The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIMES.—The return of Royal Sovereign from
her second experimental cruise recalls our atten-'
tion to the question of Cupola Ships and the treat-
ment of Captain Coles's invention by the Admiralty.
The history of this innovation in naval architec-
ture, short as it is, is long by comparison with that
of other so called improvements which have been
adopted one year only to be superseded the next.
The cupola principle has now been before the world
for nine years; it was strongly recommended for
use in the Russian War by a committee of eminent
naval officers in November, 1855 ; it was submitted
to a crucial test in April, 1862, by the formal selec-
tion of the Royal Sovereign for the purpose of cone
version ; it has since been the subject of constant
discussion among naval engineers, and it has under..
gone a final ordeal in the late voyages of the Royal
Sovereign. It is now time that the public should
be informed whether it has or has not succeeded. If
not, or if its value has been so impaired by more re-
cent experiments in gunnery or armour-plating that
it has ceased to be worth adopting, let us not throw
good money after bad. Captain Coles will still be
entitled to our gratitude for the labour which he
has ei.pended upon what appeared, not only to
good judges in this country but to our American
res:als, a most promising discovery, and no one will
think that he has been unduly rewarded by the
£5,000 assigned to him in 1862 by the Admiralty.
If, on the contrary, Captain Coles has performed all
that he undertook, and the seagoing qualities of
shield-bearing ships have been fully verified by ex-
perience, the sooner we avail ourselves of this im-
portant result by the construction of similar vessels
the better for the efficiency of our Navy. In order
to understand the merits of the case, so far as they
can be grasped by landsmen, we must recur to the
original proposals of Captain Coles, and the original
objections urged against them. Captain Coles's
original model was adapted to gunboats with a
light draught of water, and capable of carrying
heavy guns over the shallow waters of the Baltic
or Black Sea. After the war with Russia was at
an end he still advocated the same design, with
some slight modifications as applicable to coast de-
fences. It was with reference, we believe, to this
object that the experiments which first convinced
the Admiralty of its utility were carried out in the
Trusty, and the exploits of the Monitor occurring a
few months afterwards placed the defensive advan-
tages of turret ships beyond dispute. The real doubt
was whether they would be suitable for service on
the high seas. Capt. Coles boldly asserted that they
would and pledged himself to build two classes of
ships against all competitors, the one shot proof rafts
for the defence of harbours, the other seagoing fri-
gates and lineeof-battle ships. "I will undertake,"
he said, "to prove that on my principle a vessel
shall be built nearly:looft. shorter than the Warrior,
and in all respects equal to her with one exception,
that I will guarantee to disable and capture her in
an hour; she shall draw four feet less water, require
only half the crew, and cost the country for building
at least £lOO,OOO less." The Admiralty did not
think proper to accept this challenge, bat they made
over the Royal Sovereign, an old three-decker, de-
signed by Sir W. Symonds, to be transformed into
a 12-gun shield-ship on Capt. Coles' plan. Many
were the misgiving of naval men as to the working
of the turret principle in a ship of this size. It was
at first suggestel that it would be impossible for her
to carry masts at all, owing to the great space re-
quired for the " training" of the guns. It was next
insisted that, even if fitted with only five shields
and manned by a reduced crew, she would not con-
tain sufficient stowage room or accommodation for
officers and men, It was predicted that she would
never be able to carry her guns at the requisite
height above water with all her stores and armament
on board. That she would work terribly, and prove
very unmanageable in a sea-way, was assumed al-
most as a matter of course. Now, it is these forebode
ings which ought to have been set at rest, one way
or the other, by the trial trips of the Royal Sove-
reign. It must be admitted that Capt. Coles was
placed at a great disadvantage in having to operate
on a vessel which had not been laid down with aview
to such a superstructure as his cupolas. Even if the
Royal Sovereign had strained more than she ought
in pitching or rolling, allowance should have been
made for this circumstance ; but as she had behaved
admirably well, and answered all the expectations
of her constructors, it is surely desirable that fur.
ther development should be given to this system.
