bishop of Dublin; and, from some arrangements now in progress, we have reason to hope that London, and other parts of England will not long be without similar establishments. It is certainly not much to our credit, that while our Presbyterian friends on the Forth, and our fellow-Episcopalians on the Liffey, have nobly taken up this great object, the Thames should so long have been destitute of a chapel in connexion with the Established Church. But we write not to reproach our countrymen, private or official, landsmen or connected with maritime life, for past deficiencies, but to stimulate them to future exertions we therefore add no more at present on this topic, except the following overwhelming statistics, for those who may need them, in order to inform their minds of the magnitude of the object, and to excite their commiseration, and arouse their consciences to assist in its accomplishment. It has been computed, that the total amount of property shipped and unshipped in the port of London, in one year, amounts to nearly seventy millions; that there are employed about 8000 watermen in navigating wherries and craft; 4000 labourers, lading and unlading ships; 1200 revenue officers constantly doing duty: besides the crews of the several vessels, occupying a space of nearly five miles. On an average there are 2000 ships in the river and docks; together with 3000 barges and other small craft employed in lading and unlading them; and 2000 barges engaged in the inland trade; and 3000 wherries or small boats for passengers. The exports and imports employ about 4000 ships, whilst the cargoes that annually enter the port are not less than 11,000. From a return lately printed by order of the House of Commons, it appears that the imports into London in 1822, amounted to eighteen millions sterling, and the exports to nearly twenty-two millions; of which sum eight millions were foreign and colonial

merchandize. The number of ves sels that entered the port in 1822, was 3648 British, and 865 foreign. The total number of vessels that had moored between Limehouse and London-bridge was, in 1822, 13,112, exclusive of ships or vessels which had entered docks and canals. In 1823, the arrivals of steam vessels were 945, and the departures 915. The lineal frontage of wharfs and quays extends to 6451 feet; and 141: vessels, of 100 tons and upwards, may discharge their cargoes at the same time in different places.

We do not attempt to estimate the amount of the benevolent exertions above alluded to; or of other highly useful efforts for the extension of schools, savings' banks, hospitals, and other valuable institutions among seamen. It is obvious, however, that most of what is effected, or to be effected by voluntary efforts has relation more particularly to merchant seamen; his Majesty's navy being placed under peculiar circumstances, which bring it more immediately within the scope of legislative and official regulations. And, what renders it most strongly the duty of Government, of Parliament, and of the public to look with a jealous eye to themselves, and with a most humane and disinterested aspect towards this vast national service, is, that to a great extent it is an involuntary service. The merchant must submit to pay the just price of labour according to the circumstances of the market; but the public fixes a lower rate of wages for its sailors, and forces men to accept it whether they will or not; and the press-gang and the magistrate's warrant are appended to the system, to prevent that depopulation of the navy which would be the obvious consequence of this national parsimony and injustice. But low wages are not the only or the chief source of the unpopularity of the navy; for the severity of discipline which ever attaches to involuntary service, and the general degradation of character consequent

upon every step in the whole process, make it a most obnoxious line of life to moral, respectable, and religious men. Here then is a most powerful reason for the increased attention of every wise and benevolent mind to exert itself for the welfare of our national seamen. If the merchant fails in his duty, if his wages are too low, or his demands too great, or his captain's discipline too severe, his ship may remain unmanned till he reforms his regulations; but the royal seaman is a sort of maritime slave, (we do not use the word offensively,) he cannot quit his post if he is ever so justly dissatisfied, and therefore it becomes the nation, as a humane and enlightened master, to do for him what he cannot do for himself,-to teach him as well as to feed him,-to give him medicine for the soul as well as for the body, and to watch over his morals and best interests, as well as to look to his mere professional ability in his occupation.

We should scarcely know where to begin or to end, if we attempted to give a sketch of what we understand to be the actual condition of our navy in those points which, as Christian Observers, would particularly excite our attention, or if we attempted to detail all that may be necessary to render that service what every friend of Christianity would wish it to become. Indeed we feel our incompetence to such a task; nor is it necessary to undertake it with a view to our present object, which is rather to excite a spirit of serious inquiry into the whole subject, than to pretend to enter upon the details of it ourselves.

