THE DOCKYARDS AND THE ADMIRALTY.
THE British Admiralty has been assailed for twenty years with every variety of vituperation. Every admiral with a grievance—and the business of a British admiral is to have a grievance—has assailed the unlucky Board. Every form of invective, from the restrained denunciation of Par- liamentar? leaders to the acid sarcasm of professional pamphleteers, has been exhausted in the vain effort to de- scribe all its claims to national contempt. Yet we question if any assault yet made rivals in bitterness or deadly effect the report of the Royal Commission selected to inquire into the condition of her Majesty's dockyards. Appointed on 1st August, 1860, they have expended six months in the inquiry, and their report, just presented to Parliament, re- sembles rather the Black Book than any'" return" with which modern politicians are acquainted. From first to last, from the distribution of the Board to the mode of supplying timber, the existing organization is condemned. The Commissioners report that the " management generally of the dockyards is defective." The system of accounts is " not to be relied on for any practical purpose," as may well be imagined, when they add that the examiners discovered 7906 errors in the accounts from April 1st to November 1860, varying in amounts from ld. to 4001. In one instance, a little item of 52101. was omitted in the explinses incurred on a single vessel. Nor is this astounding number of blunders matter for just surprise, for although there is an Account- ant-General of the Navy," the expense accounts of the dock- yards have never been placed under his control" The cash accounts are transmitted to him, but the expense accounts go to the controller, who also receives the factory accounts made up by the pay-clerk, and the building account prepared by the storekeeper, while the remaining accounts are sent to neither accountant nor controller, but to the storekeeper-general. As if this were not sufficient to produce confusion, the work is given out on "schemes of prices consisting of 94,762 items," and requiring, of course, almost endless measurements. The form of the accounts is " complex" and " inconvenient," and the accounts are seldom used for any practical purpose. Indeed, how should they be, for " the accounts of the steam factories profess to give the cost price of the articles supplied to your Majesty's ships. We find, however, that they are made to balance by an entry under the head of ' general ex- penditure,' which is, in fact, the difference between the valuation of the work done, and the materials and wages charged against the factory. No charge whatever is made for interest on buildings or plant, or for the supervision of the principal officers." English housewives are accused of keeping elaborate accounts, which are balanced by the addition of all money not accounted for under the head "sundries." They may now plead the example of her Majesty's dockyards as sufficient justification. The rate-book price of converted timber "is too low," the expenses of some departments include supervision, which is excluded from others, stores are issued without vouchers, contractors are permitted to send in timber in excess of indent, and the monthly accounts ordered have never been made up. When it is remembered that this system is extended over seven dockyards, that it involves an ex- penditure of six millions a year, that every official in the dockyards above a common labourer is an elector, and that " no one is responsible for the whole of the accounts," the waste and confusion may in some faint degree be estimated. The Commissioners who waded through all the mass of ac- counts, and were assisted by all the officers of the department, were totally unable to discover the cost per ton of any vessel, or why the dockyards should differ from each other so greatly in the comparative outlay per ton ; or, indeed, whether they do, despite their figures, differ" at all. The accounts being quite worthless, the apparent disparities may be caused by differences in the mode of making them up, or by false systems of calculation, or by ordinary blundering. There is no proof of anything except that the cost of her Majesty's vessels is estimated by guess. The work done is4tself good, but it is executed at a cost and amidst a confusion which would send a private firm, however wealthy, into the Gazette. The root of all this confusion is the wretched organization of the department. Nobody, as we have seen, is responsible for the accounts or for anything else. There is no Controller- General of the Dockyards, and each of the six heads of de- partments is independent of all the others, and frequently issues orders contradicting those issued by his colleagues. Nobody is responsible except to the Board, which also practically consists of five heads of departments, who may, but do not, consult on everything, and a First Lord, who might override them all, only that, as a politician, he can know nothing about the matter. These officers, again; are changed so frequently that they have no time to acquire cohesion, " there having been fifteen First Lords, sixty-five' other Lords, and seventeen Secretaries of the Admiralty since 1829, making a total of ninety-seven changes within that period," or rather more than one every four months. Unity of design, either in economy or extravagance, is of course impossible under such a system, which of itself is sufficient to explain any increase in the estimates of a year, The commissioners have gone straight to the root of the evil. They enter into no complicated description of new forms, leave the books to right themselves, and recommend first of all a radical reform in the administrative system. They would abolish the Admiralty at once. In its stead they would appoint a Minister of the Navy entirely respon- sible to Parliament, and aided, as regards the dockyards, by a controller-general. This officer should appoint a super- intendent of each dockyard, with the right of selecting all subordinates except storekeepers and accountants, who should be appointed directly by the Minister. The director of engineering and architectural works should also be directly appointed ; but with this exception the inten- tion of the commissioners is obviously to supersede the "principal oflkers" who now manage each a department in seven dockyards, by a superintendent, who shall control all departments in one dockyard alone. The first effect of this proposal would be to produce complete responsi- bility. The superintendent at Chatham could not argue that reforms were impossible because the surveyor and the factory officials could not agree, nor could he plead want of responsibility as to special branches of outlay. The second effect .would be to introduce the principle of emulation. The efficiency of each superintendent would be tested by a comparison as to the time, money, and materials expended on each vessel, and each having individual control would take an individual pride in the out-turn of his esta- blishment. In fact, he would be under almost as strong a compulsion to efficiency and thrift as the owner of a private yard. Meanwhile, the Accountant-General, being in control not only of the cash account, but of the expenditure other- wise incurred, would be able to organize a system which, economical or extravagant, would at least be intelligible. That is the first step towards a reform in the expenditure. Parliament may refuse votes, and the Chancellor of the Ex- che9uer urgently demand the dismissal of the workmen, but until the Naval Minister can ascertain the costper ton of each ship, nothing effective can ever be attempted. He will never ascertain it until a single accountant receives from every branch accounts limited by the personal responsibility of single officers. It remains to be seen whether any of these recommenda- tions will be adopted by the Cabinet. There is a want of administrative force apparent in the Liberal party just at present, which may well make the public doubt whether the clearest information is of any practical value. The inno- vations, doubtless, will be exceedingly troublesome, perhaps involve an affront to the feelings to half a dozen old servants of the State. But they bridge over the gulf between failure and efficiency, and the Ministry which declines to reform a department its own Commissioners have condemned, is certain in England ultimately to lose the confidence of the people. We do not say that the suggestions offered by the Commissioners or Sir J. Elphinstone ought to be adopted. They may fail in a hundred points of which the public can know nothing. But a reform which shall include the sub- stitution of a Minister of Marine for the Board of Admiralty is demanded as much by public opinion as the interests of the service.
Previous page
