The Sea: Its Stirring Story of Adventure, Peril, & Heroism (Vol. 1-4). Frederick Whymper
to this. One thought alone cheered me in the dark abyss into which I was fallen. I had administered wholesome and righteous correction in proper season: hip and thigh had I hewed my enemy; and, to reflect upon that, was as a healing balm to my sore bones.” Mr. Primrose was at length released, and returned to England.
Another officer of the Royal Navy—the engineer—deserves particular notice, for his position is becoming daily of more and more importance. It is not merely the care and working of the engines which propel the vessel in which he is concerned; the chief and his subordinates have charge of various hydraulic arrangements often used now-a-days on large vessels, in connection with the steering apparatus; of electrical and gas-producing apparatus; the mechanical arrangements of turrets and gun-carriages; pumping machinery; the management of steam-launches and torpedoes. Take the great ironclad Thunderer (that on which the terrible boiler explosion occurred) as an example: she has twenty-six engines for various purposes, apart from the engines used to propel the vessel, which have an actual power of 6,000 horses. The Téméraire has thirty-four engines distinct from those required for propulsion. A competent authority says that, “with the exception of the paymaster’s and surgeon’s stores, he is responsible for everything in and outside the ship (meaning the hull, apart from the navigator’s duties), to say nothing of his duties while under weigh.” And yet engineers of the navy do not yet either derive the status or emoluments fairly due to them, considering the great and increasing responsibilities thrown upon them of late years. Sir Walter Scott makes Rob Roy express “his contempt of weavers and spinners, and sic-like mechanical persons, and their pursuits;” and in the naval service some such feeling still lingers.
ENGINE-ROOM OF H.M.S. “WARRIOR.”
The first serious introduction of steam-vessels into the Royal Navy occurred about the year 1829, the Navy List of that year showing seven, of which three only were commissioned, and these for home ports. No mention is made of engineers; they were simply taken over from the contractor with the vessel, and held no rank whatever. In 1837 an Admiralty Circular conferred warrants on engineers, who were to rank immediately below carpenters; they were to be assisted by boys, trained by themselves. Three years later, the standard was raised, and they were divided into three classes; in 1842 a slight increase of pay was given, and they were advanced to the magnificent rank of “after captains’ clerks,” and were given a uniform, with buttons having a steam-engine embossed upon them. In 1847 the Government found that the increasing demands of the merchant and passenger service took all the best men (the engineers’ pay, to-day, is better on first-class steamship lines than in the Navy), and they were forced to do something. The higher grades were formed into chief engineers, and they were raised to the rank of commissioned officers, taking their place after masters. The first great revolution in regard to the use of steam in the Royal Navy took place in 1849, by means of the screw-propeller. In that year Dupuy Delorme constructed the Napoleon, a screw-vessel carrying 100 guns, and with engines of 600 horse-power, and England had to follow. Then came the Russian War, the construction of ironclad batteries, and finally, the ironclad movement, which commenced in England in 1858, by the construction of the Warrior and similar vessels.
It becomes a particularly serious question, at the present time, whether the system, as regards the rank and pay of engineers, does not deter the most competent men from entering the Royal Navy. Many very serious explosions and accidents have occurred on board ironclads, which would seem to indicate that our great commercial steamship lines are far better engineered. The Admiralty has organised a system for training students at the dockyard factories, followed up by a course of study at the Naval College, Greenwich; and it is to be hoped that these efforts will lead to greater efficiency in the service. A naval engineer of the present day needs to be a man of liberal education, and of considerable scientific knowledge, both theoretical and practical, and he should then receive on board that recognition which his talents would command ashore. At present, a chief engineer, R.N., ranks with a commander, and other engineers with lieutenants. It is probable that, at some date in the not very distant future, higher ranks will be thrown open to the engineer, as his importance on board is steadily increasing.
The seamen of all nations, it has, in effect, been said, resemble each the other more than do the nations to which they belong. “As,” says a well-known writer, “the sea receives and amalgamates the waters of all the rivers which pour into it, so it tends to amalgamate the men who make its waves their home. … The seaman from the United States is said to carry to the forecastle a large stock of ‘equality and the rights of man,’ and to be unpleasantly distinguished by the inbred disrespect for authority which cleaves, perhaps inseparably, to a democrat who believes that he has whipped mankind, and that it is his mission, at due intervals, to whip them again. But, on board, he, too, tones down to the colour of blue water, and is more a seaman than anything else.” The French sailor is painted, by Landelle, as the embodiment of the same frolicsome lightheartedness, carelessness of the future, abandonment to impulse, and devotion to his captain, comrades, and ship, with which we are familiar in the English sailor, on the stage. But although depicted as much more polished than, it is to be feared, the average sailor could be in truth, he finishes by saying: “Il est toujours prêt à céder le haut du pavé à tout autre qu’à un soldat.” It would seem, then, that the French sailor revenges the treatment of society on the soldiers of his country. Is there not a similar feeling existing, perhaps to a more limited extent, between the sailors and soldiers of our own country? It hardly, however, extends to the officers of the “United Service.”
Another trait of the British sailor’s character: Jack will forgive much to the officer who is ever ready, brave, and daring, who is a true seaman in times of peace, and a sailor militant in times of war. Lord Nelson, the most heroic seaman the world ever saw, it is pleasant to remember, was equally the idol of his colleagues, of his subordinate officers, and of his men for these very reasons. After he had explained to his captains his proposed plan of attack, just prior to the commencement of the battle of Trafalgar, he took the men of the Victory into his confidence. He walked over all the decks, speaking kindly to the different classes of seamen, and encouraging them, with his usual affability, praising the manner in which they had barricaded certain parts of the ship. “All was perfect, death-like silence, till just before the action began. Three cheers were given his lordship as he ascended the quarter-deck ladder. He had been particular in recommending cool, steady firing, in preference to a hurrying fire, without aim or precision; and the event justified his lordship’s advice, as the masts of his opponents came tumbling down on their decks and over their sides.”123 After the fatal bullet had done its work, and Nelson was conveyed below, the surgeon came and probed the wound. The ball was extracted; but the dying hero told the medical man how sure he was that his wound was fatal, and begged, when he had dressed it, that he would attend to the other poor fellows, equal sufferers with himself. A boatswain’s mate on board the Brilliant frigate, shortly afterwards, when first acquainted of the death of Nelson, paid a tribute of affection and honest feeling, which shows how clearly he had gained the hearts of all. The boatswain’s mate, then doing duty as boatswain, was ordered to pipe all hands to quarters; he did not respond, and the lieutenant on duty went to inquire the cause. The man had been celebrated for his promptness, as well as bravery, but he was found utterly unnerved, and sobbing like a child. “I can’t do it,” said he—“poor dear fellow, that I have been in many a hard day with!—and to lose him now! I wouldn’t have cared so much for my old father, mother, brothers, or sisters; but to think of parting with poor Nelson!” and he broke down utterly. The officer, honouring his feelings, let him go below. Who does not remember how, when the body of Nelson lay in state at Greenwich, a deputation of the Victory’s crew paid their last loving respects, tearful and silent, and could scarcely be removed from the scene? or how, when the two Union-Jacks and St. George’s ensign were being lowered into the grave at St. Paul’s—the colours shattered as was the body of the dead hero—the brave fellows who had borne them each tore off a part of the largest flag, to remind them ever after of England’s greatest victory and England’s greatest loss? Many an otherwise noble and brave officer has utterly failed in endearing himself to his men; and there can be no doubt of the value of being thoroughly en rapport with them—the more as it in no way need relax discipline. It is an implied