64 Naval Affairs of Great Britain. JuLY, 



Sir Charles Penrose has " done the State some service" in writing the 

 pamphlet before us. It is true that he is not always correct in his 

 objurgations ; but that he should be so for the most part is enough to 

 warrant his friends in their determination to print what had been 

 embodied by the pen of the veteran admiral. We have not hesitated to 

 say openly that we coincide with him in most of the sharp rebukes 

 directed against the powers that be ; and we shall endeavour to be 

 equally candid in opposing him where his strictures are not founded in 

 justice. As regards naval discipline, for example, he says : 



" I had earnestly hoped, in common with many of my brother officers, that 

 advantage would have been taken of this long period of profound peace, to digest 

 and introduce some material improvements into our general system of naval 

 discipline ; and that while our civil and military codes have been gradually and 

 almost imperceptibly assuming a milder spirit, and becoming more in unison 

 with the altered temper of the age, and with the general disposition which 

 prevails amongst enlightened men to govern, as far as may be possible, by reason 

 rather than by force, I had hoped, I say, that this important subject would not 

 have escaped the attention of our naval administration. 



" I am fully aware of the difficulty and delicacy of the task, and that any 

 undue relaxation of the reins of discipline might be to the full as dangerous and 

 pernicious as the opposite extreme; but I cannot believe that in this, as well 

 as in all other human affairs, there is not a happy medium by no means impos- 

 sible of attainment; and remembering, as I too well do, all the occurrences 

 which led to the fearful explosion in 1797, I feel doubly anxious that our 

 system of discipline afloat should be so regulated and mitigated as to prevent, 

 as far as possible, those sad instances of individual harshness and severity, which 

 I would gladly expunge from my memory, but which I have no doubt con- 

 tributed very materially towards the subsequent discontents." 



In this particular, we know that the Admiralty is not only not to be 

 blamed, but deserves the thanks of the nation. The punishment of 

 flogging at the individual will of a commander is now very rare ; and 

 the navy is not, as Sir Charles insinuates, behind either civil or military 

 jurisprudence in the wise mildness of its punishments. Captains of 

 men of war have, in late years, been compelled to make quarterly 

 reports of all punishments whatever inflicted on board their respective 

 ships, and it cannot be denied that this salutary regulation has had its 

 origin at head-quarters. Sir Charles Penrose cannot, therefore, be 

 borne out in his strictures on this head ; more particularly when he 

 speaks of the discipline of 1797, as compared with that at present 

 observed. We shall not, after what we have said, be accused of undue 

 partiality for the present naval administration of our country; but, 

 in denouncing what we think is evil, let us not be tempted to overlook 

 or misrepresent that which is obviously good. 



