§ Lord Aucklandin moving the second reading of the Navy Civil Departments Consolidation Bill explained, that the object of this Bill was to bring the different offices for the management of the business of the navy, which were at present partly at the Admiralty, and partly at Somerset House, under one roof, and place them under one Board. The advantage of this arrangement would be increased despatch in the business, and a considerable saving of expense.
Lord Ellenboroughwas prepared to urge many objections to the measure, and was hound to say, that he entertained serious doubts of its policy. It was impossible, for example, that any naval men, however distinguished in their own profession, should be such good accountants, or so fit to form members of civil Boards, as persons whose education had been calculated for such duties. When he looked to the exploits of the British navy during the last 130 years, it did occur to him, that there could be no need of change in that department of the public service. But it appeared that all our institutions were to undergo some change in these times, with or without reason; and it might probably be shewn by some advocate of change, that if the alterations now in contemplation had been made earlier, we should have had better victories over the enemy, and more of them, than we had reason to boast of during the period he had mentioned. He had heard no reasons whatever assigned for such a sweeping alteration, except the advantage of transacting business without having any subsidiary Boards to record and check the proceedings of the Admiralty. He, however, thought it was a great security for the due performance of public duties when the highest officers were obliged to give their orders in writing. The Navy Board was composed of practical men of business, conversant with all the details of dock-yards and ship building, and he could not for one moment imagine, that Lords of the Admiralty, who were generally naval men of high reputation, and gentlemen of parliamentary influence, could effectually perform their duties. He doubted the advantages of their proposed measure, but should not oppose the Motion.
Lord Napierthought the noble Baron had entirely misunderstood or forgotten the principle of the Bill. The noble Baron had stated, that he did not conceive naval men were fit to conduct the civil departments of the navy.
Lord Ellenborough, interrupting the noble Lord: he had simply said, that naval officers, however efficient in their business, were not of necessity the fittest persons to place at the head of civil departments involving the duties of accountants.
Lord Napierconsidered that argument to be as applicable in favour of his proposition as in favour of that of the noble Baron. Professional men he considered, to be as capable of conducting the business of the country as any Member of their Lordships' House. Indeed, he had no doubt that, when the noble Baron himself had seen the greatest Captain of the age holding the highest civil office, he considered him the fittest person for that office. That illustrious individual had evidently held similar opinions; for, during the time he held office, he bestowed a large number of civil situations upon military men. His (Lord Napier's) individual opinion was, that men of that character formed much more able and efficient men of business than others, and would do more duty in ten minutes than any noble Lord, who had been brought up in the public offices, would in as many hours. The noble Baron had talked about responsibility and checks: to him it appeared perfectly immaterial whether that responsibility rested with the head of the Admiralty, or with the head of the Victualling Department. The regard to personal character was quite sufficient to ensure the proper discharge of the duties of any office. Nelson once said, "England expects every man to do his duty," he hoped that every man would so act in the fulfilment of the duties attached to his situation; and, if he did not, he was amenable to the laws. It had been his intention to have reserved his observations on the Bill until it had arrived in Committee, but he felt himself bound to say a few words in consequence of some remarks made in another place, deeply affecting the professional character of a gallant and intelligent friend of his, who neither was nor could be, present to defend himself. The attack on that gallant officer's character had gone throughout the country, and he was, consequently, suffering a degree of obloquy equally severe and unjust. He alluded to what had been said in the other House by that highly respectable and gallant Admiral who conducted the business of the Navy Board fur many years. It had been stated by the late Comptroller of the Navy, in reference to his gallant friend, Captain Symonds, who had been lately appointed to the office of Surveyor of the Navy, that he 1371 was altogether ignorant of the duties of his office. That, in this great maritime country, a reforming Administration should have appointed a man to superintend the construction of ships, upon which the security and honour of the country depended—that any report even of that nature should have gone abroad—was most astonishing. That assertion was a calumny which he could not allow to remain uncontradicted. Having had the pleasure of