SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 14 March 1864 vol 173 cc1942-84

NAVY ESTIMATES considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Re-committed Resolution [reported 11th March] read, as follows:— 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,275,316, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865.

MR. STANSFELD

Mr. Massey—Before I address myself to the Vote now before the Committee, I would ask leave to say one or two words with reference to the unfortunate, I may almost call it the absurd, contretemps of the other evening. If anybody is to blame for it it is myself. It is perfectly true that I rose to address you before you put the Vote, and I believe I did address you; but you could not know that remarks would be made from this bench except in reply, and it was my fault that I did not succeed in arresting your attention. My noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had nothing whatever to do with the incident.

Sir, it now becomes my duty to ask the Committee to agree to a very considerable increase in the labour Vote. This is a Vote which has always, and in my opinion rightly, been jealously watched by this House and by the country, because it supplies the Government with a means of employing a vast mass of labour, and it is a fair question to consider whether it is the most profitable and economical method for the Government to employ that labour itself or to purchase the results of labour employed in private yards. We ask for a considerable increase in this labour Vote, and I think the Committee are entitled to expect on the one hand a satisfactory explanation of the reasons which make the additional demand necessary, and on the other hand how we propose to employ it. To make this matter clear I must ask leave to go back for a few moments to the first Vote, the Vote for Men, because it is in the relation between these Votes and in their altered proportions, that consists what I would venture to call the policy of these Estimates. We have taken a Vote to cover the number of men actually borne, and the number which experience has proved to be sufficient for the actual requirements of the ordinary service. Now let me ask the Committee to consider the question somewhat in the order of reasoning in which it has been considered in point of fact by the Board of Admiralty. Let us go back to the Vote for Men as a kind of starting point; and, desirous as we are not only to maintain but to increase the real efficiency of our navy, let me put this question to the Committee as it was put to the Board of Admiralty—in what direction, within reasonable limits, should our extensions proceed? Shall they tend to an increase of men, or to the rapid construction and completion of our ships of war? Now, in the first place, before we come to the question of the construction of new vessels, I must say a few words on the subject of the repairs of our ordinary cruising squadrons—because here is a source of expense which is simply inevitable if you would deal fairly with the Committee and the naval service of the year. My noble Friend has explained to the Committee that, as it happens, there are more ships coming home to be paid off, and therefore to be refitted and repaired, than was the case in the year 1863–4. My noble Friend has also explained the fact that repairs are becoming in almost every case more extensive and more costly than in former years. The vessels of which our ordinary cruising squadrons consist are mostly screw wooden vessels. We have not lately been building vessels of that class. These vessels are becoming older year by year, their extensive and complicated machinery is becoming worn, their boilers have frequently to be taken out and to be replaced by new ones:—and thus it comes to pass that the average cost of the repairs of an ordinary cruiser is necessarily more in the coming, than it has been in recent financial years. Besides this, as my noble Friend has also explained to the Committee, there is hardly a case of repairs in these days which is to be considered as a case of repairs simply. We pay more attention to the comfort and health of our crews, and our notions of internal ship architecture progress so rapidly, that there is hardly a case of repairs which does not involve some improvement in the construction and fitting up of the ships we are repairing. The Committee, therefore, may take it for granted, not only that there are more vessels to repair, but that the average cost of those repairs is, for these reasons, necessarily and inevitably increased.

But there is another reason which I specially desire to bring before the attention of the Committee. In the course of the vacation I made it my business to visit and spend some time in the various dockyards under the management of the Board of Admiralty. I was specially commissioned to revise and complete instructions for a system of our dockyard accounts; and besides that I went on a kind of self-imposed roving commission to inquire into all matters that might arise, and which I might think to be of interest, more especially as I found myself embarked in the part management of what I may term a great business, of which I happened to be at the time as ignorant as it was possible for a man to be. I now desire to communicate to the Committee what were the impressions of a new mind upon these matters. Nothing struck me in the management of the dockyards more than the frequency with which what was called the Controller's programme was, apparently unavoidably, interrupted and interfered with. The Committee are aware that the labour Vote is based on the Controller's programme. The Controller intimates to the Board of Admiralty the nature and amount of the work in the dockyards in the forthcoming year, and he makes demands in reference to labour and the wages which are to be paid for that labour. Well, Sir, I do not know whether it be because the amount of the Vote is so large, or because sometimes one does not like to look things that are not altogether pleasant, in the face, but it seems to have frequently happened that the Controller's programme has not exhaustively anticipated the work which ought to have been in our calculation, and provided for in the Estimates for the dockyards; and so it has come to pass that, when we had in the dockyards a certain force of men employed in the construction of ships of war which we were desirous should be proceeded with, some sudden emergency has arisen, some repair of a ship has suddenly become absolutely essential, and we have had to take off some portion of the men employed in building operations in order that something else necessary to be done should not be neglected. I think that every person acquainted with business will be satisfied of this—that nothing can be worse economy than not to realize the amount required for labour in the labour Vote; it is not economy not to look this matter in the face, and not to make provision for that which you ought to know is necessary for the service of the year. This is one reason why I submit to the Committee that it is absolutely essential, unless we were to resort to an expedient which I am sure the Committee would not approve—I mean that of meeting an excess on the labour Vote by a possible surplus on other Votes—if we are not to resort to that expedient, it is my duty to say to the Committee, that it is essential and inevitable that we should spend more in the coming year in the ordinary repairs of ships than was estimated for in the last financial year. The real efficiency of the navy, the Committee will understand, is to be tested by the expansive power of our force in case of any real or sudden emergency. It is a question which the Admiralty has had under consideration, whether that real efficiency is to be promoted by asking for a Vote for more men than are actually borne, and found to be sufficient, for the requirements of the time, or by spending more money in the rapid construction and completion of the most powerful and the most modern of our armour-plated ships. Now, let me ask for a moment what is our position with regard to men, according to the explanation given by my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty? We have taken a Vote for numbers actually borne, and which have proved more than sufficient, for they left an ample margin for reserves to commission our ships in an unprecedentedly short time; indeed, in a shorter time than was necessary to put the stores on board, and get the ship ready for sea. And if you look to the quality of the crews, whether you look to the number of continuous service men, whether you look to the number of seamen, gunners, and the men trained in gunnery, I think I may safely say there never was a time in the history of this country when the personnel of the navy stood so high, and so deservedly high, as it does at the present day. And when, in addition to this immense and this incomparable force, you add the coast-guard afloat and on shore—a force which is organized to be ready to embark within twenty-four hours in case of n,eed—and the Naval Reserve and the Coast Volunteers, I do not think it can be argued that the condition of the navy with reference to men is not, for the immediate requirements of the time, eminently satisfactory. Then, if we turn from men to ships, can we say the same of our shipbuilding operations? If a sudden emergency were to arise, on board what ships should we place those ample reserve! if we desired to send them to sea? The hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir John Walsh), adopting the views and words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), told us that to put men on board vessels like our old timber screw liners, would be like putting sheep into a slaughter-house. I do not think that any person familiar with the subject will doubt for a moment the expediency of promoting as rapidly as possible (within reasonable limits) the construction of the newest and most powerful armour-plated vessels, either for offensive or defensive purposes. But I would go further than this. We must not only give our energies to the completion of our armour-plated fleet, but the time has arrived when it will not do to take so long a time in building an armour-plated ship as we have hitherto taken. The science of naval architecture and construction changes and progresses at so great a rate, that if we take, as we have been taking, three years to build an armour-plated ship—I will not say that the ship will he obsolete when she is completed, but most undoubtedly we shall have commenced the construction of vessels which she could not venture to meet with any chance of success; while, at the same time, the science of gunnery may have made great advances. Let me refer to the case of the Minotaur. It was said the other night that the Admiralty had been hasty in the construction of the Minotaur with shallow teak backing, after it had been proved that the Warrior target offered a greater resisting power. Now, that statement is not capable of proof. The Board of Admiralty were compelled to make their election as to the thickness of the teak-backing and armour-plating in the month of December, 1861. If I am not mistaken the Minotaur target was tried in the summer of 1862, It is true that the Minotaur target was not a success as a target; but the Admiralty lad already decided on a thinner backing, which has its advantages. And it must be borne in mind that at that time very little progress had been made in the manufacture of the thicker armour-plates, and the Board of Admiralty came to the conclusion it did, not only on the recommendation of the Armour-plate Committee, but also on the General opinion of scientific men, that the resistance of armour-plates increased in the proportion of something like the square of their thickness. The manufacture of armour-plates has very-much improved since that target was tried; and considering that, and considering also the undoubted advantages of a thinner Bide for ships, I think the Board of Admiralty were right in proceeding with the Minotaur. But whether they arrived at the best conclusion or not, they exercised the best judgment in their power at the time. Probably, the greater part of a year will yet elapse before the whole of these vessels will be in commission, and if we are to rely on the Bellerophon target, we are already building ships which will have more resisting power than those we have yet built—far beyond the Minotaur and the Warrior. I say, therefore, it is necessary to have a little courage in dealing with this matter in these days. It is necessary for the Board of Admiralty to do that which an intelligent and enterprizing manufacturer would do, who, desirous of not being behindhand in the race, employs the newest and best machinery for his purpose, relying as far as they can on science and theory which has not yet been actually proved in the construction of vessels, and endeavouring not to be behindhand in the construction of the newest vessels of the greatest possible offensive and defensive powers. This, in fact, is what I have called the policy revealed in this Vote, and intended by the Board of Admiralty to be carried out. The Bellerophon is the best illustration of that policy. If we are not mistaken—for I admit that we necessarily run some risk, because we wish to be in advance and not to be left behind—she will be as rapid as the Warrior and Black Prince. She will be some ninety feet shorter; she will necessarily, therefore, be a more handy and manageable vessel; she will undoubtedly cost very much less; she will carry guns which no armour-plated vessel previously constructed could resist, and she will herself be clad in armour on which those guns with service charges have been tried in vain.

