Masters in the R.N.
originally from the 1834  Naval and Military Gazette
and republished in the Sydney Herald. 1835.,


Masters in the Royal Navy

Sir:- I read in a number of your paper, some weeks ago,a
plan for doing away with the rank of Masters in the Navy,
and think, if carried into effect, it would only be doing
justice to a most deserving class of officers as any in
the Service; the writer,it appears, thus proposes to dispose
of Masters in the Navy - the first 159 on the list to retire
with the rank,title and pay of Commanders; the remainder
to be transferred to the list of Lieutenants, according
to seniority, and to serve as navigating Lieutenants,but to
be eligible for promotion, a boon these officers have long
merited from the country; for,indeed, the situation of Masters
in the Navy is no sinecure birth, as, for instance, he has
to navigate the ship,to make surveys and remarks, to attend
to the stowage of the hold, both ballast and provisions; has
the care of the stores, and custody of the keys of the store
rooms; has to sign the Purser's and Warrant Officers accounts
and the ships' books, besides a many other important duties
he has to attend too, which, in my opinion [founded on long
experience in the Navy] are far too numerous for any individual
to perform; then why should these onerous duties be imposed 
upon the Master, when those of the Lieutenant are only to
keep watch at sea and in harbour, to row guard, attend to 
Dock-yard duty and answer signals; in battle,they are equally
brave, and each does his duty; but as to other important 
duties they have to perform, there is indeed a very great 
difference, and it cannot be said that they bear any comparison;
and why such a mass of duties should devolve upon the Master, I
have yet to learn, when Lieutenants and masters in the Navy
are required to be gentlemen, men of education,science ,and
of practical experience, and of course should be equally 
capable of performing the several nautical duties in the ship,
which evidently proves that the present system of our navy
to be defective as far as relates to the duty of officers not
being fairly proportioned out.
  As the regulation of the Service at present stands, Masters
are utterly excluded from any chance whatever of adding to the
very scanty pittance doled out to them; they are shut out from
the pension list of Greenwich Hospital; they are deprived
of the revenue cutters, post office packets, and,in fact, every
avenue to promotion or reward is closed against them, and the
only reward held out them is half pay of five or six shillings
per diem, after having bled in the defence of the country and
being of 40 years standing on the Navy list, and in the very
degraded situation of men whose services, we are told, are so
valuable and of such importance in the Service, that many of
our talented Admirals and Captains would refuse to go to sea
without them, and no doubt such may be the case,which confirms
my opinion and goes to prove that Masters of the Navy have claims
to the full privileges of commissioned officers both as regards
rank ,pay, and promotion being granted them.
  In conclusion, Sir, I do sincerely hope and trust that our
present First Lord of the Admiralty will make some attempt to
reform the existing abuses in the Navy, by turning his attention 
to the situation of Masters, and if he will but do that  I am sure
he will at once see  that many cogent reasons exist for entirely
altering the present regulations of the Service as regards them
				Nov 11th 1834.
				R.W.M.
				


note from J.Fawcett: These are newspaper articles,and should only 
be used as a general reference. Original sources should always
be accessed for family history purposes and information authenticated.
copyright,2000 J.Fawcett-Genseek