Sir James Grahamsaid, that, in bringing under the consideration of the House a proposition such as he had that night undertaken to bring forward, he felt he was incurring a great responsibility. He felt that in proposing any interference with so important a branch of the public service as the navy, he was doing that which ought to be well considered. If the responsibility of making such a proposition was great, he felt that the responsibility would not be less if he hesitated to lay before the House any plan which he conscientiously believed would be for the good of the service. He was sure the House would agree with him, that the navy of Great Britain did not present an object on which a spurious economy ought to be exercised. He felt that nothing would be a greater departure from the principles which ought to govern the advisers of the Crown, than any proposition which would endanger the efficiency, diminish the strength, or risk the superiority, of that branch of the public service. The House were aware that the civil service of the navy was conducted by three Boards—the Board of Admiralty, the Navy Board, and the Victualling Board. These three Boards derived their existence from patents under the Crown; thus they must be considered as deriving their command, authority, and jurisdiction, from the same source; but there was this difference between them in practice; the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral went out with the Administration under which they were appointed; but the other Boards never did. Doubtless the King could revoke the patents of either of them, whenever the Crown was so advised, but it was unusual. These two Boards appeared to hold their existence by a similar tenure, though different from that of the Board of Admiralty, and they had been at all times held to be subordinate to that Board; yet, nevertheless, those subordinate Boards had at all times 350 continued to divide the power and thwart the views of that Board presumed to be set in authority over them. This was inconsistent with the good management of public affairs. The authority of the subordinate Boards was uncertain; and, in the eye of Parliament, the entire responsibility for the conduct of naval affairs rested in the Board of Admiralty, because they were nominally invested with supreme control. This state of things had long since been found detrimental to the public interests; and the Committee which sat upon naval affairs afforded pregnant evidence of the mismanagement of the subordinate Boards, and of their successful opposition to the Board of Admiralty. He would not weary the House by going into details of the early history of the navy, because there was ample evidence of the mal-administration of naval affairs of a much later date. He would beg to refer the House to Mr. Pepy's Memoirs, in which book it was stated, that James the 2nd, then Duke of York, on Ins appointment to the office of Lord High Admiral, found himself compelled to dismiss these subordinate Boards, and, with the assistance of four Commissioners, united the whole control of the civil administration of the navy in his own hands. The effects of this alteration were almost immediately visible, it was the first dawning of that brighter era which was followed by the splendor which had since encompassed the navy of Great Britain, and had at length raised it to that pinnacle of glory where it had since remained, the envy and wonder of surrounding nations. It was a singular fact, that during the temporary absence of James 2nd from this country, the power of the subordinate Boards was restored, and it was subsequently found necessary, with a view to the improvement of the navy, to pursue the same course once more, and to abolish the subordinate Boards. The modern examples he should quote on the subject would, he hoped, have the effect of inducing the House to concur in his view of the necessity of the proposed alteration. He must here express, once more, his regret at the untimely suppression of the Finance Committee, which went into a full investigation of the civil affairs of the navy, and which, had it not been for the abrupt termination of its labours, would doubtless have afforded the most valuable information. With respect to the Board of Ordnance, that Committee did present 351 a valuable report, from which very important information might be derived with respect to the subject under discussion. The House would permit him, perhaps, to read an extract from what was said by the Chairman of that Committee. The Chairman stated, on the part of his (Sir James Graham's) noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was unable to attend, that 'His impressions perfectly coincide with mine; and I am opinion that the feeling of Parliament with regard to the opposition of the Navy Board, and with regard to the reduction of expense, was fully borne out by the evidence given before that Committee.' With respect to the reductions to be made in the Navy Board, he says:—'I am of opinion that some such step is necessary, upon a full consideration of the evidence.' It was unnecessary to quote the opinions of other Members of that Committee who had, in the most precise language, confirmed the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell), he would read a short extract from the evidence of a gentleman called before that Committee, who had been a Lord of the Admiralty, and had, therefore, some experience on this subject. That gentleman said, 'I am certainly of opinion that, if they will but carry the course they are proposing into effect, the most efficient reform possible in the navy would be at once effected.' He would read another passage, which appeared to him to contain as strong evidence of the existing abuses as any that could be adduced. It was a most unexceptionable statement, made by a gentleman many years connected with the Admiralty, and well acquainted with its practice. The hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk) took an active part, last year, in a discussion relating to the appropriation of the votes of Parliament, and the practice which prevailed of making up the deficiency which occurred under different heads, in consequence of the sums voted for one purpose having been applied to another. The hon. Baronet on that occasion defended the practice, assigning as his reason for so doing what appeared the strongest evidence which could be adduced of the necessity of a change in the civil departments of the navy. The hon. Baronet said:—'The individual who brings forward the estimates is, I am well aware, responsible for their correctness; yet, when they have been once voted, the 352 Admiralty has no control over the expenditure of those sums; they are issued by the Treasury on the requisition of the Navy and Victualling Boards; and it was not until very lately that the Admiralty had an opportunity of knowing how the money was expended; for even the books of the Navy Office would not show under what heads the money was laid out.' Certainly, the hon. Baronet did not by any means overstate the case in making that assertion, and in support of it he would state four or five instances of the mismanagement of the affairs of the navy since the year 1826. The statement he was about to make was founded on official documents, and he was perfectly satisfied of their accuracy. The Government thought it necessary to erect some works in the year 1826; the works were commenced, before an application was made to Parliament, at an estimated expense of 44,000l. and upwards. The estimate laid on the Table in 1827 amounted to 30,000l., and the sum voted by Parliament was 8,000l. The next case was that of the Melville Hospital. No estimate was laid on the Table of the House till 1827. The estimate given by the Victualling Board to the Admiralty, was 35,027l., the estimate laid on the Table of the House by the Admiralty was, 25,000l., the sum expended was 61,655l., and the whole of the sum voted by Parliament on