Abstract
FROM the papers and discussions which have recently appeared in the Journal of the United Service Institution (Nos. cvi., cxv., 1880, 1882), it would appear that a large number of our naval officers are becoming sensible of the many defects of the system under which their younger brethren are at present entered and educated. In all professions it is so much the custom of the seniors of high rank to hold by the existing state of things, that the protest now made is the more marked, coming, as it does, not from one officer, or from a clique, but from officers of all ages, ranks, and branches, who look on the subject from different points of view, and correct their judgment by different forms of experience. The fact seems to be that, whereas the naval officer of former days was not called on to be anything but a seaman, though it was no doubt better if he was also a gunner—which was but seldom—at present he ought to be not only a seaman and a gunner, but half-a-dozen other things as well—a navigator, an engineer, a mechanic, an electrician, something of a soldier, something of a naval architect, skilled in signals and in tactics, and not ignorant of international law. There are, of course, but few who can excel in all these branches of knowledge; but every naval officer is expected to know something of all, and before getting his commission he has to show, in examination, that he does know something of all, even though that something may occasionally be very little: he is then permitted to choose one or two subjects of which he may make a specialty; he may devote himself to navigation, to gunnery, or to the management of torpedoes; and on showing that he possesses special qualifications, he receives special appointments and a higher rate of pay. But whether his tastes and abilities lead him to qualify in these special subjects or not, he is supposed to have a certain respectable knowledge of all; and, as keeping up the traditions of the service, he is required, before everything, to be a first-rate seaman. The most important question then is, Does the present system of training young officers ensure their becoming first-rate seamen? The answer of almost every speaker at the United Service Institution is in the negative. Capt. Brine, to whom the Institution has this year awarded its gold medal, says, “A midshipman serving in an ironclad has but few opportunities of learning the work of a sailor; it cannot be said that the years thus passed are essentially valuable as regards seamanlike training.” Capt. Grenfell says, “We are all familiar with Falconer's admirable picture of the almost child handling a ship—‘And well the docile crew that skilful urchin guides.’ It would be useless to look for the same thing now. Our urchins, we must confess, are not “skilful.” Capt. Cleveland says, “On board an ironclad, youngsters have very little opportunity of learning more than just the routine work, which they may learn from a book;” and Lord Dalhousie thinks “the ordinary life of a midshipman in a sea-going ship to be so ill-organised as to be little better than very laborious waste of time, so far as his own professional training and education are concerned.” Many others might be quoted to the same effect, for the agreement is almost perfect; but these are sufficient. It may be assumed as admitted that a little boy sent on board an ironclad to learn seamanship, does not learn it, and has no opportunity of learning it, whether seamanship is understood in the old sense of handling a ship under sail, or in the modern sense of handling her under steam, and still less if in the strictly logical sense of “manoeuvring ships under all circumstances of wind and weather.” What our large ironclads have masts and yards for—except to foul and choke the screw in time of battle—is a thing often wondered over. Many have none, and even those that have them do not trust to them in performing the simplest nautical evolution. Clearly then a young gentleman on board such a ship does not learn the sailoring of the old school. How he can be supposed to learn the management of the ship under steam does not appear. Capt. Cleveland—who, as having lately commanded an ironclad, speaks with a special authority—says, “No captain would ever trust an ironclad to a young gentleman to work, as the captains of old did their frigates;” and evidently the mere being on board whilst somebody else is working the ship can teach him very little. His principal duties are, in fact, said to be seeing the ashes emptied overboard, the decks swept, and the brass rails polished; niceties which he might learn equally well on shore from his mother's housemaid, or by making an occasional round in the dust cart. Mr. Laughton, one of the Instructors at Greenwich, goes so far as to doubt whether this method of training young officers was ever quite satisfactory. “No doubt,” he says, “in former days the still existing system of sending little boys on board ships on active service to learn seamanship by doing what they were bid and keeping their eyes open, answered pretty well. I do not think it did very well. Of course we turned out a large number of first-rate seamen, but it was out of an enormous number of entries. No account can now be taken of the failures; but of those who through ignorance, drink, and immorality went wholly to the dogs, the number was extremely large, and of those who did not thus utterly break down, there were a very great many who dragged on in the service as ignorant of seamanship as of everything else that was reputable.” Even now the same evils are at work, though in a less degree; and in a former paper on a kindred subject, Mr. Laughton showed that “more than half the entries into the service disappear within twelve years,” whether from “death, ill-health, family affairs, dislike, incapacity, or bad conduct.”
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Naval Education . Nature 26, 473–474 (1882). https://doi.org/10.1038/026473a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/026473a0