Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

his career. When Unto this Last was finally published, John Ruskin was forty-three: he had already written the most elaborate and systematic of all his books-those on which his world-wide fame still rests. He had long passed il mezzo del cammin di nostra vita-and even the middle of his own long years: his energy, his health, his hopes were not what they had been in his glorious youth and early manhood: his mission became consciously to raise men's moral standard in life, not to raise their sense of the beautiful in Art. The old mariner still held us with his glistening eye, and forced us to listen to his wondrous tale, but he spoke like a man whose voice. shook with the memory of all that he had seen and known, over whom the deep waters had passed. I am one of those who feel that John Ruskin has told us in his second life things more true and more important even than he told us in his first life. But yet I cannot bring myself to hold that, as magician of words, his later teaching has the mystery and the glory which hung round the honeyed lips of the Oxford Graduate.'

If, then, John Ruskin be not in actual achievement the greatest master who ever wrote in English prose, it is only because he refused to chasten his passion and his imagination until the prime of life was past. A graceful poet and a great moralist said:

Prune thou thy words; the thoughts control

That o'er thee swell and throng:

They will condense within thy soul,

And change to purpose strong.

This lesson Ruskin never learned until he was growing grey, and even now he only observes it so long as the spirit moves him, or rather, does not move him too keenly. He has rarely suffered his thoughts to condense within his soul. Far from controlling them, he has spurred and lashed them into fury, so that they swell and throng over him and his readers, too often changing into satiety and impotence. Every other faculty of a great master of speech, except reserve, husbanding of resources, and patience, he possess in measure most abundant-lucidity, purity, brilliance, elasticity, wit, fire, passion, imagination, majesty, with a mastery over all the melody of cadence that has no rival in the whole range of English literature.

FREDERIC HARRISON.

THE TRAFALGAR CAPTAINS

IN 1847, forty-two years after the battle of Trafalgar, and thirty-two years after the conclusion of the long war with France, it was for the first time decided to issue medals to surviving officers (other than post-captains), and to seamen and marines who had served in certain engagements and boat-actions between the years 1793 and 1840 inclusive. To facilitate the establishment of claims three flag-officers of distinction and experience were instructed by the Admiralty to prepare a list of the various affairs which were deemed worthy of medals; and this list was duly published in 1849, and for many years subsequently, as an appendix to the official Navy List. It professed to specify not only the nature and date of the actions, but also the names of the vessels concerned in them, and of the officers commanding the vessels at the time.

The three flag-officers possessed every apparent qualification for the work of drawing up the list with accuracy. The senior, Admiral Sir Thomas Byam Martin, G.C.B., Vice-Admiral of the United Kingdom, had himself served all through the war, and, indeed, long before the commencement of it, and had participated in many of the great actions, including the capture of the Tamise and of the Immortalité, and the brilliant duel with the Sewolod. The second member of the committee was Admiral the Hon. Sir Thomas Bladen Capel, then K.C.B. He, too, had fought throughout the war, and had shared in Bridport's action, the battle of the Nile, Trafalgar, and the forcing of the Dardanelles. The third and junior member was RearAdmiral Sir James Alexander Gordon, K.C.B., who had entered the Navy in the first year of the war, and had assisted at Bridport's action, the battle of St. Vincent, &c. Among them the three officers had to their credit no fewer than 181 years of service, eighty-five years of that service having been on full pay; so that their experience, for the purpose in hand, could scarcely have been equalled by that of any other three men then living. In addition to that experience, they had at their disposal all the documents, such as captains' letters and ships' books, in possession or under control of the nation. And yet they perpetrated the most extraordinary mistakes. For my immediate purpose allusion to one of these only will suffice.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The first full account, drawn up from the professional point of view, that appeared in England concerning the victory of Trafalgar was printed in the number of the Naval Chronicle issued at the end of November, and dated November 1805. No news whatsoever of the action had been received in this country until the 6th of the month; Blackwood, with further information, did not arrive until the 27th; and although the Naval Chronicle, to which Nelson himself had been a contributor, probably had at its disposal more material and better intelligence than any other periodical then published, there was but little time for active editor and printers to embody the news arriving on the 27th, and to get out the magazine before the beginning of December. Hurry, in the circumstances, was inevitable, and mistakes were excusable. One of the mistakes was a statement to the effect that the cutter Entreprenante, which had been present at the engagement, was commanded by Lieutenant J. Puver.' The error, instead of being immediately corrected, was perpetuated by Mr. William James, the naval historian (1822), and by James's bestknown editor, Captain Chamier, R.N. (1837); and in the very latest edition, that of 1886, it appears undimmed, Puver's Christian name being given specifically and at length as 'John.' Mr. W. H. Davenport Adams, with striking originality, amends the faulty record by attributing the command of the Entreprenante to Lieutenant 'Power.'1 But James, Chamier, and Adams were non-official writers; whereas Martin, Capel, and Gordon, the committee of 1849, were, to some extent at least, official chroniclers. One turns, therefore, with confidence to their record; to which, moreover, is attached the personal authority of Capel, who at Trafalgar himself commanded the Phoebe, who can scarcely have failed to know the commanding officer of the Entreprenante, and than whom there could apparently be no better authority. The committee's verdict was that the commander in question was, not Puver, nor Power, but L. Purver.' Incredible though it may seem, that name-the name, so far as I can ascertain, of no officer who ever figured on the books of a British man-of-war— was printed quarter after quarter in the official Navy List as the name of one who, if he had been still surviving, would have been entitled to a medal for Trafalgar. As it was printed in 1849, when there were still many Trafalgar officers alive, so was it printed until 1866 or 1867, when at length the mistake, then of upwards of sixty years' currency, was officially put right. A Navy List of 1867 sets forth that the commander of the Entreprenante at Trafalgar was not Puver, nor Power, nor even Purver, but R. B. Young,' or, to give the slighted officer his full name and rank, Lieutenant Robert Benjamin Young.

