The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-06 00:00:00

Tll

in getting good seamen to volunteer, those boys who
have already acquired some proficiency in gunnery
ought to-be kept in- the service. They were, how-
ever, discharged at the expiration of their apprentice-
ship. Only those who were as much as 7 stones (of
141 b.) weight were taken. Now, there may be some
force in the answer, " that it would not be fair to
retain the boys, after completing their apprenticeship,
seeing that others are always waiting to be admitted
on ships' books in their places." But, on the one
hand, the policy is obvious, of retaining the services'
of- thoroughly drilled and efficient boys, after they
have grown up, as it were in this' very professional
discipline, to manhood, and have attained a thorough
acquaintance with the ships in which they have
served; and, on the other, the danger is immi-
nent, by discharging the boys just as you,
have made them sensible of their worth
utility, and handiness=of inducing them to enter into
foreign service, in which no man can say how soon it
might happen that their " gunnery practice" would
be directed against our own fleet. The question of
retaining them, it is true, is a question of expense.
But that might be in a great measure obviated by
some such arrangement as' Sir CHARLES NAPIER
suggested. The Gallant Commodore -at the same
time thus described the immediate consequences of
their discharge on completing their apprentice term.
" When, said he, " they came home and were dis-
charged, they were hobbledehoys,' neither men
nor boys—(A. laugh)—were caught up by the
crimps, taken to houses,' and spent their -time in
dancing with the girls, while some fellow fiddled
away.—(Laughter.) That was the way in which
their morality was ruined, and he thought that the
Government, whatever might be the cost, should take
them on board the flag-ships; instead of letting them,
shift for themselves." , •

