victims of Mammon, more dreadful their fate, because more protracted their sufferings, than that of the child-offerings of old to the gods of the Druids, without even the transitory charm of being dressed for the altar— is laid before the state, the state rejects it;-when legislative interference is solicited in behalf of such British children, their moral and physical sufferings (unsurpassed in any age, in any clime) exposed with a startling atrocity of detail, and stamped, indelibly stamped, with truth, to the shame of Britain and of Christianity, their cause taken up by the wise and the good, fortified by reason and adorned by eloquence, the prayer is rejected, and we are insulted instead by appeals in behalf of Polish children! Years hence, when, by the exertions of the press, or (let us hope it) by better feelings pervading manufacturers, those illuminated dungeon-palaces which arrest the traveller's attention on entering a manufacturing town at night shall cease to raise sighs for the wretched somnambules within,-when the billy-roller (type of the cartwhip) be laid aside, and the hemp-extracting emetic be forgotten,— when factory children shall sing and laugh at their work, and a master manufacturer find more pleasure in making thousands happy during his life than in indulging the culpable ostentation of bequeathing a colossal fortune, gained at the expense of infants' tears and mothers' sorrow,— then, when interference will no longer be requisite, the State, urged on by the selfish notoriety-hunting Saints of the day, will legislate for the factories; and, citing former, no longer existing abuses as a reason, will deprive the manufacturers of the slight power of coercion absolutely necessary where numbers work together, and so will cause the masters to cease their employ, and consign their industrious people to the tender mercies of the workhouse.

Thus to come to our own case, to which those above cited are strictly analogous-when the mode of enforcing naval discipline rendered nearly every one of His Majesty's ships a cittá dolente, causing the service to be looked on in no better light than as a condition of slavery, and the name of " Captain" to be regarded as a synonyme of " tyrant,' -when the whole system was such-who can be surprised?—as disgusted people with the navy, and saddled the country with the expense and opprobrium of press-gangs,-when legislation, in a word, on behalf of the seaman was loudly called for by policy and humanity, the state was silent; it authorized the acts of its officers, added to their irresponsibility, and countenanced, as it were, cruelty, by rewarding (generally speaking) any officer whose oppression caused him to be tried by a court-martial. Now, however, (an incontrovertible statement) that the service has undergone a complete change, that the interior of a ship presents a picture of health, comfort, and satisfaction, that the men have ample indulgences, little work, and scarcely any punishment, are well fed and well clothed, we hear of nothing but the horrors of our discipline, the cruelty of our officers, and we are threatened by pseudosaints and sentimental liberals, who make a rapprochement of twenty or thirty years to suit their argument, with being deprived of that mode of punishment for which no secondary punishment, and no talent can act (completely) as a substitute, and without which (used chiefly in terrorem) it will be hopeless to expect to maintain effective discipline among large bodies of men confined in narrow spaces, exposed to infinite hardships and many privations. We hesitate not to say, that

as beneficial as interference on the subject would have been thirty years since, as mischievous will it now prove, that is to the extent contemplated by some members of the legislature. Non-interference before on the subject of naval punishment was a crime; interference now will be a fault. Some member (we forget his name) said, with a feeling, no doubt, of superior humanity, that the community was so widely changed, its sentiments become so enlarged and refined, that it would no longer suffer a continuance of the lash in the navy. Good; but the honourable member, in giving the community at large, among whom drinking and immorality have much increased of late years, (as the Excise and the venders of obscene publications know,) credit for superior refinement of ideas, and a keener shuddering of the flesh, might also have assumed that a corresponding improvement had taken place among naval officers, and that they were as unwilling to inflict unnecessary punishment as their countrymen to tolerate it. We cannot suppose that any member seriously believes that scenes of tyranny, similar to those which used to be acted on many of our quarter-decks, are now to be witnessed in the remotest degree; although, to hear them talk about it in the House, one might be almost inclined to credit it (on the faith of such revered authority) against the evidence of our senses: and certainly, without further argument, the presence of many naval members on such occasions, and their silence invariably, are well adapted to lead the people at large to that judgment. Why do they not rise in their places, and endeavour to rescue the service from the charge of being tyrannic and ignorant, as is implied by a wish to deprive it of a discretionary power? We fain look on them as our representatives; why will they not regard us as their constituents, and uphold our interests? Why do they not explain the question, and set it in the true light, and not leave it to landsmen, who cannot be conversant about it, who can only speak from theory (on a subject to which, of all others, theory is no guide,) whose yachting, beautiful as it is, is no practice-to bandy the pros and cons as confidently as though they had passed their lives at sea, and as carelessly as though naval discipline were a trifle, to be disposed of as a road-bill?