account of that establishment was 7,000l. The next case related to the considerable outlay at Cremil Point. No estimate was presented to the House in this case. The estimate originally given in by the Victualling Board to the Admiralty amounted to 291,512l. The expenditure began in 1824; that was one year before an estimate was presented. The total expenditure until 1830 was 249,441l., and the whole of the sum voted by Parliament between 1825, and 1826, and 1830, that is, from the commencement of the work until the period of his coming into office, was 74,000l. There was no general plan or estimate submitted to the Admiralty, or laid before Parliament. A sketch was made, but it was not drawn up in the regular form of a plan or estimate. No general vote was passed by the House—not one shilling more than he had stated was voted. Yet the work was all but completed, and an additional sum of 155,334l. had actually been paid. With regard to Weovil, there was an estimate submitted to the 353 House, but with regard to the works at Woolwich, which was the last case, there was no general plan or estimate submitted either to the Admiralty, or laid upon the Table of the House. Equal disparity was to be observed in this case between the sums voted by Parliament and the actual expenditure on the works. Including the bakehouse at Deptford, the sum expended from 1825 to 1830 for these works amounted to 835,400l.; while all that Parliament had voted was 270,000l., leaving 565,400l. to be provided for from other sources. This surplus, it appeared, might be applied to any other purpose than that for which it had been voted, without the intervention of Parliament—a proceeding which was highly objectionable. The House would naturally imagine that all this could not have taken place without the authority of the Admiralty, that Board being responsible for the arrangements connected with the public services. When his present Majesty, then Duke of Clarence, presided at the Admiralty, he referred to a very salutary order made by Lord Sandwich in the year 1776, which made it imperative that not less than two years' consumption of timber in reserve should be provided for ship-building at the different naval establishments. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) wrote to the Navy Board to make an inquiry upon this subject; and he held in his hand the answer to that inquiry. It was signed by the gallant Officer (Sir Byam Martin), and two other Commissioners of the Navy. That letter contained this passage. 'We beg to acquaint you, for the information of his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, that when the Comptroller of the Navy submitted the draft estimates to the Admiralty, the sum required was stated at 180,000l. We also beg to inform you, that the excess of expenditure in 1826 and 1827, beyond the grants of Parliament, would make it indispensably necessary to refrain, as much as possible, from the purchase of stores, chiefly timber, so as, under a limited grant, to obtain a sufficient surplus to last up to the meeting of Parliament in 1829.' Having stated to the House the excess of outlay under the head of building, from the year 1826 to the year 1830, beyond the votes of Parliament, he would state to the House how that outlay was met during those four years. In the year 1827, the sum voted by Parliament for the purchase of timber and stores 354 was 1,060,000l., the sum expended was 876,000l., leaving a balance of 184,000l. unaccounted for. In the year 1828, the sum expended less than that voted was 42,000l.; in 1829, it was 230,000l.; in 1830, 195,000l. Under the head of timber and of materials, there was expended in four years 1,029,000l. less than Parliament had voted. Out of that surplus the expense of the buildings was provided for He would next offer a few illustrations of the disobedience on the part of the subordinate boards to the directions of the Admiralty. Two regulations which, had they been strictly followed up, would have been found extremely useful, were introduced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Cockburn) when he was in the Admiralty. The first of those regulations had reference to the establishment of a check on the issue and receipt of public stores in the dock-yards; and it was supposed that, by keeping a ledger at each of the outports, and a counter-ledger at the Navy Board, no fraud could be committed as long as the two books corresponded in their items. A more judicious regulation, if carried into effect, could not have been devised; but it unfortunately happened, that, up to the present moment, it was impossible to obtain any information whatever from the ledger kept at the Navy Office. It was so much in arrear, that to attempt to complete it must be abandoned as hopeless. The other regulation had reference to the reduction of the number of labourers in the different dock-yards. It had been made by the Admiralty, and was signed by Lord Melville. The principle laid down in that regulation was most explicit, containing, at the same time, a positive direction that the number should be reduced. The instructions were, that no more men should be entered until the number was reduced to 6,000; and that when the number was reduced to 7,000, the men should be allowed to work on Wednesdays; and when to 6,000, on every day in the week. This regulation was introduced about a year before the late Government quitted office; and at that period, the number of men employed was 7,716; the number employed on the 31st of January last amounted to 7,493; so that, including what had taken place at Deptford, the reduction, in all that time, had not amounted to more than 200 men. He stated these facts to prove that there 355 was an insufficient control on the part of the Board of Admiralty, and an imperfect obedience on the part of the other Boards. Another circumstance that he might mention was, the subtraction of the public property from the dock-yards, which, under the present system, it was impossible to prevent; in illustration of which he might state, that in the course of seven weeks five and a half tons of copper, with the King's mark, had found its way from Chatham to Birmingham, and the fraud had only been discovered by a mere accident. He felt that he had gone to some length in his statement of these abuses, but he hoped that the House would excuse him, because he had done it from the feeling that, as he was about to propose a great change, he was bound to show that there was ample reason for requiring that change. Another instance of the same abuse was, that although a very accurate account of the stores and labour consumed in the building of a ship was kept, it would be next to impossible to give a statement of the money cost of the vessel, which arose from there being what he might call a sort of cabalistic set of figures employed in the dock-yards as to the prices paid; besides which, the old war prices had, till within the last four months, been almost universally kept up—prices that were in many instances 25, 30, and 40 per cent above the present prices current. He would mention one or two instances in illustration of this fact, which appeared in the course of an inquiry held during the last three months. Up to the period of last November, lead, which was now contracted for at 14s. 6d. per cwt., was entered as costing 1l. 1s. 6d. Iron, which at the present price, was from 8l. 10s. to 9l. 14s. per ton, was charged at from 13l. 14s. 8d. to 13l. 19s. 1d., and copper, the actual price of which, was 8d. per pound, was charged at 1s. 3d. The use of figures was generally introduced for the elucidation of a subject, but in this case it only led to confuse and entangle the question, so as to produce one complete tissue of delusion. He trusted that he had now shown that the present system was defective both in theory and practice, and that a remedy was highly desirable. The measure which he had to submit to the House, was a measure which might be exercised by the