Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1854-03-29

COMMUNICATED.
MEssRs EDIToRs:-I have Just been shown
an article in your widely spread paper of the
24th inst, signed % Vindex' - which takes ex-
ception to the following sentence contained in
pamphlet entitled /" Our Navy-what it was,
now is, and what it should be;' the sentence
reads thus: Kun the eye over the list of
heroes of the English Navy, frsm the time of
henry VIII, its substantial founder, down to
the present time, and there will be found but
rare exceptions to the fact, that they were
young men at the date of their victories. y
= Vindex" goes on and says 'I If the writer
Of the above will take the trouble to examine
the naval annals of that distinguished maratine
power, he will find the reverse of his position -
have to reply to this my regrets that he had
not followed his own recommendation, and
made the examination himself instead of
clothing his assertions in generality If he
had done so, have no doubt he would have
stated his long list of facts INTENDED to prove
how infinitely old men are the superiors of
young ones, where energy, prompt action, and
the following up of an advantage, where a
great purpose was to be gained.) with more
precision and with greater regard to the
truths of history.
If the article ''Vindex' cavils at had assumed
that all the great English naval victories were
won by young men, there might then have
been some ground for criticism, but my posi-
ton was qualified by the term with rare ex-
ceptiOns :" If therefore he has succeeded in
helped me to prove the general rule. Now, as
what have stated is the general rule, and
what "Vindex" has proved are the exceptions
1 shall avail myself Of all the immunities and
privileges of that principle and again reiter
ate without much fear of contradiction, sThat
the great majority of the heroes of the English
navy were young men at the dates of their
victories"
"Vindex' then comes down with what he
supposes 'sledge hammer blows on INV prop
osition, by giving long list of old men who
with the help Of young ones, gained victories
He begins with Admiral Montague, the Earl
of Sandwich who. he says, "was blown up in
action with the Dutch feet, aged 77' How
could this be so ? as the Earl was born in 1925
and the action and the circumstances of his
death occurred in 1872, making the Earl just
AZ instead of II, small discrepancy in my
favor Of only thirty years
Again, he says "Hawke fought his great
battle with the French Commander Conf aus
aged 81; and continued in oetipe service until
H." What are the facts? Hawke was born
in l705, and was post captain at %, made
rear admiral at AZ, and Immediately placed in
command of feet of fourteen sail of the line
and ten frigates. With this feet he fought his
first great battle with the French commanded
oy humlral Qe LltenOuer, ana captured Oil
his feet save two, which managed to escape.
See the difference in the result as he gets
older. His second great battle with the French,
under ConAaus, was fought November, 1859,
IA. that time he was only "a, instead, as Vim
dex asserts, SD and in that fight all the French
feet of twenty three heavy men-of-wsr, with
the large convoy, escaped, save six vessels,
which he captured and carried in. Age, by
this example, makes some little difference in
results. At SO, he entirely abandoned active
sea-life, and was never afoat after that time
Q763) At so, he was appointed first Lord of
the Admiralty, and at 66 retired into private
life, and died at the age of 71-just thirteen
years after he had giVen up active sea-ii/e,
"Vindex" to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Again, he says: admiral Geary fought
several severe battles, and commanded the
channel feet at 70.' How is the case? The
admiral was born ITO, posted at 80, appoin ted
commander Of the midway feet at 81, and ad.
vanced to rear admiral at 49, He commanded
up to the time Of his death, rs "Vindex'' as
serts, which occurred at his 10th year. This,
freely own. is one of the exceptions as regards
age, although not q very fortunate one, as the
admiral was never strictly regarded as one of
England's heroes, - he never was present or
personally engaged in any Of her great naval
battles. f he did not gain renown, II was,