The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1839.

TREATMENT OF SEAMEN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Slll,—One would be almost inclined to conclude from
the tenor of the protracted discussions that have of late
been got up in so many quarters regarding the past and
y, that the people of this
present state of our Nav
country were totally ignorant of the real and true grand
difficulty under which it labours, and which may
perhaps account for there being no efficient attempts
made towards its removal. While we are subjected to
hear the despicable party-drivelling of lordlings, &c.,
about the hooping of a mast, or the number of spare
sails in store ; and while they chatter about compara-
tive trash of that sort, the serious and true question,
that calls with a warning voice for investigation, only
pops up its head occasionally, like a dangerous half-tide
rock that lies in a ships track, and is only seen to be
avoided. I allude to the dislike, amounting to abhor-
rence, that exists among our best seamen to serve
their country on board the vessels of our Navy.
We well know that it proceeds from no fear to meet
their country's enemies, for they have well proved that
to be their very glory and inclination. Can it be
in the treatment they meet with on board these vessels?
In short, Sir, among all the Committees and Commis-
sions of Inquiry that have been instituted, I would ask to
why it has never been deemed of sufficient importance
this country to institute a searching investigation into
the causes that not only drove our best seamen out flora
their native land into exile, but into the service of the
enemy, where, from the decks of that enemy's ships
they hurled a stain of disgrace and defeat upon the flag
of Britain that cannot be effaced ? Would any
deficiency of allowances of pay or provisions ever
have produced an effect so diabolical ? Impossible.
the idea would be monstrous, and infamously unjust to
a class of men who are decidedly our best patriots. Did
they not prove it during the time of the mutiny, by
declaring their readiness to carry the ships into action
without the officers? No, no, Sir; there has been, and
there still is, something between England and her sea-
men that we know not of.

I had got thus far when I observed your notice of
Friday, that a ship's crew had been paid off at Ply-
mouth, not one of whom would respond to the Cap-
tain's appeal for re-entering to serve under him.
To a person having any knowledge of the doings that
have been carried on in the Navy, it appears most absurd
• to observe the outcry raised if a soldier is punished
with a hundred lashes, awarded by the sentence of
a court-martial. What would they say to more than a
dozen of prime seamen being subjected to punishment,
equal to double that extent, by the dictum of one indi-
vidual, and sometimes not a man of them guilty, either
of a crime or a fault even? Perhaps thus :—A frigate
takes in a reef in her topsails of an evening, and the
fore one is an old sail. Well, during the night this
sail (in a passing squall) splits across the lee side, close
under the reef band ; the Captain is thereby put
into a great passion—swears the reef was badly
taken in the evening—the whole of the men
that were on the lee yard-arm are called to the
quarter-deck, when, after hurling a torrent of abuse
at the wretched sailors (and they are always the
choice seamen of the crew the topmen), he (the
Captain) orders the whole to the gangway, where,
stripped and siezed to the gratings, three dozen lashes
are inflicted upon every one of thorn, which would oc-
cupy a space of three mortal hours, during which no-
thing but the whizzing of the cat and its sickening crash
upon the men's naked backs is heard. What would be
thought of that for a midnight scene ?*—and it is always
our best fellows that meet the most frequent punishment
—the men who must execute the evolutions aloft. If
the part of the crew termed landsmen kept themselves
clear and free of crime—they had least to fear ; but
those who have the reefing of topsails, sending up and
down top-gallant, royal yards, &c., there was no end to
their terrors and apprehensions, for besides the Captain
they were liable to called down at any hour of the night
or day at the caprice of the lieutenant or officer of the
watch who flogged them also, but in a different way. On
these occasions they were stripped only to the shirt,
which was sometimes cut in shreds by the hard ropes
used by the boatswain's mates, who are always inflicters
of corporal punishments. This latter mode of flogging
is said to be fully as bad as that by the cat, and such
punishments sometimes were of very frequent occur-
rence to the same men ; of course it was very different
in degree in different ships, but under a system where
anything like the above constituted a part, to be sur-
prised that good seamen will have nothing to do with
your ships of the Navy, would be very inconsistent and
ridiculous. We heard something the other day about
topsails being reefed in an incredibly small number of
seconds. There has been far too much of that sort of
thing, and exercising top-gallant and royal yards, &c.; it
undoubtedly appeared miraculous to witness it ; so it is
to see what some of the dogs and monkeys are now
doing in one of the theatres in London—and by what
system is it all effected? the answer in both cases
is—terror. Some will tell you it was emula-
tion ; but I fear emulation was murdered, although it
would soon burst into life, were it not crushed by op-
pression, and beaten out of the field. In fact, the life
of our seamen, has been a state of terror and oppression,
altogether degrading to manhood. I am no advocate ,
for a laxity of discipline, not even for the disuse of the
cat ; but there must be a clear and distinct limit to its
use—two dozen lashes is sufficient for the purposes of
punishment—beyond it is butchery; and even that
should only be permitted under very grave circum-
stances of crime, or serious breaches of discipline.
Naval officers become callous from witnessing such tor-
ture so frequently, and (with their pardon) cease to be
very fit judges of the due limit of necessary punish-
ment ; for it is only those who have never before wit-
nessed the infliction of such torture, that are really
capable of forming a fit judgment on the subject. I have
been at sea from the age of 13 to 40,and have commanded
ships as large as frigates. So that may be some excuse
for my thus addressing you. Do our ships of war pos-
sess any one single attribute that is superior to those of
other nations, excepting that one alone, cur seamen ?
No, Sir, not a single one. On the contrary, our ships,
if anything, are inferior to our neighbours. Would it
be believed then for a moment, that a country so
utterly dependent on the services of her seaman—l may
say her existence as a nation--would it be credited that
she is not quick and watchful of their well-being—
would a foreigner think it possible that an enlightened
nation could be so infatuated ? But so it is, and so it
has been. Our men in high places will rather evade
this vital question, and trust to the horrors of press-
gangs, than grapple with it. They are like fraudulent
debtors, who dislike to face those to whom they lay
under deep obligations. Sailors have been the most un-
obtrusive, and therefore suffer neglect and treatment
like crest-fallen slaves. But I hope evidence before a
Committee of the House of Commons will be insisted
on as to the causes alluded to above, and circumstances
will come out in detail that will astonish some of us.
Most obediently yours,
I. S., an Old Skipper.
High-street, Hastings, April 7, 1839.

[We give this letter, because the causes of the un-
popularity of the Navy ought to be known, but we
hope and believe thatour Correspondent states facts and
describes scenes that did, rather than do, exist. Since
about the year 1813 we believe orders were issued to
limit punishments on board ship; but prior to that
period they could be inflicted without stint and without
investigation. They often were inflicted most capri-
ciously and most brutally ; and sometimes because the
Captain was drunk, not because the men were criminal.
The reputation the Navy then acquired from such pro-
ceedings it has never lost, and if the case to which we
referred on Friday be true, it seems now not wholly un
deserved.]