prerogative of the Crown, without the intervention of Parliament, for it chiefly depended on a recal of 356 patents of the Victualling and Navy Boards. There were, however, some minor points which would come within the province of Parliament, and he was, therefore, glad that an opportunity was thereby afforded of taking the sense of the Legislature on the subject, as it was far from his intention to counsel the revocation of those patents without the approbation of Parliament. What he intended to propose, subject to the consent of the House, was, the total abolition of the Navy and Victualling Boards, so that there should be but one Board for the management of the whole naval affairs of the country; by which arrangement every department—the building of ships, their repairs, the outlay for stores, the application to Parliament for money, the distribution of the money when voted, the necessary attention to the Appropriation Act—would all be under the control of one Board, which would be responsible to Parliament for the public service of the country. It might, perhaps, be said, that this multifarious business could not be brought within the compass of a single office. He would, however, contend, that, in principle, this objection was not well founded; and that that difficulty would be obviated by a judicious distribution of the labour of the different persons composing the Board. In this opinion he was fortified by the experience derived from the Board of Ordnance. That Board had been constructed on a new model with great care; that Board had been found to work well; and it might, therefore, be considered as the result of an experiment that had answered. What he proposed was, to divide the whole of the naval service into five great departments, with an officer at the head of each. The first of those officers would be the Surveyor General, whose duty would be pretty much the same as now. He would have to superintend the dock-yards—to look to the building of the ships—the care of ships in ordinary, and be responsible for their proper repair. The second would be the Accountant General, Hs would have to superintend the accounts of the Victualling and Navy Boards—accounts which, at the present time, were not kept on the same principle, the double-entry having been advantageously resorted to in the Navy Board—while the same practice in the Victualling Department had been prohibited by an order from the Board of Admiralty, This order, however, 357 would be no longer continued; and he thought that, from the same system being adopted in every department, the Accountant General would be found competent to the whole of the labour. The third officer would be the Storekeeper General, whose duty would be very much the same as at present. He would have to see to the supply of the principal articles necessary for the consumption of the fleet. The fourth officer would be the Superintendant of the Victualling Department, whose duty would be very similar to that of the present Victualling Board, except that some of those duties would be transferred to the other departments. The fifth officer would be the Superintendant of the Medical Department, and of the Hospitals at home and abroad. These, then, were the five divisions under which he proposed to place all the business connected with the management of the civil affairs of the navy in all its branches. He should propose, that the officers at the head of those departments should not be commissioners, holding their situations by patent, and possessing co-ordinate authority with other Boards, even with the Commissioners of the Admiralty itself, as was the case at present; but that they should be appointed under warrants from the Board of Admiralty, and that they should retain their situations during the time they performed their duties properly. In his humble judgment, this was a much more efficacious plan than the present; since, if any change of Administration took place, it would not effect those individuals, who would remain in office while they conducted themselves in a satisfactory manner. The arrangement which he thus proposed would, he thought, be found superior even to the plan of the Board of Ordnance, because the chief officers connected with it were liable to be changed with the Administration, of the day. Thus, when they had acquired a competent knowledge of their duties, they might, by the change of Administration, be deprived of office, which would be handed over to others, who, perhaps, were wholly unacquainted with the business they would be called on to perform. Therefore it was, that he wished those five officers to hold their situations by warrant from the Admiralty during good behaviour. Instead of four Commissioners with the first lord, he proposed that, there should be five Commissioners, one to preside over each of the 358 departments he had enumerated. This system had all the advantage of the arrangement of the Board of Ordnance. It gave the regular cognizance, of each department to its own proper head, while the whole would be brought under the consideration of the General Board, and every thing that demanded investigation would be decided before the Board, and the proceedings would be regularly noted by the Secretary. There would thus be a just division of labour, an undivided control, and a due responsibility, on the one hand, and, on the other, that unity and simplicity which he held to be the very essence and life of public business. It might be objected, that the effect of this plan would be to increase the number of placemen in that House. He recollected, when he sat on the other side of the House, that he and his friends fought a very hard battle, in order to reduce the number of Commissioners from six to four, and they succeeded. He now wished, for the reasons which he had stated, to have five officers, one at the head of each department, who, with the first Lord, would form six functionaries; it being provided, however, that no greater number should sit in Parliament than was the case at present. He might, now, perhaps, without vanity, be allowed to state the number of officers that had been reduced last year, and the number which he would be able to reduce hereafter, if the House acceded to his proposition. The right hon. Gentleman opposite talked the other evening of the "gleanings" of the present Ministry. He would now give the right hon. Gentleman a specimen of those gleanings, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not impede the labour of the gleaners. In the course of last year, he had been able to reduce four Commissioners, producing a saving to the amount of 4,000l. a year; thirty-seven superior officers, which had effected a saving of 9,470l.; twenty-five inferior officers, a saving of 1,285l.; and eight clerks, a saving of 1,970l.. If the plan that he was now proposing met with the approbation of the House, he should be able, in the next three months, to reduce five Commissioners, to the amount of 6,000l.; three Secretaries,2,600l.; twenty-nine superior officers, 10,280l.; six inferior officers, 1,440l.; and fifty-four clerks, 11,950l..