The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-07 00:00:00

SIR BALD WIN WALKER

The resignation of Sir Baldwin Walker, who
succeeded Sir William Symonds, as Surveyor of the
Navy, is an important event. Although the officer
who has just resigned is one of the most distin-
guished men in the British Navy, and may natu-
rally prefer active service to sedentary duties,
still the probability is that the change is closely
connected with some extensive alterations in our
naval administration.

The Report of the Committee on Dockyard Ex-
penditure is not yet, we presume, forgotten ; nor
the several documents connected with it which
were subsequently published. Amongst these
there is a memorandum by the Duke of Somerset,
dated last February ; and it appears that the sug-
gestions therein made by that nobleman, as First
Lord of the Admiralty, were approved by the Board,
and directed to be carried into effect. According to
that Memorandum, the office held by Sir Baldwin
Walker, that of Surveyor of the Navy, occupies
the most prominent place. Although the Expendi-
ture Committee passed it by entirely, the organiza-
tion of that office is at the root of all reform. From
that department, as the Duke of Somerset says, the
expenditure of the dockyards derives its origin ; and
it is clear that, unless the Surveyor's department
be placed upon a satisfactory footing, there can lbe
neither economy nor efficiency in the Royal Dock-
yards. Since the year 1821 the establishment of
the Surveyor of the Navy has undergone constant
alterations. The names of the officers, their num-
bers, their duties, and their powers have changed
almost from year to year. Nevertheless it appears,
according to the opinion of the present Board of
Admiralty, that the arrangements are still
unsatisfactory. The simple truth is that the
Admiralty did not know what they wanted, or
more probably were unwilling to invest any sub-
ordinate and permanent officers with sufficient
power ,to control expenditure and to enforce effi-
ciency. As the office of Surveyor of the Navy
was first constituted in 1832, after the abolition
of the Commissioners of the Navy, the general
control of the dockyards was theoretically reserved
for the Board of Admiralty, was practically
exercised by the Captains-Superintendent resident
on the spot. The Surveyor was chiefly employed
in designing ships and making representations to
the Board. But neither at the dockyards nor in
the Surveyor's office were the chief officers scien-
tific shipwrights. They were practical seamen—
officers distinguished for services afloat—so that
neither those who designed the ships nor those who
carried the designs into execution knew anything
of the business. A man may understand the science
of navigation without being able to navigate a ship
—a man may be able to drive a carriage though he
has no idea how to build it. Lord Nelson might be
able to defeat the French, but be utterly incompe-
tent to manage Scott Russell's business. Scientific
naval architects and practical managers were set
aside—ignored by Lords of the Admiralty, and
naturally the naval dockyards became bywords of
folly and extravagance. So things stood even dur-
ing the days of sailing ships, but when steam
vessels were introduced the evils were, if possible,
aggravated. A steam department was organised
and a comptroller of steam machinery was appointed.
But this new officer was independent of the surveyor,
so that, as the Duke of Somerset testifies, " while
the vessel was built without sufficient consultation
with regard to its future machinery, the machinery
was prepared without knowledge of the lines of the
vessel to which it was to be applied." No doubt,
upon the same principle, if there were a Govern-
ment department for making trousers, two men
would be employed to measure the same person, and
two others to cut out and make up the two halves
of the same article of dress. Another change was
attempted. Three persons were appointed—a prac-
tical seaman as surveyor, a shipbuilder, and an
engineer. But then these gentlemen were carefully
deprived of all power. They drew designs for ships
proffered advice. But no one was obliged to follow
the one, or to listen to the other. The surveyor,
indeed, was required to exercise a supervision over
the establishment of the dockyards ; but he had no
authority to enforce his recommendations, he could
only submit them to the Board of Admiralty.
Again, the dockyard superintendents communi-
cated directly with the Board of Admiralty, and
received orders from that Board. What followed?
As the Duke of Somerset again testifies—
" Under this system directions were frequently
given, interfering with works in progress and
interrupting the labour of the dockyards, of
which the surveyor was left in ignorance."
But besides this fatal division of power and clash-
ing of jurisdictions, the Surveyor was quite un-
fitted for the duties assigned to him. He was a
practical seaman, but had neither the practical
knowledge nor scientfic acquirements of a scientific
shipbuilder. It was obvious, therefore, as the
Duke of Somerset pointed out months age, that the
Surveyor's department required a complete reor-
ganisation. Of course, the Board of Admiralty
must exercise a general superintendence over all
the departments of naval administration. But the
building of ships ought clearly to be placed in the
hands of a competent board with one comptroller
at the head. The members of this Board, as the,
Duke of Somerset in his Memorandum proposed,
would consist of shipwrights and engineers. But,
(let us add, that comptroller himself ought surely to