The Sun.
London, England, 1826-04-25 00:00:00

count of the relative abilities, skill, and services of our
naval officers',. but ,distributed honours.andicommand
as .family. :influence, political connection, , or
.some
other: disreputable inducement. directed. We took
the facts as they•appeared on thelace of the Returns as,
sufficient to. establish our-argument, unless they could
be explained in such a manner as to rebut the pre-,
gumption of gross partiality and favouritism which they
created. We showed how one class of men, who had
fought the battles of their country, but had no political.
influence, were shamefully neglected, while another
class, who had political influence, were as rapidly pro-
moted. If the latter. had performed any exploits which
induced the Admiralty to put seniority to scorn in
their advancement, we asked for an accOMit ofithem.
W. entreated: that he who was proud of 'being their
'historian would,. enumerate: them. We would. have
been glad to hear of the instances •of talent, skill,.
and- bravery, which the Plutarch of the aristo-.
.cratical part of the Navy had, it in his power to record.
Nothing could be fairer than-to ask for such informa-
tion. How has it been answered ?—by abundance of
abuse, but not a word of fact. We are accused of
being ignorant of nautical affairs. Perhaps to people
in general it would not appear necessary to be able
" to hand, reef, and steer, and splice," or navigate a
vessel from Gravesend to the " Croker mountains," to
understand a question of common-sense. If we had
not, like many others, been ignorant of the exploits of
the Noble and Honourable persons to whom the Ad-
miralty has been so lavish of its honours, we need not
-have asked for special information on the subject ' • nor
do we inquire whether any one who could afford us
this intelligence may be himself a mere landsman or a
circumnavigator, of the globe. We do not ask whe-
ther the Admiralty writer is one of those adven-
turous mariners who annually display their skill in
encountering the " perils of the deep" in the dan-
gerous latitudes of Chelsea-reach—nor do we in-
quire whether he is one of the amphibious race
who dabble in the concerns of both elements, and
are equally clever at flourishing a pen and wielding a
trident. For ourselves, we di) not profess seaman-
ship and if the Admiralty writer cannot give us better
arguments than he has yet done, he had better apply
his nautical skill to, the discovery. of a North-west
passage, than to the more hopeless attempt at finding
out any defence for his patrons. He has, however,
more than insinuated that the Admiralty. have a per-
fect abhorrence of the dull, formal principle of senio-
rity, and therefore they break through all claims of
rotations to iiive capable and distinguished Officers to
the Navy. Da ascertain and reward merit is exactly
what we desire—it is . what the nation wants—it is
what the Admiralty ought to practice. Now, what
are the facts ? In all the instances of rapid Naval
promotion in the last returns, the favoured Officers are
either connected with particular families, or with per-
sons in office, who can place a novice, whether he be
a man of talent, or a minion and a sycophant, above
the head of the ablest veteran Officer that ever trod a
quarter-deck. We find also that, in all the instances
of long-neglected service, such connections do not
exist. Is then promotion regulated by the consi-
deration of merit and no meet--or on that of con-
nection and no connection ? The inference is ob-
vious. The Admiralty writer knows that it is better
to have the reputed blood of some branch of the Aris-
tocracy or borough interest in his veins, or the servi-
lity of the spaniel in his disposition, than to have ge-
nius and courage without such recommendations. 'This
writer, however, after having his wrath stirred up
against us, for doubting that preferment in the Navy
was bestowed according to merit, actually goes further
in discrediting his patrons than we did, and tells us of
persons having hereditary claims upon promotion. in
the Navy. Hereditary claims ! This is that sort of
defence which looks very like an accusation. Well
may the Admiralty pray to be delivered from their
frienda, if this be the sort of advocacy which their
cause meets with. Hereditary claims on the Navy !
How does this differ from the family influence which
we held up to reprobation, and which those who op-
posed us so stoutly denied. So then we have it avowed
that the sacred trust of defending England's su-
premacy on the ocean may become hereditary,
and deseendible like the shrievalty of West-
morland ! Is it not enough for the country
to heap titles and wealth on those who ,have
performed useful or brilliant services, but it must be
required to hazard all it has gained in return, by
intrusting its defence to their posterity, as such, how-
ever degenerate they may be from the example of their
fathers ? Rarely, indeed, do we see die sons of those
who have risen from die humble walks of life by great
exertions emulating the severe toil or hardy enterprise
which raised their progenitors to distinction. Let
men then be taken on their own merits, for if wo
judge of them by the criterion of the best parentage,
our preference will often settle on the least deserving.
If preferment in the Navy were to be made a sort of
heir-loom in certain families, because their founders
had " done the state some service," we should have
the rewards that were given to the brave men of one
generation disgraced very often by the mindless rakes
or effeminate coxcombs of another. We would ask, if
this principle of hereditary claim on the Navy had been
recognised since the time ofthe Armada, who would have
heard of the victories of Blake—of Rodney,--of Nelson
and others, who came into the service with no nobility
• but that of nature, amino inheritance but that of genius?
The Navy is our proper, our national bulwark. It saved
us when the valour of our armies seemed vain, and the
,forces of our allies were scattered before the conqueror.
The triumph of 'Waterloo, honourable as it has been.
to our military prowess, never could have been heard
'of had not the victories of the Nile and Trafalgar
preceded it • for without those timely checks totie
ambition and power of the enemy at the most awful
crisis, we must have ceased to exist as an independent
nation. Were,those won by men who had hereditary
claims upon the Navy ? Oh no ! Affairs were too
-critical then not to compel Government to entrust the
'destinies of the,country to the vigorous talent which
fought its own gallant way to eminence. They could
oot then rely upon the virtue of political patronage,
or hesitate between actual worth and' hereditary inca-
pacity, But in the season of peace, the same Govern-
ment think they run no risk by conferring promotion,
in compliance with family claims, and. on other grounds,
independent of personal merit. We said that this
BYBtem must be reformed or the glory of our Navy
must expire. We said that .frippery alterations in the
navaltuniforrnmill.not compensate for the loss of that
manlyemulation which patronage and favouritism, dis-
courage. We said 'that in case of another war it may
be too late to begin that plan of reformation without
which our power. upon the ocean must decline. These
things: we now repeat: We: see the rewards of those
who confronted the dangers of the last war bestowed,
upon mere novices; who have only paraded their uni-
form in the sunshine of a few years of peace. We have