DOCKYARD POLICY.
T0RD GEORGE HAMILTON, in the debate on the Naval 4 Estimates last July, observed that if any Government undertake to out down establishments, Parliamentary pressure is brought to bear upon them and social pressure upon the dockyard officials. The correctness of the remark has been speedily vindicated. On Tuesday. the First Lord enjoyed the pleasure of hearing a deputation from Chatham, supported by two Members of Parliament, enlarge on the disastrous conse- quences brought on by a diminution in the number of men employed. Chatham, of course, spoke for the other dock- yards, for they all feel alike. No one can doubt that work- men who lose employment, whether in public or private yards, suffer and resent the suffering, the sole difference being that the labourer who took public wages can arraign a Govern- ment, while he who is paid by a private employer has no such leverage at his command. In the present case, we are not surprised to see that the First Lord stood firm, resisted the pressure, and persisted in his policy. It is of no use to declaim in favour of economy and thrifty manage- ment and never sot on the precepts so eloquently laid down, and Lord George not only stood to his guns, but took advantage of the occasion to state his reasons for the course he intends to follow. Perhaps the deputation did not bargain for such out- spokenness ; if so, they went away sadder and wiser men. The sooner it is made obvious that the Navy does not exist for the dockyards—the belief current in those establishments—the better it will be for them, as well as for the public purse.
The really curious point is that it should seem necessary to lay down the role that the Admiralty will proceed, if they can, on the same lines as the private builder, who employs as many men as he requires and no more. The ingenuous might have supposed that this wise principle had always governed the action of those who are responsible for expending public money. If it has not, it should have prevailed, for there is no reason whatever which justifies the implied abuse. A dockyard, we admit, stands on a footing differing in essential respects from a private yard, which is worked on considerations of profit alone. It has much work to do which is not incumbent upon its rivals, and must stand ready to meet emergent and unforeseen demands. That necessity must have some influence upon the answer to the question,—How many men do we or shall we want ? A narrow interpretation might not only lead to inconvenience, but to disaster. It is not likely that even an economical Government would err on the side of defect, and much more likely that they would wastefully save under the head of stores—which can be done in the dark—than by reducing the number of hands below the proper amount, since even a reasonable reduction creates a loud outcry. The Admiralty, for national purposes, are bound to keep up effective dockyards. No private establishment can supersede the public institution, because it could not do its duties, which go far beyond the mere con- struction and repair of ships. But it is undeniable that excellent vessels of all kinds and sizes can be built by contract ; and it is well that it should be so, because the pro- ductive power of the country, thereby enlarged, would be found priceless in a time of real need. Nevertheless, so far as labour is concerned, the responsible authority commits an offence when it transgresses the rule laid down by the First Lord, and, for any reason, enrols more men than are necessary. If it be a fact that "the increase of work is not commensurate with the increased number of men employed," and that there are more men in the pay of the State than the State needs, the recent reductions are doubly justified. No one outside the Admiralty can say whether the right figure is 17,000 or 18,000; but we can all see that an increase of hands not followed by an increase of work done, means that some who are fully paid are not fully occupied. Lord George Hamilton affirms that when there is a redundancy of workmen, the officials seek to create work, and frame their estimates upon that principle, which savours more of charity than a dutiful economy.
Into the larger questions of dockyard policy we shall not now enter; but there are one or two points suggested by the appearance of the deputation in Whitehall which may be recalled to the public mind. We are often told that the Navy and Navy management are outside party. That they should be, all admit ; but he would be a bold man who ventured to assert that they are, or that they can be, while a political First Lord and his adjuncts are necessary evils. Here we have that functionary compelled to explain publicly why he and his colleagues think it expedient to employ so many artisans and labourers, and no more ; whereas the ebb and flow of employ- ment in any business should be governed only by the needs of the business itself. The ideal for our Army and Navy would be realised if we could entrust the production of these vital instruments to thoroughly competent men who under- stood how to make them, the functions of the Executive being limited to the use of the instruments when made. That ideal is beyond the reach, perhaps, of any known form of government,—certainly beyond the reach of government founded on party. Yet towards it we can strive to approxi- mate, and the nearer we get to it, the more closely will the results be produced by the application of strict business principles, which are not party principles, to the accomplish- ment of the great end. So far as economy in the manufacture of either the Army or the Navy is concerned, we agree with Mr. Forwood that its essence is to have straightforward and lucid accounts, and the rendering of these would be one of the first objects which a truly business body would seek to attain. That would be a direct result of the spirit in which the work was undertaken,—to create the most effective instruments at the lowest cost, which means the reduction of waste to a minimum. As matters stand, we must go on with the machinery we have, and make the most of it by the conflict of criticism, and the use of that stimulus which is born of constant discussion. But the more we can get rid of the spirit of party, and substitute for it the spirit of business, the better it will be for the country, and the cheaper for the Exchequer.
Previous page
