[To THE EDITOR OF THE ' SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Will you grant me the privilege of a reply to your correspondents "A. E. L." and "Islander," whose letters appeared in your issues of November 24th and December 8th respectively ? If my former letter has been understood as reflecting, in the smallest degree, on the " enthusiasm " or ability of the naval or civil staffs at Osborne or Dartmouth, let me express my sincere regret. I intended, and I still venture to think that my letter gave expression to my intention, to ask that the new system of naval education should be brought within the scope of any inquiry which may be initiated into the state, present and future, of the Navy.
I have been informed that some of the Cambridge graduates who are now engaged in tuition at Osborne and Dartmouth are not wholly satisfied with the results of the "new system for the entry and examination of naval officers," and that there may be a difficulty in supplying their places if and when occasion should require. And if such difficulty should arise, assuredly it will not be because there is not now at the Universities "a due supply of persons well qualified to serve" the State in that capacity, and animated by the same enthusiasm which induced those who are now engaged at the Naval Colleges to accept Professor Ewing's invitation.
And, if possible, even less would I be thought to reflect on the "splendid body of naval officers who were in the old school them- selves." Their months are closed by the wise regulations of the Service, but they- would be opened to, say, a Royal Commission. And it will be of the deepest interest to all those who have the welfare of the Navy at heart to learn what those who were trained under the old system and have had experience of the new think of the latter. Is the discipline as rigid as it was in the 'Britannia,' the obedience as prompt, the respect paid to authority as willing, the energy in work and games, as required in the old days by Cadet Captains and by superior officers, as ready? And if not, why not ? Efforts are not wanting to sap the discipline of his Majesty's fleets in many insidious ways. Let not another mine be dug at Osborne, still less at Dartmouth. Your correspondent " Islander " writes from local knowledge, and refers to Osborne only. Let me not be thought flippant if I express a doubt whether "a little heaven on earth" iS a fitting preparation for a "life on the ocean wave." I think I can imagine a sardonic smile on the face of the First Sea Lord if he should see his nursery for young officers so described. "A. E. L." is full of confidence in the system as worked at Osborne, but he concedes "undoubted extravagance at Dart- mouth." I may say that I should be inclined to think some error on the side of luxury at Osborne excusable, and even desirable. But I confidently submit that there should be at Dartmouth grave preparation for the necessarily arduous and self-controlling life in 1I.M.'s ships. More serious is it that "A. E. L." endorses my belief "that the Admiralty scheme is not attaining the success which was antici- pated for it?' If this be so, from whatever cause the failure arises, I cannot think that my plea for inquiry was "a mistake," and you, Sir, may yet endorse it.
—I am, Sir, &c., A STUDENT OF NAVAL HISTORY.
Previous page
