Page images
PDF
EPUB

member that it was imagined by many persons that they would be a failure; that, first of all, speed could not be got from them, on account of their being so heavily loaded; and, secondly, that they would not be seaworthy. We have got proofs that La Gloire has great speed, and also that she is seaworthy. We know that she was appointed to accompany the French Emperor to Algeria last autumn. We know, also that His Majesty was accompanied by one of the finest and fastest squadrons in the French navy. My hon. friend, the member for Finsbury, was at Algeria when the Emperor arrived. La Gloire was in company with His Majesty's yacht, which is a very fast one, and the rest of the squadron were out of sight. It is clear from that fact, that La Gloire is a vessel of great speed. Then comes the question-Is she seaworthy? When returning from Algeria the squadron of the Emperor encountered a gale in the Gulf of Lyons. I know an intelligent captain of a merchant steamer who was in company with the squadron at the time, and he said that he never saw a heavier sea or a heavier gale. I myself saw La Gloire at Toulon a few days after her voyage, and she looked nothing the worse for it. She lived through the gale, and kept company with the Emperor's yacht. Here is a proof that La Gloire is a very fast boat, and, I will not say a good sea boat, but a boat that could live in very bad weather. With regard to the interior accommodation of La Gloire I know nothing. The whole of the French iron-cased ships are built of wood and covered with armour throughout. VOL. CIII.

They have nothing but what we call schooner masts. They could not at all trust to sails for anything like speed. They are, in fact, entirely steam vessels-screw vessels-and have no pretence to anything beyond that. I believe La Gloire was built on the model of the Napoleon, and it stands to reason that her stowage must be confined, both with regard to provisions and coal. The French build their vessels of wood, and they build them of a size something larger than a line-of-battle ship. They consider them as vessels for narrow seas, and not for long voyages, and they think it right to case them entirely with iron. We have adopted an entirely different principle; and it is not for me to say who is right, and who is wrong. No credit is due to me for the Warrior, and, as she was designed by a former Board of Admiralty, I may state candidly what I consider to be her merits, and what I regard as her defects. The great distinction between us and the French is this

they are building their ironcased vessels of wood, and of a tonnage not much larger than a line-of-battle ship; while we are building our vessels of iron, and of a tonnage of over 6000 tons; for that is the tonnage of the Warrior, the usual tonnage of a 90-gun line-of-battle ship being little more than 3000 tons. Our ships are only partly cased with armour, but they are rigged fully as line-of-battle ships, and have immense stowage as compared with other ships in the navy, and I believe this large class of ships, of which the Warrior is one, will have very great speed. It is a very interesting question to [G]

consider which, as a whole, is the better class of construction. There is no doubt that the French construction is attended with very considerable advantages on the score of economy; for we know that a ship of 3000 tons costs less than one of 6000 tons; but wood is a very perishable article, and it is said that with iron plates a considerable degree of decay takes place. Why, then, should we build vessels of 6000 tons when another nation is building vessels of only one-half that tonnage with nearly as many guns, with, perhaps, not so heavy, but still a heavy armament? Here arises a consideration which, I think, must have influenced the late Board of Admiralty, and which is of great importance. All those engineers who are making improvements in projectiles tell us that we are only in the infancy of gunmaking. I have heard that a gun is to be produced which will pierce a 6inch plate. If that be so, what will be the effect upon our ships cased with 4-inch plates. This class of vessels will be rendered altogether useless. One great advantage, however, of building these very large vessels is, that we can, if necessary, increase the thickness of the plates -we may even double them. I have taken the trouble to ascertain what would be the effect of an increase of thickness upon the flotation of one of these ships, and I find that with a 9-inch plate the immersion would be increased only two feet. If, therefore, it should be necessary, to increase the thickness of the plates to 6 inches or more, we shall be in a position to do so. This is in itself a reason why the

