CHAPTER IV. Advocates Sir John Jervis makes his first appearance in Parliament the cause of Captain David Brodie - Is defeated-Remarks - Has his flag on board the Prince of 98 guns, in 1790-In 1792 makes a motion in the House of Commons in favour of disabled Seamen Motion withdrawn in consequence of a promise for redress. THE first time I find the name of Sir John Jervis on the records of the House of Commons, is in the minority on Mr. Fox's bill, November the 27th, 1783, for vesting the affairs of the East India Company in the hands of commissioners; but I do not find that he offered any remarks upon the occasion. The first time he spoke was on the 31st of May, 1784, when Mr. Brett, then a lord of the Admiralty, moved for twentysix thousand seamen to be employed in the service of the current year. On this occasion, Admiral Sir Thomas Frankland, grandfather to the present Sir Robert Frankland Russell, spoke with great energy on the decay of discipline in the navy, and the appointment of boys to the rank of lieutenants; in which complaint he was too well borne out by the facts, when it is remembered, that children were allowed to serve their time as they lay in their nurses' laps, and to come forward almost as soon as they could "go alone," and supplant the hardy and deserving veteran. Partiality may still exist, and ever must exist as long as human nature continues what it is; but such shameful practices as these, I am happy to say, are now only mentioned as a matter of wonder, and to offer a comparison between "the good old times" and our own. Sir Robert Frankland gave instances of the appointment of boys to ships when they were so young that their captains refused to give them charge of the deck, and even offered to resign the command of their ships rather than submit to have such incompetent officers thrust upon them. A corrupt supporter of the old system attempted to turn the gallant officer into ridicule; but it did not succeed, and the truth prevailed. On the same occasion, Sir John Jervis complained of the state of the king's ships sent to cruize after the smugglers, and said that the naval officers were perpetually at war with those of the revenue; and he recommended that the officers of his majesty's navy should be allowed a larger portion of the seizures, in order that they might have an inducement to be more alert in the performance of their duty. I do not find that Sir John Jervis spoke on the long debates on the Duke of Richmond's plan for fortifying the dock yards in 1786, although he voted against it. On that occasion, the members being equal, the Speaker gave the casting vote on the side advocated by Sir John Jervis, and the bill was lost. On the 22nd of March, 1786, Sir John Jervis joined with Captain M'Bride in condemning the practice of repairing old and worn-out 60 and 64 gun ships at an extravagant price; and he gave an instance of one which was repaired, contrary to the opinion of the master builder, and by order of the Navy Board, when it was found that the expense exceeded the prime cost! It was a received opinion in those days that the copper sheathing should be taken off the ships of war when they were laid up in ordinary; as it was said that the copper corroded the iron bolts. Sir John Jervis supported the plan for taking off the copper in harbour, but it was resisted; and the substitution of copper bolts instead of iron did away with the necessity, if it had ever existed.* On this occasion, Mr. Brett gave a singular reason for not building our ships of war equal But, besides this, the ravages of the worm called the teredo navalis, or ship-worm, which some years ago almost desolated the ports of Hol in size with those of the enemy, namely, that our ports had not in them a sufficient depth of water to receive vessels of that capacity. To this it was very properly replied that the largest ships we had were taken from the enemy, and had always found water enough, both in our harbours and our roadsteads.* It is really astonishing to see at times the ignorance of public men upon subjects on which one would think a sense of duty would induce them to seek for information. Sir John Jervis voted, in 1786, for repairing Cumberland Fort and South Sea Castle, the former commanding the entrance into Langstone Harbour, the latter that of Portsmouth. Both these were necessary and proper; but, as to the enormous expenditure on that useless lump of masonry, Monkton Fort, near Gosport, we must seek in vain for the shadow of justification for that. I cannot think Sir John Jervis land, might have sunk our ships at their moorings. I have before me a piece of wood perforated by these animals, in such a manner, in holes so clean and clear, entirely through a log, that no instrument made by man could perform the work with equal certainty and neatness. The holes are of the diameter of the little finger, and so numerous and closely compacted, that in a piece not more than five inches square it is difficult to count the number. See a fine specimen of the worms in the British Museum. • It may be remarked that the Commerce de Marseilles is the only French three-decked ship ever brought into our ports at home; and the Ville de Paris the only one which I know of ever taken in action. had any share in it, since it is completely useless in defending the anchorage of Spithead, or the approaches to Southampton Water, or Portsmouth Harbour. How much better to have sunk piles on the Spit-sand, and at the end of Ryde Pier, to make batteries, (if they ever were or ever will be necessary for the defence of that anchorage) than to have laid out so much on that useless and unhealthy fortress! On the 5th of March, 1787, I find Sir John Jervis advocating the cause of Captain David Brodie, and claiming for him a restoration to his rank of rear-admiral, of which he had been deprived, by being passed over in the promotion of 1778, in virtue of a then recent regulation. There was not an instance of any officer in the navy having seen so much service as Captain Brodie. His actions surpassed in number and brilliancy those of his cotemporaries, in a very extraordinary degree. He had lost an arm, and had taken the Conquestador, a Spanish ship of 64 guns. It is true that he enjoyed a pension for the loss of his limb; but that surely was well earned. It was also true that he had declined to serve when his health would not permit him to perform his duty; and although he had applied for employment in 1762, on the breaking out of the Spanish war, VOL. I. G |