Lords Sitting of 29 March 1822

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of Darnleywished to ask the noble viscount opposite, whether he had been rightly reported, when he was represented to have said, that the diminution of two lords of the Admiralty would occasion encreased expense to the public; and if he had said so, on what ground that opinion was founded?
Lord Mclvillesaid, he had not only expressed that opinion, but could state facts which would convince the House of its being well founded. A few months ago, he had gone with other members of the board, to some of the principal dockyards, and had made inquiries which led them to believe that a considerable saving might be effected. It was then determined, that two professional members of the board should go down and carry the arrangement necessary for that saving into effect. But now that, with the exception of himself, there remained only four lords of the Admiralty, it was impossible to send down two professional lords for the purpose which he had mentioned, as it was always necessary that there should be two in town. The proposed inquiry must, therefore, be postponed, as well as the saving which it was expected to produce,
1382
which amounted to 10,000 l. Others less considerable might also have been effected, which must be suspended for the present. If any accident or illness happened to one of the lords of the Admiralty, reduced as their number now was, the public business must be much delayed, and in the Admix ratty the delay of a few days never failed to create much additional expense. With respect to the nature of the members, of the board, it was a fact that from their professional habits, officers were less Competent to the discharge of its general business than landsmen. To have majority of professional men on the Board would, therefore, produce inconvenience to the public service. At the same time if two were not present, whose professional opinion might be obtained, much delay would inevitably occur.
The Earl of Liverpoolagreed noble friend, that the abolition of two lords of the Admiralty was a measure by no means favourable to the public service or to economy. With regard to the constitution of the board, he had communicated with various professional men, and they all agreed, that in a board consisting of not more than five persons, majority ought not to be seamen.
Lord Hollandsaid, that as to the opinion, that the reduction was not advantageous to the public, such declarations from the noble earl must lose something of their weight, when it was recollected that he had formerly declared that the government of the country could not be carried on if such reductions were made. It was no wonder, therefore, that he regretted such a loss; but all his wailings, though assisted by the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty, would not bring back the two departed members to the board.
The Earl of Harrowbyinsisted, that his noble friend had never said he could not carry on the government if this or that office were reduced. All he had said was, that a great public inconvenience would result from the reduction. This, too, would be the opinion of the public, when they recovered from the delusion which at present prevailed on questions of this kind.
The bill was read a second time.