With regard to the complaints that masters 'in the
Royal Navy were seldom allowed to attain the rank
of lieutenant, although this was nominally open to
them, the reply of Sir GEORGE COCKBURN does not
appear to have been either conclusive or satisfactory.
The professional and scientific skill, the theoretical'
and practical seamanship, the coolness, judgment, and,
other moral qualifications, as well as the technical.
ability requisite for the efficient discharge of their)
very responsible duties, would seem to give these'
officers an a priori claim to the advantages of promo-;
tion as opportunities offered. We are much mistaken
if the "masters" of the present day in her MAJESTY'S
service, rate the point of 1-14 pour so low as to find suf-
ficient compensation.for their almost total exclusion
from the rank in question, in Sir GEORGE'S apologetic
defence of the Admiralty practice towards them,
namely, " that, as it was, the master of a line of battle
ship got greater pay than the first lieutenants, and
other masters of different classes got the same pay as
other lieutenants." How many a gallant BENBOW or
intrepid BOSCANVEN, even in the earlier period of
.hiS
naval career, would have pitched into the sea a whole
year's salary of a First Lord of the Admiralty himself;
to be allowed but " to pluck bright honour" in
well-earned distinction of •an epaulette, from the
hand of official patronage ! Each of those brave
worthies, if we remember rightly, had been, in 'the
toilsome course of his perilous career—" a master."
Good fellows ! fine officers ! brave seamen !—these
masters, it seems. But then, quoth Sir GEORGE Coex-
BURN, ", they were. persons who went through the
coarser line of seamanship ; and, though they were
excellent seamen, they were not the same class of
persons as lieutenants, who, it should be remembered,
had to serve a considerable number of years before
they got their commissions." This is " ominous
stuff" to be' uttered by a British Admiral, of Sir
GEORGE'S distinguished bravery and conduct; bat he
is of that new-fangled school—half civil, half mili-
tary—neither flesh nor fowl—that amphibious corn-
pound of modern Admiralty Boards, the constitution
of which is so distasteful to the gallant NAIIER
What would some of the higher, thorough-sailor
class of Admirals of the old school, GELL
Or RODNEY, STRACHAN or NELSON, have
said to this disparaging estimate of: masters of, the
' navy in general, and those of their own ships in par-
ticular ! " Coarse line of seamanship,"—we think we
hear not Jour; HosiE's " angry spirit of the water
shriek,"—but the savoury spirits of tar and
picked oakum venting their sighs of passionate indig-
nation, at this disdainful notice of those who, for-
merly, lived so much among them. But Sir GEORGE
is unwilling to drive the masters to despair. In the
lottery of promotion there may be, it seems, some
half a dozen chances for their whole body : " The
masters were :eligible to be made lieutenants when
any gallant act or particular good service was ;per-
formed by them."
We have long concurred in an opunPn.protqsffeti-by
Sir CHARLES NAPIER, " that the standiugr oftWiietty
officers ought to be raised, so that theY might be
more identified with the officers , than with the men.
If that were done, there never would be any mutiny,
or if there were it would very soon be put down."
For what we stated, in a fermer article. on the sub-
ject of steam men-of-war, we venture to cite the, un-
impeachable and emphatic authority of Captain Rots,
This officer remarked—" It had been proposed to
provide 200 steam-ships for our navy ; but had-they
200 officers who were so well acquainted with steam-
ships as to be qualified to take the command of those
vessels?" It was the same officer who, in common
with Sir CHARLES NAPIER, insisted on the palpable
disadvantage, as' well as impropriety, of employing
aged, to the exclusion of younger and more vigorous,
officers in command. "He had told the House for
two years past, that if the Admiralty persisted in ap-
pointing to the command- of ships officers who had
been a quarter of a century on shore, this state of
things must continue."
But perhaps the most striking feature in the whole
debate was the protest against the further implicit
adoption of all the plans of the present Surveyor of
the Navy, Sir W. SYMONDS., We offer no opinion
On the merits or deficiencies of this gentleman—the
Government naval architect ; but the question of his
success in, or inadequacy to, that responsible office,
well deserves the most profound attention of Govern-
ment. It is 'a matter as td Which not a fraction of
personal prepossessions or partialities should be
allowed to influence the judgment of the authorities.
Yet the authorities were broadly accused of over-
weening prepossessions' on behalf' of his models,' and
"partiality in favour of his opinions, by Captain Dun-,
DAs, out of the House, Captains PECHELL and Rous
and Commodore NAPIER within it. • Captain Rous
said, "He saw by the newspapers that a number of
what were called very magnificent frigates were' in
course of construction; but he believed that nearly
all of them, before they were put in commission,
would be found to be worthless. He believed that
many of these ships, some .of them built by Sir 'W.
SYMONDS—ships- upon which millions of money had
been expended—would' turn out to be fit only for
firewood;"
It seems that for any officer to impute 'in his re-
ports to the Admiralty bad sailing;or other qualities,
to craft that have been turned out by Sir W.
SYMONDS, is a " damnable heresy." " But," said
Captain Rots, " the officers were well aware that, if
they reported unfavourably; there was at once an end
to their hopes of promotion. When the 18-gun brigs
were converted into ships, the officers in command
were required to report on their qualities. This I was
known to be an Admiralty whim, and all the officers
reported favourably, except Captain DUNDAS, a sell of
one of the Lords of the. Admiralty, who said, that his
vessel had been a very fine brig,, and had been made
into a very bad ship. That officer, in consequenee of
expressing this opinion, was remonstrated with, pi.
vately and publicly, but still he maintained that his
opinion was correct."
In relation to this subject, the complete failure of
the Water-Witch (built at West Cowes by Mr.
WHITE), purchased from her noble owner, and con-
verted from about the finest, fastest, and most beauti-
ful two-masted yacht that ever sailed, into a very
bad three-masted vessel of war, by the Government's
ship-builder, was largely dwelt upon. Captain Rom
did not hesitate to say, that no Government ship-
wright's reports were werthy of credit when they
were made of vessels not built by themselves ; that
all builders hated one another; and those of our dock-
yards invariably disparaged the craft turned out of
private yards. How. this may be we know not; -but
the case of the. " Water-Witch," which we saw our-
selves when on the stocks, whilst building for the Earl
of BELFAST, afterwards on various trips, prior to her
alterations, and subsequently, in the ruined state
described by Captains Rous and PECBELL, did go far
to show that a most searching inspection and reform