effect to a measure which, by its operation, may ultimately render a diminution of what is called the Dead Weight less impracticable, and, I fear not to add, less incompatible with what the Nation and the Government owe to the army. I know the fact, that the Government contribute 10 per cent. out of the revenue of the Island of Ceylon, yearly, towards the Civil Superannuation Fund of that colony; and I am yet to learn that the services of the army give it a less claim to an equally liberal and grateful consideration. Can I hope that the object I have in view will plead my apology for breaking in upon your time at so great a length? When you are freed from the pressure of official duties, you will, perhaps, not be unwilling to devote your attention to its consideration; and I shall feel honoured by the expression of your opinion, and your views and sentiments. I have the honour to be,

Chatham, April 20, 1830.

Yours, &c. &c. &c.

*Some objections to such a provision as the foregoing might certainly be stated; but they are not of weight to counteract the beneficial principle of a plan which we recommend to general consideration.-ED.

J. M. on Duelling, in reply to his Critics.

MR. EDITOR. WILL you permit me to say a few words in reply to your Correspondent A. B. who, in the last number of the Journal, charges me with "a marvellous confusion of ideas," for having asserted, whilst attempting to lay down some rules on the subject of Duelling, that a second in a duel" is answerable to God and his country for any loss of life that by temperate, judicious, and conciliatory conduct might have been avoided;" arguing that this is sanctioning a breach of the Commandments, at the same time that we are acknowledging our responsibility to God, &c. &c. Such sweeping charges are more easily made than proved.

As self-defence for the protection of property as well as life is allowed by Scripture and the law of England, on what principle shall we be prevented from defending our honour and character, that must be dearer to us than life itself? If a man is permitted to defend a little paltry gold at the risk of slaying the aggressor, on what ground can he be prevented from defending the reputation of those whose fame must be dearer to him than his own? Still, men must be answerable to God for any blood so shed, "that, by temperate and judicious conduct, might have been avoided." Dr. Johnson says, "I do not see that fighting is forbidden in Scripture; I see revenge forbidden, but not self-defence. A man may shed the blood of a man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house."t Lord Kames, in the Sketches of Man, takes the same view of the subject; so that I share the "marvellous confusion of ideas" attributed to me not only with the great moralist himself, but also with a great judge and historian-I am verily not ashamed of the fellowship.

In consequence of the fatal termination of many duels, owing to the very improper manner in which they had been conducted, (I referred to an instance in which life had actually been tossed up for, and might have added the case of Philips and many others,) I thought it right, whilst writing on the subject, to propose a few common-place rules in the avowed hope of averting similar misfortunes for the future, and also with a view of correcting a dangerous error, that a book, termed "The British Code of Duel," had tended to promulgate. This Sir Lucius O'Trigger kind of pedantry would, perhaps, have exposed the writer to a little ridicule from those who know how peaceful and unwarlike are his own habits and pursuits, had not the object, in some measure, sanctified the motive; but I certainly never ex

* Exodus, xxii. 2.

4 Sketches, vol. i.

+ Boswell's Life of Johnson.

pected to have seen it made the subject of a grave charge; for surely no one will seriously maintain that gentlemen are likely to go out and fight merely in crder to practise these rules; so that they can by no possibility do harm, but may perhaps, at a future time, do good. If a man cannot suppress an evil, is he, therefore, prevented from striving to alleviate its effects? Nor were they principally intended, as supposed by A. B. for the United Services: because, as far as my own observation goes, there is much less duelling in the Army and Navy than in civil life: a circumstance highly honourable to the services, as it shows that they are setting an example of that high and gentlemanlike conduct which should always form a distinguishing mark of the professions.

It was the object of the article that has led to this discussion, to check, as much as possible, the practice of duelling, by making seconds, on whom much depends, attentive to their duty and responsibility; by calling on society, so far at least to assert its own dignity, as not to allow the mere standing of a paltry shot to constitute a proof of gentlemanlike conduct and sentiment; and, above all, by divesting the duellist of any claim to courage which he could pretend to found even on the " fighting of fifty duels." Yet, in the face of this very sentence, and much more to the same purpose, your Correspondent A. B. goes over the ground I had taken, proves, in a very able manner, that a duellist is not to be considered a man of courage, never states that I had taken the same view of the case, but, as he has been attacking my opinions, leaves it to be inferred, as a matter of course, that I had attempted to "class the gallantry of the duellist with that of the soldier," though exactly the reverse happens to be the case.

I mention this without comment, for I cannot suspect of wilful misrepresentation a writer whose general sentiments entitle him to respect, and who almost begins his letter by a quotation from that book which is the source of pure and unsophisticated truth alone.