There are, however, three particular points connected with the present administration of naval affairs which have of late excited consider able attention; we mean, the three noticed by Admiral Sir C. Penrose, in the pamphlet before us-namely, corporal punishment, impressment, and some immoral customs to which we have before had painful occasion

:

;

to allude. We shall confine our remarks to these three points, on all of which our opinion is well known to our readers; but the modest, frank, and we are persuaded ingenuous, pamphlet on our table, summons us briefly to notice them anew; especially as the gallant writer has seen fit to refer to our publication, and to blame us for our former remarks, relative to the third point above noticed. We have ever been of opinion, that the reform of any community must ordinarily come from without its immediate members, even though persons of sound judgment and honourable minds, will usually have grown up so familiarised with the abuses incrusted on its surface, or, perhaps penetrating to its very core, as either not to perceive them or not to be sensible of their enormity. AngloIndians deprecated, and many of them, we doubt not, with honest and unaffected forebodings, the extension of a Christian establishment, and Christian missions to India slave-traders knew of no atrocities in man-stealing and piracy; the receivers in this nefarious commerce, while they now universally condemn the thief, see no moral invalidity in the bargain, and urge, that there is little or nothing to amend in the existing state of slavery. We might proceed further, but we forbear: our only inference is, that while the public ought to listen with the most respectful attention to facts proved by professional persons, and to their details of practical routine, they are at liberty to dissent from their principles, and also to apply, as far as may be expedient, sounder principles in the regulation of their particular profession, even at the risk of running counter to certain prejudices, of which it may not be easy for the existing functionaries to divest themselves, but which will not be known to their successors under a better regulated system. In effecting all such reforms, the remonstrances and forebodings of those who have been

matured under the repudiated tactics, may be expected; but these, in the end, will usually have a beneficial tendency, by leading the public soberly to examine both sides of the question, and to determine on the comparative strength of evidence. If written in a harsh and angry spirit, they injure the cause which they are meant to defend; if in a candid and temperate vein, they clear the way for those reforms of which their partial concessions unintentionally shew the need. The refutations also which they call forth, promote an enlarged acquaintance with the subject; and in a few years the only point for wonder, is, that the abuse could have been so long tolerated, and that well principled persons were found to defend it. We are persuaded that such will ultimately be the result as respects the three practices noticed in the present pamphlet.

The object of Admiral Penrose's remarks is thus described by himself:

"I have endeavoured, in my observations, to shew that the declamations, which have appeared plausible, are certainly erroneous; and to prove that the crews of our ships of war, which the declaimers would make appear as if dragged on board by violence, to be as violently punished, while they are at the same time permitted in all manner of excess, are treated with such liberal kindness as might

well induce them to volunteer to receive it; and that their comforts and morals are by no means neglected, but, on the contrary, are increased and increasing, are improved and improving, as much or more than in any other portion of our community." pp. v. vi.

We fully believe with our respected author, that very great attention is paid to the wants and comforts of our seamen, both by individual officers and the public authorities; and we have noticed from time to time, various beneficial regulations which do great honour to the promoters of them; and especially the excellent orders issued last year, which embrace some of the chief points which Admiral Penrose had wished to find accomplished. (See Christ. Observer for 1824, pp. 461,

462.) But every community must judge of its own feelings; and it is not for us, or for the gallant Admiral, or for Parliament, or Government, to say, that the treatment is such as "might well induce men to volunteer to receive it," if in point of fact they are not found to do so. The best proof of its being adequately "liberal" is not that persons "might well," but that they actually do, "volunteer to receive it." So long as compulsatory means are found necessary to secure "volunteers," the service cannot be viewed as desirable. The food, the clothing, and the medical attendance may be excellent; and yet there may be other circumstances which counteract the effect of these comforts: and in truth, if the service is so desirable, why is it held out as a punishment by the magistrates, and considered such by those on whom it is inflicted? A service is never truly liberal or just, till the employer can say with effect: "If you do not do your duty, you shall lose your appointment." Is this the state of the navy?

