The British Navy Past and Present
Published by The Navy League
Chapter VI ADMINISTRATION. The British Navy is administered by a Board of Admiralty, the members of which are Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral. It is a delegated power, for the guardianship of the seas, and, as a consequence, the command of the naval forces, are by common law vested in the Crown. The first mention of an Admiral in our records is that of Sir John de Beauchamp in the reign of Edward III., and of a High Admiral about 1426, after which the succession of Lords High Admiral remained unbroken until 1628. Henry VIII. established a Navy Board, who were ordered to meet weekly on Tower Hill and report their proceedings once a month to the Lord High Admiral. This Board continued, with some modifications, until it was abolished in 1832. It dealt with what were called the civil affairs of the Navy. In 1628 the office of Lord High Admiral was for the first time placed in commission, the Commissioners being the great officers of State. Charles II., later, made the Duke of York Lord High Admiral, but in the first year of the reign of William and Mary the office was again put in commission, with Admiral Arthur Herbert (created Lord Torrington) as head. Once or twice afterwards a Lord High Admiral was appointed, the last occasion being when the Duke of Clarence (afterwards King William IV.) was appointed in 1827 but he resigned the next year, owing to some difference with the Duke of Wellington on a question of travelling expenses, since which time the office has remained in commission.
The head of the Board is a Cabinet Minister under the official title of First Lord of the Admiralty. Formerly this minister was frequently a nava1 officer, but for many years a civilian has been selected. His want of technical knowledge is remedied by giving him naval colleagues, the senior of whom acts as his principal naval adviser. He is called the Senior Naval Lord. It has long been a matter for argument whether the First Lord of the Admiralty should be a naval officer or a civilian. There is much to be said on both sides, but I think naval opinion generally is in favour of the civilian. He comes to the office unbiased in favour of any particular phase of construction or of individual officers. He has no followers. He has usually some experience of departmental work. It is difficult to find a naval officer with all the special qualifications required. Even Lord St. Vincent was not altogether successful in administration, though at that time First Lords gave up their whole time to the great depart-ment they administered. Later on the Admiralty became more political, and there was some prejudice against a naval officer being its chief. As an example of this, when Lord Melville was First Lord and resigned in 1805, Pitt submitted the name of Admiral Sir Charles Middleton, then Senior Naval Lord, to the King as his successor, and also recommended his being raised to the peerage. George III., In reply, wrote to Pitt, saying: "His Majesty will not object to it, nor to his being advanced to the rank of a Baron, but his attending Cabinet meetings ought to be confined to subjects regarding the Navy." Sir Charles became Lord Barham, and it fe1l to him a few months later to make those arrangements by which the combined French and Spanish fleets were met by Sir Robert Calder and driven south.
A Second Naval Lord has most of the personnel under his administration, while a Third Naval Lord, as Controller, has all to do with the construction and equipment of ships. A Junior Naval Lord has the remainder of the personnel and other matters to look after. There is a Civil Lord and a Financial Secretary. Collectively they form a Board of the best professional opinion the Navy can furnish, and a system of administration which long experience has proved satisfac-tory. Those who are averse to bringing the sister service into line with the Admiralty as regards administration say the Board method has not undergone the test of war - a curious reading of history when nearly all the great conflicts of the past at sea took place with a Board at the head of naval affairs. It did not fail during those hundred years of struggle which culminated in Trafalgar and definite naval supremacy. Why should it do so in future wars? Experi-ence seems to demonstrate that great undertakings whether of a commercial or warlike nature, must be directed by one man or a board. If a Bonaparte is available probably the single direction will produce best results, but failing such a genius a small board with a good chairman seems to offer the best chance of success. A system under which administrative and executive functions are separately allocated to two high authorities is difficult to work, for the chief power must rest with the one who controls the purse strings and is responsible to Parliament for expenditure. We have an instance of the dual system in naval annals, when, in 1406, the administration of the Navy was confided to two merchants Nicholas Blackburne and Richard Clyderow: but it did not answer, and they were relieved of their functions within a year.
By the patent under which commissioners are appointed for office of Lord High Admiral they have equal authority, an instance of which is observed in the fact that all sign the Navy Estimates submitted to Parliament, which serves also to indicate their approval with the amount provided. Custom however, and an Order in Council issued in 1869, with subsequent modifications, have given the First Lord a position of more distinct personal responsibility to the Sovereign and to Parliament for all the business of the Admiralty. The terms of the patent, however, have not been altered, so that by it the other Lords are also responsible for the standard of naval strength maintained.
In these days it may seem strange that up to comparatively recently there was no special department at the Admiralty for the systematic registration of information concerning foreign navies, or for organising a complete scheme of mobilisation for our own. In the old wars, intelligence of the enemy was uncertain and procured very much at haphazard. It filtered to headquarters through various channels. When the Russian war of 1854 broke out there was a great lack of knowledge in this country of the Crimea and all connected with it. This is clearly indicated in the despatches to Lord Raglan ordering him to attack Sebastopol. After that war some attempt was made to remedy this defect, but in our Navy a Special Intelligence and Mobilisation Department at the Admiralty is only an eighteen-year-old institution. During that period, however, it has culled an immense mass of information from all parts of the world, while the steps for putting our fleet on a war footing have received such continuous attention that we can now reinforce any portion without those delays which such a proceeding formerly invariably entailed.The three great centres of activity at a time of mobilisa-tion are Portsmouth, Plymouth and Sheerness, for each has to furnish a squadron from the vessels in reserve at these ports when required. To do this expeditiously each place should be se1f-contained, that is, not required to draw upon another locality for men and stores. This is now practically accomplished.
The work accomplished during the last twelve years towards regaining the position we formerly held as a maritime Power has shown the great resources of this country in shipbuilding, and the clear desire of the nation to maintain out naval supremacy. If these efforts are continued we shall be in a position to meet with confidence any eventuality.The following lists give the different classes of ship in His Majesty's fleet, with their size, speed, armour, and armament. The Admiralty classification has been followed, and all vessels retained in the Navy List are included; though many, owing to age and defective armament are of little present value.
The chief points of the principle guns used are also given in a separate table, while our resources in officers and men for a general mobilisation are briefly indicated.Such, briefly, is the British Navy at the present time. It is upheld by great traditions and fostered by the instincts of a nation which is beginning to realise how much depends upon maintaining its efficiency. As one who entered that Service more than forty years ago, and has watched its progress with interest and affection, I can testify to the great improvement successive administrations of late years have made, and to the high general standard of efficiency to which the service has attained.
[Index] [Appendix]