Before passing from this subject I wish to refer to Vote 10. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), who expressed a fear the other night that the decrease in this Vote might imply a want of determination on the part of the Admiralty to proceed rapidly with our armour-plated vessels. The decrease is no doubt a very considerable one; but it is owing in the first instance to our not buying materials of which we have an ample stock, and for which the market is unfavourable, namely, canvass and hemp. My hon. Friend is aware that the price of hemp has risen, because that article has taken the place of cotton in the manufacture of linen. Now as the price of cotton is likely not to increase but to fall, it is reasonable to believe that the price of hemp will also diminish, and that is therefore a sufficient reason for deferring purchases which might otherwise have been made. What my hon. Friend of course wants to know is this—have we or have we not stinted ourselves with reference to the material that enters so largely into the construction of those vessels, of which we stand so much in need, and which we are so desirous to complete? The market for iron, I think, is on the whole rising; at any rate, we have no reason to anticipate that it will fall. We have, therefore, thought it right to buy as much of that material as it was advisable and convenient to buy. It is only, therefore, in consequence of those purchases, and of the quantity of iron which we have in stock, that the demand for new purchases next year is reduced. What we have, and what we have taken an estimate for in this Vote, will be sufficient to provide for the completion within the financial year of every iron-plated ship which has been designed.

Returning to Vote 8—the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) in his preliminary remarks the other night, expressed an apprehension that an increase in these Votes arose from a decision on the part of the Admiralty against the system of building our vessels of war partly by contract. That question, however, remains exactly in the position in which it stood before these Estimates were framed; all that the Board have done has only been to determine that, until certain heavy existing contracts are concluded, it is not advisable, except with reference to certain minor gun vessels, to enter into any new contract. The Board has never been of opinion, nor has Parliament, that it would be judicious for the country to rely exclusively upon contractors for the building of our vessels of war. It has always been held that what was most advisable was, that private builders and Her Majesty's yards should compete in the construction of these vessels; and it is for the very purpose of assisting us to decide between the two parties, that so much pains have been taken of late to improve our system of dockyard accounts. Our policy, then, has been simply this. We take a Vote for men which covers all our actual requirements, and leaves us a sufficient margin besides. We take a store Vote, which will enable us, if our labour be adequate, to complete every armour-cased vessel already designed within the next financial year. We ask for an increase upon Vote 8, in order that we may keep up to the requirements of the year with reference to repairs; in order that we may also bring up somewhat our arrears with respect to our steam reserve; and lastly, and above all, in order that we may devote the energies of our dockyards to the construction of some of the newest and, I believe, the most powerful vessels that ever have been designed. My hon. Friend knows that the Lord Warden and the Lord Clyde are timber vessels armour-plated, and constructed of such scantling that they could not be built in any but Her Majesty's dockyards; and that the Bellerophon takes the place of the Achilles.

The Committee will now naturally expect that some explanation should be given them respecting what I may term the business arrangements under which this increased Vote will be expended. The proposition that I mean to maintain is this—namely, that the dockyard accounts of the Admiralty are now placed upon a basis which will enable them to be compared with advantage with the accounts of the best private shipbuilding firms in this country. The first account to which I will refer is what is called "the expense account" upon ships. That account for 1862–3 has already been laid upon the table at a period considerably in advance of the date at which it has Generally been produced. Like its predecessors, it is trustworthy as far as it goes. It originates in the workmanship sheets of labour and the notes for stores. I have myself personally traced those sheets and those notes from the time when the labour was expended, and the stores were drawn up to the moment when they were placed in the expense account; and I am enabled to state that the apportionment of the labour is carried out by the professional officers in the yards with a full consciousness of the necessity there is for accurately dividing the expenses. These workmanship sheets are kept by the Inspectors of the Royal dockyards; they are compared by the accountants of the yards with the payment of wages which takes place in the accountants' offices; they are checked, audited, and posted against the ships by the audit clerks. The stores are drawn upon demand notes, sent in by the proper officers of the yards, they are valued according to the rate-book in the storekeeper's department, and they are audited and posted by the audit clerks. But a question may arise as to the rate-books as compared with the actual cost of the stores when they are articles manufactured in the yard. The rate-books themselves are undergoing a systematic revision. In the conversion and manufacturing balance-sheets, next to the column which, contains the actual cost of making or converting each article, there is now inserted a column in which there will be put the rate-book valuation on charges. It will be evident that this juxtaposition of actual cost with price charged will very much facilitate the future periodical correction of the rate-book. In the mean time, if, adding up these respective columns, it is found that there is no great difference between the totals, the Committee will see that we cannot be far wrong in the charges we have made for manufactured articles. In this account, it will be seen that there are some estimated charges. Wow, as a matter of account, this is doubtless unsound. Matters of Estimate should never appear with matters of actual charge; but from the 1st of next month these items will be eliminated, and all labour in the manufacture or conversion of articles will be charged pro ratâ in the repairs of the ships. The cost of establishments, in like manner, and the repairs of plant, will be charged and paid for. Now, I think that those hon. Friends of mine who have experience in business transactions, and are enabled to judge of accounts, will admit that an expense account, constructed in the manner I have described, would be both trustworthy and exhaustive. I now pass on to the manufacturing balance-sheets. There are no accounts more difficult than these to produce in a satisfactory and easily intelligible form, because they deal with the production of articles which, though they go by the same name, are seldom absolutely identical, and which differ in dimensions, material, and finish. Nevertheless, I agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), when he expressed an opinion last year that our manufacturing balance-sheets were capable of improvement and simplification. The manufacturing sheets of 1862–3 are being tabulated and revised, so that they will be much simplified and reduced in bulk, and I believe that when they can be placed on the table they will be found to be as easily intelligible as the nature of the operations to which they relate will admit of. But there was after all something which I thought the House felt to be wanting in the dockyard accounts, and which these expense accounts could not furnish. The Finance Accounts of the year showed what proportion of each Vote was expended; but we had not yet had any accounts which showed the actual expenditure which took place in the Royal dockyards for labour. In the new accounts, which I have termed "labour chart," I present that information to the House. Those accounts show every farthing of our large expenditure for labour in the dockyards as attested by the accounts of each yard; and every farthing is distributed amongst the various ships or services upon which the labour was bestowed. It is an infallible and exhaustive balance sheet. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to add up the perpendicular columns, he will find that they represent the total payments for labour; and if he will add up the selfsame figures in the horizontal lines he will see that the amount is accurately apportioned to the ships upon which the labour was employed. But this is not the whole purpose of these accounts. Their object is not merely to show a certain amount of money payments, but they exhibit, as it were upon a map, the fullest explanations which the nature and variety of the operations will permit. I venture in fact to submit that they contain an unprecedented amount of information; and if my hon. Friends will take the trouble to study them, they will find it in as intelligible a form as the complexity of the operations will allow. The columns relating to cost of materials formed no part of the original design, but were added for the use of the Controller's department; and here I must give my hon. Friends a caution, or they may otherwise fall into an error. They will find that in some cases materials are charged twice over; but that arises from labour being expended in the manufacture of an article, and the article itself being used in the building or repair of ships in the same financial year. These possible inaccuracies will be remedied, and the value of the raw material consumed in the course of a given period will be made clear in connection with a new account with which we are about to complete our system of dockyard accounts—I mean a stock account. On the 1st of next month it is our purpose to take stock in all our yards, and hereafter a continuous account will be kept, both as regards value and kind. It was originally intended to conduct this operation in October last, but it was found more convenient to defer it till the beginning of the next financial year. The time, however, has not been lost; it has been occupied in the improvement of the ledger classification of our stores, and in so arranging our receptacles as to facilitate the operation of stock-taking when the time came. It will be quite unnecessary for me to make any remarks to justify the step which we are about to take. No business man will for a moment hesitate to say, that whatever may be the difficulty or the cost of such an undertaking, it is most essential to the economical management of a large business to take stock and to keep a stock account. The Finance Accounts of the year deal, and properly deal, with the Votes which have been granted in that year, and they are necessarily concluded with the financial year itself; but I have never been able to understand why expense accounts should not be brought down to the latest possible day, as materials for the formation of judgments which it is the business of the House to form. The labour charts, to which I have been referring, have, by a considerable and praiseworthy effort of the audit clerks and the accountant officers, been brought to the end of the natural year 1862–3; and although the accounts for the last nine months have not yet been distributed amongst hon. Members, it has been solely in consequence of the difficulty of getting them printed. I hope they will be ready in the course of the next week. The expense accounts for the year 1863–4, to the last day of the present month, will be laid on the table of the House before the close of the present Session. From that day the labour charts will be incorporated with the expense accounts; and with the manufacturing balance sheets, they will be brought down to the end of the last natural year. I do not know what may be passing in the minds of some of my hon. Friends. If any of them may be inclined to say, "Is this all in the way of progress and improvement that the Admiralty is enabled to show? Why this is nothing but a matter of accounts;"—most undoubtedly such a feeling will not find a place in the mind of any man accustomed to large mercantile and manufacturing operations. No large business was ever profitably or even safely conducted for any length of time, which was not based upon an accurate and exhaustive system of accounts. But if this is true of private undertakings, how much more true, I ask, must it not be of a great Government department like the Admiralty, which has shipbuilding and ship-repairing establishments scattered around our coasts, and in all quarters of the world, and which has no guide to control it like the simple, self-acting principle of profit and loss? Accounts such as these, if scrutinised in the dockyard and Controller's department, will keep alive in the minds of our permanent officials notions not only of the perfection and utility of the operations in which they are concerned, but notions also of their cost. An illustration occurs to me of the utility of such accounts, arising even since these papers were laid on the table of the House. I have said that the manufacturing accounts require considerable simplification. They have already done us good service, in having given rise to some valuable suggestions on the part of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seeley), and it is our intention to avail ourselves of those suggestions. That hon. Gentleman, in addressing his constituents a short time before the meeting of the House, drew a comparison between the cost of forging and casting in the Government dockyards and in private establishments. The hon. Gentleman stated that we paid for labour upon one cwt. of metal cent per cent more than in the establishment of his own firm. My hon. Friend, however, acknowledged that there might be circumstances to account for so large a discrepancy; and upon that point there could be no doubt whatever. For instance, if the operations of my hon. Friend consisted mainly in the production of an identical article—identical, that was to say, in size and mould—it would be easily understood that even a difference of 100 per cent was not more than might be expected. The hon. Gentleman said it was matter for inquiry and reform. I quite agreed in that observation; and accordingly on the first day of the Session I went to my hon. Friend and said to him, "Here is one purpose of these accounts fulfilled in this instance. We welcome your criticism as a necessary adjunct of our system. We will probe this matter to the bottom; and will endeavour to arrive at some conclusion. If we fail, I invite you to come down to Chatham, or some other department, and endeavour to solve the problem there. If we do not succeed there, you must take us to your works, and see if they will throw any light on this system. We will either show that your figures are incorrect or capable of explanation, or we will reduce the cost of our operations, or else we will purchase at private factories these articles which can be more cheaply bought than made.

