HC Deb 24 April 1860 vol 158 cc54-69
MR. JACKSON,

in rising to move for a Royal Commission to inquire into the man- agement of the dockyards, said it would be in the recollection of the House that in the early part of last Session the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) had, in a speech of great ability, in the course of which he stated that in his opinion a considerable sum might be saved annually in the expenditure of the Royal dockyards, intimated his intention of moving for a Committee on this subject. But a change in the Government took place, and the very evening on which the noble Lord was to have brought on his Motion found him seated upon the Treasury Bench as Secretary to the Admiralty. He put a question to the noble Lord whether he intended to ask for a Committee as he had proposed. The noble Lord replied that Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to carry on the important business of the shipbuilding Department with due regard to economy, but that he was not prepared to move for the Committee. Not being satisfied with that reply, he gave notice that he should on an early day move for a Committee of Inquiry, but he had no opportunity of bringing on his Motion last Session. He had now determined to ask, not for a Select Committee, but for a Royal Commission. He had sat up stairs for three Sessions on a Committee for inquiring into the Weedon frauds, but it was found that a Royal Commission was necessary to examine the books and witnesses with any prospect of success. He now felt satisfied after this experience, that no efficient inquiry could be made into the dockyard system except by parties upon the spot. If a Committee of that House sat for five years they would never get at the truth, as would be done by a Royal Commission empowered to examine parties upon the spot. It was with surprise he had heard the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget) charged with having, when he brought forward his Motion with regard to dockyard expenditure, spoken against Sir Baldwin Walker. The noble Lord never uttered a word against the gallant Baronet, than whom there was not a more meritorious officer in Her Majesty's service. He wished it to be clearly understood that in asking the House to adopt his Motion he had no intention of attacking any individual connected with the dockyards. He did not complain of the men but of the system. No one could read the Report of the Committee appointed by the late Government to inquire into dockyard economy, and the 3,800 ques- tions which the Members addressed to witnesses, with the answers obtained, without being satisfied that the system was exceedingly defective, and that the work was done in a very imperfect and unbusiness-like manner. That was the conclusion he had himself arrived at, not only from what he had heard, but from what had come under his own observation. He was convinced that a thorough inquiry into the system was essential to its reformation, and he believed the country would not be satisfied unless it took place without delay. The great difference in the cost of shipwrights' labour in building ships in various yards was notorious. In some cases it was £2, in others £4 and £6 per ton; and there was also a great difference in the number of workmen employed and the proportion of officers appointed to superintend them. If any private person were to conduct his business after the fashion of the dockyards, he would soon find himself in difficulties. It was stated in the Report of the Committee that when the First Lord and the Secretary of the Admiralty went down to the yards, the amount of time lost in assembling the men for inspection cost the country no less than £1,800 per visit. In one place, he was informed, that there was one officer to every ten men; in another two officers to every ten men. The men who were employed to measure the timber received a profit in proportion to the quantity consumed by the workmen; and as there was no check upon their measurements, the temptation to which they were exposed was obvious. Captains and admirals in want of places were appointed superintendents in the dockyards; but generally they had no sooner learnt to discharge the duties of their respective offices than they received promotion and were removed. All the experience they had acquired was thus lost to the country; and new men were appointed to learn the duties. The sooner this mode of conducting the business of the dockyards was looked into and improved the better for the country. A late Member of the House, Mr. Morrison, used to say that whatever talent might cost, he would have it; and Mr. Morrison died an uncommonly wealthy man. It appeared to him (Mr. Jackson) that the country might act with advantage on the same principle. The Government, he felt bound to say, had from the first expressed their desire to meet his wishes in regard to this inquiry, and had consented to the appoint- ment of a Royal Commission, to consist of five Members. Two of the Members who would be appointed were sound practical men, one was connected with the navy, and all five were competent men. He was confident the inquiry would be efficiently conducted. As he understood there was no opposition to his Motion, he would not longer detain the House. He begged to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the system of control and management of Her Majesty's dockyards, the purchase of materials and stores, the cost of building, repairing, altering, fitting, and refitting Her Majesty's ships.

Motion made, and Question proposed,— That, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the system of control and management of Her Majesty's Dockyards, the purchase of materials and stores, the cost of building, repairing, altering, fitting and refitting Her Majesty's Ships.

