Imágenes de páginas

be asserted that no English 12-pounder frigate ever took a French 18-pounder frigate; and the Admiralty, at least, commanding as they did the largest force, rarely contrived to be superior in numbers on the day of battle. Their conduct of the American war, in 1812, was still more deplorably inefficient; and it may be said with confidence that our defeats in that war were distinctly to be attributed to the Admiralty, our successes to the individual commanders. The same character holds good in every administration.

We have in our recollection the Admiralty neglect of Sir Charles Napier in the Baltic, and the gunboats that were not built till the war was well nigh over; and we have already alluded in the course of this article to the general state of our distant squadrons. The true remedy is to be found in a change in the mode of governing the Navy. Let the head of the Navy be an individual, and not a board. Let us have personal supervision, and not a diluted responsibility; one strong spirit to command, and not six-water grog. Let this Minister of Marine, or Secretary of the Navy, be a Cabinet Minister, a Statesman of enlarged views and capacity, and a Member of Parliament; if possible in the House of Commons. If, in addition to these qualifications, he is also a naval officer, it will be so much the better for the profession and the country. Under him let there be two political Under Secretaries, one in each House, and then let the heads of the departments under them be selected for their competency in the special knowledge required in each of the divisions of business conducted under the Admiralty. Let the chief constructor be a shipbuilder, responsible to the Minister of Marine for the ships he produces. Let there be a naval officer of rank and experience, responsible for the manning of the Navy, its discipline, the Coast-guard, and the Naval Reserve; an accomplished Surveyor at the head of the hydrographical department; a naval officer in charge of the ordnance; the Director of Transports ; the Medical DirectorGeneral; the Comptroller of Victualling; the Storekeeper-General; the Accountant-General; the General of Marines, each at the head of his department, and personally responsible to the Minister of Marine for its complete efficiency. Let the officers in command of the Dockyards be responsible for the economy and efficiency of their respective establishments; and while rigidly enforcing well-considered laws and regulations, leave full scope to the zeal of well-selected officers on distant commands. Thus will your Navy recover its vigour, and the nation its prestige. It is instructive to compare our crude and unsatisfactory



system with that which has developed, in spite of all disadvantages, the formidable navy of the Federal Americans. There the Secretary of the Navy is all-powerful, and exacts from the various chiefs of bureaux the most accurate attention to the necessities of the sea-service. The whole armament of their ships has been changed, and cannon of enormous calibre now form their ship-batteries. The governing rule in arming our ships-of-war,' says the Report, has been to place on board of them the very heaviest and most effective guns they can bear with safety. The result of this arrangement is, that their new first-rate, with only 48 guns, throws a broadside of 2606 lbs. ; whilst the English

; 91-gun line-of-battle ship throws only 2120 lbs. But the American guns are thus arranged: one 150-pounder, rifled, pivot ; one 11-inch smooth bore, do. ; forty-two 9-inch smooth bore, broadside; four 100-pounders, rifled, do.; and four howitzers.

Their second-rate carries two 100-pounders, rifled, pivot; twenty 9-inch smooth bore, broadside; two 60 rifled, do.; and two howitzers, and throws a broadside of 1220 lbs.

Their third-rate carries two 100-pounders, rifled, pivot; four 9-inch smooth, broadside; two 24-pounders, smooth, do. ; two 20-pounders, rifled, do., and throws a broadside of 424 lbs.

Their smaller rates are equally armed, in proportion to their size; whilst some of their Monitors, on the turn-table and turret principle, are armed to fire as much as 1764 lbs. in one direction. It is worthy of remark, though the boastful tone in which it is related rather injures so valuable a State Paper, that the victory of the · Kearsage' over the “ Alabama’ is justly attributed to the deadly injuries inflicted upon the “Alabama' by the 11-inch shells fired from the two pivot guns of the Kearsage;' and in spite of the lesson conveyed by this example, brought to our very shores near a year ago, we have no such

guns yet afloat; whilst guns of even 15 inches in diameter are in use in the Federal navy.

We have endeavoured shortly to review the state of our Navy. We have suggested that it cannot be wise that the country, which is the consumer, should allow its agent, the Admiralty, to be the producer, the purchaser, and judge. We have pointed out that we are being gradually distanced by rival nations. No doubt our private manufacturing power is so great that with time we may again overtake them; but even such gigantic establishments as those of the Thames, or Millwall Iron Companies, or those of the Messrs. Laird, or Napier, would be in the “Gazette' in a week if they adopted the plan of the British Admiralty.

But no change can be anticipated under a government such as the present. Pledged to political Reform, they have broken every en



[ocr errors]

gagement. They have stayed the course of administrative Reform, so wisely, so temperately, so judiciously planned and commenced by Lord Derby; and it is fervently to be hoped that one of the first acts of his next advent to power will be to carry out the views so clearly expressed by Sir John Pakington before the Admiralty Committee in 1862, and entirely remodel the government of the Navy.