—making altogether a saving, under the head of Commissioners, of 10,000l.; of Secretaries, 2,600l.; of su- 359 perior officers, 19,7501l.; of inferior officers, 2,725l.; and of clerks, 13,920l.; forming a total saving, if his measure were acceded to, upon the civil establishment of the Navy (always keeping out of the account the Superannuation List, which was a perfectly distinct matter), of 49,059l. He should, according to his own judgment, imperfectly discharge his duty, after having dwelt so much upon the misappropriation, in defiance of Parliament, of money voted for particular service, if he did not propose to the House a plan to prevent it in future. He would not enter into all the details of that plan, but he thought he might venture to declare, that it would establish an efficient prospective remedy, to prevent that misapplication of the public money for other purposes than those for which it had been voted, some instances of which he had detailed to the House. From the manner in which the proposition of last night was received, he thought he could collect, that there was no unwillingness to accede to the proposal of making the financial year terminate on the 31st March, instead of the 31st December. From the nature of the naval service, a considerable length of time must elapse before the accounts could be transmitted home, from various parts of the world, and it was therefore difficult to audit the whole accounts of the sums drawn, and the payments up to any particular time. But there was no great difference between the transactions of the merchant and the statesmen; and the merchant closed his banker's book at the end of the year, although his own books might be kept open to complete his mercantile transactions. He proposed that the Admiralty should audit their Treasurer's accounts at the close of the financial year, and give the Treasurer an acquittance. The accounts themselves might be kept open till the 30th November, which would be adopting so much of the French system of accounts as appeared applicable to the naval service of this country. He was of opinion, that it would be highly injudicious to alter the mode of paying the fleet. Our system, in that respect, was different altogether from that of the French, which could not, therefore, be applied to our naval service. He proposed no change in that part of the system, which would go on as before. The banker's book would close on the 31st of March, and the other accounts might be kept open till the 30th of November, by 360 which time, the greater part, if not all, of the vouchers would be remitted home. His next proposition was, that the Admiralty should, on the 30th of November, transmit to the Board of Audit, the Treasurer's accounts closed up to the 31st of March, and the accounts, together with all vouchers, should undergo an effectual audit, and that it should be the duty of the auditors, on the 31st January of each year, to lay on the Table of that House a report. That report would embrace a balance-sheet, comparing the expenditure with the Estimates; it would show what surplus remained unexpended, and what had been expended beyond the Estimates under each head. The auditors should also state any discoveries of improprieties they might have made, and submit any interrogatories which they might think ought to be put. Within the period of between the 30th of November and the 31st of January, it would not be possible to make a full and effectual audit, but it would be sufficient to enable Parliament, first, to convert what was now a nominal responsibility in the officer who brought forward the Estimates into a real responsibility. The interrogatories, secondly, would enable Members to ask questions, and the person who moved the Estimates would have to give answers to those questions, and explain the interrogatories of the auditors. He concluded that the hon. member for Middlesex would never allow the Estimates to be brought forward without having those interrogatories in his hands. But the great advantage, undoubtedly, would be, that it would convert a nominal into a real responsibility. He was not aware that he had anything further to add to this statement. The measure would make a large reduction in the number of public officers, and a large reduction in the public expenditure; it would diminish the number of placemen in that House, and produce a more effectual control over the expenditure of the public money; it would afford a means of ascertaining that a scrupulous adherence was observed of the appropriation made by Parliament: it redeemed all the pledges he had ever given when on the other side of the House, and acknowledged all the principles for which he and his friends had ever contended. Notwithstanding that, if he thought, in his conscience, that it was not calculated to benefit the public service, and to improve the efficiency of the British Navy, none of 361 those considerations should induce him to bring it forward. But, entertaining an opinion that it would promote the public service, he was anxious that the House should allow him to bring in the Bill. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in "A Bill to amend the Laws relating to the business of the Civil Departments of the Navy, and to make other regulations for the more effectually carrying on the Duties of the same."
§ Sir Byam Martinsaid, he had heard the clear statement of the right hon. Baronet with satisfaction, but he did not believe that his plan would benefit the public service. It was easy enough to make a great alteration in theory, which in practice would be found not to be beneficial. The right hon. Baronet proposed to dissolve the Navy Board, and stated, as one of his reasons, that his late colleagues and himself (Sir Byam Martin) had not participated in the views of the Admiralty, but had thrown obstructions in its way. He would say, for himself and his colleagues, that any opposition he or they had ever offered to the Admiralty, was made in honest and open sincerity. He had, when propositions had been submitted to him, pointed out respectfully what he supposed would be their practical operation. He could appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to bear him out in his assertion. It had been his invariable rule, during the forty-six years he had been in the service, to state, when called upon, his opinion frankly and without reserve. He had very frequently said to the Admiralty, "You have come to a decision contrary to my opinion, but issue your orders, and I will carry them into execution with as much zeal and earnestness as if they were favourite projects of my own." He could conscientiously say, he had always acted up to that rule. The right hon. Baronet had again referred to what he called the irregularity of the precise sums which were voted for each particular department of the Navy not being applied for the exact purposes intended. But that was no new practice, introduced by the late Ministry: the custom had always existed, in the Naval Service, to appropriate the gross sums voted by the House to whatever services it was found most convenient to apply them. Of all the points mentioned by the right hon. Baronet, there was only one which he should notice, and that was connected with the works at Woolwich, 362 which had exceeded the expenditure. That was the case, he allowed; but it was owing to the peculiar nature of the works. While the workmen were engaged in making the basin, the whole front of the sea wall threatened to fall in, and the people were obliged to work at it night and day to prevent it. That had caused a great additional expense. That made the Navy Board sanction from time to time the expenditure proposed by Mr. Rennie; but there had never been the slightest notion of concealment on the subject, and the Navy Board considered themselves perfectly justified, as long as the money was duly appropriated to the public service, although it might not have been voted for the exact purpose to which it was applied. The right hon. Baronet, had stated candidly the cause of his removal from the Navy Office, and he thought he ought to feel gratified that he had been dismissed from the Navy Board, because, in the execution of his duty, he dared to speak his opinion to the First Lord of the Admiralty. While he was in office, he had never failed to speak when he thought the interest of the service required it. The right hon. Baronet charged the Navy Board with wilful and perverse disobedience; but a more unfounded assertion was never made in that House. The instance the right hon. Baronet had referred to, was the case of the Ledgers ordered to be kept at the Navy Office, as a counterpart of those kept at the dock-yards, as a check upon the receipt and expenditure of stores which the right hon. Baronet asserted had never been kept up. It was a new plan, which had been in existence