MR. KINNAIED

seconded the Motion.

MR. CORRY

said, that as the Government were not about to oppose it he should not make many observations on the Motion. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member who had brought it forward did not mean it to imply any want of confidence in the Committee of Inquiry into Dockyard Economy appointed by the late Government. [Mr. JACKSON: Certainly not.] He was glad to hear that denial, as he thought that their Report embraced almost every feature of dockyard economy, and contained many valuable suggestions which he should be glad to see adopted by the present Board. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the practical ability and experience of the five gentlemen who were to constitute his Commission; but he (Mr. Corry) doubted whether they could possibly excel the five who composed the late Committee. The chairmanship of that Committee was offered to Admiral Smart, a gallant officer, who was extremely conversant with the steam navy. Another gentleman on it was Mr. Chatfield, a most distinguished member of the School of Naval Architects. Next came Mr. Laws, the storekeeper at Chatham Dockyard, who had been employed in the dockyards for upwards of forty years. Then there was Mr. Andrew Murray, the chief engineer at Portsmouth, who had formerly been in the service of Mr. Fairbairn, of Manchester. He (Mr. Corry) had not been able to ob- tain the services of any private builder, but the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. W. S. Lindsay) had recommended him a gentleman—Mr. Bowman, an experienced civil engineer and shipbuilder, who had been employed by the hon. Gentleman himself. Altogether, the Committee was such that, however well the Commission might be constituted, it could hardly be better qualified. He believed considerable misapprehension prevailed as to the difference in the cost of building ships in the Royal and private yards. The prices in the dockyards were no doubt higher than those charged in other yards; but he thought in making the comparison due regard was not paid to this fact that the scantling used in the naval dockyards was much larger; that the material generally was of a larger description, and also the work turned out was of a better and more durable character. It was with surprise and regret that he heard the noble Secretary of the Admiralty the other night repeat the assertion which he made last year, that £5,000,000 of the dockyard expenditure could not be accounted for. That statement had been distinctly disproved by a paper which had been laid on the table of the House from the Surveyor of the Navy. A calculation had likewise been entered into last year by his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, from which it appeared that the quantity which could be built by one shipwright in the course of the year was eight tons. Estimating the cost of labour at only £2 12s. a ton, it would be found that the wages of shipwrights at this rate would be little more than £20 a year; whereas they knew that their actual earnings were nearly three time that amount. This would go far to account for the difference referred to. So far from private dockyards being able to build cheaper than those which belonged to Government, Mr. White of Cowes, on being applied to before the commencement of the operations in China to construct two vessels, refused to do so unless an advance of 12½ per cent were made upon the Admiralty price. He had been always of opinion that the subject of dockyard expenditure was deserving of inquiry, and it was partly at his suggestion that the Committee was last year appointed; but he confessed, judging from the result of their labours, he did not entertain any very sanguine expectations as to the results which would follow from the Royal Commission at present moved for.