Well, Sir, this brings me to a large and important question—that of the organization of labour in Her Majesty's dockyards. I have made it my business, during the vacation, not merely to spend a considerable time in Her Majesty's yards, but also to visit, so far as time and opportunity permitted, some of the largest shipbuilding establishments in the country. I have examined the Thames and Millwall works, and I have also been to those with which the name of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) is associated; and I should not be doing justice to these great establishments if I were not to say that they are, as manufacturing establishments, an honour to the country. Whether with reference to the extent of their operations or to the quality of the workmanship they turn out, they are well worth the study of any Member of a Government Department, and are capable of affording suggestions which may be usefully adopted in the public service. Now, the first thing that strikes an observer on entering these private shipbuilding yards is the greater appearance of bustle, and the apparently greater pace of work—it seems as if the work went on at a more rapid pace. This difference is partly apparent and partly real. It is apparent only for this reason—that the private yards are much more cramped and confined than public yards. Men work together more like bees in a hive. This is not so much noticed when the men are on board ship; and I do not think even the experienced eye of the hon. Member for Birkenhead would have seen much amiss in this respect on board the Achilles when she was in the course of construction at Chatham. But undoubtedly there is a considerable and real dif- ference in the pace at which labour goes on in these private establishments. There is in these private yards a principle of organization which accounts for the greater haste of work. The men are paid as much as possible by what is called piecework. For day work shipwrights, or men occupying an equivalent position, expect 7s. a day, whilst by piecework they generally make 9s.—that is to say, for every day of work they expect to get a quarter of a day more by piecework. There is one undoubted advantage about this system—more work is got out of the same number of men. But then you do not get that advantage for nothing; you pay more for your men in the private yards than you do in Her Majesty's dockyards. The shipwrights in Her Majesty's yards get 4s. 6d. a day, to which another 6d. may be added for the value of their superannuation. My own opinion is that while, on the one hand, it would be unwise to throw away the positive advantage of a moderate minimum establishment of men, moderately paid, upon whom we can rely at a time of pressure, and when the labour market may offer peculiar temptations; so, on the other hand, it is well worth consideration how far, and under what circumstances, the Admiralty may take a hint from the private yards. If a time of pressure should arise, I see no reason why the Admiralty should not act upon the private yard system in the construction of the frames of ships, which are easily estimated for with reference to labour; and, indeed, in the case of the Lord Clyde, built at Pembroke, they have already adopted the system to a certain extent by the payment of "encouragement money," based upon the amount of work done. I believe that the system now pursued in private yards is mainly due to the change from wooden to iron shipbuilding, and, so far, the Admiralty have not allowed themselves to be left altogether behind. Many changes in the organization of labour in shipbuilding have been adopted by the Board of Admiralty. Considerable experience has been gained in the building of the Achilles, and too much praise can not be bestowed upon the late master shipwright at Chatham, for having relinquished the old plan of having twenty men in a gang, with one or two to lead them, and an Inspector, and having adopted a more economical system. But the Board of Admiralty have been so desirous to avail themselves of any improvement, that I should like to state, that in the appointment of a successor to Mr. Lang, the gentleman selected was recommended by the Controller, and chosen by the Board, expressly on the ground that his long experience in building iron ships qualified him for importing into the Royal dockyard at Chatham the knowledge which he had gained in the private yards of the country; and the first instructions given to this gentleman have been to consider and report as to any modifications which his experience and knowledge can suggest, and any modifications thus suggested will be brought to bear on the construction of the Bellerophon, which is to succeed the Achilles at Chatham. I may here mention that the charge for labour and materials in building the Achilles will be carried into account with reference to certain well known shipbuilding sections; so that the cost may be computed section by section, and compared with the cost of a similarly built vessel in the private shipbuilding establishments of the country. There are two respects in which the Board of Admiralty has lately introduced considerable and important changes in the system of organization of labour, and as they bear relation on the one hand to the whole system of organization in the shipbuilding department in each yard, and also to the department of the Controller of the Navy, I will briefly state the nature of these changes. As the Committee is aware, the organization of shipwrights' labour in the dockyards consists of gangs of twenty men, over each gang is a "leading man," over three or four leading men is an "Inspector," and over the Inspector is a "foreman," who is responsible to an assistant master shipwright, and he in his turn to the master shipwright himself. This is an extremely elaborate system as some people think—too elaborate and too costly. Certainly, in the construction of iron ships we have found it possible to dispense with some portion of so costly a system. But although this is the system in the dockyards, arising from the desire for securing fidelity of operations and accuracy of accounts, this elaborate organization has come not to be exclusively employed for its direct and proper function—namely, the insuring a full day's work for a full day's wages. Stores, for example, may be wanted for the construction or repair of a ship, and the man who should be leading the gang, may be away drawing these stores, and the Inspector may be down in his cabin making entries of the accounts of the men's labour in his books. Now, if I have leading men, I mean to insist that the leading man shall himself be at work, and leading others to work; if I have an Inspector, that Inspector is never to lose sight of the men he has to inspect. The Board of Admiralty has taken the same view, and I have to state to the Committee that other arrangements have been made for the drawing of stores, and for carrying this labour to account, and that orders have gone down that the leading men are not to leave the gangs at work, and the Inspectors are not to lose sight of the men. This may appear a simple and a small matter, but it is one of great importance in point of economy and management. Besides this, there is a system of check measurements. The task and job system has been given up, and a plan is in use of measuring the work of the gangs of men in order to ascertain whether a fair day's work has been done. About a quarter of the work done in each yard is thus measured. Some people think that this system of check measurement takes away the responsibility of the Inspectors as to the quantity of the work; they call it the "crutch" of the system. Others think that it stimulates the labour of the men, and they call it the "whip" of the system. Perhaps it may be sometimes a crutch, and sometimes a whip, but my opinion is that too much reliance has been placed upon it, and that it does in some cases tend to diminish the sense of responsibility of those who have control over the men. But if I had any doubt as to the advisability of a system of measurement in the yards, there is one place in which I entertain no doubt that such a system should be brought into operation, and that is the department of the Controller of the Navy. This officer has the supervision of all the yards, who makes his demand for labour on us, and who ought to see to the economy of the operations consequent on his orders. This view has also been adopted by the Board of Admiralty. They propose to introduce a new officer into the Controller's Department, but that change will not occasion any additional cost to that establishment. They propose to give the Controller an officer, to be called the "Valuer and Inspector of Dockyard Works." This officer will have to place himself in relations with the Audit Department of the yard; he will take in hand the labour accounts which I have endeavoured to-night to explain to the Committee, and which will be produced every month for the use of the yard and of the Controller's Department. It will be his special duty to check the estimates of work before it is undertaken, and to test the economy of the operation when completed; he will ascertain the reasonable charge, and see that it was adhered to, or know the reason why. The purpose of that new arrangement is the introduction into the Controller's Department, on which depends the whole management of the dockyards, of the business and economical element by the side of the scientific and constructive element. These reforms will be made to pay for themselves, and the requisite staff will be obtained by taking measurers from the yards without any addition to the total expenditure.

