246
Unofficial Members of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Board on the 11th instant regarding the attendance of the Official Members at the meetings of the Board. I concur in the view of the Board that it would be of advantage both to the Board and to the Government that the Official Members should attend regularly, and in deference to the unanimous wish of the Unofficial Members I have for the present desired the Official Members to attend regularly pending your decision on the subject.
2. If, as I hope, you agree to their doing so, they should be paid for their attendance at the same rate as the Unofficial Members.
I have, &c.,
247
will assent to a Conference being held between representatives of the Colonial Office and Admiralty to discuss the question at an early date, in order that an exchange of views may take place and, if practicable, arrangements made which will prove entirely satisfactory to your Department, the Colonial Government, and His Majesty's Naval Service.
I am, &c.,
30360
C. I. THOMAS.
JOHN ANDERSON.
No. 245.
Enclosure in No. 242.
RESOLUTION passed by the Unofficial Members of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Board on 11th July.
That the Unofficial Members of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Board address His Excellency the Governor respectfully conveying their view that it will be of decided advantage and benefit to all interests concerned that meetings of the Board be regularly attended by those members of the Board who are Government officials, and urging upon His Excellency that they be asked to continually participate in all proceedings of the Board in same manner and to same effect as the Unofficial Members thereof do.
30052
No. 243.
MR. LYTTELTON to GOVERNOR SIR J. ANDERSON. (Sent 5.55 p.m., August 21, 1905.) TELEGRAM.
[Answered by No. 270.]-
Your telegram of 19th August and despatch 333, July 24.* Send by post as soon as possible composition and remuneration of Board. My only information is your confidential despatch, March 23, † which does not agree with your telegram.
30508
SIR,
No. 244.
ADMIRALTY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received August 24, 1905.)
[Copy to Governor, August 25, 1905. Confidential. L.F.]
(Confidential.)
[Answered by No. 251.]
Admiralty, August 22, 1905. I HAVE laid before my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty your letter of the 4th instant and its enclosures on the subject of the Tanjong Pagar Dock at Singapore, and in reply I am directed by their Lordships to request you will re- present to Mr. Secretary Lyttelton that they regret that a copy of the correspondence which passed between the Secretary of State and the Colonial Government was not forwarded at an earlier date, so that their Lordships might have been made aware of the manner in which it was proposed to administer the property acquired from the Dock Company.
Their Lordships further wish to point out that the letter addressed to the Com- mander-in-Chief on the China Station on the 27th ultimo was only intended to place him in possession of their views in regard to this question, so that, if possible, he might make the necessary arrangements on the spot with the Colonial Government, with whom it was thought the whole matter rested; but in view of your letter of the 4th August a telegram has now been sent to Sir Gerard Noel to take no action on Admiralty letter above quoted until he receives further instructions.
In conclusion my Lords desire me to state that, bearing in mind the great importance of this dock and wharfage to the Navy, they will be glad if Mr. Lyttelton
‡ No. 207.
Nos. 239 and 242.
† No. 78.
SIR,
MR. W. J. TROWELL to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received August 23, 1905.) Tanjong Pagar Arbitration.
Colonial Office, Downing Street, London, S.W., August 23, 1905. A PORTION of the case to which much consideration has been given is the maintainable income from that portion of the Company's undertaking devoted to the repairs to ships and their machinery and the construction of vessels, engines, and boilers of the smaller types.
With the object of showing the cost of the material and labour employed by the Company in such work, and the contra charging price to their clients, schedules were prepared and put in with my report of the 3rd ultimo.
It was thought that the marked difference between cost and charging for labour and material as shown by these schedules was much in excess of the usual proportion customary with firms engaged in business similar to this branch of the Company's works, and it is suggested that the maintained high charges were due to the Company crushing local competition.
The Company may, and probably will, urge that the proportion between cost and charging prices is that followed by local and home firms, and with the object of confuting this view, I have visited the centres of ship-repairing on the Mersey, the Tyne, and the Clyde.
Leaving this office on the 11th instant, I proceeded to Liverpool and called upon Messrs. H. and C. Grayson, Limited, engineers, shipbuilders, and repairers, having establishments at Liverpool, Birkenhead, and Garston.
By authority an arrangement was made with this firm to supply schedules giving in detail the cost and charging prices for labour and material as actually standing in their books. These extracts were made conjointly by the Manager, Mr. Rene Smith, and myself; the schedules are so certified.
These schedules* are now put in.
One set of detail schedules being considered sufficient, the firms of Messrs. D. Rollo and Sons, engineers and shipbuilders and repairers; Messrs. Clover, Clayton and Company, repairers (this firm have six dry docks), were visited and general information asked for.
An outline of the information obtained was that such firms were satisfied with charges from 26 per cent. to 70 per cent. above the price for labour and material, and as such show a marked departure from the Company's proportion between cost and charging.
On Tuesday, the 15th instant, I proceeded to the Tyne, calling at Messrs. Palmer's Shipbuilding and Iron Company, Limited, Jarrow. The result of my inquiries are embodied in their letter, dated the 18th August, 1905, now put in.
From this it seems that the firm are satisfied with about 26 per cent. on the original expenditure.
Messrs. The Smith's Dock Company, North Shields, was next visited, this firm have six dry docks and two pontoon docks. The result of my visit is given in their letter of the 21st August, 1905, now put in, and is similar in tenor to that of Messrs. Palmer's Shipbuilding and Iron Company, Limited.
From the Tyne I proceeded to the Clyde, on the 17th instant.
The dry docks here are almost in every case owned by the trustees of the Clyde Navigation, being rented to shipowners or ship repairers at certain rates per tide; these rates are now put in. These docks were visited and some general informa- tion obtained.
Not printed.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
11111C.O. 882
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
248