Government, I think, acted wisely in resolving to build vessels of this large tonnage. It is of importance, too, that these vessels should be able to take a large stock of provisions and coals; and accordingly the Warrior is provided with a great power of stowage, so that she might be well supplied in these respects. Another thing which we consider to be absolutely necessary, and which other nations consider to be unnecessary, is that these vessels should be fully rigged. The iron-cased ships of other nations are merely rigged with schooner masts. We have rigged our vessels independently altogether of their engines, and that I take to be a wise course, because it is impossible to say where these ships may be required to go. They may be called suddenly from one station to another, and it is, therefore, important that we should be able to dispense with their engines. Another point to which I shall advert is the extent of the ironcasing. Other nations think it right that their ships should be entirely cased with iron, but ours are only partially cased. The reasons for this are manifest. There can be no doubt that when you build ships of great speed with very fine ends, and load these ends with heavy armour plates, it is impossible those ships can go well in a heavy sea. This is one of the defects of the foreign iron-cased ships now building. They will do tolerably well in smooth water, but in a heavy sea they will be total failures. But it may be said shot will penetrate these exposed places, and vessels will be liable to be sunk. This I think is

rather hypercritical, but I may state that the greatest care is taken to provide against such a contingency. The ends of the vessels are built in compartments, water-tight, and any serious damage from shot or otherwise will be prevented. I have gone carefully into a calculation as to what would be the effect upon the Warrior if a shot struck her and went through the bow or the stern, and I find that the effect would be perfectly trifling-indeed it would amount almost to nothing as the shot would only affect a particular compartment, to which are fitted pumps connected with the engine. It must not be supposed that because these ships are not cased with iron throughout they are not sufficiently strong. All the plates of the Warrior are 9-16ths of an inch in thickness, and if a shot struck at an acute angle the effect would be that it would be warded off altogether. Then the Warrior is fitted with cross bulkheads both fore and aft, in which in an engagement the crew will be completely cased in armour, though the ship is not entirely cased with iron." The Admiralty, however, would not give up the use of wooden ships, feeling that they must still rely on them for employment on distant stations where there were no docks.

The noble lord then continued his explanation of the votes seriatim. He stated that the seamen in the Royal Navy got higher pay than those in the merchant service; that some addition would be made to the pay of the officers, the whole increase being about 50,000l. a-year; that the Government in

tended to improve the sailors' diet by curing beef for the navy at Devonport; that they intended also to establish naval barracks, beginning at a place near Devonport, to enlarge the marine barracks, and to go on with the new docks at Portsmouth. He explained also that men had been discharged from the dockyards because satisfactory progress had been made in shipbuilding. He stated also a variety of other details, going fully into the respective items, and concluded by moving the first vote for 78,200 men.

Sir John Pakington reviewed at some length the principal topics embraced in the speech of Lord C. Paget, adding some remarks on the discipline of the navy. He spoke in praise of the Warrior and of iron ships generally, though not to the exclusion of wood.

Mr. Baxter called attention to the comparative strength of the English and French navies, as a reason for reducing the estimates, which he said were based on an exaggerated calculation of the maritime resources and preparations of France.

Mr. Bentinck dissented from Mr. Baxter's views on this point, and he insisted that the discipline of the Navy was not so bad as represented by Sir J. Pakington.

Mr. Lindsay dwelt upon the vast preponderance of the Navy of England over that of France, which he contended had been much exaggerated and misrepresented.

Lord Clarence Paget offered some further statements as to the French navy. We had 53 screw line-of-battle ships, and 14 paddles, making altogether 67. The

French had 35 line-of-battle ships afloat and 2 building, making 37. The English navy had of frigates 31 screws and 9 paddles afloat, besides 12 building, making a total of 52 frigates. The French had 18 paddle frigates and 21 screws, making a total of 39 afloat, and they had 8 more building, making a grand total of 47. Then, with regard to the smaller class of vessels, he did not think that the discussion had much extended to them, and he would continue his comparative statement by a reference to the totals. The French had 266 ships of all classes, and 61 were building, making a total of 327. The English navy had a total of 505 vessels afloat and 57 building and converting, giving a total of 562. Therefore, we were in a very satisfactory condition. From all the concurrent testimony which he could obtain, he found that the French navy contained from 35,000 to 38,000 men. Of these 10,000 belonged to the conscription, and 25,000 to the adscription. The latter were the seafaring population of France who were liable to serve. Then what had they in addition in reserve? French officers who had studied these things would tell them that in the course of a month or six weeks, and particularly in the winter, they could add at once 25,000 men to the navy. That was his honest belief. They had now 38,000, and they could add 25,000 in the course of a month. He admitted that this would be very damaging to their mercantile marine. If they took the actual naval force of France, with every seafaring man she had the power to obtain, they would find that France could produce, within

