The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-03 00:00:00

.ulations such as exist hitherto nowhere but in

Prussia. It is this, namely—that no French mer-
chant captain has permission to command a ship
until he shall have served two years on board a
ship of war, and shall have passed an examination
to show that he is enabled to undertake the duties
.of an officer of the sea service. By these rules the
Government insures, in case of necessity, that some
thousand young and capable seamen shall be avail-
able from among whom to choose : and they are
not under the necessity of having recourse to un-
fit, invalid, and decrepid officers when on a sudden
any extraordinary number of ships are called into
service. As captains and officers of ships of war
men in full vigour are especially needful; old offi-
cers prove themselves no longer equal to the exer-
tions of the service.
At the same time this arrangement affords a re-
markable relief to the budget, and diminishes ma-
terially the extrordinary sacrifice of money to
which England is condemned by its regulations for
the support of the corps of naval officers. When
England, in time of peace, has not the half of her
ships in commission, she must keep up and pay, in
case a war should occur, the corps of officers for the
other half; because she wants the preparation for an
easy and sufficient reinforcement. It therefore
happens that we,find in the English naval esti-
mates for the half-pay of naval officers an enormous
sum, which must fill with astonishment any one
not conversant with the fact. ,But still more, not
only all those who are liabl3 for active service at
sea, but all unfit officers, draw half-pay and ad-
vance quietly on. In the budget of 1847, which
we have here brought under consideration as a
peace budget, £726,000 are thrown away as half-pay
of officers, and besides £492,000 more for pensions.
—An aggregate amount which represents the fifth
part of the whole budget ; while in France the half-
pay is only 2,000,000 f. and the pensions 6,000,000 f.,
being the fourth :part of the English sum, and the
14th part of he French marine budget. The bad
system by -which in England unfit half-pay officers
advance on in rank has this great disadvantage,
that they will not allow themselves to be com-
pletely pensioned off. The progress of the re-
mainder is consequently so retarded that in the
year 1847 there was no English Admiral under 70,
no Vico-Admiral under 65, and no Rear-Admiral
under 60 years of age. Officers of so great an age
are seldom at all fit for the field in the army, and
much less are they fit for naval war, the fatigues of
which are far greater. Young officers are a neces-
sity for the fleet, and admirals over 60 years of age
will scarcely ever make active or successful com-
manders.