Another contributor, who, in the same Journal, signs himself C. D. says, “ To the remark of J. M. that it is only by raising the standard of politeness and moral conduct, and insisting on its being acted up to by all parties, that the abolition of duelling can be effected; it might be suggested that, to the standard to which he refers, it is the object of Christian education to raise us," &c. Yes, certainly, "to raise us;" but the question is how far has it raised us? Are there no coarse, envious, licentious, and bad-hearted men in the most polite society? Is l'avarice, enfin, mère de tous les crimes, already banished from the world? Do we not, on the contrary, behold the worship of Mammon openly carried on, from the splendid salons where the high and the noble may be seen bartering independence and parliamentary votes for places to themselves, and preferment for their sons, and fortunehunting mothers parading their daughters for sale to the highest bidders, down to filthy scenes lately exhibited in the streets of Liverpool, where men brought that liberty to market which thousands are now yelling out for, many of them with no other view than to have more of the same commodity to dispose of? At every ordinary dinner-party you may easily tell the relative wealth and influence of the guests by the general respect shown to them, as well as by the smiles of the "courteous host and hostess; but where is the distinguishing mark that society sets upon worth and virtue? A fifty-power reflecting lantern would hardly, in these days, enable Diogenes to discover an honest man, not so much for want of worth and honestyfor there is, after all, perhaps, more virtue in the world than the world gets credit for but because vice is forward and presuming, and constantly throws virtue, which is humble and retiring, into the shade, and never scruples, in its greedy course of low ambition, to trample it down whenever it can be done with impunity. In such a state of society, which besides punishes the presumed absence of honour without rewarding the reality, repu tation and character cannot possibly be left unguarded; for men of high and generous feelings have, after all, little left to lose in this world when they

have once lost even this world's esteem. And what protection is there in many cases but what is afforded by the precarious and uncertain law of battle: itself avowedly an evil, rendered necessary by the evil passions of the human breast, that too often leave us nothing but a choice of evils.

I here close the subject. I have proposed the best remedy in my power it was not very well timed, I allow, for times of revolutionary tendency are not well adapted for the advancement of morality, but it leaves the field just as open as it was before, to the exertion of abler hands. As to your two correspondents, I can only add that the sentiments they express will ensure for them the respect of all well-thinking men, even of those who may lament that the honest views and wishes contained in the writings here replied to, cannot, in the present state of society, be carried into practical effect.

Without again alluding to the writers above spoken of, for it would not be applicable, I may mention, en passant, that to place any particular words or sentences of a modern essay in opposition to scriptural quotations, is not a fair way of judging of its merit; the entire must be looked at, as it is only by trying the object and tendency of the first by the spirit of the second, that justice can be done.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,

J. M.

It was our intention to have offered a few observations upon this subject, so sensibly and temperately handled by our several contributors; but J. M., to whose opinions, and for the reasons he assigns above, we decidedly lean, has saved us the trouble. We claim, however, the merit of impartiality, in having fairly submitted both sides of the question to judgment.-ED.

Captain Cook and Sir Joseph Banks.

MR. EDITOR, I observe your correspondent D., in his "defence of Captain Cook," in your number for March last, is unacquainted with the true cause why Sir Joseph Banks did not accompany Captain Cook on his second voyage, which circumstance is readily accounted for, without reference to the unhandsome manner in which the great navigator is mentioned in the Report of the Geographical Society of Paris.

My information is derived from an individual who accompanied Cook in his first and second voyages, and was otherwise intimately acquainted with his character in all its bearings.

Sir Joseph Banks did fully intend to proceed on the second voyageso much so, that all his preparations were completed, and every thing he considered essential for the voyage was actually on board the Resolution. At Captain Cook's particular desire, a poop-cabin was built on the Resolution, which he intended to occupy himself, giving up his proper cabin for the accommodation of Sir Joseph Banks, and the other scientific men who were to have accompanied him. On the passage down the river Thames to the Nore, the Resolution was discovered to be so very crank, that it was deemed expedient to take the poop off her, thus obliging Captain Cook to resume his proper cabin. Sir Joseph Banks, in consequence of this arrangement, finding himself deprived of the expected accommodation, finally determined on not proceeding; and this was the sole cause of Sir Joseph Banks not accompanying Captain Cook on his second voyage.

The Forsters did not join the Resolution till she had reached Plymouth Sound, and their accommodations were not so comfortable as would have been the case, had the poop remained on the ship-they were, however, the best that could be afforded, under the circumstances.-Their complaints against Captain Cook are principally in reference to the badness of their accommodation, and which it was out of his power to remedy.

With reference to the ravages of disease, said to have been inflicted on the

natives of the South Sea Islands by the crew of Captain Cook, there is now in the possession of one of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, an original order from Cook on this subject, strictly prohibiting every person diseased, or suspected to be so, from leaving the ship on any pretence whatever, or having any communication with the natives. This, though inefficient, clearly proves his great anxiety to prevent the spread of that devastating malady among the natives. Can a similar order be produced from Bougainville, or any other of the French Navigators, who visited those Islands?