But, mark us well! in upholding naval discipline (on which mainly depends our naval supremacy-the keystone of England's security) another course must be adopted than that which is usually followed by its supporters. We must cease to defend the past, or screen the real delinquent; and we must show, by a readiness to acknowledge our former errors, that we have a sincere desire to avoid committing similar ones. On the contrary, (actuated by an excusable failing-an esprit de corps,) in throwing a gloss over the conduct of some commanders, we lead people to suppose that we do not disapprove of it, that we even consider it necessary. Nothing is more detrimental to the service than the efforts of some persons, well-meaning, no doubt, to throw discredit on, or to turn into ridicule, as if they had never taken place, or were exaggerated, the instances of quarter-deck misgovernment that are occasionally introduced into naval publications. We dislike the tone of these publications, because the show-up in them is intended rather to bring discredit on the service than to act as an example,— example moreover being no longer requisite, and because they are written in a spirit of unfairness; the unities of time and place and the

identity of person being often sacrificed to suit the abuse cited to the scene of action; and the subject being generally so cunningly handled, as to make landsmen suppose that they still exist. But, nevertheless, they contain facts, damnable facts; and, however we may be ashamed, we should own them, if only to show our abhorrence of such conduct; manifesting at the same time, if we will, our contempt of the calumnious motives that intruded them on the public.

Some officers there are, we know, who look back to the discipline of the old school with regret at its departure. What was that discipline? Unsparing severity was its rule, the cat its instrument; the art of discriminating character was not thought of; to reason with men was considered absurd; to modify punishment a useless trouble;-the cat! the cat! the cat! With how many captains was it not an invariable rule to punish alike every man for a given fault, whereby were often seen at the same gangway the veteran who had served years without a blemish, to whom the bare thought of the lash was mental agony, and the incorrigible rascal whom flogging only served to case-harden! We have many of us witnessed melancholy consequences of such injudiciousness. In some ships was it not the custom on occasions to start the last of the topmen in off each yard? As one must be the last, death sometimes ensued in consequence of men falling from aloft in their hurry to get in in time to avoid the rope's end. How common was the custom of starting the last man up the ladders! How popular (officerly speaking) was the atrocious maxim, that by flogging the good men you showed the bad hands they had no chance of escaping! The harsh conduct of some captains during the war cannot be exaggerated let us not attempt to defend it, but rather hold it up to the scorn it merits; but, at the same time, it behoves us to insist upon the truth, that such was, not is. Verily, no sight can be more melancholy, more repulsive to humanity, than the spectacle of a man," dressed in a little authority," exercising wayward despotism, without one adequate motive, over a few of his fellow-creatures, 'over whom the law gives him control; judging all feelings, all understandings, by the blunted edge of his own. If an angel assumed a human form, and entered under his command, he would fare no better than a reprieved felon in the same position. That such has existed cannot be denied, nor ought it to be denied; but that it can again happen (except in rare, isolated cases) we confidently pronounce to be impossible, unless a complete retrogradation takes place in the manners and pursuits of the navy; and country gentlemen may be assured that they are not more unlike their fathers, who daily steeped their bodies in port, than we of the ocean are to our predecessors.

Nevertheless, we know enough of human nature not to be ignorant of the direful effects produced by the union of ill temper and arbitrary power, the morbid disease of the mind (effect often of physical derangement) that finds relief in giving pain to others. We are not ignorant of the sorry ambition that makes some men desirous of excelling in matters of no import, or the weakness that induces others to forego their own sound ideas to please a Commander-in-Chief who finds merit in the perfection of trifles. We know that a Zeluco may occasionally arise capable of deliberately sacrificing the happiness of all under him for the sake of a "crack ship," for the sake of reefing a

topsail in a few seconds less time, or of having the pins of his quarterdeck a little brighter than those of other vessels, or of exciting the powers of his crew as though the object were to save the ship from a lee-shore*. We know the fatal facility (rock on which many have split) of preserving discipline by means of the lash-the ally it is of indolence, the friend of ignorance; and how effectively it enables the inefficient officer to obtain credit (as a man of talent) for results it alone was instrumental in obtaining.