knowing Captain Symonds for many years, he would take upon himself to say, that there was not a better officer than Captain Symonds in all the British navy. His noble friend (Lord Vernon), who had been the first to discover the great peculiar talents and qualifications of Captain Symonds—had employed him to build a yacht, the superiority of which, in every respect, was such that he was induced to bring forward that officer and recommend him to the Navy Board, who, after obtaining security from his (Lord Napier's) noble relative in a sum of 20,0001., employed Captain Symonds to build a ship; at the same time, instructing Professor Inman, who was not a seaman, to do the same. Permission was also granted to Captain Hayes to build two or three ships—a gentleman who thought that he had made some discovery (which was now found to be fallacious) in naval architecture. It was to be observed, however, that the two latter of these gentlemen were not called upon to give any security for the expense which might be incurred in carrying their plans into execution. When these ships, together with others, built by the then Surveyor of the Navy went to sea in 1827, it was proved, as was perfectly well known to every man who had at all entered into the statements of the case, that the ship built by Captain Symonds was far superior to any of the rest of the squadron, and that that constructed by the then Surveyor of the Navy was the very worst. He was in possession of an extract from a letter written to him by the flag-lieutenant of that ship, in which he pointed out the different properties of all the ships which composed the squadron, and he stated it as his opinion, and that of every body in the fleet, that Captain Symonds's ship was by far the best, and Sir Robert Seppings's was the very worst. It was not his wish to say anything prejudicial to that gentleman—Sir Robert Seppings was a most industrious individual, who had faithfully and well discharged the duties of Surveyor of the Navy for the last thirty years, and, moreover, he was an eminent 1372 and distinguished shipwright, who had introduced several highly beneficial improvements into the construction of ships. For instance, Sir Robert Seppings invented the system of diagonal fastening, the object of which was, to equalize the strength of every part of a ship, and thus to obviate the highly injurious effects of weakness in a particular place, which, previously to its introduction, produced what was known by the term "hogging." The same gentleman also suggested the plan of building masts by connecting a number of small portions together, instead of five larger spars, as customary heretofore. He also first introduced round sterns, although, that he invented them could not be said; for, if their Lordships cast their eyes on the tapestry which covered the walls, they would see several beautiful examples of round sterns. It had been said in the other House, that the name of Sir Robert Seppings was known over the whole world, as the greatest naval architect and improver that ever lived. He was perfectly ready to give that individual all due praise, but he could not allow it to be said, that he was the author of every improvement which had taken place in the navy of late years. In fact, a great number of these improvements had been suggested by Admirals, Captains, and other officers in the navy—many of them humble individuals, whose names were unknown to their Lordships, and who had not even received the thanks of the Navy Board for their inventions. In this respect a great deal of good was likely to arise out of this Bill; for, when officers went to the Admiralty with their plans, the system now to be established would afford them a likelihood of being heard, and, if successful, of being rewarded; whereas, the individual who now presented himself with plans of any alteration or invention to the Navy Board, met with the most uncourteous reception, because his application was made to jealous rivals. He had heard over and over again the strongest complaints from his brother officers in this respect. During the period which he had had the honour of being in the navy (about thirty years), its condition had been greatly improved, principally by means of alterations suggested by officers in the navy, who having the opportunity of practically observing various defects in their ships, were the better enabled to remedy them. Very great improvements had also been made in the equipments of vessels. The first which he could then recollect was, the introduction of iron tanks as receptacles 1373 for the water in the stead of casks. By whom was that suggested? Any one connected with the Navy Board? No; by General Bentham. The next he would mention was, the employment of chain cables, the great superiority of which over the old rope cables no one now denied. Yet, when these were first proposed, every possible objection was raised by the Navy Board against their introduction. And who invented them? Any one belonging to that Board? Certainly not; it was Samuel Brown, a Captain in the royal navy. They were found to be so much superior to rope cables as actually, in many instances, to break the anchors, instead of being, as was frequently the case with the rope cables, which they superseded, snapt asunder. It became, therefore, necessary, if