I have detained the Committee for a long time with a very dry statement, as I have been anxious to explain these matters fully; but the objections that have been taken to dockyard management have been business objections, and they have to be met, as far as they are well founded, by business arrangements. I must say, that in questions of administration like this I feel little confidence in what are called sweeping changes, when they are the product, as they sometimes are, of impatience of thought rather than of a close and laborious investigation. But the changes I have described, although simple, are not trifling, and although fundamental, I believe them to be practical and safe. At any rate, I will say this to the Committee—that they are the results of a patient, a careful, and a long-continued investigation—that they have received the ample consideration of the Department of the Controller and of the Board of Admiralty itself. And if I rely on them to produce good economic fruit in the future management of our establishments, I do so because I know that I can rely on the choice of instruments to carry them out, and because I have the assurance that I can also trust to the zeal, the determination, and the incessant watchfulness and care of those permanent officials upon whom, after all, rests the responsibility and depends the successful management of these great departments.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he regretted that the very frank statement just made by his hon. Friend had not been delivered before the House went into Committee, because it had touched upon many different points, into which, by the rules of the House, it would be impossible to follow him. He told them that the Admiralty had now got—what they ought to have had long ago—a good system of accounts; but, as far as the House was concerned, the accounts still disclosed very little information. The labour chart told them, for instance, that £50,000 had been spent in labour and materials upon the Achilles, but it did not say how the money had been spent. "Expended in plating," &c., was information of too limited a character to enable the House to see whether the money had been spent wisely or not—whether value was obtained for the outlay. As far as he could judge, even with these improved accounts, they would not be able to get at what was the cost of a ship. His hon. Friend spoke of a system of percentage which was to be introduced into the accounts, to show the actual cost of a ship under the various heads of expenditure; but he said nothing of the interest of the enormous sums sunk in the dockyards, or of the depreciation of the stock constantly going forward, though these were items important to be borne in mind when they sought to draw a comparison between Her Majesty's dockyards and private yards. Again, there was insurance; for, though Government did not insure, the public were bound to rebuild whenever a fire broke out. His hon. Friend laid stress upon the system of inspection which was to exist in future. Why, he always thought there had been inspection, and if not there ought to have been. There was a large staff in the dockyards, who should have performed the duty of Inspectors. What were these new Inspectors to do? Were they to relieve existing officials from portions of their legitimate duty, which consisted in seeing that the men performed their work economically and well, or were they to superintend the Admiral, Superintendents, and other principal officers of the dockyards? One of the points most strongly noticed both by the Committee of 1859 and the Royal Commission was that men in the dockyards, unlike those in private establishments, seemed to aim more at how they could get over the day than at the amount of work they could get through in the day. The reason was that they were employed at day instead of at piece-work; and his hon. Friend, far from giving the men in the dockyards the same inducements to labour which they had elsewhere, never touched what he would call the root of the evil. Both the Committee and the Commission also said that ships cost in Her Majesty's dockyards three times as much for labour as in private yards. They furnished details as to eight corvettes, and told them that the actual cost for labour, when fitted for sea, amounted to £8 13s. 10d. per ton, whilst similar vessels were built in private yards for £2 16s. per ton. His hon. Friend, instead of entering into details, should have told them what changes had been made in the dockyards since that time to enable them to construct vessels more economically and efficiently. At Pembroke it was found that the cost of constructing hulls, labour, and materials was £33 5s. 5d. per ton, exclusive of fittings, and of £350,000 spent in one year upon plant; and it was found also "that the management of the dockyards was most inefficient, arising from the defective organization of subordinate departments, and from the want of clear and well-defined responsibility." The Royal Commissioners wound up their Report by recommending that iron shipbuilding should not be carried on in Her Majesty's dockyards. It was, indeed, agreed that one iron ship should be built at Chatham, to enable the Admiralty to check the charges of private building yards. He did not, however, think that after all they would be able to get at the actual cost of the Achilles. Although the House had agreed to the building of one ship as an experiment, they certainly did not contemplate that the Admiralty would become iron shipbuilders on a large scale; but the whole tendency of the Estimates and statements submitted to them was, that the Government wished to be, as regarded the building of both wooden and iron ships, altogether independent of the private shipbuilding yards of the country. He believed the time would come when the Government might require all the energies of the private shipbuilding yards; and if they were not employed in time of peace they might not be found available in time of war. The work should be divided as much as possible between Her Majesty's dockyards and the private shipbuilding yards. His hon. Friend had not shown that the work could be done in Her Majesty's dockyards at the same cost as in private yards; if that could be done there would be no need for the 3,700 additional men now demanded. His hon. Friend could not deny that the work turned out of private yards was excellent—quite as good as anything they could turn out of Her Majesty's dockyards: he was bound, therefore, to show that it could be turned out as economically and as efficiently. With the view of testing this point he should move that the Vote he reduced by the sum of £244,979, the increase which was required for 3,700 additional men. He should go to a division unless the Government showed that they were justified in asking for extra men upon the ground that they could build as cheaply, efficiency always considered, as was done in private yards.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,030,337, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."—(Mr. Lindsay.)

