§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, What are the reasons for the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, on Friday last—
That it was not advisable that a private firm should have the use of portions of the Royal Dockyard for the purpose of breaking up two ships for which they had made offers;and, whether, had that offer been accepted, it would not have been the means of giving employment to many men who have been discharged without compensation or employment?
§ MR. CHILDERSSir, I am a good deal surprised at the Question of the hon. Member. I will undertake to say—and I am not without reason for so saying—that if we had admitted workmen employed by private persons to work in the dockyard he would, I have little doubt, been the first to object. However, as he has asked the Question, I may say that the reasons against such a course are obvious. It would be most difficult to maintain the discipline and business of a dockyard if a large number of workmen were employed in it by private persons not under the control of the Government, and it would have led to questions about hours, wages, and discipline which would have been very inconvenient. It is quite impossible to give any reply to the second Question. Whether the two ships were broken up inside or outside, the dockyard labour would be employed, and I have no means of knowing in either case how many labourers might have been formerly in the dockyard.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to ask why the Admiralty did not break up the ships themselves?
§ MR. CHILDERSIt is quite impossible to answer such a Question off hand. Ships are broken up in the dockyards as well as by contract; but the extent of work at each place or time is a matter of careful arrangement.