the entrance of our Royal ships we must pay a heavy compensation to the owners. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Government would not assent to the proposition of the hon. Member.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETentirely agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Walcott) as to the propriety of the Government having in the Royal dockyards the means of building and repairing the ships of the Royal Navy. He thought there were very few persons who disputed the expediency of that course: nor did he think that his hon. Friend who had brought forward this subject did himself desire to put down the Royal dockyards. But his hon. Friend assumed that private yards could build vessels more cheaply than the Royal dockyards. [Mr. LINDSAY: Yes, iron vessels.] He was not prepared at that moment to say that they could not do that. His hon. Friend had also gone into a criticism of the Admiralty accounts, and there, he thought, he was very unfair. A few years ago the House insisted—in his opinion quite justly—that there should be more careful accounts, in order that the public might know what the ships of the navy cost in building and repairing. The Admiralty had now endeavoured to place the accounts in such a state as would exhibit these results. They 1080 had, of course, always had accounts, but the difficulty hitherto had been to compare those of the different dockyards, as they were not all kept on the same system. The Royal Commission pointed out that defect in their Report, and the Admiralty had done what they could to remedy it. The present system showed every item of expenditure on an uniform system. With regard to one particular ship, the Achilles, they had entered into very minute details. Why had they done so? It was in order that an exact comparison might be made between the cost of the Achilles in Her Majesty's dockyard and the cost of other iron-plated ships built in private establishments. With that view the Admiralty had thought it desirable that the House should see every item of expense, and be able to criticize it. In a few weeks the Achilles would be ready for sea, and hon. Members would be in a position, from the accounts before them, to make the comparison he had indicated. Whatever the result might be—whether the Achilles had cost more or less than the ships built in private yards—they would have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Therefore he thought the criticisms of his hon. Friend were a little misplaced, because the Admiralty had done precisely what the public wanted them to do. It was not his intention to trouble the House with any observations upon the remarks of his hon. Friend with respect to the appointment of high officers connected with the Admiralty. The recommendations of the Royal Commissioners were to the effect that there should be a sweeping change in that Department. Her Majesty's Government had carefully considered these recommendations. Some of them had been carried into effect; but there were some of them that they were not prepared to adopt. For instance, the Duke of Somerset repudiated the idea of allowing each chief officer of a department to appoint all the officers under him. So sweeping a change it had been thought might be productive of great disadvantages hereafter, and the Duke of Somerset had come to the conclusion that the appointment of subordinate officers ought to rest with him as responsible Minister. This, indeed, was one of the principal differences between the Royal Commissioners and the Admiralty. In all other respects—in matters relating to accounts, the cost of ships, and the actual state of the navy—the Admiralty had with the greatest pleasure carried 1081 out the recommendations of the Commissioners, and he believed that in doing so they had given satisfaction to the public. His hon. Friend had remarked that though the Admiralty were constantly building vessels, still the number of effective ships belonging to the navy was reduced. That matter might be easily explained. The Admiralty were complying with a wish which had often been expressed in that House and elsewhere, that, instead of keeping a vast number of useless ships in our harbours, occupying valuable moorage at great cost to the public, many of them should be sold. Unfortunately, in selling them, the Admiralty had got into a little trouble lately, for having sold to an apparently bonâ fidepurchaser a vessel which they believed to be utterly unfit to cross the Atlantic, it afterwards turned out that she was intended to be converted into a Confederate man-of-war. In consequence of that event the Foreign Office had told the Admiralty that they must not sell any more steamers as long as the war continued between the Northern and Southern States. For the moment, therefore, the Admiralty had ceased to sell. Still, they had sold a good many, and this accounted for the decrease of our so-called "effective" force. The ships which had been sold were on the list of effectives, because they were steamers, but, in point of fact, they were not fit to be used as men-of-war. He thought he might defer all reply to the other remarks of his hon. Friend until the House went into Committee on the Estimates. At the proper time his hon. Colleague the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), who had, during the recess, given his undivided attention to the dockyard system of accounts, and who deserved the highest credit for the pains he had taken and the energy and ability he had displayed, would explain in detail what he had done and was still doing with the view of placing matters on a more satisfactory footing. He observed that the lion, and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) had given notice of a question with respect to a church in the town which he so ably represented.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsubmitted that, under those circumstances, there was nothing to prevent the House going into Committee at once.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.