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

must say that the objections which had been made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to the accounts were very unreasonable. A great deal had been done to simplify the accounts, and to furnish valuable information to the Committee. The hon. Member complained that they were not told what was the cost of a vessel; but before he objected to the Vote for wages to the artificers, he ought to be able to show that the Achilles, which was built in the Royal dockyard at Chatham, was built badly or at too costly a rate. If the hon. Member has seen the Achilles, he must know that her workmanship was as perfect as that of the Warrior or the Black Prince. She had been constructed with the utmost care and on admirable designs; but the test after all would be that of wear, and it must be borne in mind that £51,000 had been already expended in repairing the Black Prince; and he did not think that anything of the kind would be required in the case of the Achilles. The hon. Member objected to the want of inspection; and complained because the Government were about to employ a valuer. The officer to be so employed was not to be an Inspector, but as he had said a valuer; and the two things were quite different. The system of inspection already was perfect; for a gang of ten men they had a "leading man," and they had, moreover, an Inspector who inspected every three gangs; and beyond this there were foremen and assistant shipwrights and a master shipwright. The Go- vernment, however, were determined to have something more than that, so that they might be enabled to know whether they got value for the money expended, as well as good workmanship. The Inspectors are responsible for the quality of the work, as the valuer would be of its quantity; and therefore a valuer was to be appointed to go over the work. He (Sir Frederic Smith) believed that this would be a very useful appointment provided the Government appointed a fit man for the duty. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lindsay) objected to vote the cost of the extra workmen; but surely, when he did so, he could not have attended to what had been said on a previous occasion by the Government, that these workmen were wanted chiefly for the purpose of repairs which had not been carried out last year? He should like to know how these men would be introduced into the service? Would they be taken on by order of the Controller, or hired by the superintendent of the yard when required? His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) introduced a change in the practice, by causing a notice to be stuck up at the dockyard gates that a certain number of men were required; they presented themselves, and, if found eligible, were employed. That was a most wholesome system. It prevented jobbery, and he hoped it would be adhered to. The hon. Member for Halifax had fixed the wages of the shipwrights at 4s. 6d. a day, and his estimates gave 6d. more for superannuation; but if he had consulted an actuary he would have found that the superannuation would have amounted to only 3d. more on the day, and therefore the whole value of each shipwright's advantages would only be reckoned at 4s. 9d. a day. The joiners in the Government dockyards were much underpaid at 3s. 10d. a day; if the same hands were employed by private persons they would get 6s. a day, and yet the hon. Member for Sunderland expected to get as much work out of them for the 3s. 10d. as if they were paid 6s. a day. With respect to the work done by the men, the hon. Member for Sunderland said there was no appearance of bustle among the men; but he (Sir Frederic Smith), when he went on board the Royal Oak, in company with Admiral Fanshawe, found out what it was to be in a bustle. Bees in a hive were never more industriously at work than was the swarm of men who were toiling there. It was hardly fair, however, to say that the work was costly. The hon. Member for Halifax had omitted to state that there were dockyard measurers who measured the work of the joiners and shipwrights, and if they found the proper amount of work not done the men were mulcted of part of their pay. That was fair enough. But, on the other hand, if any men were found to have done more work than the regular amount required, they did not get any allowance for the overwork. The hon. Member for Halifax took credit for having proceeded with the Minotaur, even though there was an opinion that she was constructed on a wrong principle. He (Sir Frederic Smith) found fault with the Admiralty that they built their ships first and tested them afterwards. The Minotaur was inferior to the Warrior, and probably to the Bellerophon. He hoped the Bellerophon would prove a good vessel; but the Bellerophon target was not tested with a full charge of powder, and it was the duty of the Admiralty to have tested to the utmost the resisting power of the armour-plating intended to be used for the security of a ship before they applied it. It was said that the Bellerophon target was a copy of ft target invented by Mr. Chalmers, and if this man showed the way to make it, he was entitled to receive some reward. He (Sir Frederic Smith) was told that the construction of this target cost Mr. Chalmers £1,650, and that he was a poor, but clever man, and it was greatly to the credit of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) that he had assisted Mr. Chalmers with the money to make this target. It was, however, stated that the £1,250 advanced by the hon. Member had been returned to him; and, if this was so, the poor man who invented the targets was equally entitled to receive the £400 or £450 which he had spent out of his own slender funds, and which was of the greatest importance to him. He knew that his noble and gallant Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty was daily beset by inventors, who consumed a good deal of his time; but if the noble Lord would have the charity to look into this question, and see whether the poor man had a right to anything or not, he believed he would generously recommend the Department to give Mr. Chalmers what he was entitled to. The next point on which he would wish to know something was as to the system of construction which was being adopted under the auspices of the new Constructor of the Navy. It was said that the new Constructor was a man of great science. No one had a greater respect for science than he (Sir Frederic Smith), but he must say that in shipbuilding no amount of science would be equivalent to a fair share of practical experience. No doubt, in the course of time, the scientific man, if he wished, could also become practical; but at present, as neither his noble Friend nor the Controller was either a constructor or designer, the future navy depended on the talent of a man who, unfortunately, had not actual experience to guide him. They were told that the Bellerophon would be faster, though she was 100 feet shorter than the Warrior. It would require a large amount of science to convince him (Sir Frederic Smith) of the truth of this assertion, unless the lines of the ship were to be made sharper; and if this last was to be the case, he could not see how she could carry heavier armour, or perform another thing that was promised—throw a heavier broadside than any other vessel in the British navy. Parliament ought to know the truth. They were about to devote a large sum of money for shipbuilding, and ought to know what kind of a ship was about to be built, and how she was to carry the heaviest armament known. He should like to know whether his noble Friend was driving at speed or at thickness of armour, or at a combination of both. His noble and gallant Friend said that he was about to build gunboats protected by armour-plating to the water-line. Was not their armour to go below that line, and, if not, what was to protect the lower part of their hulls when they were engaging to windward? He would rather see the armour-plating extending below the water-line and tapering off towards the top. General actions on land were not fought with the men protected, and we should sacrifice too much if we attempted to make our ships proof against shot. To do that we must have slow heavy vessels. If we could keep out shell it was as much as we ought to attempt. It would he better to let a shot go in at one side and out at the other, than to load a vessel with a weight of armour which she could not carry in bad weather. Had the Government made up their minds which was the best armour? If not, he hoped the Bellerophon target would be thoroughly tested at once. If that were not done, there would be a risk of our again spending a large amount of money in the least useful manner. The hon. Gentleman opposite had told them that task and job work was given up. No doubt, that work done on that system was some times indifferently done, but with a system of measurement there was a security that they obtained the work for which they paid. He could not assent to the proposed reduction of the Vote. If the Government assured the Committee that these men were required for the repairs of vessels coming home, and to aid in the construction of new vessels, they must make the statement on their own responsibility, and for this reason he would give them his support

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, that as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) who introduced the discussion by an able statement, had said that it would be impossible to keep to the Vote before the House, and accordingly travelled over a great many questions in like manner, he (Sir James Elphinstone) should go beyond the question, with a view to criticize some of the policy of the Government indicated by it. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman took credit for having an overflowing exchequer of men, and the noble Lord had more than once boasted of being able to man a ship within twenty-four hours. But the noble Lord did not tell them how many ships he could man within twenty-four hours; nor had he stated how many men there were now in reserve. Could he send five ships of the line to sea? He believed it was a fact that the Admiralty had been calling upon the coast-guard, and that on board some of the coast-guard ships no crew remained but the stokers. The reduction of 2,000 boys required explanation. He was told that those boys had never existed, and, therefore, could not be reduced. As to the Royal Naval Reserve, the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman took credit for that force; but the Committee must bear in mind that the Naval Reserve, to which he intended at a future time to direct the attention of the House, could only be called upon after an actual declaration of war, and, therefore, could not be relied upon to man our fleet at this time. Then came the question of the iron-plated fleet. They had had an able exposition of the budget of the Admiralty; but the Committee had not been told what were the classes of ships which were in future to form the navy of this country. At present, we had the most heterogeneous collection of vessels it was possible to conceive. Two or three pairs of ships might effectually work together, but of the rest no two were alike or of a sort; and in a most extraordinary document which had appeared in The Times respecting the projected construction of iron ships, and which was supposed to emanate from the pen of the Constructor of the Navy, there certainly were not two ships of any sort which bore the slightest resemblance to each other. It was true, as the last speaker had said, that speed could not be combined with reduced length, nor capacity with diminished beam. It was very doubtful how the proposed heavy guns could be carried. Broadside guns must be cast loose at sea; but with the artillery that it was now proposed to place in our ships it was impossible to do this—no 15-ton gun could be cast loose at sea. Therefore, if enormous guns were to be used, they must be carried in turrets or by means of some other mechanical arrangement. The hon. Gentleman had not only given the Committee no programme of the classes of ships, but he had made no statement of how these new ships were to be rigged. The present mode of rigging was really lubberly. They were undermasted, the yards and rigging clumsy, and the masts were so far apart that it was impossible to support them with braces; and the ships were deprived of the studding sails, which in large ships were most effective and powerful. The statement of the Government was defective in not referring to the class of swift cruisers like the Alabama. If we had not had a Government that was willing to accept any indignity rather than go to war, this country would have been now engaged in hostilities, and in that case we should have no means of protecting our commerce against such vessels as the Alabama. It would be necessary, in the event of war, to place a brace of ships at every focus of our commerce in the world—at the Azores, at the Gut of Gibraltar, at the Cape of Good Hope, to the eastward of New Amsterdam; in the China Seas, in Torres Straits, and other positions. It was said the six gunboats were to be built upon some unexplained principle; but nothing was said of the class o£ swift cruisers which would be required to protect our commerce in time of war. The noble Lord had spoken of the gunboats of the Lively class, that they had gone to the East Indies and to all parts of the world. It was possible for a vessel to go to the East Indies without reefing topsails if she went at the right season. He believed that some of these gunboats did get out to the East Indies in five months, and others took eleven months for the voyage. The best plan would be to take the engines out of the gunboats and put them on board new hulls constructed for speed with double screws, and thus they would get rid of a large number of useless vessels for a smaller number of handy vessels. With respect to the accounts he could not say much, except that he believed every chip and rope yarn in the dockyards was accounted for. He did not believe that improved accounts would get rid of existing evils, which were rather to be traced to the policy pursued by the Admiralty. More money was wasted by one ill-devised ship than by all the imperfect accounts ever discovered. The scheme of accounts of the hon. Gentleman seemed to him much the same as that introduced by Sir Robert Seppings, and which Sir James Graham swept away as too complicated and elaborate. In conclusion, he wished to observe with respect to the joiners in our dockyards, that they were called upon to perform work of the neatest description, that they worked with very delicate tools, and that, inasmuch as their outfit at the commencement cost £25, the loss of those tools, which were liable to be made objects of theft, was to them matter of serious consequence. That being so, the wages which those men received were quite inadequate to their position, and the Government would, he hoped, take their case into consideration.

