The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-28 00:00:00

IN ANSWER
ROWS STATEME

TO SIR JOHN BAR-
NTS ON THE NAVY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,—As it is in great measure due to your aid, in exposing
the idleness and incapacity connected with the present state of
our Fleet, you will perhaps do me the kindness to insert a few
words in answer to the subaltern Secretary to the Admiralty's
account, just published, of the efficient state of our Navy and
Dock-yards.
The great body of naval officers as practical men, have the
very worst opinion of the way (as a system) in which our
affairs are conducted, bath on shore and afloat; but as one
of that body, lat once candidly admit that the second
Secretary's expose (wrung from the Board) is much
more satisfactory as to the state of our yards and
stores than I before believed. It would be very easy to
answer Sir John's abuse, and affected contempt of all those
naval men who have lately directed the public eye towards our
ill-used service, and his hints at quarter-deck capital punish-
ment for daring to expose the partiality and weakness, and
blindness of the Admiralty. His reproaches to the " Flag
Officer," and sneers at his courage and conduct, are in very
bad taste, as coining from a man who is, in fact, but the head
clerk of a civil office, and nothing more—a man, whose only
business has been his desk ; certainly not the fighting for
his country. He, at least, though an F. R. S., and a
tolerably clever man, must be a very indifferent judge
of men's fighting capacities afloat, or any other capa-
city ! as seen through the thick and most unsympathis-
ing walls of his hermaphrodite establishment ; ut I am
perfectly aware of the presumption and assumed importance
of this second Secretary—partly allowed by his superiors—he
may be said very often to have charge of the Deck while they
are napping. Often, indeed, there has been no other standing
authority, between the removal of one ignorant Chief Secre-
tary, M. P., and civil First Lord, and the instalment of others
just as incapable, and know-nothing. Indeed, though it does
not so openly appear, yet for the last 30 years the Navy may
be supposed to have been partly ruled and regulated by Sir
John Barrow's " CAMAIIILLA" utility; or rather I should say
inutility—it has so helped to perpetuate a state of things,
that would otherwise have been long since found in-
tolerable. Not that Sir John is idle or incapable,
but he has grown old under a very loose and vi-
cious system—much such as it was under Sir Charles
Wager, who sent Anson to sea in the shameful manner he did ;
and which, of course, Sir. John very philosophically records. He
can blame (or be should) other Boards before his time ; but
is very properly and officially blind to its present unaltered
state. This is nothing new. It is, indeed, the history of all
officers. Even in wise and vigorous institutions abuses will
spring up ; not likely to be corrected by those concerned in
them! nor even admitted; if mere words, or flat denials, or
able special pleading, or petty individual and official threats
could arrest an inconvenient alteration—however called for by
glarieg defects, or the well-being of the nation at large. lc
would be worth while to ask them in a body, Lords,
Secretaries, Clerks, and all, to man the Guardo at
the Nore, as devoted subjects of her Majesty ! and by
way of a taste of their own vigorous efficiency, and the
excellent working of their system ! it would be too cruel to
ask these same men to go to sea in one of their own small
craft, a 2S or a 10 gun sloop! These supercilious personages,
I repeat, know nothing of the practical part—or just enough
to do much mischief All the good—what good there is—is
wrung from the knowledge, the zeal, the honest sweat and
toil, and sleepless anxiety of our seamen afloat ! In the persons
of Captains Marryat, Napier, Craufurd, and the " Flag offi-
cer," the whole Navy is treated with affected contempt, for it
is most certain, 99 out of 100 of our Naval officers, and who
have served through last war, all think alihe on the subject of
the very disgusting mismanagement of the Navy. If it is true
that we have plenty of ships, and that some of our yards are
pretty well stored, as Sir John says—it very little alters
the great question of our general rule. In the single
article of spars, Sir John is triumphant, and which of us
but is glad of it—most heartily glad. The American
red pitch pine is equal to the Baltic, and that single unlucky
spar (" not to be found !") serves to keep poor Sir John from
sinking. Everybody knows that nobody is infallible. Fault
is to be found honestly, not factiously ; not with particular
men, perhaps, but with a bad system. Naval men alone can,
or should attempt to rule the Navy. The very clerks should
have served afloat, and then we might hope to have some
sympathy—an harmonious sympathy between the Admiralty
and the Fleet. Now there is none whatever; nor, indeed,
ever was. It is one long history over and over, as I have
said, since Anson's day (and before), of haughty ignorance,
shameless partiality, and too, too often, blundering imbecility.
The proofs lie in Sir John's own lives," however "glossed"
over, in the private letters of our naval heroes ; and in the
present state of our Navy, its officers, and men, Sir John's
figures arc good for nothing, and he knows it ! Five at least
of his 20 of the line, are a mere deception—the way the whole
Navy is manned is another deception. It comes with an ill
grace from this civilian to talk of smaller ships (and weaker
handed) being good enough for battle against superior force
every way ! Who but a fool, and worse than a fool, would
gratuitously try his hand at it ! Is Sir John such a driveller,
that he must be told that Naval men, however brave, however
cool and fertile in recources, expect to havefair play ; and not
be sacrificed perchance at the shrine of his fatuity—es in our
short war with the United States ! Is this the time o'day to
sneer at-Naval officers, wishing and expecting to be put on a
par with the ships they are to engage Whether the fashion is
big or little ; whether M. Paixhan's guns take or not—we
must be at least on a par—philosophising about it, a la F. R. S.
is very poor philosophy f The great complaint, in a word,
of the Navy, is that its Rulers are not practical men—not
even Sir John Barrow, though heaven knows, it is time; after
thirty years fixture to one stool; but Sir John grows old, and
talks of the good enough and glory, and the French fondness
for long shots of 40 years wro. The Admiralty should not
only do better, but faith, taebetter now-a-days. It is not an-
swering, much lass redressing existing intolerable ills, to rec-
tify one or two mistakes. if all our hulls and stores were
" all right," are our sailors all right ? our officers all right?
arc they treated with an even-handed impartiality? Sir John
Barrow will say—" Yes, all is excellent well, in good sooth ;"
but unfortunately Sir John has taken the official twaddle from
his desk to prove that he is no authority ; that he either knows
nothing, or is wholly incapable cf judging beyond his own
goose quill—the respectable advocate (if need be I) of once
more trying at the eleventh hour to many fleet by press-gangs.
Alas for the authority of such men—" Its ont rien appris, rtes
oublitl!." A NAVAL OFFICER.

THE NAVY.