The first point upon which Admiral Penrose touches is the infliction of corporal punishment, respecting which he remarks:

"I am, and have always been, an earnest adviser of, and advocate for, the most cautious use of corporal punishment, fully aware that it has been often injudiciously, and sometimes harshly, inflicted; but I know, also, that it has been often injudiciously and weakly refrained from. I have maintained, and believe, that the advance made in the habits of reflection, and exertion of the kindlier feelings in the higher classes, and of improved decency and morality in the lower, are fast blending_in that happy harmony, which will render corporal punishment of rare occurrence, under the strictest discipline; but if there were only one dozen lashes in a year inflicted throughout the navy, I would not withdraw the power of infliction.

of the charge and responsibility lying on "I am most fully aware of the greatness those who are invested with this power; and I have felt this charge and responsi bility, which the declaimers never did.

"A late noble admiral, before alluded to, whose heart was as humane as his professional skill was eminent, has often assured me, that although ardent in the

feelings of honourable ambition, and, of course, desirous of enlarged command, yet that the greatest pleasure he derived from his promotion to a flag was the thought, that it relieved him from superintending punishments at the gang-way. I most cordially agree with my lamented friend, and I believe all that is wanted to prevent any improper use of the power complained of is, that all who are entrusted with it should really feel the very serious responsibility attached to it. I do not think I have here used too strong a term, as what situation can be more seriously responsible than that which puts a man not only in the place of judge and jury, in hearing evidence for and against a fellow-creature under his command, passing judgment, and superintending punishment, awarded by himself; but having, also, the power, at the latter period, still to make the pupunishment more severe, to lessen its seve

rity, or to remit its execution altogether. Surely there cannot be many who will use this power without mercy, and who would not gladly embrace the means of mitigation and remission, when their duty admits.

"I allow then the magnitude of the power, the great responsiblity of those on whom the execution rests, with the duty imposed upon them, of most serious deliberation, and of feeling a due sense that mercy should always temper justice.

"But not in the smallest degree do all these weighty considerations shake my firm opinion, that the existence of the power is absolutely requisite for the well being of the navy, and necessarily for the safety of the nation.'

pp. 6, 7.

We are happy to learn from this extract, not only that our gallant admiral is hostile to severity, but that he considers that the advances made in habits of reflection, and in decency and morality, are greatly curtailing, and fast banishing, the infliction of corporal punishments; a fact which we so fully believe that we are convinced the good habits of which he speaks will, before long, reform the code itself, as well as the actual practice*. But the power, it seems, must be retained, even if not used; and this at the fear

While this sheet is going to press, a proposition has been made in the House of Commons, by Mr. Hume, for some reforms in the navy, particularly as respects impressment and arbitrary flogging. The proposition has failed; but we cannot for bear saying, that, though the majority of votes was on one side, the preponderance

of sound argument was on the other. . This

is a subject on which the spirit of party ought to have no influence.

ful risk, and we may add, on our author's own shewing, at the absolute certainty, of its being abused. We agree with Sir . C. Penrose, that if all who are entrusted with

the serious responsibility which the p power would duly consider attaches to it, it would not be wilfully abused; though even in this most favourable case, mistake, haste, or momentary excitement of temper, might have much of the effect of deliberate severity.-But will perthis sense of responsibility; responsons in any station, always cherish, sibility not only to man, but to God? Will arbitrary power always be exscientious feeling ? If it will, abolish ercised under this salutary and conat once, as useless, all laws, all restrictions, upon the actions of one man towards another; and give to every judge, every magistrate, every master of a family, the power of life and death upon life and death upon his own irresponsible arbitriment. Our respected

