'History of the Indian Navy. (1613-1863).' [‎96] (115/622)

96
HISTORY OF THE INDIAN NAVY.
On the 13th of October, 1839, the 4 Atalanta/ Lieutenant
Webb, caught fire while lying in Bombay Harbour. Assistance
was promptly rendered by the 4 Coote,' 6 Taptee,' and other ships,
which sent boats; the powder was taken out of the magazines
and the fore part of the vessel was flooded. By these means
the fire was confined to the after part of the vessel and then
extinguished, when she was warped ashore. The conduct of
all was most praiseworthy, and the Governor in Council issued
a notification, dated 30th of October, " expressing his high ap-
probation of the zealous exertions of the several officers and
crews of the Indian Navy." But the conduct of some of the
officers of the 4 Atalanta,' was not equally commendable. The
two passed Midshipmen An experienced sailor, but not a commissioned officer. , who were the senior officers on board,
in the absence on shore of the commanding officer, were tried by
court-martial, when one lost a step, and the other was severely
reprimanded. The Governor in Council, however, acting on
the opinion of the Commander-in-chief, directed that Mr.Zouch,
the more culpable of the two, should be suspended from em
ployment pending a reference to Leadenhall-street; and the
Court of Directors The London-based directors of the East India Company who dealt with the daily conduct of the Company's affairs. issued a minute commenting in severe terms
on the 44 spirit of insubordination which prevails among many
of the junior members of the Indian Navy," and directed that
the fitness to remain in the Service of Mr. Zouch—who had
been charged with intoxication on the night of the disaster, but
was found to be labouring under 44 constitutional excitement"
—should be inquired into by a Committee. The Medical Board
reported that he did not labour under any constitutional unfit
ness,* and, therefore, Mr. Zouch was adjudged to lose eight
steps in accordance with the alternative in the Court's letter.
It is not our intention to defend the young officer who, in
the case under consideration, brought discredit on the Service,
but, though nothing can palliate a breach of military discipline,
it should be remembered in mitigation of the censure passed in
such sweeping terms by the Court, that the Government broke
the pledges they had made to the Service. For instance, in the
Court's letter of the 4th of May, 1838, appeared the following
passage: t4 We,however, positively interdict the employment of
mates of merchantmen, or any other than commissioned or
warrant officers of the Indian Navy, in any situation of com
mand or responsibility on board any of our vessels, excepting
in the engine room." This was the Court's order, and here is
how it was fulfilled by the authorities in Bombay. The 4 Indus,'
iron steamer, fitted out for service on the Indus, received
as her commander an acting-master, who was not a com
missioned officer of the Indian Navy, and, under his orders
# In justice to Mr. Zouch, whose conduct was used as a lever to censure the
junior officers of the Sendee, it shoald be noted that he was confined for years
and died in a madhouse.