We know all that; and therefore it may appear that those who wish to deprive Captains of a discretionary power in using the lash, on the chance of its being abused, have reason on their side, moreover, that we agree with them. No such thing. In mentioning the elements of the evil, we merely anticipated their being urged in argument against us; and we trust we have a competent answer. In the first place, the general feeling now existing among naval officers against severity; their education; their acquaintance with the feelings of their countrymen on the subject; their let us say it-superior habits of temperance; their more habitual control over themselves; altogether form a guarantee that a general system of harshness will not again be revived. In the second place,—and this is the most important consideration,-the surest check on individual tyranny, (leaving every other caution out of the question as theoretical,) is responsibility ;-provided the Admiralty observe the just rule of making a commander's responsibility weigh in the ratio of the power entrusted to him, the latter will never be abused. Unfortunately the rule was inversed: the more oppressed was a crew, the greater was the impunity of its commander; and any complaint made against him was usually converted into a source of triumph, an incentive to persevere in his practices, by being treated as subversive of discipline.

The tree has at length borne fruit, and bitter it is for us. The effect of this administrative error is seen in the voice of indignation that has gone through the land. The evil has worked its own cure; but―true in morals as in physics-the self-wrought remedy may prove too violent, and induce a worse malady.

More to blame, however, than the Admiralty were the members of Courts-Martial, in conniving at the sins of their brother officers and equals. It sometimes happened that the crew of a ship would frame charges and bring their captain to trial. In some of these cases, where the charges were proved, it is not saying too much that death would not have been a harsh sentence. What was the punishment?Punishment!-It seldom amounted to more than dismissal from a ship; oftentimes only to a reprimand; cashiering was the least to be expected. Thus deluded under the semblance of justice, no reasoning could persuade the men that dismissing an officer from his ship was a punishment, more especially as the Admiralty were in the habit of adding to the mockery by giving him another ship, in which to repeat the same

Rarely will a man of talent be a Martinet. Nelson's ship was considered a privateer; so was Collingwood's; so was Sir P. Brooke's; and, generally speaking, such misnamed ships prove the most effective on real service; for the men know that their energies are not called into action for trifles, and grateful for that, exert them willingly and spiritedly on commensurate occasions.

pranks. If it ever happened (which we doubt) that a court-martial did its duty by cashiering an officer convicted of oppression, he was certain, after some time, of being reinstated. What was the consequence of this incapability on the part of the seamen to obtain redress? Mutiny oftentimes. No general mutiny ever took place in a ship of war without being excited by extreme ill usage. Had the men had the means of obtaining justice, they would never have incurred the fearful risk of taking the law in their own hands; indeed, we may say, so great were the odds against them, so certain their detection, that nothing short of the feeling of revenge wrought to its highest pitch (as in the case of the Hermione) could have made them have recourse to it.

Captains, we know, thought that by listening to their complaints, by letting it appear that a captain could do wrong, they would subvert discipline. A grave error this; a singular misapprehension of human feelings; a decided proof that they had not long served in inferior posts. No consideration makes men so cheerful in subordination as the knowledge that their superiors are also responsible, and may be readily called to account for transgressing their duty towards their inferiors; in aid of which argument—a truism it may be termed-we need scarcely refer to the allusions of Scripture regarding the tribunal at which the great of earth will have to answer for their conduct towards the low, and the triumph of patient suffering thereby inculcated. Sailors are naturally patient and forgiving: it requires long aggravation before they will bring charges against their commanding officer; and the old opinion, that if a captain were punished on the charges of his men, it would cause a crew to adduce frivolous charges, is neither founded on reason nor experience.

Captains of the present day, to you belong the task of amending the faults of your predecessors: attempt to perpetuate them, and the power will be taken from you! We solemnly urge you to consider the importance of your situation, and not suffer any esprit de corps to interfere with the duty you owe your Country and the Navy, when sitting in judgment on your brother officers. Of vital import to the country (as depending on the navy) is it, that your authority be maintained vigorously; but to ensure that, it must not be abused. Your education and your feelings tell you how unnecessary, how odious is oppression in a ship: be it then your care to prevent any officer convicted of tyranny before you, as members of a court-martial, from again abusing his authority-deprive him of his commission. The notoriety of a few vessels will impart a taint to the whole navy that nothing will remove. A well-proven case of tyranny, allowed to go unpunished, may raise a feeling in the House that will lead to render your authority a shadow. If you suffer the cat to be an instrument of torture in the hands of a few, you will not be suffered to retain it as a wholesome rod of correction.

But to come to the question now agitated. Cannot the discipline of the navy be maintained without the aid of the cat? Independent of the danger of making abrupt experiments on a subject of such vast importance to the country as naval discipline, it is easy to show that it cannot be. Whether the army can do without it at the present time, we do not here pretend to decide; we think not. We merely allude to it to