possible, to improve the anchors; which was, accordingly, attempted by the Navy Board. How far they succeeded in that attempt might be imagined, when he stated that the anchors made b according to their improved system would be found even worse than those which had been in use for many years. And why was this? Simply for this reason; that there was not, among the whole of the members composing that Board, a single individual capable of constructing an anchor on sound mechanical principles. Plans were laid before the Board by a very meritorious officer, with whom he was acquainted, who had for many years devoted his whole time and attention to the subject—and how were these plans received? They encountered the greatest opposition. In fact, it was the reproach of the Navy Board, that neither he, nor any other inventors, were ever, in the slightest degree, encouraged by that Board, so as to enable the country to enjoy the benefit of their inventions. This was an additional reason for consolidating the two Boards into one—that officers might be enabled to submit their plans to the direct and immediate inspection of the Board of Admiralty itself, and thus feel confident that they would be fairly and justly dealt with. This Bill would be productive of very great and eminent improvements in the whole conduct of the business of the navy, and be knew that to be the opinion held by a large number of officers—men possessing the very best information on the subject. In the very first conversation which he had had with the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty, he had stated to that right hon. Gentleman, that, until he knocked the Navy Board on the 1374 head, he would never be able to do any good at the Board of Admiralty. He, therefore, was quite ready to give his hearty support to this Bill, which, by getting rid of two subordinate Boards, and placing the undivided control and responsibility in the Admiralty, would be found to be productive of the greatest advantages to the naval service.
Lord Colvillemust beg, in the first place, to observe, that the allusion which his noble friend had made to the late Comptroller of the Navy had surprised him greatly. The subject was one wholly irrelevant to the matter before the House. As the noble Lord, however, had brought it forward, he would take the opportunity of observing, with respect to what was said elsewhere by the late Comptroller of the Navy, on the subject of Captain Symonds, that he never heard a warmer eulogium than the one which was bestowed upon that Officer in the House of Commons. Their Lordships had all of them access to that House, and the means of knowing what passsed there; and what the late Comptroller of the Navy had said of Captain Symonds was, that he was a most meritorious officer, but that he was not so well calculated to fill the office of Surveyor of the Navy as would be some man who had been bred to the duties of that branch of the profession. He would also observe, that, under the Administration of the noble Viscount who lately presided at the Admiralty, a school had been established for the express purpose of furnishing the country with persons duly qualified to hold the office of Surveyor of the Navy; and from the pupils of which it might have more reasonably been expected that that officer would have been selected, than from the navy. With respect to the measure itself, the second reading of which was now proposed, his noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) had expressed so much better than he (Lord Colville) could do, what were his sentiments upon it, that he would merely state, that he regretted his inability to arrest the progress of this Bill. As an Officer who had spent his best days in the navy, he considered himself called upon not to remain silent on the passing of a measure so deeply and vitally affecting its most important interests. He was no enemy to the Reform of any department of the public service in which it was required; but this Bill went too far; it was Reform on too extensive a scale. The business of the navy could not be properly conducted 1375 without the assistance of at least one Civil Board. It might, perhaps, have been judicious to have consolidated the Navy and Victualling Boards; but how could they go further, unless the Navy Board were placed more strictly under the Admiralty than it even now was. In his opinion, the Navy Board had always been a most efficient and useful Board; it had always acted as a wholesome check upon the proceedings of the Board of Admiralty, or, in the language which was made use of in another place by a gallant Officer who belonged to the late Board, "it has always acted as a wholesome drag," and, on some occasions, as a most proper drag upon the Admiralty. Thus, it was a most useful establishment; but it was unpopular, indeed, because it frequently interposed for the purpose of preventing, on the part of the Admiralty, a too ready compliance with the wishes of naval officers and others who were desirous of introducing changes and alterations which they considered improvements, but which would be very likely to lead the public into great and useless expense. With regard to the details of the Bill, any observations which he might wish to make, would be more properly made in Committee.
§ Bill read a second time.