This is an evil of considerable magnitude, view it in whatever way we will, whether with reference to the respectable married women of the ship, the licentious example and demoralizing effects on the younger part of the crew, or the debasement of character from such association in those of riper years.
The evil thus fully admitted, a desire must follow to abolish it. Yet however powerful such a wish may be, the remedy must not be violently applied, you cannot make men moral by mere force of authority; and under any circumstances it can only be beneficial by being accompanied with every liberal indulgence of leave on shore. There are various considerations which press on our view in reasoning on the propriety of abolishing the system. Under the restraint from leave on shore, it amounts to a sort of necessity, it has to plead long, very long prescriptive custom, and there are peculiarities in the situation of seamen which even leave will not entirely remove. They serve a year without receiving any pay, and then are entitled only every six months, which period from being at sea, or absent from a pay port, is often extended to eight, ten, and twelve months; and while on foreign stations, they receive no pay at all. Still nothing can make immorality right, in every possible way the practice should be gradually abolished, and as a first step, an order might be issued, rigidly forbidding any such woman to be admitted on board His Majesty's ships to any officer. Whether he be Admiral, Captain, Lieutenant, or otherwise. There can be no excuse for officers, and example is every thing.
Peace is the best period certainly to begin it, but as no man can foresee how soon war may burst forth, when thirty or forty thousand pressed men are introduced, and the power to give leave, from the services required of our fleets, materially abridged: the subject is one of grave consideration, and would shew the necessity that the zeal of the abolitionist should be tempered with judgement.
A pamphlet has been circulated and gone to a second edition, entitled
"Statement of certain immoral practices prevailing in His Majesty's Navy;"
which no doubt has been written from the best motives, and although from its
being anonymous, both as to the author of it, and of all the testimonies he
professes to be in possession of, and consequently is of no
I entered the navy in January, 1781, have served thirty-two years in general and active service, and though I do not say the scenes there spoken of have not existed, must unhesitatingly awow, I have never met them.
That disgusting scenes have occurred when crews were on board Hulks, (at which time the Midshipmen are rarely on the same deck with the seamen) I can believe, but these are the exceptions to the general behaviour.
The admission of two or three hundred profligate women into the confined space of a ships between decks, is bad enough; and I should be very sorry to be deemed its advocate. But the picture there drawn appears a very grave reflection on the Captains and Officers of His Majesty's navy, and it is solely with the view of endeavouring to remove these impressions, and to induce a calm consideration of the question, I am led to notice the publication. Agreeing with the author on the main point, the desire to remove the evil, there can exist no disposition to enter on controversy, or to offer the slightest support to a practice so much to be deprecated.
Opposed in my honest belief to the opinions of those officers, whom the author declares he can call to prove what he awows to be the state of the navy, and borne out by the corroborating testimony of many brother officers with whom I have conversed on the subject, who nevertheless admit the evil: must declare the result of my experience to be, that generally speaking those women do preserve as fair a portion of decency as you can expect, and that it is the constant practice in every regulated ship, to turn any woman instantly on shore, and refuse her re-admission, whose conduct should be half as bad as the author infers.
With a good cause in hand, why apply reasoning which can only tend to excite hostility in the minds of those officers who would otherwise be disposed to attend to its better suggestions.
The existing practice of admitting these women on board, has been that of centuries; and the present the first attempt thus made to exclude them. In complying with this custom, so far as the Captains and Lieutenants of the Fleet are concerned; no stigma can attach for their simple admission. But surely it is a grave and serious reflection, that in addition thereto, it should be charged on them, that they connived at and countenanced such gratious depravity; for living in so confined a space and so fully inhabited, those in command and particularly the officers, could not long remain ignorant of the conduct of those around them. It therefore these supposed scenes were of constant occurrence, they must be known to, and of consequence if permitted, must be sanctioned by them. To admit them on board after such long practice, is one thing: but to send forth to the British public and the world at large that such scenes of infamy which must be known to the officers, were so permitted; appears to charge them with an absence of moral and religious feelings, and a dereliction of public duty, which I am anxious at least to call in question, until it shall be substantiated by names and facts.
I might appeal to one fact in opposition to his inferences, which not merely the service but the world at large are capable of determining, that of the honourable, the correct, the moral, I may add the religious conduct of the officers of His Majesty's fleet. Under all the deprivations of loss of education, and parental care, I feel I may challenge the other professions and private life, that if you take promiscuously one hundred naval officers, and a like number of any other walk of life, not even excluding the clergy, if a promiscuous number be taken, and am confident, whether in the characters of men, husbands, fathers, or any of the ties of relative or neighbour, for probity in their dealings and simple unsophisticated religious feelings, they would not in the comparison be found wanting. temper and moderation will do much towards gradual abolition, and it is so much the interest of the officers to get rid of the evil, (for a ship is often paralyzed in fitting out from their numbers,) that they will be ready enough to aid any correct plan.
It may however be matter of doubt, whether the publication to the world of statements tending to wound their feelings, is the best mode to produce this disposition.
An argument has been adopted, that by excluding these women you would promote improvident marriages; doubtless some would be occasioned; but with leave on shore, the evil would speedily cure itself. As a precaution against the introduction of fictitious wives, the description book should contain a notation whether married or single, and at all events if a man takes on board a woman as his wife at one port, he can only claim the same at any other.
In the pamphlet in question, (second edition, page 19) a comparison is made between seamen excluded as they have been from the shore, and soldiers in a barrack, who are paid monthly, have daily leave out, and consequent daily access to the society of women. Is there any parallel case here? Alike untenable is his comparison in the same page of merchant ships where the men are far more in port, and constantly go on shore, and are therefore under total different circumstances; besides, restrictions on men under voluntary services may be very unadvisable for those impressed and detained.
To his arguments, page 25, we must oppose the melancholy fact, that during the late war the crime there mentioned increased to a most alarming extent. Whether the very lengthened periods at sea, and the consequent absence of female society produced this, I will not say; but it at least may create a doubt and hesitation, and is a matter of too high import not to be taken into consideration. It has been suggested to me that this article may produce a reply: so much the better. It is by a collision of opinions truth is elicited, I have no other object in view, nor other purpose but to remove from the character of our profession, that, which while it does appear to me stigma, the author himself may probably not have intended as such. If the testimonies set forth allude to periods of twenty-five or thirty years back when these officers were midshipmen, & c. less disposition would exist to oppose a certain portion of assent. It is to the state of the navy of late years and the present time, these observations more immediately apply.
Transcribed by Lars.Bruzelius.
Copyright © 1996 Lars Bruzelius.