MR. BENTINCK

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) did not appear to have hit the nail so completely on the head as he usually did, for he had confessed that a Committee would not answer his purpose—indeed, he was inclined to think that Committees of the House of Commons in nineteen cases out of twenty answered no purpose beyond that of wasting time; and he believed a Royal Commission would still less accomplish the objects which the hon. Member had in view. He had fallen into the common mistake of endeavouring to deal with the effect without ascertaining the cause; he had made no attempt to improve or even to investigate the system which he complained of. The subjects of his hon. Friend's inquiries ought to be referred to a properly constituted Board of Admiralty and not a Royal Commission. Assuming that all the grievances complained of did in reality exist, and some of them no doubt did exist, the only way in which they could be effectually removed was by the action of a properly constituted Board of Admiralty. Reference had been made in Committee of Supply to the cost of building ships in the dockyards, as compared with the cost of building them in the yards of private builders. He himself believed that numerous faults existed and that extravagant expenditure took place in the dockyards; but, as far as he was able to see, the fault did not lie in the cost of building. At any rate he doubted whether that cost was so great as had been represented by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He thought his hon. Friend had been misinformed on the subject; but, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry) had observed, when comparisons were being made, the heavier scantling and the better work in the dockyards ought to be taken into account. Since the House had last been engaged in discussing the Naval Estimates he met accidentally a gentleman whose name was well known, not merely to the Admiralty, but to every one who had taken an interest in naval subjects—Mr. J. White, of Cowes. Some conversation had passed with reference to the former debate, and Mr. White had been good enough to write him a letter, bearing directly on the subject of comparative expenditure in dockyards, in which he expressed his firm conviction that in the item of labour, under proper supervision, there could not be much difference between the Royal dockyards and merchant establishments. The class of vessels built in each was totally different—not that private builders were unable to produce efficient men-of-war—but if the stimulus of competition were laid aside, very different estimates would be sent to the Admiralty, as well as to merchant shipowners. With regard to the allegation that £2 8s. per ton for labour was the ordinary cost of vessels fitted for sea, Mr. White answered this by stating that on the despatch gun-vessels and corvettes built by his firm for Her Majesty's navy during the last six years the amount actually paid for shipwrights' work was £3 19s. a ton, and for sawyers, caulkers, joiners, &c, £2 13s. 6d. a ton, making a total for labour of £6 12s. 6d per ton. The gun-boats just completed for Her Majesty's service had been constructed at the more moderate outlay of £4 0s. 6d. per ton; and Mr. White did not believe it possible that they could be built for the lower sum stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Jackson), or that any practical shipbuilder would bear out his views. The writer expressed his opinion that, with due attention to "conversion," men-of-war could be as cheaply constructed in Her Majesty's building-yards as in any private establishment, and concluded by bearing testimony to the zeal and integrity of the inspectors with whom he had been brought officially into contact. This statement, from a most reliable authority, the House would perceive, bore directly on the point to which he presumed the inquiries of the Commission wore to be directed; and he did not believe that they were likely to receive more trustworthy or practical testimony. [Mr. JACKSON: It is no authority to me.] Mr. White was a gentleman who had built ships largely for all kinds of service; he had no object but to afford the most reliable information, and he did not think the hon. Member would find many persons to agree with him in the manner in which he had rejected that authority. Mr. White further believed that a certain amount of waste took place in the process of converting ships, on which the same amount would not be expended if the money were drawn from the pocket of a private individual. This was easily intelligible, and he had no doubt some control over the department of the works might advantageously be established, though he did not believe that a Royal Commission was the most suitable machinery for the purpose. For that and other abuses he had all along been of opinion that the only remedy would be a properly constituted Board of Admiralty. By the present system the controlling power was vested in the hands of men who were only beginning to acquire a knowledge of their business, when at the end of two or three years they were turned out to make room for others equally ignorant as they had been, while the subordinates did practically what they pleased, knowing that they were subject to no responsibility. All attempts to go to the root of the evil would be ineffectual till a Board was appointed which should no longer be subject to the caprices of fortune that befell Administrations, but should be composed of men practically conversant with the duties which they were about to undertake, and above all, with a man at their head of character, professional knowledge, and established ability, whose responsible position should be the best voucher to the country for the conduct of those establishments. Entertaining those views, he should have embodied them in the form of an Amendment to the Motion, but it had been suggested to him that a Royal Commission was not a tribunal of such a character as could most fittingly deal with the reconstruction of the Board of Admiralty.

