The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-26 00:00:00

MANNING THE NAVY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—Sir Maurice Berkeley addressed a letter to
me on the 10th of October, containing the same
statements which he makes in the communication

you publish this morning. I replied to him at
length ; and I should have thought courtesy would
have prescribed that, in addressing you, he should
have given the whole correspondence instead of
limiting himself to a repetition of his own asser-
tions.

Considering, also, that Rear-Admiral the Earl
of Hardwicke, the Lord Privy Seal and a member
of the Cabinet, publicly declared only last Saturday
that, " during the last war the ships of the Royal
Navy went to sea in such a condition as to inflict
a positive injustice on the brave officers in com-
mand of them, and that if it had not been for the

efficiency of the latter, and the way the crews were
disciplined, they might as well have stopped at
home," I think the late " Senior Naval Lord of the

Admiralty" would have acted more prudently had
he refrained from inviting public attention as to
the management of " the department of naval ad-
ministration peculiarly under his guidance—
namely, the manning her Majesty's ships."
At the commencement of the Crimean war the
Admiralty found that the navy could not be effi-
ciently manned. They appointed a committee of
naval officers to consider the whole subject, and
on their report they issued a circular, dated the
" 14th of June, 1853," and signed "R. Osborne,"
which established the " continuous service" system,
of which Admiral Berkeley says, that " it has
worked admirably"—and which he boasts of having
" adopted and carried out in conjunction with his
colleagues." That this system, however, has un-
fortunately failed as a means of inducing seamen to
enter the navy is sufficiently established by the fact
that one of the first acts of the present -Board of
Admiralty was to appoint a mixed commission,
which is now sitting, to consider why British sea-
men will not volunteer for the British ships of war.
Sir Maurice Berkeley's letter is calculated to
mislead as to the operation and effect of the system
he adopted.
1. He tells you that "at the close of the Rus-
sian war not one man was discharged from the naval
service, being of good character and physical abilty,
who desired to remain." '

I answer that it is notorious, and that the navy
estimates show, that " at the close of the Russian
war some thousands of men were discharged from
the naval service ;" and I put the Admiral in this
dilemma—either that the men so discharged were
men of " good character and physical ability," or
that his ships were manned by men of bad charac-
ter, and that he was making the nation payfor
physical incompetency. I say, further, that the
terms on which men were permitted to re-enter
under Sir M. Berkeley's regulations were of such a
nature that few men of " good character and phy-
sical ability" would desire to remain. I might cite
cases in which men who had received wounds in
the service, and whose good character was certified
by their captains, had been discharged ; and I have
heard of ship's crews refusing bodily to re•enter,
and giving three cheers for their release from the
navy as they left for the shore. On fair terms, no
doubt, these ' men of good character and physical
ability" would have " desired to remain ;" but on
the " continuous service terms" Admiral Berkeley
offered, it is not, I think, to be wondered at that
they desired their discharge.
2. The late " Senior Naval Lord" tells you that
" any man who enters for continuous service may
obtain a pension after 10 years."
I shall leave you to judge how far this is a fair
or candid statement.
On consulting the tables relating to continuous
service, you will find that men may absolutely serve
20 years in the Royal Navy without either obtain-.
ing increase of pay or pension ; for Admiral Berke-
ley's regulations prescribe that " men who do not
enter for continuous service cannot be granted
either increase of pay or the pension after 20 years'

service."

- • ---
If a man does enter for " continuous and general

service" (i.e., not for a limited period or particular
ship), he will then only be entitled to pension after
20 years' service ; not before ; being. even then
liable to be called upon to serve again in the navy.
The regulations " reserve to my Lords of the
Admiralty a discretionary power of awarding pen-
sions after 10 or 15 years' continuous service ; ' but
the seamen are in no way entitled to such pensions,
and I believe the Admiralty never have awarded
them, except, it may be, under very special circum-
stances. I have asked Admiral Berkeley to point
out to me any cases in which such pensions have
been granted, and I have asked in vain. In the
words of the regulation, I believe " their Lordships
have not thought proper to grant pensions after
those terms of service ; and lam the more con-
firmed in this opinion from the fact that in his
letter to me Admiral Berkeley declared that " con-
tinuous service for 10 years entitles a man to a
pension," while in writing to you he greatly
qualifies that statement.
3. Admiral Berkeley tells me in his letter that he
was personally responsible for the regulation that, on
entering the navy, £2 should be paid for an outfit.
In his letter to you he attempts to draw a distinc-
tion between " men" and " boys ;" but he should
also have told you that under his regulations
" men" who enter are styled " boys." No time
counts in the navy until the age of 18. A volunteer
at 18 years of age is therefore classed as a "boy," and
cannot be rated a second-class ordinary man until
after he is 20, for he must be " at least two years
at sea" in order to be so rated. Thus, a young
and active Deal boatman, whose courage and
strength may have been tried a dozen times on the
Goodwin, at the very age when he is best calcu-
lated to go aloft and do the work of a ship, is
treated on entering the navy as a " boy," and sub-
jected to all the Admiralty regulations of that
class.