MR. SEELY,

referring to the item of £38,450 for police divisions, while admitting that it was necessary that there should be some persons employed to watch our dockyards, thought the sum asked for in the present year for the purpose, amounting as it did to nearly £40,000, was too large an expenditure in connection with the single item of police. Comparing that expenditure with the amount required for the performance of similar duties in private yards—for example, in that with which he was connected, where they employed 950 men, at a cost for guarding and watching of £75 per annum—the sum, he must confess, appeared to him to be preposterously high. He was not, however, prepared to make any Motion on the subject this year, but unless some explanation of the amount was given next Session he should certainly move the reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had alluded to a statement which he (Mr. Seely) had made with regard to cast iron forgings. In 1860–1 the Government manufactured 92,818 cwt. of iron forgings, at a cost of 13s. 7¾d. per cwt., making £63,360 4s. 6d. His firm paid 7s. 3½d. He was speaking of the labour only. Now if the Government had manufactured their forgings at the same price, as they were manufactured at Stamp End, instead of £63,000, the cost would have been £33,000, being a saving of £29,000 in that one article alone. In 1861–2 the Government manufactured 57,712 cwt., at a cost of 13s. 8½d., amounting to £39,545. His firm at Stamp End paid 6s. 9d. per cwt., so that if the Government had manufactured at the same price, instead of £39,540, it would have been £19,718, or a saving of £19,826. Of iron castings the Government manufactured 32,269 cwt., at a cost of 4s. 0¼d. per cwt.—£6,487 8s. 3d. for labour only. His firm paid 1s. 7½d. There were also the items of iron and brass casting in which the results were very much the same, the expenditure of the Government being about twice as much as that of the private yard. His hon. Friend the Member for Halifax had met the point very fairly, observing that the Government had no interest in paying that increased amount, and that if they had done so it was because they were ignorant of the value of the work done—a remark which would be equally applicable to hon. Gentlemen opposite did they happen to be in office. But while he admitted the fairness of that excuse, he must complain that there were not placed at the head of each department in our dockyards men who knew the value of work, and who had been accustomed through life to deal with large bodies of men like our artisans. In every private firm the object was to mass the men together, that the eye of the foreman might be over them, and this should be done in the Royal dockyards, where a proper division of labour should also be carried out. There were many Members of the House who had a special knowledge of particular subjects, and it would be well to appoint a Committee at the beginning of each Session to select Gentlemen of this character to examine the various accounts now submitted to the House, and bring their knowledge to bear for the service of the country.

MR. FERRAND

said, he was anxious to address a few words to the Committee on a subject with which he believed the Board of Admiralty was very well acquainted—namely, the claims of the artificers employed in the dockyards. He was informed, and he believed it to be the fact, that there was scarcely a class of artificers in Her Majesty's dockyards who had not a grievance of some sort to complain of. On the 16th of October, 1861, an Admiralty order was issued of a most extraordinary character, limiting the age of the promotion of artificers in the dockyards to forty-five years; so that, however able and however valuable a man might be after he had attained that age, he was debarred from all promotion. This limit, however, was to be extended to fifty years in the case of leading men and officers. When the order was issued it created the greatest dismay in the dockyards, and complaints were forwarded to the Board of Admiralty, but he believed that no notice was taken of them. Afterwards, when Sir Frederick Grey went down to Devonport as a candidate, he promised the men employed at the dockyards that on his return to the Admiralty this grievance should be inquired into. It was inquired into, and replies were sent up by some of the principal officers in the Devonport yard, in which, as he was informed, it was distinctly stated that the Admiralty order would not work beneficially. Yet, when he (Mr. Ferrand), stated that he should bring the matter before the House, an order was sent down from the Admiralty threatening any person who gave information with dismissal; and under those circumstances he felt himself compelled to refrain from bringing the subject under the notice of the House. Then, again, the old rules relating to the apprentices bad been altered so as to give great dissatisfaction, and he thought it desirable that the Government should state why the alteration had taken place. The hired hands complained of serious grievances. They state that the established men when past work retire on pensions adequate for the support of themselves and families in comfort, while the hired men when past work are dismissed without pensions, and have no refuge but the workhouse. Yet they were fully equal to the established men as workmen, and they looked upon the treatment to which they were subjected as a serious hardship. They had been induced to leave private yards, high wages, and comfortable homes, to be employed in Her Majesty's dockyards on the establishment, and they found by this order that all their hopes were taken from them. He believed the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would admit that the joiners had fair claims upon the Government. In private yards the joiners had 5s. 6d. a day, and in the dockyards they had only 3s. 10d., and they had to provide a chest of tools that cost them from £25 to £30. Then, again, the wages of the ropemakers had been seriously reduced by the introduction of steam power. During the last eighteen months there had been a General rise of wages throughout the whole country in every trade, not only arising from a decrease of population, but also from the great rise in the price of clothing and meat. The expense of a man's clothing was now nearly double what it was a few years ago; as an instance of which he might mention that in Bradford the best wool was now worth 2s. 5d. a pound, whereas a few years ago it was 1s. to 1s. 4d. a pound. Cotton goods were also extremely dear, and butcher's meat was almost beyond the reach of a working man, unless he was receiving a very high scale of wages. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) would take into consideration the memorials received from those dockyard artificers—memorials most respectfully worded and well deserving of attention. It might be said that if they raised the wages of some of the artificers they must raise the wages of all. Why should they not do so if it would be only just? He thought any Committee which inquired into the subject would arrive at the conclusion that there was a fair claim on the part of the artificers for an increase of wages, and he hoped the Admiralty would take this subject into immediate and earnest consideration.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he thought that rather scant justice had been done to the hon. Member for Halifax. The labour undergone by the hon. Gentleman in producing the results he had brought before the House, with regard to the cost of the artificers, must have been immense. For the first time there now appeared in the Estimates an account of the amount for every artificer in each of the dockyards. It had been urged that the Admiralty ought not to compete with the private industry of the country; but surely it was right that they should have a check on that industry in order that the contracts might be kept within proper limits. Beyond that he should be sorry to see such competition go. If the amount expended on the department was a test of its efficiency—as he presumed it must be taken to be—the navy was in an efficient state. The Vote before the House amounted to almost £1,200,000, while the French charge for artificers was only £682,580. The same rate of comparison ran through the various branches of the naval departments in each country respectively. We had nearly double the number of men and ships that France had. On a former occasion he said that in the French navy there were only seventeen transports, and that the largest of these was only 800 tons. He had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), for he only alluded to sailing transports when he made that statement. In the French navy there were also ten steam transports.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, he quite concurred in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sykes) had said about the hon. Member for Halifax, whom he looked upon as a most valuable acquisition to the Government. He wished also to render justice to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, who was in the habit of making more lucid statements on the subject of the Estimates than they had been accustomed to hear before the noble Lord came into office. They were likewise indebted to the noble Lord for giving them the specific cost of each ship. He wished to hear from the noble Lord to what extent the Admiralty were prepared to go in regard to repairs of wooden ships now in the navy. If those repairs were gone on with to any great extent, the House could not have that practical economy which they had hoped for from the employment of another material. It was the duty of the Government to keep up a sufficiency of timber ships until vessels of another class could be provided on which we could confidently rely, but still the Government should be satisfied with the minimum that would meet our requirements, and the wooden ships should be taken off the lists as quickly as they got iron ones to replace them. He did not very well understand the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax with regard to time in the construction of vessels. He also wished for information as to what extent the Admiralty contemplated the construction of iron-cased ships with wooden frames. He thought that last year there was a pledge, on the part of the Government, that there should not be an increase in these ships beyond a certain number. Almost all his friends doubted the efficiency of this experiment. He was glad to find that the Government had recognized the principle of stock-taking, for without stock-taking there could be no accounts at all, no balance could be struck, and without a balance the accounts gave very little information. With regard to piecework, thirty years' experience had taught him that without piecework it was impossible to obtain an estimate of the value of labour. If the Government intended, as the hon. Member for Halifax had said, to make the dockyards a moderate minimum establishment, he should be perfectly content; for while he wished them to be able to build vessels of their own to a certain extent, and not to be entirely dependent on private yards, he should be sorry to see them going into the enormous expense which would be necessary to enable them to rely entirely on their own exertions. The alterations in the Warrior and the Black Prince which had been mentioned were practically alterations required by the Government, and not at all incidental to the character of the workmanship or the incapacity of the builders to carry out the design of the Government. With regard to the Chalmers target, Mr. Chalmers had been sent to him by a distinguished officer of the Engineers, and when he looked into his invention he was so much struck with its scientific importance that he said that if Government would give it a fair trial he would pay the expense of the target and take the risk of the loss of the amount in the event of failure of the target. That was done, and the Government had since repaid him; but if, as had been stated, that target had proved to be the best produced, he thought the poor fellow was entitled to some consideration at the hands of the Government, and he felt sure the noble Lord would give him that degree of consideration which he merited. With regard to what had been said by an hon. Gentleman opposite, as to the Government being ready to submit to any amount of indignity, it would be far more courageous for those who thought so to propose a vote of want of confidence, than to come down night after night with vague accusations. Let them put their complaints into a definite form as soon after Easter as possible, and have the matter fairly argued out. As to the complaint which had been made of the barren result of Commissions and Committees, the state- ment which had been made to-night by the hon. Member for Halifax and the reforms which had been promised were proofs that they had not been without good effect.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he did not share in the alarm which seemed to be felt by some hon. Members, that the Government were not going to spend money enough on the navy this year. During the last two years the workmen in the dockyard had been between 16,000 and 17,000, but this year they were to be 19,000, and the House would be labouring under a great delusion if it supposed that when we employed nearly 3,000 more workmen and expended £162,000 that would be the whole cost. There had been no reduction whatever, and the charges for wages and stores would rather exceed than be under the expenditure of last year. He wished to pay his tribute of thanks to the hon. Member for Halifax for the able, clear, and lucid statement which he had submitted to the House. Although the great improvement that had taken place in the dockyards proved that the Government were on the right tack, a great deal more ought to be done. The Commission had expressed a strong opinion that before any great work was undertaken there ought to be a carefully considered estimate, which should be signed by all the chief parties concerned in the transaction. He wished to know if any progress had been made in that direction, because it went to the whole question as to where the expenditure of the dockyards was initiated. The arguments of the hon. Member for Halifax went to show that a better system now prevailed in the dockyards, and that the cost of a ship might be obtained, but that was by no means clear, looking at the expenditure in building and in repairs. It appeared that the cost of six ships, carrying twenty-five guns, was £90,000, whilst twenty other ships had cost £511,000, making £601,000 for twenty-six ships. The House ought to know who were the parties who set in motion all this expenditure, and to see if there was any estimate signed by the proper authorities. He should like to know whether there was any such document in existence, and trusted the noble Lord would give some explanation on the subject. If the hon. Member opposite divided the House he certainly should vote with him.