MR. LINDSAY

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down was continually finding fault with the Board of Admiralty. He (Mr. Lindsay), however, thought that any hon. Gentleman, before he condemned the system, was bound to state that he was prepared to propose a better. But he could not call to his recollection that the hon. Gentleman had ever stated what he would propose as a substitute for the present Board of Admiralty. He supposed the hon. Member wished that the Lords of the Admiralty should not go out of office with every change in the Administration. [Mr. BENTINCK: Hear, hear!] Then we should have all the evils attendant on life appointments; and it was a question whether those evils would not be greater than the present system of appointing fresh Lords on each change in the Administration. He inferred also that the hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the First Lord should be a naval officer. [Mr. BENTINCK: Hear, hear!] He would offer no objection to this. He thought it would be desirable that the First Lord should possess a considerable amount of nautical knowledge. But it should be remembered that the duties of the First Lord were not confined to the construc- tion of ships and checking the expenditure of the dockyards. He ought to be, in every sense of the word, a statesman able to give an opinion at any moment on the various questions of domestic and foreign policy brought under the notice of the Cabinet. Persons combining these different qualifications were rarely to be met; but if such a man could be found amongst seamen he would be preferable as First Lord of the Admiralty to a landsman, although he must say that those landsmen who had filled the office since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, had done so with considerable ability. He wished to say a few words in reference to an erroneous impression that had got abroad in regard to a statement he had made the other night as to the ships built in Her Majesty's dockyards. He was of opinion that they could be built for less. And what he stated to the House was, that the Committee appointed by the Admiralty, after twelve months' inquiry, deliberately reported that the cost of building ships in Her Majesty's dockyards far exceeded what the cost of building would have been in private yards; and he did not find that this charge was met by the counter-report of Sir Baldwin Walker and other officers, who had reported on the subject. The statement, therefore, was not his. It was the statement of five gentlemen appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the condition of the dockyards. If a Royal Commission should be appointed he hoped they would go to their work in earnest, and not shelve the question, as had been done before where Committees had been appointed. There was a feeling prevailing in the House, growing in the country and spreading every day, that the public were not getting value for their money in Her Majesty's dockyards. If this Commission was to be appointed, he trusted that there would be some clear and definite points laid down for inquiry. The Committee to which he had referred had made grave charges. The naval authorities, with Sir Baldwin Walker at their head, had made counter-statements, and he trusted that the first thing the Commission would do would be to give the charges and the counter-statements a full consideration, and satisfy themselves whether it was a fact or not that the cost of labour in Her Majesty's dockyards was a great deal more than it was in private dockyards, and whether or not it was the fact that the cost of labour in one of Her Majesty's dock- yards far exceeded the cost of labour in another dockyard. Having done so, he hoped they would look into the nature of the evidence by which such differences were established. His noble Friend (Lord C. Paget) when out of office stated that there was a sum of £5,000,000, the expenditure of which it was impossible to trace by the accounts laid on the table of this House. He was very desirous, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman who moved for the Royal Commission would, with the permission of the House, consent to add to his Motion the words, "And the best mode of keeping the accounts thereof," that was, the accounts of Her Majesty's dockyards, so that they might have every year a specific account—he did not mean a detailed account, but a specific account of the leading points of how this vast sum of £13,000,000 was expended. He had a strong impression that the cost of repairing old ships and the cost of building new ones were so jumbled up together in the accounts that the cost of one or the cost of the other could not be discovered. He would like to see them kept separately. The effect would be that if a frigate were building at Chatham, and a similar frigate were building at Pembroke, there would be a competition between the two dockyards to produce a ship of good quality at the smallest cost. Then the surveyor's office was approached by a kind of sealed door. He would like to see the Commission walk into his office, and that a thorough tumble over of the books should take place, in order that it might be known what he did, what were his powers, and under whose control were the final orders for the vast and costly alterations which were continually being made in the shape and structure of Her Majesty's ships of war. Then he would have an inquiry into the mode in which the men were employed in the dockyards, whether the task and job were the best and most advantageous mode, or whether the piece or the day work. These were the leading points for the inquiry of the Royal Commission; and if the Commission would go thoroughly into the investigation, determined to arrive at the bottom of everything, he was strongly of opinion that £11,000,000 of money might be made to go quite as far as the £13,000,000 the House was about to vote this year.

MR. SPEAKER

Do you move an Amendment?

MR. LINDSAY

Yes, an Amendment in the form of an addition.

Amendment proposed at the end of the Question to add the words "and the best mode of keeping the accouuts thereof."