only for one year, and it was not proposed to be continued, and was not very well understood. The right hon. Baronet had also referred to the non-discharge of labourers; but all he had to answer to that charge was, that every order given by the Admiralty had been executed: the right hon. Baronet, in his over zeal, had written an angry letter to the Navy Board, to know why it did not obey certain orders. The answer was, that they were never given. During the progress of the Bill, he should certainly move for papers to throw light on these proceedings, and that no doubts might be thrown on the fairness and justice of his statement. The right hon. Baronet complained of five tons of copper having been lost, without that loss being discovered; but ten tons might have been taken, without any dis- 363 covery having been made. The right hon. Baronet said, that this arose because an account was not taken of the stores; but to do that frequently would cost several thousand pounds, and if done every year, would employ all the people in the dockyards doing that alone. The right hon. Baronet said, that the price-book was not corrected since 1826; but that was the duty of the professional men; and, in general, the prices were regulated by the prices in the market. The right hon. Baronet had quoted from a pamphlet of his [Sir James Graham said, he had quoted the speech of the hon. Baronet]. He had, then, nothing further to say on that point. The right hon. Baronet, in pursuing economy, was, he was afraid, overlooking more important considerations. Who, he would like to know, would, in this new Board, take charge of the civil service of the Navy? He had always thought that the Comptroller of the Navy should have a seat at the Admiralty, but not be liable to be turned out when political changes took place, and should, therefore, see all the orders of the Admiralty executed. Who could now do that? Who would check the enormous expenditure? Was it to be done by the Accountant General? Was he to send down all bills to the Admiralty? Why, that would amount to 3,000,000l. or 4,000,000l. a year, and in war-time to 23,000,000l. or 24,000,000l.; and the messenger who had to bring back the bills signed from the Admiralty, might easily walk off with a large sum. There would be no security. He understood that the Surveyor of the Navy was to be continued, and why then was Sir Robert Seppings dismissed? He declared that he had never, in the whole course of his life, met with so diligent, so faithful, so honest a public servant. He was a most respectable man, who had laboured in the public service for fifty years without thinking of his own concerns, and yet he was dismissed. That required explanation. Sir Robert Seppings was one of the most efficient men that ever was in his situation, and in his place they were going, probably, to put in some fanciful builder. His mode of putting ships together was most useful, and its excellence was proved, by every nation having adopted it. He knew that some people had most unworthily tried to raise prejudices against Sir Robert Seppings, but his name would be remembered with honour when those of his traducers would 364 have sunk into contempt and oblivion. As long as a ship floated on the ocean, Sir Robert Seppings would be respected. There were other officers who, out of very moderate incomes, supported families respectably, who were looking with fear and trembling at the right hon. Baronet's plans, and prayed for a speedy decision. He had only made a few observations, but there were a multitude of questions which must be discussed while the Bill was in progress. When the Bill was sufficiently matured to be brought in, he would give it an impartial and unprejudiced consideration. As far as it was calculated to benefit the public service, he would support it; but if he thought it likely to be injurious, he would give it a most decided opposition.
§ Sir George Cockburnsaid, he must apologize to his hon. and gallant friend (Sir Byam Martin) for not having risen immediately after the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had concluded his speech, to declare his conviction that the right hon. Baronet had borne hardly and unfairly upon his hon. and gallant friend, and the members of the subordinate Boards in general. He had had a seat at the Admiralty for twelve years, and had frequently thought some change in the civil administration of the Navy must ultimately take place. He was ready to admit that the Admiralty had not always found the Navy Board ready to act as the Admiralty wished. But he had before stated, and he was bound to repeat, that he believed the opposition of the Navy Board was always well intended, and was, in many cases, extremely valuable. It was natural for every man to be zealous, perhaps too zealous, and that he believed was his own case, in making what he considered improvements, particularly on first entering into office: but the Navy Board, which he might call the Board of Detail, being composed of men who had risen principally from the various departments in the service, was generally opposed to any sweeping change, come from whatever quarter it might; and it had, he believed, by that part of its constitution, prevented a great deal of mischief. It prevented other people going too fast; and was, on the whole, he thought, very beneficial. It was a most valuable drag-chain on those who were in too much haste; at the same time, he had never known the Navy Board make any opposition to orders when they 365 were given. With respect to the buildings at Weovil, he must state, that, when the Lord High Admiral was at Portsmouth, he had remarked how inconvenient it was to have the various Victualling Departments scattered about in different places. He had inquired what would be the expense of making one complete establishment at Weovil, where a part of the business was carried on; and, understanding that the price received for the old buildings, which were situated in the streets of Portsmouth, would pay for new ones to be built at Weovil, which was on the other side of the water, they were ordered to be built. It turned out, however, that part of the old victualling buildings were taken as barracks, and did not net so much money as was expected. Parliament was not then sitting; but after Parliament had met—in 1827, he believed—he was asked by his gallant friend (Sir Joseph Yorke) a question on the subject. He had then stated all the circumstances of the case, which met no disapprobation from the House, and on which no deception had been practised. With reference to the alteration proposed by the right hon. Baronet, it struck him that it would destroy the responsibility which now belonged to the heads of the different departments. It was of vast importance to have responsible officers, and in that this measure would fail. The right hon. Baronet had compared his plan to that for the regulation of the Ordnance, but in that, the head of each department, was responsible for his department; but in the proposed plan, the subordinate officers in the civil departments of the Navy would remain in their offices throughout all political changes, and, consequently, they would have the whole correspondence, and would, in fact, be the managing persons, without the responsibility. On them the Admiralty must rely, particularly the members of that Board on first entering into office, several of whom might be ignorant of the nature of naval management. On this account, he thought the heads of the various departments had better be formed into a subordinate and separate Board, having the responsibility, but being liable to the general directions of the Admiralty. If the right hon. Baronet carried his plan, in that respect, into execution, he (Sir G. Cockburn) was convinced, that in three years, or even in one year, it would be found not to work well. However, when the Bill came under the 366 consideration of the House, he pledged himself to give it all the attention in his power.