As concerns the manning of the two navies, Eng-
land is, as is shown in our exposition, decidedly in
the background. The English press rightly re-
marks on this unfavourable comparison, and calls
the attention of the nation to the entire sufficiency
of the French system. Here, however, another and
a very important circumstance presents itself, which
we must enter upon. This is the relative strength
of a fleet as opposed to the positive (the number of
ships, guns, and men), and consists in professional
efficiency, in the superior spirit and intelligence of
the individual, in better discipline and subordina-
tion, in personal courage and endurance, and which
is of so much value, and conduces so much to the
result of a battle. These relative powers stand out
in importance beyond anything else in naval ac-
tions, where we in numberless instances have seen
small ships engage with advantage larger ones, and
in which, on account of their peculiar nature, the
physical strength of the individual has less scope
than on land.
Let us now consider professional capacity, in
which respect one is accustomed to look at the Eng-
lish seaman as the very type of a sailor, and this
idea is so generally prevalent that we ourselves in
Germany are accustomed to rank our seamen after
the English, although this is altogether erro-
neous. There are no better seamen than
the Germans, and this fact will be allowed by all
foreign nations. On the other side, on the contrary,
a poor opinion is formed of the French, and they are
considered bad sailors. None were more confident in
this respect than the English, who always looked
back upon the swept up crews of the French ships
during the Revolution and under Napoleon 1., until
the Eastern war opened their eyes on this point,
and they made the discovery that the French crews
of the present day are no more those of 1806 ; but
that, on the contrary, they do not in the least re-
spect come behind those of England. The Prince
de Joinville had also first recognised this great
want for a navy, and supplied it by keeping con-
stantly large squadrons of evolution, by which
officers as well as men were trained into practical
seamen. The English were at all times compelled, on
account of their extensive colonies, to keep up even
in time of peace large squadrons constantly on ser-
vice, the crews of which kept in constant practice,
afforded a warlike body of men on the breaking out
of a war. This made them necessarily overpoweringly
superior to those of other nations, and especially the
newly shipped complements of the French fleet.
Since 1840, however, this fault in the French
navy has been removed by keeping up, permanent
squadrons of evolution, which, under the excellent
guidance of Admirals Lalande, Joinville, Ducas,
Hamelin, and Brust, have become the training
schools of the present highly distinguished force in
seamen, which since 1853 has laid the foundation
for much humility and many sorrows to the former
superiority of the proud English.
Those who had the opportunity of seeing the
united fleets of the Western Powers in the Black
Sea and in the Baltic, and of instituting a compari-
son, must have very soon come to the conclusion
that all which appertains to manoeuvres, tactics,
and exercises, was far better, quicker, and more
exactly executed by the French than by the Eng-
lish, and that a large portion of the prestige which
the English navy possessed from centuries back had
then vanished.
Again, with respect to theoretical training and
schooled intelligence the French are far a-head of the
English. While the English set only in the fore-
ground practical education, and make so litte ac-
count of theoretic that many of the English officers
cannot calculate a right-angled triangle, the French
sea officer ordinarily combines with practical know-
ledge also a scientific traininc, in philosophical ac-
quirements. The English in the education of their
sea officers go upon the system that no person can
be taken on board ship too young. Consequently
the majority of the youths destined for the sea ser-
vice are placed on board in their 12th year in order
to learn their practical duty. Their theoretical
and higher education is then usually as good as
stopped, and there is henceforward imparted to
them, wherewith to pass their examination for
lieutenant, only common acquirements, which, me-
chanically learnt, are soon forgotten, and are not in
any case educating to the mind. There are, it is
true, many efficient officers in the English navy, and
it has raised up men who have distinguished them-
selves by high professional acquirements, as well
as by general intellectual culture. But these men
have not to thank the public management for the
pre-eminence of their acquirements or of their edu-
cation, but only their own efforts, or the chance of
a better instruction and education at home. Those
who follow the ordinary run of naval officers will
I carry away but little knowledge of their profession
—nay, it may even happen that an officer may re-
main at that point of nautical education practically
and theoretically, that he may occupy the post of
a naval officer, and yet not be able to carry a ship
across the sea. This fault is only possible through
a very peculiar institution. From the earliest times
in the English navy a class of employes,the masters
or navigators, a position between officer and sub-
officer, who cannot advance further, whose duty,
however, it is to convey the ship across the sea, to
make the astronomical observations and reckonings
and especially to be on board ship—those who do
understand navigation, whether theoretically or
practically, or the Tatter only, however, will not
be inquired into. To men of their subordinate
position, who, even if he should know, cannot be
controlled by other officers, is a valuable
ship as well as the lives of hundreds intrusted.
For the first time, lately, do they appear to have
perceived in England that the naval officer cannot,
well do without a theoretical training for his prac-
tical calling. A naval college, has therefore, been
lately established in which the naval cadets are
taught something more than formerly. Whither
this will answer, with the objections English sea-
men feel against theoretical knowledge, time will
show.

Against the French, on the contrary, one might
have more readily reproached that they mere too
theoretical if their efforts in practical education did
not prove the contrary. In France those pupils
who are destined for naval officers receive in the
Ecoles _Navales, and also on board ship, a thorough
education. They are not allowed to pass their
examination for officers if they have not attained a
certain standard of education, which answers to the
higher college class. Navigation is there considered
as the first line of study, and each officer must be
scientifically grounded in his nautical reckonings,
which is not always the ease with the English.
Under the control of the first lieutenant and
of the captain, a lieutenant in French ships per-
forms the duty cf the English master ; although
the French have also a corresponding appointment
(chef de timonerie), or head helmsman. He is,
however, onlrthe asssistant of the officer on duty,