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he was exceedingly glad to perceive such a general feeling in favour of the inquiry which had been proposed, and he saw no objection whatever to the addition proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland. It would be generally conceded that public opinion in this country had been much given of late to discuss the question of expenditure in the dockyards; and he thought it wise of the Government to agree to an inquiry to be conducted by perfectly independent persons as to the mode in which these vast sums of money were expended. The question in the House seemed to be whether the inquiry should be by a Royal Commission or by a Committee. He had thought a good deal upon the subject, and he admitted that there were many arguments in favour of a Committee. But, bearing in mind that the inquiry could not be confined to the Admiralty, but must necessarily be accompanied with visits to dockyards, and personal inspection of the works and the system of accounts in those dockyards, which would not be within the powers of a Committee—bearing in mind also that already a considerable portion of the Session had passed, and that no Committee could arrive at a report this year, whereas a Commission might continue its labour during the recess, he was now very much in favour of the inquiry being conducted by a Royal Commission. He did not mean to say a word against the Committees organized by the Admiralty with a view to an inquiry into the state of the dockyards and steam departments last year; but certainly there was one part of the duties of such an inquiry which those Committees were not empowered to undertake. The Committees, both that on steam machinery and that on the dockyard economy, were appointed solely and wholly with regard to dockyards; but for general amelioration of the system of ship building in this country, and for a cool, valuable consideration of it, with regard to the public interests of the country, it was necessary that the inquiry should extend to the fountain head. And inasmuch as neither of those Committees had any reference whatever to that department of the Admiralty, which was at the head of all the ship building for the navy, that of itself was sufficient to justify the hon. Gentleman in moving for a Com- mission, even though those Committees had been so recently appointed. One of the most important duties of the Commission would, no doubt, be to ascertain by examining the members of the Board of Admiralty and the Comptroller whether the strength of the Comptroller's Office was sufficient for the enormous duties which were imposed upon them. When it was considered what were the duties which were embraced in that Comptroller's Office, and what the staff of that office was composed of, he thought it would be found that some addition must necessarily be made as a matter of economy. The Comptroller, first of all, had the management, under the responsibility, of course, of the Admiralty, of the whole of the ship building, the repairing of ships, and the fitting of ships in Her Majesty's dockyards; he had the control over the system of contracts for marine engines; he had the purchase of all the vessels—and there were now a great number—which were built and building by contract. Besides this, he had an immense field of labour and consideration in the promotion and the appointment of all the officers and workmen in the dockyards and steam factories. These formed some of his duties. But he had another duty, which was increasing daily, owing to the great advance of enterprise in this country—namely, the consideration of the numberless inventions daily brought to his office for the construction of vessels, of engines, and, in fact, of every detail connected with vessels of war. This alone took up much of his time, to such an extent that it was physically impossible that he could perform a most important portion of his duties—namely, visiting the dockyards with a view to a personal inspection of the vessels in the process of building or undergoing repairs. And why? Because he was imprisoned in his office in London by the vast amount of business which accumulated upon him. An inquiry into all these things would be a most important duty which the Royal Commissioners would have to perform. So strongly did the present Board feel the necessity of relieving the Comptroller of the Navy of some of his duties that they had actually decided on appointing an assistant to him; they had not, however, quite made up their minds whether assistance should be given in the form of a professional shipbuilder, or a scientific officer of the navy. And as the notice of his hon. Friend was on the paper, his noble Fiend (the Duke of Somerset) thought it wiser to defer the appointment till a Report had come from the Royal Commission. Another question which had presented itself to the Board had been the great and increasing work in the dockyards and the several systems of payment of wages. He could not but hope that this was only temporary. He never could believe that there was a necessity to go on in the enormous ratio in which we were now progressing in reference to ship building. He sincerely hoped that the present was only an exceptional state of things. But it would be a portion of the duties of the Royal Commission to inquire whether it would not be conducive to economy if there was some assistance granted to the superintendents at least in the larger dockyards. Another important duty for the Commission to perform was that alluded to by his hon. Friend, with a view to which he had proposed to add some words to the Motion. He did not think those words necessary. He thought the instructions to the Commission would embrace the subject of keeping the accounts. One cause of the growing idea of the public that they did not get their money's worth for their money, arose from the inability of any Admiralty, be they who they might, to give complete and detailed information to the House with regard to the cost of each and every ship in the navy. He blamed no individual. He felt it, however, so strongly that many years ago he suggested to the Admiralty that they should present to the House the cost of each