author will not say, there is sensé or reason in such a proposal; but absurd as it is, the cases do not differ in reason, but only in degree, from the peculiar circumstances under which a ship's company at sea are placed. Our author's own admissions prove that both philosophy and fact are against him; for does he not, in this very extract, admit that corporal punishments are often injudiciously, and sometimes harshly inflicted;" and does he not, in his very exhortations to leniency, in his advice to captains not to direct the infliction of punishment for an offence, " till their pillow has been their counsellor ;" and in his own candid acknowledgment, that at the moment when a fault has been reported to him, he has himself resolved to award "a much more severe punishment, than he found it either just or his duty to inflict on a subsequent day;"-does he not, in all these admissions, unintention ally prove, that the power of inficting instant, summary, and arbitrary punishment, is unwise, and open to the most flagrant abuses? Let the

reader judge by one fact, as a specimen, from our author's own pamphlet. It is introduced by him incidentally, not in reference to the point which we are considering, but merely to illustrate a technical question respecting the relative powers of a captain and his flag officer. It however applies very particularly to the point under dis

cussion.

"When reefing topsails, some unusual delay or slackness was shewn on a topsail yard-arm. The admiral on deck was very angry, and said to his captain, before many officers and men, I desire that every man on that yard-arm may be flogged to-morrow.' The captain, who did not consider that every man on the yard was in fault, made, very properly, a respectful bow, without remark. The following day, the captain reported to the admiral, that punishment was about to take place, to which the latter replied, Very well. The captain had found, on strict inquiry, that the fault lay entirely on two men, who had sulkily disobeyed the orders of their officer, and hindered the other men in their duty. These two men received some punishment. The admiral afterwards asked the captain what he had done about the men who had been so long about reefing the topsail. He replied, 'I found, on inquiry, that two men were very much to blame, and alone prevented the others from doing their duty, and those two have been punished.' You have done very right,' was the admiral's reply; but had he persisted in his directions, given on the evening before, could the captain have obeyed them, and punished men he knew to be not guilty?" pp. 18, 19.

It was well for the unoffending portion of this yard-arm party that it was the admiral and not the captain who happened to have taken the offence; otherwise, without witnesses, or jury, or court-martial, and before their judge could "consult his pillow" to calm his bilious ferment, they must have submitted the most respectable man amongst them -to the severe and disgraceful punishment which he might have `ordered and seen inflicted on the spot. And yet, when even the long-tried coolness of a British admiral can be thus betrayed into an act of the most detestable tyranny and injustice, our gallant author has no hesitation in committing this arbitrary CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 282.

power to mere boys we beg their pardon, for, by a recent and excellent regulation, they cannot arrive at the power of commanding a ship of war till they are, at least, twenty-two years of age,-having, he says, "too high an opinion of the mild and liberal feelings of a well-educated British youth to fear that such a one will err on the side of severity. We confess we could wish that our gallant veterans had some better guarantee; as both justice and policy demand.

66

We are so unfortunate as again to differ from our author, where he laments, that, owing to the number of hands through which the quarterly returns of punishments, now happily required from every ship, have to pass, secresy has been impossible, though doubtless it would have been desirable;" and where he suggests, that with a view to promote a greater uniformity of discipline in our ships of war, in some of which punishments are much more numerous, arbitrary, and severe, than in others, there should be drawn up and transmitted to each commander from the Admiralty, "private, admonitory, and explanatory instructions." In our view, the chief existing evils of the system arise from the unavoida ble privacy which attaches to a service in which the captain and his crew may be separated for months or years from intercourse with their fellow-subjects, and where, consequently, many an undue exercise of power may pass unpunished, which on land would have called down the vengeance of the laws; and the best way to avoid this evil, and also to gain the uniformity which Admiral Penrose desires, would be an increase of publicity to the regulations and results of the whole system. The sailor ought to know under what instructions his captain acts in a matter which so nearly concerns himself; and the captain ought to feel, that he is amenable to the bar of justice and public opinion for the due discharge of his functions. We wish that these very

3 B