Punch (18.1850)

PUNCH. OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. 157

ADMIRALTY v. ASSISTANT-SURGEONS.
To Colonel Sibthorp.

ear Colonel,—Let me
congratulate you on
your recent display of
indiscretion. I use the
term merely in a Minis-
terial sense. " Indis-
cretion," according to
the Cabinet dictionary,
is interference with the
Admiralty. Admiral
Napier was, in the first
place, so "indiscreet"
as to disclose the eco-
nomy, ability, method,
and practical efficiency
for which that business-
like department of the
Government is now
celebrated. You, most
appropriately, followed
up his revelations with
a motion for the reduc-
tion of the number of the Lords of the Admiralty, and for a diminution of their salaries.

Your motion, my dear Colonel, though it failed, I grieve to say, was admirably timed.
Curiously enough, the Admiralty had just been exhibiting itself'in a peculiarly amiable
light, by resisting Captain Boldero's proposition for the better accommodation of Naval
Assistant-Surgeons. You felt this, Colonel, I know. You are not the man to pooh-pooh the
claims of these gentlemen, and of their profession. You can understand the importance
of a class on whose skill may depend the preservation of a limb. The Admiralty Lords cannot
—and they have not a leg to stand upon.

I now address you, Colonel Sebthorp, as an officer and a gentleman. As such, what think
you of the excuses made by persons—supposed to be also officers and gentlemen—for
restricting adult members of a liberal profession, ranking as lieutenants, to the berth of
sea-schoolboys ?

Admiral Dundas, unless the reports belie him, opposed Captain Boldero's motion,
on the ground that the ward-room was not large enough to admit the Assistant-Surgeons.
Colonel Sebthorp, I have to ask you a painful question ; was the plea of this honourable
lember and gallant Admiral true ? Here is the answer I get from Mr. Hume :—

" Sra G. Cockbubn, eight or ten years ago, gave the same reply, on the ground of want of room; but three
officers since that time had been added to the ward-room."

_May I charitably hope that Admiral Dundas—say from inexperience—was merely
mistaken as to the capabilities of the ward-room ? We shall see perhaps. Captain Berkeley,
standing together in his chivalry with the Admiral against the poor Assistant-Surgeons, objected
likewise to their demands the want of room. But Captain Berkeley has been foully mis-
represented by the newspapers, or he argued that

" It would be the greatest blow to the discipline of the service, if, upon their first entering, the Assistant-
Surgeons were allowed to mess with the higher class of officers,"

To which does Captain Berkeley object, on the part of "the higher class of officers,"—the
Assistant-Surgeons' room, or their company ?

The following was our candid Captain's reply to a complaint which related to the youth
merely of the midshipmen:—

" Well, suppose that they were schoolboys, they had their education most probably at Rugby, Eton, Harrow, or
other of our public schools ; they were possessed of gentlemen's feelings, and he should like to know at what school
the Assistant-Surgeons were brought up that could make them one jot superior to the midshipmen. He denied that
they were so, and, as the comparison had been made, he would boldly maintain, that, if there was any gain, as far
as association was concerned, it was on the side of the Assistant-Surgeons."

He would boldly maintain ! Very boldly, in faith. I hope, my Colonel, that your bold Captain
fights as boldly as he argues. Who disparaged the midshipmen's birth and breeding,as he implies ?

One more instance of this gallant gentleman's bravery of assertion. Of the attempt to
promote the Assistant-Surgeons to the ward-room, he pronounces, with a courage worthy of
Munchausen, that

" It was contrary to their interest, and he believed, generally speaking, to their desire also, that they should
be so placed."

Oh ! my dear Colonel Sibthorp, it makes me ill; it gives me a feeling of unspeakable
nausea, to imagine that this reckless language can have been uttered by " officers and
gentlemen."

I pass over Sir F. Baring's speech on this subject—the mere stereotyped humbug,
as you know, of office.

One word more, my Colonel. In the very Times which records the above disgraceful sayings,
I observe, touching matters now under the Admiralty's consideration, the announcement that

" It is said that epaulettes are to be altogether abolished; and it is a question whether the antiquated cocked
hat wiU be retained for use on board ship."

Don't you think, Colonel, that the Admiralty had better confine their attention to cocked
hats and epaulettes, and leave alone ship-building, an art in which they have nor. shone, and
in which they are not expert enough to provide accommodation for the Assistant-Surgeons ?
I think _ you will axree with me that they had, as I shall with you, that they ought to have
proportionate salaries.

Yours, my dear Colonel, at the very least, till Dissolution,

KIRK AND RAILWAY CARRIAGES.

To the Rev. Dr. Candlish and the
Rev. Mr. Drummond.

[At a late meeting of the Shareholders of the
Caledonian Railway an attempt was made to
stop all Sunday travelling on that line, The
Scotsman, in a paragraph headed "The Oppo-
nents of Sabbath Breaking in Scotland," reckons
up the number of carriages lately observed on a
Sunday standing at the doors of the above-named
reverend gentlemen, and before the principal
churches.— Vide " Examiner," March 30.]

Candlish and Drummond, lend's an ear
There's just a question I wad speer
Anent a point 1 'm nae that clear,

The noo, concernin';
And wad its explication hear

Erae men o' learnin'.

The tither day, ye '11 no forget,
The Caledonian holders met;
Of unco' godly chiels a set,

Amang 'em blethrin',
'Gainst Sunday trains, wi' zeal red-het,

Harangu'd their brethren.

Ane, gifted wi' prophetic sight,
Wi' Heaven's decrees familiar quite,
The famine and potato-blight,

That thraw'd the nation,
Imputed to the Sabbath's slight

An' desecration.

Drummond and Candlish, noo, tak' heed,
The Scotsman neist I chanc'd to read ;
What thence I quote, I hope, indeed,

Is nought but error.
Or else 'twad gar me shak' wi' dread,

An' quak' wi' terror.

The Sunday morn before the last,
Your gates his correspondent pass'd,
Where carriages—I stand aghast

The tale relatin';
Nae doot his pen has rin too fast—

Were there a-waitin':

Eorbye a line at ilka kirk,
Unless he tell a fausehood mirk—
Hech ! Sirs, but a' this Sunday work

Is verra awfu';
Without evasion, shift, or quirk,

Say, is it lawfu' ?

Gin trains on railways munna rin,
And engineers and stokers sin,
Doin', the Sabbath's bounds within,

A bit of workie,
May chariot-wheels o' gentles spin

Unblamed to kirkie ?

Eh ! gin frae Sunday trains were got
The famine and the tatie rot,
I just wad ask what ills may not

Your congregation,
Candlish or Drummond, bring on Scot-

-land's wretched nation ?

Street Luxury.

We have had pine-apples hawked about in
wheelbarrows—we have seen goffres sold at the
corners of the streets like hot potatoes—and
last Sunday we witnessed in Hungerford Market
the epicurean sight of ices being sold at a pemiy
a-piecel We know that habits of luxuriousness
led to the downfall of Rome, and when we reflect
that the ice, which generally fetched a shilling,
and never brings in less than sixpence, is being
sold for the price of a common bun, we cannot
help trembling—it may be weakness, but we
cannot help it—for the safety of the British
Empire.