Sir Thomas Troubridgesaid, that every thing stated by the two last hon. speakers strongly corroborated all that had been so ably urged by the first Lord of the Admiralty. It was well known that a jealousy had occasionally subsisted between the Navy and Admiralty Boards, and that their difference of opinion had been most injurious to the interest of the naval service on a variety of occasions: on this subject, he would produce better authority than his own, in a letter of advice written by Lord Rodney to Lord Chatham when First Lord of the Admiralty, to which he begged leave to call the particular attention of the House. Lord Rodney said, 'Above all things keep up the dignity of the Board, and never suffer inferior Boards to obtrude any point whatsoever, which they will always attempt to do, and are ever ready to remonstrate in-stead of obeying, but never suffer any admiral or captain to dare to remonstrate against, or disobey the orders of the Lord High Admiral. The Navy Board, in particular, have ever been ambitious of rendering themselves an independent Board; they have not yet carried their point, and I hope never will. The Board of Admiralty are responsible for the state of the navy, and are liable and amenable for their conduct to Parliament; of course all subordinate Boards should be under their control, and obey their commands—make them lay all the contracts for their stores and their ac-counts before the Board of Admiralty once or twice in the year, together with an account of the condition of every vessel belonging to the State, and particularly mark the class of ship which is in every port. The Board of Admiralty then will always have it in their power to know in what manner the Navy Board make their appointments—my meaning for this suggestion is, that the Navy Board, from favour, or the Surveyor of the Navy, through partiality, recommends a ship belonging to some friend, of theirs, or some ship which, they have constructed, in preference to all others, never suffer any dictation, but keep all the patronage to the Admiralty; all the officers of every rank would then look up to it.' He now came to a very serious part of the letter, to which he begged 367 the attention of all parties. Lord Rodney went on to say, 'For God's sake never suffer your mind to be prejudiced against any officer, and be ever on your guard against any one who attempts to traduce a brother officer.' Many parts of this letter, he thought, fully corroborated what had been said by the First Lord of the Admiralty. At all events it shewed what were the opinions entertained by officers of high rank and great experience. He could further corroborate this opinion, by the testimony of his own immediate ancestor, who had sat some time as a member of the Admiralty during the administration of the late Earl of St. Vincent. He hoped, therefore, that party spirit would not be allowed to have any influence upon the decisions of hon. Members with respect to this Bill, and he trusted that the experience and talents of those who had been in office, would be brought to the aid of the proposed alteration; which in his conscience he deemed pregnant with good to the British nation in improving the administration of the British Navy, of which he had the honour to be a humble member. He could not on this occasion avoid paying the tribute of his gratitude to his Majesty's Government for introducing this measure, and also for the reduction in the amount of the Estimates now lying on the Table, which he looked upon as the best security that Government meant strictly to fulfil the pledges of economy which they had made on their acceptance of office. The noble Earl at the head of the Government, in himself a model of consistency as to his public conduct, aided as he was in the other House by Lord Brougham, and supported as he was in this House by high talent, could not, he thought, fail in rendering his country great and permanent service.
§ Sir George Clerkperfectly concurred in the hope expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, that every hon. Member who entered into the consideration of this subject would divest himself of all prejudices or party feelings; and he was therefore surprised that after expressing that hope the hon. and gallant Member had ended his speech by eulogising one party in that House. He would not, however, follow the hon. and gallant Member's example; but would confine himself to making a few observations on what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty. 368 He felt some difficulty in expressing a decided opinion on a plan so extensive, particularly on a first view of it, as detailed by its author to the House. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that he was most ready to assist in promoting any part of the plan which might appear likely to be beneficial to the public; but it appeared to him, from the imperfect conception he had formed, after hearing the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that there were parts of his plan which would aggravate the evils the right hon. Baronet complained of; and that there were other parts of it which he apprehended would be found wholly impracticable. The right hon. Baronet laid down as the ground-work on which he proposed to build his improved system, that the Admiralty, being the superior Board, was frequently thwarted by the other Boards, which ought to be strictly subordinate to the Admiralty, and that the result was exceedingly injurious to the public service. He altogether differed from the right hon. Baronet in that view. It was the duty of the Navy Board to point out any practical difficulty in the way of executing the plans of the Admiralty; and it was the duty of the Admiralty to modify their plans when that difficulty was satisfactorily proved to exist. In fact it did frequently happen, that the suggestions, and even remonstrances of the Navy Board, led the Admiralty to make improvements in its projects. It was the bounden duty of all persons connected with the public service, to give their opinions openly but respectfully, and he therefore regretted that the right hon. Baronet had not found amongst those under his command some man of independent mind like his hon. friend (Sir Byam Martin) to point out to him the practical evils of many parts of his proposed plan, which must be evident, he thought, to any man of experience, even on a cursory view of it. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that there had been a want of sufficient control by the Admiralty over the other departments, and especially over the expenditure of the Navy Board, and that there had been in several instances an excess of expenditure in that department above the Estimates submitted to that House. Part of that excess arose in the Victualling-Office. It had been his duty on a former occasion, to explain that circumstance, and he begged now again to repeat the explanation. During the four years subsequent to 1825, 369 there was a great reduction in the price of provisions, and a surplus of the money voted for that purpose, the Estimates having been calculated on the prices of provisions during the former years, remained on hand. At that time several works of importance were in progress, the expense of which had been spread over a number of years, for the purpose of not pressing too much on the resources of the country; but with a surplus on hand from the other grants, it became expedient, and in fact, economical, to employ that surplus in carrying on those works more rapidly than was at first contemplated. Up to a late period of the war, the Navy Estimates were voted in one sum, and the Appropriation Act did not apply to them. He was not prepared to say, that if each of the departments could be confined to a sum specified by Parliament, it would not be a great improvement. The right hon. Baronet said he would try that experiment. He did try it last year, and the account on the Table shewed that the plan had not been practicable. The principal charge however, against the administration of the Navy, was, that nearly 1,000,000l. less than the sum voted for stores in the four years, 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828, had been laid out. It might be presumed, in consequence, that the naval arsenals were insufficiently supplied. Acting under this impression, the right hon. Baronet himself took a vote for stores, to the amount of 800,000l. But in the course of last year, having had an opportunity of inspecting the