MR. LAIRD

said, that a large amount was to be expended in wages and materials next year, and there ought to be some ex- planation from the Government of what was to be done for the money. They knew that a great many ships were coming home that would require large repairs, and that new ships were to be built; but the Government ought to tell the Committee how many new ships were to be built, and how much money would be spent in repairs. If one-half of the whole amount was to be spent on repairs, it proved that they were going on using the wrong material, because private builders had constructed iron ships which the Government and other parties had used for twenty to thirty years without expending on them more than a very trifling amount in repairs. The excess of £160,000 of Vote 8 in Wages over the expenditure of last year, represented the labour on 25,000 tons of new ships at the highest cost per ton; and, according to the figures for Wages and Materials, they ought to have 80,000 tons of new ships equal to forty new ships of 2,000 tons each. Now, was it intended to build to that extent? The hon. Member for Halifax had done a great deal during the time he had been in office; but the Committee were entitled to know how many new ships would be built, and how much money would be spent on repairs. The only explanation they had yet received was that given in the statement of the hon. Member for Halifax who said they were going to have such ships as had never before been seen, and he instanced the Bellerophon. She was to carry guns of 16 tons and 22 tons weight. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: No!] He spoke of the weight of the gun including the carriage, and it was clear that to move the gun they must be able to move the carriage. According to the opinion of practical men, the largest gun which could be worked in a broadside was a gun of 6½ tons, and about 3 tons for the carriage, and yet we were building ships to carry guns of 16 and 22 tons. He suggested that these 16 ton and 22 ton guns should be put on board existing vessels, and sent across the Atlantic to see if they would work, before the new ships for which they were intended were completed. If the trial proved satisfactory, the ships could be proceeded with; but if it appeared that practically they could not be worked, an enormous expenditure would be saved and turned to some other use. He was unwilling to vote for any reduction, but he thought the Government ought to give more detailed information.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, his hon. Friend who proposed the reduction of the Vote had made a slight error. He made out that the sum of £324,000 for hired artificers stood against £80,000 for the same item last year. But the very next item to the £80,000 was £70,000 for hired artificers in building the Achilles, so that the real comparison was £324,000 not against £80,000, but against £150,000. He begged pardon if he had been supposed to demur to the statement of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) as to the weight of the guns in the Bellerophon. It was the usual custom in deciding upon the armament of a ship, to deal with the guns, and not with the carriages. When a ship would carry a six ton gun, that meant with the carriage of the gun added. The Bellerophon would be armed with a twelve ton gun, with the carriage added. His hon. Friend seemed to suppose that if the guns were too heavy, the ship would become useless. But that was not so. The guns were put on board the ship experimentally. If she would not carry a twelve ton gun, lighter guns would be substituted. He did not profess to be a shipbuilder, and he quite admitted that it was an experiment. But the Admiralty had not decided on that class of ship without very careful consideration. Their Chief Constructor had already turned out two small vessels, the Enterprise and the Research, which were both successful as far as they had been tried, and this vessel would be on the same principle, only greatly enlarged. She would have a great advantage over the Warrior and Minotaur, as she would be a great deal handier, being 100 feet shorter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) asked for more detailed information. He did advert the other night, and his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax had adverted in his able statement tonight, to the necessity of voting a considerably larger sum for repairs in the coming year. It was perfectly true that the employment of a greater number of workmen involved the inference that they intended to expend a large amount of stores. As regarded the stores, they were in a very satisfactory condition, and in repairs the proportion of materials to labour was very much less than in building. The hon. Baronet would therefore see, that although there was a very much larger Vote for labour, the expenditure for material would not be so large in proportion. The hon. Baronet asked whether the Admiralty had made an estimate of the cost of repairs. Well, they did as far as they could, but nothing was so liable to error as an estimate of repairs. They would have to repair ships now in China, and it was impossible to frame a strict estimate of an expenditure which would depend on the state of the ships on their return home. All they could do was to deal with averages. He would give the Committee an idea of the proportions of this Vote in the various services. After a very careful analysis for some years past, they found that about 23 per cent of the Vote for services performed by the artificers in the dockyards was expended in building and fitting. His hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), said they ought to have 80,000 tons of new ships next year. But he had altogether omitted the items of repairing and refitting, the average of which was 28 per cent of the labour Vote. For building and fitting their average was about 23 per cent, for repairing and refitting 28 per cent, and for manufacture 49 per cent. The average last year for building and fitting was 22 per cent, for repairing and refitting 33 per cent, and for manufacture 45 per cent. Next year the proportion under the head of repairing and refitting would be considerably more inasmuch as they had reliefs to carry out in the case of no less than 64 ships. The number of reliefs in 1863 was 57, and in 1862 only 53. He mentioned the other evening that they were about to commence the construction of a class of ships novel as regarded the navy, but not novel to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird). They hoped to be able to turn out a class of ships of great speed, and very valuable as cruisers, like a vessel which they had all heard a good deal of (the Alabama). They proposed to construct next year 13,604 tons of armour-plated ships, and of non-armour 4,404. Up to the 31st of December last they had built 5,807 tons of armour ships, and of non-armour 683 tons. The Committee would observe that both in building and repairing they would have a great deal more work to do next year than this year. He had always candidly told the Committee where the Government were behind, and they were now behind in the reserves. Unfortunately they had been so occupied in other respects, that their first-class steam reserves were in a backward state. "A stitch in time saves nine," and if repairs were put off from year to year, they became very heavy in the end. Moreover, the smaller ships, especially of the wooden fleet, were getting worn out, and he was positive in a short time they should have to expend a considerable sum in building a fresh supply of small cruising vessels for the police of the seas.

In answer to a question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) on the subject of the School of Naval Architecture, he might be permitted to say that the models would, he trusted, be shortly removed to South Kensington, where a handsome apartment had been fitted up for them, and they were now in communication with the Institute of Naval Architects about the details of the school.

And in answer to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), in reference to the pay of joiners, he was quite aware that the artificers of Her Majesty's dockyards did not receive that amount of pay which they might get in the private trade, and that remark applied not only to the joiners, but to all the artificers. The artificers had sent very respectful memorials to the Admiralty, complaining that, whereas they did not receive as good pay as they might have in private yards, they had not the same advantages as they used to have in being placed upon the establishment. It was perfectly true during the last three years they had laboured under considerable disadvantages of that kind. The establishment of the dockyards had been greatly exceeded, and it became absolutely necessary it should be reduced to the limits fixed by the Order in Council. He should be very glad if the Admiralty could comply with the reasonable desires of the artificers, because he knew their merits; and if they waited patiently for a short time, as the establishment was very nearly down to its proper number, a flow of promotion into it would take place, which he was positive would be satisfactory. Hon. Gentlemen should remember, when they talked of increasing the pay in the dockyards, that they had some 16,000 or 17,000 men to deal with, and to increase it even by 6d. a day, which was no very large addition after all, would make a difference of upwards of £100,000 a year. Speaking conscientiously of the matter, there was not the least doubt that the men in Her Majesty's dockyards were not paid at the full market value for labour of that de- scription. But then they had many advantages over the men in private yards. For instance, their employment was continuous; but in a private yard shipwrights were often discharged on a wet day, and received no pay. Again, the artificers of Her Majesty's yards, when hurt, were allowed to receive half their pay. Now, with respect to Mr. Chalmers. It was a rule with the Admiralty that no man should be rewarded for any experiment unless the invention was adopted in Her Majesty's service. Mr. Chalmers came to the Admiralty and proposed that his target should be tried. He was distinctly told if he wished to make the target it should have a fair trial, but it should be done at his own expense. The Admiralty were extremely guarded, because, if they entered into engagements beforehand with one inventor, they would be bound to do so with another, and they wished to act fairly towards all. Well, the target had shown considerable merits; but when the expense incurred came to be considered by the Admiralty, they decided that though upon the whole the invention was not available for the construction of Her Majesty's ships, Mr. Chalmers ought to receive the expense which he incurred to the Company who made the target. Beyond that they could not go. He had been asked to give more details about the Bellerophon. Her speed was estimated at 14 knots, while that of the Warrior was 14.33 knots. As to her armament, the intention at present was to arm her with ten 300-pounders and four 100-pounders, making fourteen in all. With regard to the question of patronage, it was a mistake to suppose that the Admiralty appropriated to themselves any of the patronage of the dockyards. No change whatever with respect to the entry of men had taken place; the superintendents were responsible for the various men employed, and there were certain fixed rules with regard to promotion, which were not departed from. He trusted that the hon. Member for Sunderland would not persevere with his Amendment.