ship. He had the honour of coming back to this House in 1857, and the very first time he addressed the House afterwards he offered his earnest advice that every year there should be laid on the table an account showing the cost of every ship, showing, in fact, the way in which the money had been spent during the past year, and by a clear statement showing how the money to be voted was to be expended. That advice passed unheeded. In 1858 he again called the attention of the House to the utter want of information possessed by the House of the cost of the ships of the navy. He stated, not as an attack on the First Lord of the Admiralty but as his deliberate conviction, that it was due to the public that they should know how these vast sums were expended. Upon that occasion he used these words:— What had passed that night proved more than ever the justice of the complaint so often made, that those Intimates were not drawn up in such a way as to enable professional men to analyze them with effect. There were two mysterious Votes, Nos. S and 10, which seemed to depend upon each other, the two forming, indeed, one Vote, and it was to that part of the Estimates he wished particularly to allude. The two Votes amounted, in the revised Estimates of the Government, to £2,326,063; but he defied any one to say how that money was to be expended, or to give a professional opinion as to whether the expenditure was such as would combine economy with efficiency."—[3 Hansard, cxlix., 929.] And last year he again called the attention of the House to the large expenditure, of which no account had been given; and he wished to take the present opportunity of saying a few words on that subject. His right hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) had expressed his great regret that he (Lord C. Paget) should have thought it right to adhere to a statement he had made last year, that there was a sum of £5,000,000 he could not account for. Now, that was not what he stated in the House. The gallant Officer the Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) asked him in rather an ungenerous spirit—and he must add that he thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) also alluded to the matter in an ungenerous spirit—they accused him of having made rash and loose statements which he had not been able to verify, and which had been completely upset by the Comptroller of the Navy. Now what he (Lord C. Paget) said the other night was this. He said he did not regret—nor did he now regret—having called the attention of the House to this vast expenditure. He never held the opinion that the Comptroller of the Navy was responsible. He never questioned for a single moment but that he had authority for it, and he said it was the Admiralty who were responsible for the expenditure. He never said that the whole of the money could not be accounted for. On the contrary, he said he was sure that the Admiralty could account for every shilling; but that his object was to get an account which the House of Commons had never been favoured with since the year 1819. He had made his own estimate of the expenditure during the last eleven years, and he stated that it was an estimate of his own. He had certainly been of opinion that there were five millions expended over and above what he could account for, after carefully making his own estimate of the cost of building and maintaining the fleet during the past ten years, and his statement had produced an official account in which he admitted there were sums of which the House of Commons from the yearly Estimates had no knowledge whatever; for instance, upwards of a million in repairs, &c. to foreign men of war. He was, however, bound to say, without wishing to give offence, that he still thought duo economy had not been practised in the shipbuilding department of the navy. Such was his opinion; but if the Commission about to be appointed should report that he was wrong, there was no Gentleman in the House that would rejoice more than he would, as he stated last year. He had troubled them with these few personal remarks, as he could assure the House it was very painful to him to hear hon. Gentlemen rise up night after night and accuse him of making personal attacks upon individuals for whom he had the highest esteem, when he was only desirous to discharge his duty. The present Board of Admiralty was anxious to out down all needless expenditure. The hon. Member who made the Motion complained of the loss sustained through the workmen having a half-holiday whenever the Lords of the Admiralty visited a dockyard. He believed that arose from an old usage of mustering the men to see that the proper number were employed, and after the muster the half-holiday was granted. But the necessity for the muster had become obsolete, and when the Lords of the Admiralty visited the dockyards last year they did not muster the workmen, and the rule had now become obsolete; but it was thought right and fair to continue the half-holiday. With respect to the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Jackson), all he could say was that the Admiralty would give every possible facility to the Royal Commission to look into every department. He had no objection to the Motion nor to the words suggested by the hon. Member for Sunderland. As to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk for an inquiry into the composition of the Board of Admiralty, he objected to it, not that he feared inquiry, but because he was sure that the Commission had already sufficient employment in the terms of the Motion.

MR. JACKSON

replied, that while he did not intend to attack any one, he must adhere to his opinion, that a ship could be built 20 per cent cheaper in a private yard than in the Government dockyards. He had no objection to the words proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, but he thought them wholly unnecessary.

Motion agreed to.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the system of control and management of Her Majesty's Dockyards, the purchase of materials and stores, the cost of building, repairing, altering, fitting and refitting Her Majesty's Ships, and the best mode of keeping the Accounts thereof.