The Sun.
London, England, 1859-09-26 00:00:00

/7/

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—Taking a naval officer's view of the above
subject, I trust I may again be afforded space for a
few words in reply to Colonel Simmons's further
explanation of his"reason for wishing to man our
navy principally with marine artillery in prefer-
ence to seamen.

As in his last letter he admits that the " trained
seamen gunners are as good as marine gunners,and
from their being likewise seamen are preferable as
gunners on board ships, being- able to do duty in
their double capacity," 'I mill consider the ques-
tion of " Who is the right man P" as decided; the
ordinary seamen have only-to be trained as seamen
gunners, and a corps admitted to be preferable to
a marine artillery is at once produced. The illustra-
tion made use of, though—" for the same reason
seamen would be preferable in the engineer depart-
ment, instead of men selected solely for their me-
chanical skill"—is wholly erroneous, and in no way
applicable, for, with the exception of the engineer
officers, those in the engine-room have no mechani-
cal skill (unless " stoking" comes under such head)
and are seamen. They are taught to hand, reef,
and steer; they wear the dress of seamen, and have
in every respect the same characteristics.. . ,
The question, therefore, is reduced- to this,—.
whether, as the seafaring class of our pqpulation
does not afford a sufficient supply of seamen' gun-
ners, it would not be advisable to recruit " less pre-
ferable" gunners that can be obtained from another
class.

Granting for the moment that the marine of
England cannot, as now constituted, yield an ade-
quate supply of fighting seamen—which statement
I should be sorry to affirm myself—surely it would
be expedient, before deserting the source of all Eng-
land's greatness, to attempt rather to increase
.the
whole seafaring class of the country than to recog-
nise immediately the utter impossibility of obtain-
ing the most efficient style of men for our ships.
This would be done by offering the superior in-
ducements in increased pay, Sze., which Col. Sim-
mons disapproves. If the mercantile navy were to
offer corresponding advantages, the united compe-
tition would result in causing the peasantry and
other labouring classes to fill the vacuum which is
at present supposed to exist.
Therefore, discussing the matter upon Col. Sim-
mons's own premises, I cannotsee that the necessity
is yet proved for establishing a standing sea army.
We all have our hobbies as to how men-of-war's-
men are to be coaxed from the merchant service
and permanently established in the navy, and I
have mine, but I have not entered into tlus.discus-
sion in order to air any pet whims I nifty have on
the subject, or to advance suggestions which are not
called for, but to combat what I think a-I
-Cry dan-
gerous proposal, which could have been made by
only an unprofessional man. The elements are the
creation of nature, the engine is tho work of man ;
let us remember how liable is the latter to fail us,
and while adopting all its advantages, let us not
rely solely upon it, but retain in their hill force that
race of men who know how to meet the various cir-
cumstances of the fawner, who while skilled gunners
are at the same time smart topmen, dashing
boarders, and plucky English seamen ready for all
work.—l have the honour to be, sir, your obedient
servant,
FREDERICK A. MAxsE, Captain, RN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—l should not ask for a corner of your well-
filled columns merely for the purpose of showing
that Col. Simmons has totally failed to meet the
objections to his views put forth by Capt. Alaxse
and myself. Writing independently of one another
(my letter was delayed by the inexorable Post-
office regnlations affecting Saturday night), we dis-
cussed the proposition of Supplying the place of
seamen by marines in words the sense of which was
substantially identical, though in graphic force of
expression lam well content to yield the palm. I
think that few naval officers will be found to differ
from us, and I hope not many of the general public.
It will be sufficient to point out that no notice has
been taken of the arguments drawn"from the pecu-
liar fitness of the seamen for naval warfare ; in bad
weather for boarding, for cutting-out expeditions,
for the numerous emergencies occurring at sea, nor
of the assertion that none can be spared from our
present complement while masts and sails are still
required. I will leave any naval man to judge
whether the difficulty about manning the boats has
been met. Nor did these remarks affect. Col. Sim-
mons's own example only, which I conclude he
now allows to have been faulty, but applied to his
general principle. I am, however, inclined to think
that one small improvement might be made in the
direction he wishes. Not one seaman can be
spared, not one boy (for these are the embryo sea-
men), but some of the ship's artificers might perkap-s
be drilled as marines capable of taking their turn
at the guns. As these, however, are now employed
in connection with the magazine, not much would
be gained. One more remark may not be misplaced.
Col. Simmons has been forced to admit that the
trained seaman is pro tanto superior to the trained
marine, but he argues that we should make the
change he desires because the trained marine is bet-
ter and more easy to be got than the untrained sea-
man. Is he aware of the great improvement lately
introduced by the continuous service system, and
that every one of the men who enter under it will
be trained to a point at least equal to that which
could be expected of marines ? Further, the plans
about to be adopted for creating a reserve force and
for educating lads in mercantile ports involve gun-
drill as an essential portion of them.
But I set out with saying I should not think it
necessary to touch those points again. I write espe-
cially to notice Col. Simmons's condemnation of
any approach to a compulsory system, however
limited and regulated. Here'l cannot but think he
is in error, though it is by no means as demonstra-
ble as in the former case. • If he reads the evidence
of those examined before the Commission for Man-
ning the Navy, he will find that, while all con-
demned in strong terms the old barbarities of im-
pressment, with its gross irregularities, its unlimited
time and place of service, its absence of war-pay and
provision for men when suddenly turned adrik, yet
many of the very best and least antiquated of our
officers recommended different varieties of limited
and regulated compulsoryservice. He will have ob-
served, too, that Gen. Shaw Kennelly and others
insist on the necssity of applying the ballot, in order
to procure a local, over and above the regular
mili-
as essential in any $3-stem of defence we may
adopt. Now, if the principle is once admitted on
shore, why must it " lead to open resistanse" among
warrense ? Except on the immediate imminence of
h registry and ballot would only act as col-
lecting the assigned proportion -of men together for
drill at certain periods. When required every person
would have his allotted place in the ranks of his
country's diefe ders,an d when the difference between
this system and the old impressment was once fairly
understood, I believe the opinion of the public
would clearly pronounce itself in its favour. I be-
lieve it may be shown that the pressgang, with all
its horrors, was forced on the Government in the
old war by the people themselves. If the safety of
the country does really depend on the adoption
of this, principle, it is certainly very undesirable
that it should be simply pooh-poohed. But if so,
this is a story, I maintain, we, are not,even then re-
duced to " tell to the marines.” ---I am, sir, your obe-
dient servant, A NAVAL OFFICEB,.
Sept. 23.