[ocr errors]

Looking to the fact of this long-continued official ignorance of the name of an officer who, though in command of but a little craft, had attracted the attention of Nelson, had rendered not inconsiderable

England on the Sea, 2 vols., 1885.

services during the bad weather that followed the battle, and had actually received from the Patriotic Society a sword valued at a hundred guineas in recognition of those services, one may, perhaps, be excused for suspecting that much is not generally known about many of the officers who commanded ships at Trafalgar, nor about their personal share in the work of that glorious day. Nelson we all know, especially since the publication of Professor Laughton's inimitable biography of him. Collingwood we know, too. And such names as Hardy, Northesk, Fremantle, Codrington, Blackwood, and Berry mean at least something to most of us; but it may be safely asserted that to nine people out of ten the names Eliab Harvey, Grindall, Tyler, Hargood, Duff, Morris, Cooke, Redmill, Rotherham, and Conn convey absolutely no memories of the splendid victory which they were instrumental in winning for us. If this be so, it is surely time, at this nineteenth anniversary of the battle, for a word about the Trafalgar Captains. The following list of them, showing the dates of the promotions of each, and the year and rank in which each died, puts them in the order of their seniority as captains :

[blocks in formation]

Harvey, an officer who

On going into action on the eventful day the Téméraire, Captain Eliab Harvey, was the Victory's next astern. at the time, and for many years afterwards, was M.P. for Essex, had been thirty-four years in the Navy, but had not previously commanded

1795

1814

1821

1832

1796

1818

Swiftsure, 74

1796

1819

1796

1819 1830 1841

1842

Africa, 64

1797

1821

1831

1797 1821

?

Sirius, 36

[blocks in formation]

1841

Naiad, 38

1798 1825

[blocks in formation]

1798 1825

1837 1847

1853

1800

1830

1802

1810

[blocks in formation]

1853

1805

[blocks in formation]

1805

1814

1811

1834

1846

a ship in a general action. He was, however, of known zeal and capacity, though of hasty, and indeed violent, temperament. His zeal was shown by the alacrity with which, as the French line was neared, he attempted to obey an order, or supposed order, which was subsequently countermanded by Nelson in person, to take station ahead of the Victory and to lead the column, and by his behaviour during the battle. After the Victory had become locked on the port side of the Redoutable, the Téméraire came up on the starboard side of the French ship, and almost immediately ran foul of, and was lashed to, the Fougueux on her own starboard side. So heavy was Harvey's fire that his first-lieutenant was presently able to board the Fougueux, which speedily struck. At length the Victory broke away from the Redoutable's starboard side, and that ship, having lost her main and mizen masts, drifted close to the Téméraire, whose second-lieutenant promptly took possession of her. The Téméraire's loss in the action was 47 killed and 76 wounded; and her main and the head of her mizen mast were shot away. Subsequently 43 of her crew perished in the prizes which were lost after the victory, so that the action and its results cost her 166 out of her complement of 660 men. On the 9th of November following there was a promotion in honour of the triumph, and Harvey, together with nineteen other senior captains, was given flag rank. In the spring of 1806 he hoisted his flag to hold a command in the Channel under Earl St. Vincent, who retired from the command-in-chief in 1807. Harvey got on very well with his Lordship, and with his Lordship's immediate successor; but, like many other officers, he failed to get on at all with the next commander-in-chief, Lord Gambier, and the results were lamentable. On the 3rd of April there was a quarrel between the two admirals relative to the approaching attack on the French ships in Basque Roads. In Gambier's own words:

In the afternoon of the 3rd of April, Admiral said, in my cabin, no other person being present, that in consequence of the orders I had issued, calling upon the officers and seamen to volunteer their services in the fireships that were preparing to be employed, there were several officers on board the Tonnant (Harvey's flagship) ready to undertake that service, and the Admiral offered himself to me for the duty. I informed Admiral Harvey that I had received orders from the Admiralty to employ Lord Cochrane to conduct that service; upon which Admiral Harvey replied to me, in a high tone and in a disrespectful manner, that if Lord Cochrane was employed, or any other officer junior to him, in preference to him, he should immediately desire to strike his flag and resign his commission. I informed Admiral Harvey that I should be sorry that he should take strong measures, but that I had received particular orders from the Admiralty to employ Lord Cochrane. Upon this Admiral Harvey, in a vehement, insulting manner, said that he had been neglected in his former services by myself, when I held a place in the Admiralty, and by other members of the Admiralty, and that he had not been rewarded for the eminent services he had performed. Admiral Harvey went on in a manner highly offensive and contemptuous to me. He said that he was sure that I had written to the Admiralty to propose or recommend some other

« ElőzőTovább »