not a long period, certainly not far short of 85,000 men. The noble lord, in conclusion, vindicated the discipline of the fleet, and read some reports in confirmation of his statement.

Mr. Bright criticised the noble lord's speech, and argued that the French fleet had been prodigiously over-rated. Alarms had been raised upon the foundation of monstrous falsehoods. "The Treasury," he said, "was not 'the bourne from which no traveller returns,' but the bourne from which no honest man returns. I have never heard the noble lord at the head of the Government, or any of his colleagues, make a distinct statement. They don't condescend to particularize on this matter, but they allow these alarms to exist and these assertions to circulate throughout the country. They make use of them for the purpose of seizing on a time of popular delusion to add to the navy and to the expenditure of the country. Instead of that, if they were to tell the people the truth, which they know,which I am convinced that they know,

which to my certain knowledge their own officers send to them from Paris, they might have saved millions during the last few years. There is not a man in Paris, whether Bonapartist, Orleanist, or Republican, who does not entirely disbelieve and disavow all the statements made in this House and in this country as to the gigantic naval preparations of France, and the disposition of its Government towards England. Surely, after what was done in consequence of the panic, excited when the right hon. member for Droitwitch was

at the Admiralty, and consider ing that this is a time of peculiar pressure, when a general discontent is arising in different parts of the country at this enormous expenditure, the Government might easily have reduced the military estimates of the year by four or five millions. And I do not believe there is a man in the kingdom, with the slightest knowledge of politics, who could imagine that we were not quite as safe as we shall be when all this money has been voted."

Lord Palmerston said it was true that those who passed to the Treasury benches were apt to change their opinions, but that was because they came to know the real state of things, and were charged with a responsibility that did not affect Mr. Bright. If he were to sit on the Treasury bench, he would soon be one of the stoutest advocates for good naval and military establishments. Members came to the House recounting what they had been told in Paris by persons excessively interested in misleading public opinion here, and making us believe that nothing can be more harmless than all the naval and military preparations of France. "I say, 'Equo ne credite Teucri.' Really, sir, it is shutting one's eyes against notorious facts, to go on contending that the policy of Franceof which I do not now complain -has not for a great length of time been to get up a navy which shall be equal, if not superior, to our own." The noble lord illustrated his proposition by a reference to the famous Enquête Parlementaire, and by describing how sixteen innocent mail packets

were built, and then, by a stroke of the pen, added, as it was foreseen they would be, to the French navy.

The vote was then agreed to.

The whole subject of the government and administration of the navy, having been the subject of much dissatisfaction underwent, during this year, the ordeal of a parliamentary inquiry. Two motions for this purpose were made early in the session, by members connected with that service, and sitting on the Opposition side of the House. The first was by Admiral Duncombe, who moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the various duties devolving upon it, and also as to the general effect of the system. upon the navy. The gallant officer said that he did not mean to blame the present Board of Admiralty, who, he believed, did their best with a very cumbrous machinery: his object was to inquire whether a scheme could not be devised by a Committee, that would improve the system of naval administration, and he hoped the investigation would be an impartial and fearless one.

Admiral Walcot seconded the motion.

Lord C. Paget, speaking in the name of the Duke of Somerset, said that, so far from objecting to the motion, he would give every facility in his power to the inquiries of the Committee. He did not say that the naval administration was perfect; but the Government had introduced, and were introducing improvements, and when the delinquencies of the Admiralty were talked of, he

« PreviousContinue »