The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.

The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

The second reading of this bill was postponed until to-

morrow.

EAST INDIA (TEA PLANTATIONS).

On the motion of Mr. EWART an address was agreed
to for copies of any reports made to the Government on the
tea plantations is India.

TREASURE TROVE,

On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Sir J. JERVOISE rose to call attention to two circulars
addressed'to the chief constable of the county of Hants,
dated respectively, Whitehall, Aug. 27, 1860, and White-
hall, Jan. 9, 1861, on the subject of treasure trove.
The SPEAKER being summoned by the Black Rod (Sir
A. CLIFFORD), repaired to the House of Lords to hoar the
Royal assent given by commission to several bills. On his

return,

Lord PALMERSTON explained the part he took in the
transaction.

Mr. F. PEEL explained the mode of action in regard to
found property and treasure trove.

Obsolete Vessels of War.
Mr. COB !,EN said—Sir, in the terms of the notice I have
given, I beg to offer a few words on the subject of the great
number of obsolete vessels of war in the ItJyal Navy,mean..
ing by "obsolete' vessels which have been useful in their
day, but which circumstances and time have rendered use-

less. If it should be said that this is no longer a practical

question inasmuch as in committee of supply, sub silentio,

but not without individual protest, a vote has been passed

enabling the Government to maintain 76,000 men for the
Navy of the year,l beg to say in reply that 1 do not acknow-
ledge that vote as necessarily final. It will be in the power
of the house, if it think proper, on subsequent and more im-
portant stages of the measure, to review and, if necessary,
to reverse the vote. After the remarkable utterances made

by a Conservative peer in another place, to which we must
not more particularly allude, expressing disapprobation of

the excessive number of men voted for the Navy this year,
I think it cannot be deemed improbable that this question

will again come under the consideration of the house. I
will describe what I mean by obsolete ships of war. In the

net return presented by the Admiralty to the house it is

stated that there are 558 wooden steamvessels, 106 of which
are line •of• battle ships or large frigates; the remainder
being 452 vessels of lesser dimensions,ranging from corvettes

to the smallest gunboats. Now, with the smaller class of

vessels Ido not propose to deal. My remarks apply exclu-
sively to the 106 wooden line-of-battle ships or large frigates.
The smaller vessels, although built of wood, and, therefore,
liable to destruction from the combustible missiles which
have rendered obsolete the larges ones, may and must be
serviceable in barbarous and uncivilized regions, and may

be used as a sort of police of the seas. Of the large vessels
of war 66 are wooden steam line-of-battle ships, and 40 are

large frigates. In speaking of the latter vessels, let me

- -
mention that 35 of them are upwards of 2,000 tons, and
14 upwards of 3,000. Therefore they average a larger
tonnage than Nelson's line-of-battle ship the Vic-
tory, which was under 2,200 tons. When I call these
large wooden ships obsolete, I do not speak on

my own authority. lam not uttering a truism that is even

new. The circumstances out of which the fact has arisen

are of no very modern date. They sprang from a discovery
nearly 20 years old—the discovery of an eminent French
artillerist, which enabled bombshells to be projected horizon-
tally with all the precision of round shot, instead of, as for-

merly, in a parabolic direction through the air. As it is neces-

sary to pin opponents to the point at issue, I beg to say that
the wooden line• of-battle ships have been rendered obsolete
_ _ _

not by the adoption of the iron-clad gunboats or vas-
_ _ __ _ _ _

sels of war. No doubt iron-clad impenetrable vessels of
war have rendered these wooden ships additionally and con-
clusively useless, but they were objectionable and open to
condemnation before ever an iron-cased gunboat went to sea.
I remember—for I am an old scholar in these things, for

which, indeed, I have no taste, but which have been forced
on my attention—l remember in 1849 sitting on a commit-
mittee to inquire into the Ordnance. Before that commit-
tee Sir T. Hastings, then occupying an important position
at the head of the gunnery establishment, stated that in
consequeuco of the adoption of those shells with horizontal
motion, ii we went into a sea fight with 25 line-of-battle
ships, instead of the action lasting 10 hours, as such events
used to do, it would more likely be over in 10 minutes, and,
instead of our coming out of it with all our ships, we would
probably lose half of them. The American Government,
having very little money to spend on the navy, have shown
much more forethought than we have. They have never
constructed a line-of-battle ship for the last 20 years. They
abandoned these ships not because iron vessels came into
use, but because they found swift corvettes and such like to
be safer vessels than the large cumbrous three-deckers which
offered so broad a target to the incendiary shots. We have
also had two or three expressions of opinion on the subject
from authorities at home. The hon. and gallant member for
Harwich, speaking lately on this question, said that a shell
now acted as a mine, it burst on passing through the side of
a vessel, and would so shatter it that a line-of-battle ship
would be nothing better than a slaughter-house. Again, the
hon. and gallant member for Wakefied, who is an authority in
these matters, has told us of an experiment where shells

were tried on a brig which was on fire at the twelfth round.