That his crew entertained a most affectionate regard for their commander may be gathered from the extreme anxiety they evinced at one period of their voyage, when he was seriously ill; their first and constant query at the relief of each watch was after the health of their beloved commander, whom they always considered as their father and their friend: and finally, at his lamented death, so enraged and infuriated were they at the loss of their revered chief, that it was with great difficulty they were restrained within the bounds of subordination, because they were restricted, very properly however, from proceeding on shore, and taking instant and ample revenge for their irreparable loss. I could add many anecdotes, from the very best authority, to prove his goodness of heart and benevolence of disposition; but as they were communicated in confidence, and without an idea of their being made public, and would moreover be unpleasing to an amiable and venerable female closely connected with him, if seen by her, I will therefore abstain. Indeed, I consider his character established on so firm a basis, as to stand in no need of my weak vindication; and I trust that it will not be affected by the unjust and illiberal remarks contained in the Report of the Geographical Society of Paris.

I will, however, add to the character of our navigator, quoted from Captain King by your correspondent D. (and which, I think, conveys a just estimate of it in a few words,) one from the pen of Dr. Reinhold Forster, who certainly cannot be accused of partiality towards him. "If we consider his extreme abilities, both natural and acquired, the firmness and constancy of his mind, his truly paternal care for the crew entrusted to him, the amiable manner with which he knew how to gain the friendship of all the savage and uncultivated nations, and even his conduct towards his friends and acquaintance, we must acknowledge him to have been one of the greatest men of his age, and that reason justifies the tear which friendship pays to his memory.

London, April 19, 1831.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Case of the Naval Architects.

Q.

MR. EDITOR,-I shall be obliged if you will allow me to call the attention of the public, through the medium of your pages, to an act of extreme injustice committed against a certain class of the public servants by the 'present Naval Administration,-I mean those called Naval Architects; a short account of the cause of whose institution, and present state, I gave in your number for February last.

Previous to Lord Melville's quitting the Admiralty, an order was issued to the several dock-yards, that all new appointments to situations below the rank of foremen of the yard, should be held by persons who were to receive day pay, leaving those, however, in the present possession of those situations, their yearly salary as heretofore: so far, right; any person receiving such an appointment knew under what circumstances it was to be held, and had the option of accepting or rejecting it. On the change in the Admiralty, this act, which was intended to be prospective, was made to include those who had for many years been in the receipt of an annual income, and was even extended to those students who had from their entrance into

the service been on salary, and which was an express condition of their entering it. In a copy of the regulations established relative to the admission of students into the School of Naval Architecture, now before me, the sixth article says, "they will be allowed the following salaries in QUARTERLY payments;" this refers to the seven years of study. The seventh article says, "On the expiration of their apprenticeship the students will be eligible to all situations in the ship-building department of his Majesty's service, and in the event of there being no vacancy in any of his Majesty's yards, they shall be employed as supernumeraries in the yards until vacancies do occur, and be allowed the yearly salaries recommended in the third report of the Commissioners for revising the civil affairs of the Navy. The next and last regulation relates to a bond for 500l., entered into by two sureties for each student, that he should not quit the service under a period of seventeen years, on pain of the forfeiture of the amount of this bond, in order that the expense of the education of those students might not be lost to the Government. Here then there is a mutual agreement between the two parties, and the willingness of one party to give up his part does not free him from his responsibility to fulfil the other; or in other words, the Admiralty, after cancelling this bond by which the students were tied to the service for a term of seventeen years, are not at liberty, in justice and equity, to shake off that tie by which they bound themselves to the students. Those regulations I speak of were formed by the King and Council, and upon the faith of them many persons entered the service, who never would have done so under the degrading terms now forced upon them. It may appear very fair to say, "If you are dissatisfied with the present conditions, we are willing to free you from your bond, and you may then apply for your dismissal, which will be granted to you,"-but after devoting nearly seventeen years of the best period of their lives (as some of those students who have not yet been appointed to situations have done), and having arrived at the age of thirty-three or thirty-four years, with families depending on them for support, to have to submit to any terms which the caprice of this or any other Board of Admiralty may dictate, or the alternative of seeking at that time of life new means of subsistence, is, to say the least of it, hard indeed. If the alteration of circumstances, since the formation of this establishment, has rendered the number of those admitted to it too great, and the Lords of the Admiralty are desirous of reducing the number of claimants for situations, a fair and honourable way is open to them to do so, by allowing those supernumerary students to retain their present incomes (which are guaranteed to them by the regulations I have quoted above) and endeavour to provide for themselves in private employment, under this condition, that if, when called on to accept of appointments in the dockyards, they are unwilling to do so, they shall forfeit all claim to a continuance of their salary. By this means there would be no increase to the public burthen, but a constant tendency to its diminution. If it be lawful for one party to reverse the acts of their predecessors in office, and the Lords of the Admiralty thus to cancel the decisions of the King and Council, who will place reliance in public faith? who will enter that service, where, after having faithfully discharged his duty until old age approaches, he may be displaced without any cause assigned but the will of those who have the power to act unjustly? I would not wish it to be understood that I think the present Admiralty mean to go to this extent, but every measure which tends, however remotely, to such an end, should be viewed with the greatest jealousy, and checked before it attains to too great a head. I am Sir, your obedient servant, PHILO-NAUTICUS.

April 19, 1831.

Even the filling these vacancies by persons not educated at the school, is therefore a breach of their agreement.