ART. VI.-1. First Annual Report of the Bishop of London's

Fund, January, 1865. 2. Statistics as to the Religious Condition of London, fc. 1864. 3. A Letter to the Bishop of London. By Rev. C. Girdlestone,

M.A., and Rector of Kingswinford, Staffordshire. 1863. 4. Churchman's Family Magazine. November and December,

1863. L ONDON contains within it about as many people as the

whole of Scotland, and adds to itself yearly a population equal to that of York or Derby. It is scarcely to be wondered at, then, that the great metropolis should have become somewhat unmanageable, and that its condition in many respects should be far from creditable to the first city of the world. But it is fair to remember that this is true in other departments besides those connected with religion. The State and the Municipality, as well as the Church, have their difficulties and their shortcomings arising from the same cause. With all our elaborate apparatus, backed by our national wealth, there is much which might well make us blush in matters affecting the intellectual, moral, and physical wellbeing of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Notwithstanding our Revised Code, our new Poor Laws, and our Metropolis Management Acts, there is really no adequate provision made either for the education of the people, the relief of the poor, or the maintenance of our thoroughfares. One hundred thousand children are still left unprovided with proper places of education; the daily papers contain occasional reports of men and women dying of starvation at our very doors; and those who chance to stray into some of our newly-erected suburbs can tell us, out of a painful experience, the disgraceful state of the streets in such localities. The houses are inhabited almost before they are finished, and the speculative builder and fortunate landlord have achieved a great success. But outside the houses themselves all is dirt and desolation. The narrow roads are left to the influences of sun and rain, unmade and uncared for by human hands, and a few flickering lamps serve only


case is

to make darkness' visible, and to perplex the passer-by. There appears to be no obligation resting upon any one, or at least none that is effectual, to provide either sufficient light or passable ways for the newly-gathered population; and in the midst of this dirt and darkness, disease and vice too often find an easy entrance. As regards the spiritual necessities of the population, the very much the same.

The newly-gathered population is left to shift for itself in these matters as best it can. Many of the people, fresh from the seclusion of country villages, reared under the very walls of the parish church, and accustomed to take their place there from week to week, are pained at first to find themselves so shut out from all opportunities of worship for themselves, and of schooling for their little ones; but, creatures of habit, like the rest of us, they soon get used to these new circumstances. They find, in the excitement of the public-house, never left unprovided in the newest neighbourhood, a substitute for the holier occupation of their early sabbath-days; the children prosecute their studies in the open streets and dingy courts, and learn the secrets of a vicious life, instead of the elements of useful knowledge; and when, at last, the minister of Christ is sent among them, too truly a “missionary, clergyman in the work he has to do, he finds, instead of the hearty welcome which once he might have had, a population to be reclaimed from coldness and indifference, if not from open infidelity and vice.

Every day there seems less prospect that the State should interfere in a matter of this kind, even in behalf of its own Established Church. The present idea of the relations of Church and State would appear to be that the rights are all on one side, and the responsibilities on the other. And yet it is certainly a matter in which the State has an interest as well as the Church. It would be no great hardship upon landowners or builders, if, in covering a large area with houses, whether for rich or poor, they should be compelled to reserve a certain space, at a fair market price, for church, or school, or chapel.

Robert Nelson, of pious memory, made even a bolder suggestion, writing a hundred and fifty years ago. It is to be wished,' he says, that the publick would concern themselves in a matter of such great importance ..... and especially where buildings increase, they would hereafter oblige the ground landlords, when they build such a number of houses, to erect a church, which might contain the new inhabitants.' But if the hope of a legislative remedy is to be abandoned, where are we to look for help? To the owners of the soil ? How faint, except in a few noble instances, is their sense of the obligation resting upon Vol. 117.-No. 234.




[ocr errors]



them! To the incumbents of the parishes? In most cases these clergymen are already bowed down by a burden too heavy for them to bear. To the Bishop of the diocese? We havewonderful to say-only one Bishop over more than a thousand clergy, and nearly three millions of souls !

But it is not only in respect of the Episcopate, but as regards its whole ecclesiastical organisation, that the Diocese of London is undermanned. The Archdeacon is an officer who should keep a watchful eye upon increasing parishes, and bring to the notice of the Bishop any cases where it would be necessary to interfere. But, as things are at present, with only two Archdeacons, and these already full of engagements of other kinds, to expect them to keep their eyes on all the corners of this vast diocese is a mere absurdity. Something, no doubt, may be done through the wisely-revived agency of Mural Deans,' as these functionaries have been happily called, in the Diocese of London ; but, in a system like that of the Church of England, the evils of insufficient oversight must always be rapidly and extensively felt, and in our schemes of Church-extension we should do well to bear this steadily in mind.

The Bishop of the Diocese has come forward with a stirring appeal on behalf of the destitute portion of his vast flock, and by the aid of a most influential Committee he has launched a scheme worthy at once of his high position and of the momentous interests which are at stake. A country clergyman, the Rev. Charles Girdlestone, the well-known commentator, felt himself moved to write to the Bishop about two years ago, to prefer a serious but somewhat unusual complaint. He had owned some chambers in London for some years past, and had never been asked to subscribe in any way towards the spiritual relief of his poorer brethren in the metropolis. The remedy for his special grievance was, of course, simple enough. But Mr. Girdlestone boldly suggested that justice should be done to his fellow sufferers as well as to himself. He proposed, in short, that some inquiry should be made as to the unmolested owners of property, great and small, in the metropolis, and that some opportunity should be afforded them of discharging the obligation which was no doubt weighing heavily upon them. The Bishop was not slow to adopt the suggestion. It was no new thought to him, and being advised that it would be desirable to summon a meeting of some of the more prominent among the landowners and employers of labour in the metropolis, in order to enlist, if possible, their sympathies and support in the work of Church Extension, he convoked such a meeting at London House, and from it there emanated, after some discussion, the proposal to raise a Million of money in ten years


« AnteriorContinuar »