It seems, then. that half a broadside sets a vessel in flames
beyond the possibility of extinction. Such being the case,
other countries, long before we took the hint, ceased to build
large vessels of war. We have continued to build them, and
we have now got the number of which I have spoken: Ido
not undertake to blame anyone because we have got some
line of-battle ships in hand. Whenever a change takes place
we must experience some loss in a heavy residue of useless
articles ; but I have a great grievance to allege against the
Admiralty of successive Governments for having left us
with so enormous a number of useless and obsolete ships of
war. With whom, then, doss the fault lie ? It is admitted
on all hands to be a fault. Will anybody of nautical ex-
perience, with a head on his shoulders and a reputation to
care for, get up and tell me that if these 106 large frigates and
line-of-battle ships had not been in existence one of them
would now be regarded as a useful vessel of war. (Hear.) If
nobody will venture to say so, w e may safely conclude that
these vessels are quite useless. If we had wooden vessels

of war to oppose to wooden vessels of war, it might be said,
" other countries have got these line-of-battle ships, and it
is therefore necessary that we should have them too ;" but
the production of iron-clad vessels, and especially of impe-
netrable gunboats, has rendered these line-of-battle ships,
not only additionally useless, but actually a danger and a
snare, because it is now frankly acknowledged that a single
gunboat making its appearance is a sufficient justification

for any number of these wooden vessels to take to their

heels and run away. (Hear, hear.) What has happened in
America? A blockade established by these wooden vessels
has been raised by one iron gunboat. Another iron vessel im-
provised for the occasion, made of railway iron, in one of the
Southern ports, where the people are not apt in mechanical
contrivances, suddenly made its appearance, and in almost a
few minutes massacred the whole crew of one of the largest
wooden frigates in the American navy,—a ship larger, I
believe, than any of our frigates. Nay, more, if another
iron-clad vessel had not come to the rescue, it is the opinion
of the best nautical authorities that that single iron-clad
would have cleared the whole coast of Northern America of
wooden vessels. (Hear.) If that be so, and nobody will
gainsay it,what follows? We have 106 of these large wooden
vessels, which in all former times would have been regarded
as thevery mainstay and strength of England, but which are
now of no advantage to us, give us no strength as against
a foreign enemy, and which indeed are actually a weakness
and a danger. If we were at war to-morrow I challenge any
naval officer in this house or out of it to say that we would
send any one or all of these large wooden ships to oppose a
single iron-clad vessel that may now be possessed by France
or the United States. (Hear, hear.) Such being the case
it is quite clear that we are in a dilemma of a very serious
kind, and one which calls for the consideration of every man
who has the interests of his country at heart. How is it
that we have arrived at this state of things? Is it because
i ships
but t o
Quite
Con-
tinue
have
the contrary.
some new invention has suddenly surged up, taking us un-
awares, and leaving no choice
large to theewoodenm r a
t
the manufacture of these
had warnings from all directions.
lg Ad
We have had warnings from France and America, and
warning voices have ban raised in our own country by the
most eminent nautical men, all proclaiming for years that
we were coming to this. I think it is honourable to naval
men that they have so frankly declared the worthlessness of
these large wooden ships of war, because no doubt the
poetry and romance of the navy are thought to be associated
with the quarter decks of our line-of-battle ships, There
appears at first sight something less noble, less dignified in
a Monitor or a Merrimac than in a line-of-battle ship. lam
not disposed to agree with that. I think power, wherever
it is—intellect, wherever it is—give the real rank in the
world—(hear)—and I believe that the naval authorities,
in abandoning the traditions of the old wooden ships and
espousing the cause of Captain Coles's cupola ships, and
other inventions, not only show true patriotism, but take a
wise view even of their own interests as professional men.
(Hear.) According to Mr. Scott Russell, who ought to know,
we have probably spent during the last eight years about
£30,000,000 in the material of a wooden navy that is now
useless. I take the 106 ships I have spoken of as having
cost, with their contingents, £20,000,000, I won'tsayt,he
Admiralty is accountable for the whole of £2o,ooo,ooo,this
but I firmly believe that the naval administrationa is abeliir
ly
responsible for the loss of £10,000,000
wooden vessels since other countres have fnown and our
£10,000,000 has been wasted in
itheconstruction of large
e
Government ought to have known, that these line-of-battle
ships would be useless. (Hear.) With whom must the
blame rest ? I think it should be divided between the two
sides of the house, or, at all events, the two front benches-
-for I hope the other benches will be able to ab-
solve uthhe)mselees from responsibility, Igo back to the time
when the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich was
First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1859. He began what be.
called a reconstruction of the navy. It was no reconstructiran
of the navy. It was the conversion of great wooden line -of-
battle ships into screw vessels, after he knew other countries
had abandoned these constructions. I hold in myhand apaper
of a very curious kind,which I wonder has not attracted more
attention in this house. It is now somewhat out of date. It ig