dock-yards, he found that there was no deficiency, and he had accordingly proposed a much less vote this year. He begged leave to state how the surplus money was disposed of. During the years 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828, when the public service required ships to be sent to the Tagus and to the Mediterranean, the Admiralty was obliged to increase the number of seamen beyond what had been voted; and was forced by circumstances over which they had no control, to employ that increased number much longer than was expected. The House must be aware that, by Act of Parliament, the Treasurer of the Navy was bound, in the first place, to pay seamen's wages out of any monies in his hands, without reference to the Appropriation Act; and if the right hon. Baronet would look to that circumstance, he would find that the sum paid on that account, would very nearly exhaust the 370 sum which was allowed but not expended on stores. During the three years, 1826, 1827, and 1828, there had been an actual saving upon the sum voted by Parliament for the Naval Department, of above 1,000,000l., which the right hon. Baronet found in the Exchequer, and with which he was carrying on the naval service for the present quarter. The right hon. Baronet had also charged the Navy Board with not having carried into effect the orders of the Admiralty, for the reduction of the workmen in the dock-yards. The order of November, 1829, for the discharge of artificers was not obeyed, on account of the extreme distress which prevailed at that time throughout the country. It was stated, that the greatest possible hardships would arise, if so many men were discharged at that particular moment; the men were therefore retained, but at a great reduction in the previous amount of their wages. The right hon. Baronet must recollect, that when he came into office, so far from finding an excess in the number of workmen employed in the yards, that it became necessary for him to order that these workmen should work six days instead of five; therefore it did not become the right hon. Baronet to find fault with the Navy Board for having made that arrangement. Another subject alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, as a defect in the present system, was the want of a sufficient check upon the expenditure of the stores in the dock-yards,—as an illustration of which he adduced the fact of the abstraction of a quantity of copper which had not been missed; but when it was considered, that extreme labour, time, and expense, were necessary to make frequent surveys of the stock remaining in hand, it would not be surprising that a quantity of copper should have been purloined from the yard at Chatham, without that fact having been known till an intimation to the Navy Board was given by an anonymous letter from Birmingham. The persons were then detected, brought to trial, and convicted; and a change had been made in the watchmen over the yard, which would make it impossible for any article to be stolen again. The right hon. Baronet had also stated, that the three Boards were appointed in a similar manner by patents under the Great Seal. But until the right hon. Baronet had affirmed it, he had never before heard that the authority of these Boards was considered 371 co-equal. The hon. and gallant officer (Sir Thomas Troubridge) had remarked, that thirty years ago, when a relative of his was in the Admiralty Department, there were similar complaints made against the Navy Board; and the hon. and gallant Officer had read a letter of advice written by Lord Rodney, which he seemed to consider extremely applicable to the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham). He had no doubt that the right hon. Baronet would be extremely happy to adopt the advice contained in that letter, but he was afraid, the power he appeared so desirous to obtain, would be found infinitely greater than he and his colleagues at the Admiralty would be able to manage, and a great deal of efficient control over the expenditure of the Navy would therefore devolve upon persons who, by the proposed arrangement, would be without any personal responsibility whatever. The right hon. Baronet had stated that it was not intended that the new offices created by his plan should be considered political offices, whereas the persons who hold the higher ones would be subject to ministerial changes; the consequence would be, that these persons, during the first two or three years of their being in office, must depend upon the recommendation of the persons who filled the situations of secretaries and chief clerks. The persons filling these higher situations, would no doubt be of the greatest integrity and ability; but would it be possible for the Admiralty, unless it had persons under the Board really acquainted with the details of office, to perform their duties efficiently? The real responsibility would be thrown upon persons obliged to act under the dictation and advice of those to whom no responsibility attached. With respect to the union of offices, the first step ought to have been, to have tried the effect of uniting the Navy and the Victualling Boards, still retaining the five officers as at present, because it appeared to him that in no one part of the plan of the right hon. Baronet, had he made any provision whatever with regard to the immense correspondence which would fall upon the Admiralty, on the extinction of the subordinate Boards. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that all correspondence, and all questions relating to expenditure, and all propositions of importance, were intended to be discussed openly at the Admiralty Board. If that Board attempted 372 to take upon itself these duties, and to conduct all the correspondence, neither the Lords of the Admiralty, nor the Secretary of that Board, would be able, for one week, to carry on the business of the office. He was surprised the right hon. Baronet had not entered into some of those important details. The right hon. Baronet appeared to have a very inaccurate idea of the nature and extent of the duties performed by the Navy Board; he would say perhaps, that he would destroy the correspondence between the three Boards; but that would make a very small reduction upon the total amount of the correspondence carried on by the Navy Board with all the dock-yards in the kingdom, with officers fitting out ships with contractors, and with various other parties. Naval officers very frequently complained of the Navy Board, on account of its strict adherence to regulations which frequently compelled it to refuse what appeared to the officers, reasonable requests. When an officer had got a ship to fit out, he was naturally anxious to obtain many extra articles beyond the proper establishment; and then it very often became a very troublesome part of the duty of the Navy Board to refuse its assent, which excited unpleasant feelings between the parties; and he had no doubt that some such feeling occasioned that excellent quarter-deck law, for strict subordination, laid down by Lord Rodney. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, what power the Surveyor-General, the Accountant-General, the Storekeeper, and the chief medical officer were to enjoy? Were those officers to have any power to give orders of their own authority. The right hon. Baronet intimated that an Act of Parliament could not limit these matters. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet; the only way in which those things could be satisfactorily discussed, would be, a Committee to inquire into the various details; and as the right hon. Baronet had said that the labours of the Finance Committee had been arrested just at that point, that was an argument why a Committee should now be appointed; and certainly a measure of such magnitude, and of such immense importance, as that of altering the whole administration of the navy, which had existed from the time a navy was first formed, was one which he thought Parliament should not sanction without being fully satisfied of the practicability of the 373 plan proposed. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that in the whole of these arrangements no new appointment was to be made by him, except another Lord of the Admiralty. He was glad to hear it, because reports were in circulation, that it was intended to dismiss Sir Hubert Seppings. He regretted that a person, whose great services had been recognized by a vote of this House on a recommendation from the Finance Committee of 1819, and whose fame was not confined to this country, but was spread all over Europe, should be dismissed from the service of his Majesty. There was no country that had a navy which had not adopted his plans; and he felt no less surprise than sorrow to learn that it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to discharge so meritorious an officer, who was still as capable of carrying on his duties as any person in his Majesty's navy. The right hon. Baronet had stated that another part of his plan related to the auditing of accounts. That he approved of, for according to the present system, there was no such thing as any efficient audit of the naval accounts—it was a mere matter of form; but he saw no advantage to be derived from making the accounts up to the 31st of March and the books up to the 30th of November. He begged leave to ask the right hon. Baronet, if any material error should be discovered in the accounts, or any expenditure above the estimates authorized by the vote of this House, should take place, who was to be responsible for the irregularity—the Board of Admiralty, the Accountant-General, or the officers of the Navy-office? Here was matter of audit, and who was to be answerable for the deficiency? If it was the Board of Admiralty, that would be making it a Board of Account, or nobody would be responsible for any errors which might arise. If it was intended that the Board which gave the orders was not to be accountable, and the Accountant General was not to be so, according to the right hon. Baronet's own statement, but to be strictly a subordinate officer, the right hon. Baronet, in fact, exempted his superiors from all responsibility. There were many further details, which he would pass over at present, but he must observe, that unless some concentration of the business took place, if the new plan was attempted, it would most assuredly fail. If the higher departments were conducted at Charing- 374 Cross, and the details at Somerset House, the most important documents would be obliged to be carried through the streets upon all occasions, and much time must be necessarily lost in communication. In conclusion, he begged leave to state, that if there had been formerly a complicated and inconvenient manner employed in keeping the naval accounts, that difficulty had been removed by the improved system of double entry brought into use by Mr. D. Thompson, the present Accountant General. Further improvements, he admitted, might be made, and a better audit established. He had no intention of opposing the Motion for bringing in the Bill, but he must set down by declaring, that he feared the result of the right hon. Baronet's plan would be, to create confusion and embarrassment in the naval administration of the country.
Captain Yorkesaid, he feared one Board would never be able to get through the complicated business connected with the civil administration of the navy. He knew the duties of the subordinate Boards were at times very severe; and as to the greater certainty of the amount of the different estimates being applied for the specific purposes intended, he doubted if the new plan could have that effect, where so much depended on the cost of the articles to be provided, and the necessity of more or less repair which ships might require during the year. With respect to Sir Robert Seppings, he was undoubtedly a man of the highest, attainments in his profession, and had effected great improvements in ship building, as was acknowledged by the officers of all foreign navies with whom he (Captain Yorke) had come in contact. As to the gentleman who, it was rumoured, was to be appointed his successor (Captain Symonds) he had the pleasure of his acquaintance, and knew him to be an excellent officer, and a man of great ingenuity and science, and he had built some small vessels, which answered very well, but he was a great experimenter, and it was doubtful whether his plans would succeed when applied to large ships of war, which required other qualities besides being fast sailers. With all the detail of ship-building and of workmanship he was necessarily unacquainted, as he had not been brought up to the profession of a shipwright.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he should be better able to appreciate the reductions 375 proposed by his Majesty's Government in the Naval Department, after they should have carried on the business of that Department with the reduced establishment for some time. But he was bound to say, that the reductions appeared to him to be very extensive, and of such a nature that, if they could be carried into effect without injury to the public service, the right hon. Baronet would be entitled to the thanks of the House and the country. But there was one part of the reductions to which he hoped the right hon. Baronet had not pledged himself, as he thought that it could not be carried into effect. It was at variance with the principles upon which his system of reduction appeared to be founded. Those principles were two-fold; first, that the heads of the several public departments should be responsible for the officers employed under them. Secondly, that they should have an entire control over those officers. Now, he thought that they neither could be held responsible, nor exercise a sufficient control, if the officers held their places by warrant, quamdiu se bene gesserint, that was to say, that they would not be revocable by a new Administration, or by the Board of Admiralty, when it pleased.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the right hon. Baronet quite misunderstood him, and that he never intended to convey such a meaning in what he had said, and that he had not used the expression quamdiu se bene gesserint.
Sir Robert Peelthought that there should be an uncontrolled authority in the Board to remove the persons employed under it. They ought to be placed, as regarded their removal, precisely on the same footing with Under Secretaries of State. There were many ways in which an officer might so conduct himself as to render it imperative upon the head of his department to remove him, although he should not have done anything which could be directly charged as misconduct. Besides, no Administration ought to have the power of precluding any other which might succeed them from appointing to those offices persons in whom they might have confidence.
Captain Berkeleythought that the consolidation of the Navy Board with the Admiralty would be a great boon to all persons connected with the naval service of the country, and that improvements in ship-building would be the result.
Mr. Humeexpressed his satisfaction with the alterations proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He thought that if the reductions could be carried into effect without the naval service being impaired in efficiency, that right hon. Gentleman would deserve the thanks of the country, and the support of the House. He was fully convinced, although there might be some doubt about the minor details, that the proposed arrangements, from their simplicity, would be found both more economical and efficient than the present complicated system, many parts of which he verily believed, were only created for the purpose of making work for the others.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that he would not, at that late hour, occupy the House by refuting the observations of the right hon. Baronet, in reference to the late Administration, inasmuch as many Gentlemen who had heard the attack were not now present to hear the defence. But he was bound, in fairness to the right hon. Baronet, to give him credit for the goodness of his intentions, at the same time that he was compelled to deny his facts, and to dispute his reasoning. He should, however, reserve his arguments for a more fitting occasion.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that whenever the right hon. Gentleman should think proper to grapple with his statement, he would do his best to defend it. With regard to the officers alluded to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) their appointments would be held by warrant, and not by patent; and, of course, on a change of Government, they would be removable, if such should be the pleasure of the new Lords of the Admiralty. In fact, his plan placed them precisely on the same footing, in that respect, as the Under Secretaries of State.
§ Leave given, Bill brought in, and read a first time.