LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
ROYAL NAVAL ENGINEERS.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] Six, We have heard a great deal of late about naval efficiency and its " pros "and " cons," but I have never seen a more practical illustration of misplaced authority than I wit- nessed this morning at the inspection of the Chatham depOt by Admiral Sir C. Hotham, Commander-in-Chief at the Nore. There were over nine hundred engine-room ratings (i.e., engine-room artificers, leading stokers, and stokers) on the inspection ground, and there was not a single engineer officer present—save and except the Chief Inspector of Machinery— who accompanied the Admiral as departmental chief. Instead of these engine-room ratings being put through their "facings" by the officers' of their own department (who, be it observed, are "trained" men themselves), these ratings were in charge of deck officers, with whom in a commissioned ship the engine-room department has nothing to do. I should like to ask,—How can we expect these men to respect a routine which relegates them to departmental officers (whose Service instincts and duties are identical with their own) for a certain portion of the twenty-four hours, and then to deck Officers (whose instincts and duties have nothing in common with the engine-room) for the remaining portion of the day ? You will perhaps say,--` Well, what is the sequel ?' Here it is !—(1) General dissatisfaction throughout the department ; (2) abnormal number of " run" cases from depots ; (3) diffi- culty in recruiting stokers. These points are antagonistic to efficiency, and passing days only emphasise the seriousness of
Previous page