We are far from impuing to the Admiralty, as at
present constituted, any deliberate wish to suppress
the ideas of independent designers. When we are
told that no less than 596 suggestions for shot-
proof vessels had been submitted to them in the
three years previous to 1862, we can almost sym-
pathise with the official presumption against each
new plan that comes before them. If there were
anything like agreement among private firms and
men of science about the best method of arming
ships of war, the Admiralty might be blamed most
justly for shutting their eyes to it, but it is noto-
rious that no such agreement exists. Last year
there was a grand conference at the Institute of
Naval Architects, where the various projects were
most ably represented and canvassed, and the only
two points upon which a tolerable degree of unani-
mity was attained were the superiority of iron to
wood, and the probability that greater calibre in
guns and greater thickness in plates may yet be
achieved. The grand controversy between whole-
plating and half-plating, as well as all the minor
controversies about the depth of immersion, the
shape of turrets or central batteries, and their re-
volving or stationary character, remained unsettled
as before. The fault of the Admiralty does not
consist so much in its hesitation to give large orders
for vessels that may be obsolete before they are
launched, or even in its jealousy of competition, as
in its persistence in practices which it admits to be
exploded, and its neglect of principles which it ad-
mits to be of high practical value. In short, it is
the vis inertia, rather than active obstruction, that
has to be overcome. The Admiralty might have
been perfectly justified in declining to take up Capt.
Coles's theory, or it may possibly be able to show
reasons for pronouncing it a failure; but if it is a
success, and that in spite of the unfavourable con-
ditions under which it was tested, why not allow
Captain Coles at least to build a man-of-war in his
own way ? If he has triumphed over all obstacles,
with make-shift materials and assistants who die.
trusted his scheme, may we not expect still more
satisfactory results if his hands be left free ? It
was creditable to the judgment of the Admiralty,
as well as to that of another Department of the
Government, that Messrs. Laird's steam rams were
purchased for the public service, and great things
are expected of them, but we are not aware that
there is any notion of reconstructing the British
navy on this model. Cupola ships would not be a
substitute for these, but for the wooden vessels, or
iron vessels of an exploded type, which the Admi-
ralty persist in building, while they confess, if
challenged, that they are all but worthless. If in
the present transition state of naval architecture
we must buy our own experience, and cannot wait
to profit by that of our neighbours, let us at least
avoid proved waste, and risk our expenditure on
attempts that have some claim to approximate
towards the ultimate ideal.
POST.—It would seem that the German Powers
are resolved to wring the submission of Denmark
and the patience of Europe to the uttermost, and
that they are not only driving a hard bargain
usuriously but suicidally, and so as to constitute a
precedent which is sure, sooner or later, to be quoted
against themselves. It is impossible to dissemble
the consequences of this proceeding. Whether
Denmark yields to what can only bo described as
extortion, or whether the extreme pressiire provoke
a desperate resistance, it is plainly not calculated to
promote peace or to restore confidence on the Con-
tinent. There can be no doubt that Prussia is pri-
marily answerable for such an iniquitous, and at
the same time perilous policy. It must be admitted
that Austria has hitherto made war and peace on
the principles which actuate great military powers.
In Italy and in Hungary, in her triumph and in
her humiliation, she maintained the dignity and
the forbearance which have preserved to her the
respect of Europe. The Government of Vienna
has exercised its authority sternly, severely, op-
pressively ; but it has never descended to mean..
ness, nor ever betrayed its martial honour; and,
even now, though bound by a new and dubious
alliance, Austria will, it is to be hoped, repudiate a
transaction which is averse from all her antecedents.
Prussia, on the contrary, when successful, has copied
the license of brigandage, and when defeated has
naturally experienced corresponding treatment.
The passion which animated Blucher reigns in the
breast of Bismarck ; and forgetting her own mis-
fortunes, and ignoring an obvious responsibility,
deaf to the suggestions of prudence, and insensible
to the claims of justice and mercy, it is Prussia that
inscribes vie victis! on the flag she has herself more
than once furled in the presence of an invadieg
army. The Prussian idea carried out, would com-
pass the destruction of the defeated Power. Prussia
has seized the Duchies, and now modestly requires
a mortgage on the remaining Danish territory to
retrul‘urne her fc.r the expenses incurred in the
seizure, It is not, however, the mcseey that she
wants so much as the security. The right of fore-
closure is what is really sought. Plainly, the com-
mand of the Baltic is contemplated. It is the dream
of naval power which has inspired this monstrous
claim. The demand, it is true, is made in the name
of the Duchies; but that is only adding insult to
injury, and the subterfuge is trunsparent. Now,
what is the sum of the ability on which Prussia is
presuming ? She is exulting in her might, and re-
joicing over an inglorious victory. This is the day
of her strength—strength acquired by the toleration
she is abasing. Austria is her accomplice; the minor