MR. LINDSAY

said, it was evident the Committee were not prepared to reduce the vote by so large an amount as £240,000, and he should, therefore, withdraw his Amendment, and would then make another proposition.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LINDSAY

then moved that the Vote be reduced by £162,438, the amount of the increase this year on this Vote. It was clearly proved before the Committee that we were paying 200 per cent more for ships built in Government dockyards than they could be built for in private yards. He did not think the House would be justified in continuing such useless expenditure; he should, therefore, take the sense of the Committee upon this Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,112,878, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."—(Mr. Lindsay.)

MR. STANSFELD

stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), who had said that it was unadvisable to spend money for labour and materials for the repair of wooden ships, that the Government meant simply to effect such repairs as were necessary for the commissioning of ships to replace others belonging to the cruising squadrons which had come home to be paid off; but the main cause of increase on the labour Vote was that provision might be made for the construction of armour-plated ships. The hon. Member had charged the Government with taking a large amount of money, and referred to certain small vessels which cost only £25 or £30 per ton; but it should be remembered that the large armour-plated vessels cost £50 a ton, exclusive of the expense of fitting them for sea. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) had observed that it was important to have not only an accurate account of past expenditure, but an estimate of the expense of work before it was commenced. That was the state of things already existing in the Controller's department. No repair was undertaken without an estimate being sent up from the yard; and if the repairs exceeded the estimate to a considerable amount the officers of the yard were called on for explanation. He had in his hand an estimate for the Royal Oak, sent up by the officers of the yard, as well as a statement of the actual expenditure. The estimate was £137,062, and the actual expenditure £136,362. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith), speaking of the Bellerophon, could not understand how it was that a vessel of less dimensions, unless of finer lines than the Warrior, could possibly accomplish the same speed. As the science of naval architecture could not be supposed to have already reached its highest and most perfect condition, he did not think it safe to assert that ships, even without finer lines and of less length than the Warrior, might not be able to go at the same speed. The Bellerophon had, as nearly as possible, as fine lines as the Warrior, but was 2,000 tons less; and though her nominal horse-power was less than the Warrior, she was able to work her engines to the same speed. As to the Dockyard Police, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), there was no analogy between their duties and those of ordinary watchmen in private establishments. They not only watched over valuable property scattered over a large area in the dockyards, but they served also as a water police and fire brigade. They took charge of the hospitals, and had superseded the military guards in the dockyards. They attended to the lighting and extinguishing of lamps, conveyed prisoners to the various gaols, and BO on. Their new duties engaged at least sixty men, and there was in consequence a saving of more than that number of men in other departments. During the years immediately preceding the introduction of the present metropolitan police, the cost of the dockyard police was about £38,000, and the increase in the present estimate was comparatively small, being only £450. The hon. Member for Sunderland, who was at first alarmed at the amount of information given in the papers, now complained that it was not enough. [Mr. LINDSAY: It is not the right sort of information.] He was at a loss to know what the hon. Member wanted. If his hon. Friend would only pick out of the labour chart one or two of the items of expenditure as to the building, conversion, fitting, or repair of ships, and challenge the accuracy of the account or the economy of the operation, he was ready to produce details on the subject to any extent and to probe the matter to the bottom. If his hon. Friend wanted, not a grievance but a remedy, he would accept that proposal. He could only say that the allegations of dockyard work being 100 and 200 per cent dearer than that done in private yards could not be supported by proof, and he would like to see them fairly tested. He trusted that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment, but would enable the Admiralty to maintain the efficiency of the ordinary cruising squadrons, and, still more, to complete with the utmost expedition the additions to the armour-plated fleet.

MR. LINDSAY

said, the labour charts did not give the information which the Committee ought to have. The amount was given in a round sum, but no details were given to show that we got value for our money. The statements of the Dockyard Committee had not been answered—namely, that ships in our dockyards cost above 200 per cent more than those constructed in private yards. The Committee gave the names of eight corvettes, the hulls of which had cost £8 13s. 10d. per ton, whereas they stated that the same vessels could have been built in private yards for £2 16s. per ton. For many years he had walked into the lobby in a minority with regard to the continued construction of wooden ships—those mighty slaughter-houses, which, after costing the country ten millions of money, were now utterly useless. He might be in a small minority now, but the time would come when there would be a thorough change in the Admiralty, in accordance with what had been pointed out by the Royal Commission and the Committee of Inquiry. He contended the Admiralty were not justified in spending money in the manner they were till the change so pointed out by the Royal Commission and the Committee of Inquiry had been carried out, and if he had but one hon. Member to vote for him, he would divide the Committee.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

As the hon. Gentleman is going to divide on this Amendment, I wish to state that I shall not be in the small minority which he anticipates with him. I do not feel very sanguine that the exertions of the hon. Gentleman—to which exertions I am willing to do full justice—will have the result of very much increasing the economy of expenditure under this vote. I think no Gentleman who has heard the debate this evening could do so without coming to the belief that it is the intention of the Admiralty to economize their large expenditure in our dockyards as much as they are able; and also that the representatives of the Department have given us very able explanations; and for the reasons they have stated—that this amount of expenditure was necessary for the public service—I cannot assume the responsibility of voting against it. Before I sit down, I wish to advert to what was said by the Secretary for the Admiralty as to the Chalmers' target. I am not quite satisfied with the explanation. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty said that the Admiralty, as a matter of course, was bound to tell the inventor that he must try the experiments with his target at his own expense. I do not think that answer was a wise one, because all scientific men had arrived at a conclusion that this was a new principle, and they all believed that it gave promise of great success. In these times of transition it is the duty of the Government to give every encouragement and support to the inventor who conies forward with an invention of any merit. I presume, however, in making that announcement, the Admiralty meant that the experiment was to be tried at his own expense if it turned out a failure. I cannot suppose that he meant to tell the inventor that he was to try the experiment at his own expense if his invention turned out a success and a great and valuable discovery. Had it not been for the great liberality of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), it would not probably have been tried at all. Now, I hear that the money advanced by the hon. Member for Fins-bury has been repaid, but that £400 or £500 provided by the inventor himself has not been repaid. Now, this should be cleared up. I hope the representatives of the Admiralty will explain the matter, and if it is so, repair the injustice. I know nothing of the man; he told me his tale, and it did not seem consistent with justice. We are also told the target on the Bellerophon is nothing more nor less than the Chalmers' target, the Government having borrowed and applied it. This should be cleared up, as there is no doubt that the Chalmers' target is a valuable target, constructed on excellent principles, and if the target has been applied to the Bellerophon the invention should be fairly recognized.

MR. KINNAIRD

thought, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had done the utmost in his power to promote the efficiency of the public service by selecting, not one of his supporters, but a Gentleman from below the gangway, distinguished by his ability and his zeal for economic reform, to fill the place now occupied by the hon. Member for Halifax. He thought the least the hon. Gentleman was entitled to was a fair opportunity of carrying out his plans.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, that if it were the fact that the Chalmers' target was the same or even a close approach to that of the Bellerophon, Mr. Chalmers would be undoubtedly entitled to be repaid, not the expenditure he had incurred, but to receive a reward. In truth, however, this was not so, for the construction of the Bellerophon target was the same in principle as that of the Warrior. It had longitudinal stringers which were fixed to the vessel, and as it were connected her armour-plates with the vessel herself. Mr. Chalmers' cellular principle was one of great ingenuity, and had shown a considerable power of resisting projectiles, but it did not form a structural part of the ship. If the right hon. Gentleman would call upon him at the Admiralty he would make this clear by showing him a section of the Bellerophon and the Warrior. He should be sorry for the public to suppose that the Admiralty had pirated Mr. Chalmers invention.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that whether or not the Bellerophon target was derived from Mr. Chalmers' invention, there could be no doubt that one of the most essential and valuable principles of the Chalmers' target was undoubtedly embodied in the Bellerophon. That was his opinion and also that of the Iron-plate Committee. Mr. Chalmers, he did not doubt, had the priority of design, and for that design he deserved the utmost credit.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 110: Majority 81.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

2. £69,205, Wages to Artificers, &c., Naval Establishments Abroad, agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.