TllANSACTlONSi Ob" SKCTION F. 669 



established between the different Yards, which would be of great benefit to Her 

 Majesty's service.' 



They reported finally : 



' We regret to state that in our opinion the control and management of the 

 Dockj-ards is inefficient, and that the inetHciency may be attributed to the following 



causes 4. The absence of any means, both now and in times past, of 



effectually checking expenditure, from (he want of accurate accounts.' 



The paper proceeded : 



In 1864, in connection with Mr. Seely, the Mem1)er for Lincoln, I undertook a 

 systematic and detailed examination of the finance and other accounts of Govern- 

 ment, more especially those of the Admiralty. 



The result of these investigations, brought forward from time to time in the 

 House, clearly showed that up to and after this period to 1868, the evils complained 

 of by the Royal Commission of 1861 had not been remedied. 



i give a few examples extracted by me from Admiralty accounts, and given by 

 Mr. Seely at various times in the House, which, I think, clearly prove the evils 

 still existed. 



From 1862-3 to 1864-5 in one year or two years^where expenditure 

 overlaps: — 



Ten ships cost in repairs, Sfc. (one repair iu each case) m one 

 financial year, or two such years when the expenditure overlaps 

 the end of one and runs into another year : viz. the Highflyer, 

 Niger, Malacca, Cruiser, Sparrowhawk, Pearl, Simoom, Lyra, 

 Oberon, Sini Torch _ . . £450,810 ^ 



And ten similar ships bought new, completely built, fitted, 

 and equipped, at the rate of 33/. per ton, and 55/. per horse- 

 power would have cost onlj- 449,906 



Five others, Salamander, Barracouta, Falcon, Sharpshooter, 

 and Was2) cost in repairs 163,584 



Five new, completely built, fitted, and equipped would cost 

 at same rate as above ........ 183,797 



Or these fifteen ships cost in repairs 614,394 



Fifteen similar new ships at 33/. per ton, and 55/. per horse- 

 power would have cost, completely built, fitted, and equipped 633,703 



It is a rough rule with shipbuilders taking a number of ships during a series of 

 years, that old repaired ships after repair are worth about half as much as similar 

 sliips. On this basis, 



These fifteen ships cost in repair, &c. (one repair) . . £614,394 

 The value of these fifteen sliips after repair would be only . 316,857 



And would show a loss thus of 297,537 



Say, in round numbers 300,000 



Details of fourteen other ships were given, showing great excess cost in repairs, 

 and the conclusion arrived at was that on these twenty-nine ships' repau-s (one 

 repair in each case, years 1862-3 to 1864-5), the expenditiu'e they incurred was 

 500,000/. more than the ships were worth after such repairs had been executed. 



Numerous details were then given showmg lilce results in the 160 manu- 

 factories, factories, and shops of H.M.'s Dockyards, as for instance, numerous boats 

 repau'ed at a cost sometimes greater than double that at which similar new 

 boats completely built and fitted could have been made or bought. 



Cases were quoted of forgings, blanks, and numerous classes of articles that cost 

 20 50, and 100 per cent, more at the manufactory at one dockyard than similar 

 articles at another, and even the lowest cost was in many instances much greater 

 than the outside market cost of similar productions. 