It is not the fact that this demand of 40s. for
outfit secured a more respectable class of volunteers
for the navy, or kept out the inmates of workhouses,
as Admiral Berkeley would lead you to believe.
On the contrary, even at Deal the guardians have
frequently provided the outfit money for paupers
sent from the union workhouse on board her
Majesty's ships; and this fact refutes Admiral
Berkeley's assertion that he " refused the boys from
union and parish schools." Indeed, only yesterday
a case was heard by the magistrate at the Wands-
worth Police-court, in the course of which it was
stated by the master of the Wandsworth Reforma-
tory that from 30 to 40 inmates (i.e., convicted
thieves) had been " bound to the navy" from the
asylum; the authorities being acquainted with
their antecedents.
The statements in the Admiral's letter are, in
fact, made to prop up a. system which has failed,
and for which the Admiral himself is, to a very
great extent, responsible. Such is the sailors' dis-
gust at the "regulations," that the Lord Privy Seal,
who is at the head of a commission appointed to
inquire into the effect of Admiral Berkeley's sys-
tem, absolutely goes the length of suggesting that
we must establish the pressgang, and that, in the
event of a war, " we must adhere to the principle
of laying an embargo on our ports, and seizing
sailors for the defence of the country."
The single fact in his letter on which the Admi-
ral is right is as*to the proposal of the "Deal boat-
men to man a ship of war" not having been " re.
fused." The men met upon the subject, the project
was proposed, and a number of men agreed to
carry it into effect. But the proposal, as I ascer-
tained at the end of . last week, never actually
reached the Admiralty. I was therefore in error
in saying that their " proposal was not accepted ;"
but it is not less the fact that the men would have
been ready for such work had any inducement
been offered them, and that many of them sub-
sequently joined vessels going to the Black Sea,
and were discharged at the close of the war under
circumstances for which I observe Admiral Ber-
keley offers no explanation.
The gallant Admiral fears
n"tthelaittrtheinttenndbeenrcloaf_
my letter may be to preve y _
jesty's naval service." I. have aeadrvortohlids
oltnur
that such apprehension is groundless,
ff
" regulations" have produced that e ect by antici-
pation. Can Admiral Berkeley explain to you why
the British seaman, who will not enter the British
navy, will enter the navy of,
find, States
On reflection he may perhaps that the " Re-
gulations for the Entry of Men and Boys into the
Navy may not be without their influence in "pro-
ducing what we must all deplore as so great a
national reflection.
In appealing to your sympathies on behalf of the
Deal boatmen, I did so in the Cause of philan-
thropy, and in the hope of aiding, in their hour of
trial, a body of men whom I believe to be peculiarly
deserving. I was informed as to the reasons why
they could not, at present, enter the merchant ser-
vil,ul.l not enter our navy.
vice, and why the
Although forced to touch upon it incidentally, I
had no desire or intention to open up that grave
national subject of " manning the navy," into
which Sir Maurice Berkeley has, I think, so un•
wisely forced me. But, being forced into the dis-
cussion, I do not shrink from it ; and nothing
would give me more sincere satisfaction than to
find that this correspondence led the British public
to reflect and to consider whether the difficulty
which presents itself to the manning of our ships
of war is best to be encountered, as the Lord Privy.
Seal proposes, by return to the system of impress-
ment, as Sir Maurice Berkeley proposes, by " per-
severance in the system of continuous service, or,
as I would humbly suggest, by doing ample justice
' to those gallant seamen on our coasts, on whose
strength and valour We rely in our hour of peril