The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-18 00:00:00

THE DEFENCE OF THE CHANNEL.

The following letter has been addressed by Sir
M. F. F. Berkeley, K.C.8., to Sir Francis T. Baring,
Bart., on the Naval Reserve Bill and Defence of
the Channel :

" My dear Sir Francis—Accept my best thanks
for the copy of your speech on the Naval Reserve
Bill. lam aware that it is not published for sale,
but for those friends whom you deem to take an
interest in this vital question, and who, like myself,
have turned their attention to it. •
"I regret I cannot take the same favourable view
of the Bill as yourself. I have a very strong and de-
cided opinion on the subject of a reserve, and more
particularly a reserve calculated. for Channel de-
fence, and the defence of our coasts generally. I
look upon that defence as paramount to all; but
when I hear and read the heap of fallacies occa-
sionally broached by some naval officers both as to
the defence of the Channel and the manning of the
navy, I am afraid I may only be adding to that heap
by giving my ideas publicity. Were I still in pub-
lic life, duty would, however, impose upon me the
task of endeavouring to refute the fallacies referred.
to, involving, as it does, the problem of how the
Royal navy could be manned on a sudden emer-
gency, and how to obtain thousands of skilled
artisans almost at an hour's warning, confessedly
questions of the greatest difficulty. Impressment is
out of the question. The very fact of permitting
our merchant ships to be manned. by other than
native-born seamen, or at least the greater portion
of them native-born, annihilates impressment, and I
don't wish to revive it. The interests of the mer-
cantile marine on this subject clash with the in-
terests of the Royal navy. Much might be effected.
by a Merchant Seamen's Fund, under the control
of Government, and liberally supported by pecu-
niary means, and, after all, money must be the
foundation of your reserve. But the mercantile
interest in the House of Commons was too powerful
to allow such an undertaking. I have a much
more favourable opinion than you seem to entertain
of the continuous service system, not for the great
increase it would give, but as retaining the most
valuable men, the schoolmasters (if I may so
call them) to a new ship's company. At the
close of the Russian war, when instant pay-
ing-off was determined upon, we had more
petty officers under that system than we had va-
cancies
for, to a very large amount. The effects
numerically of the continuous service system could
not well be ascertained until it had been in opera-
tion ten years; a retrograde movement at halfthat..
term was made, for the purpose of getting rid of
the income-tax, by allowing those who had
entered for it their free discharge, after having.re-
ceived the extra pay and allowances during the five
years. Neither the continuous service systom nor
the bill introduced last session will give you the
required number of seamen at short notice. The
first would be a gradual and ever increasing re-
serve, not felt for years, except, as I have before
stated, in securing the services of the most valuable
men ; and much depends on the management of
minor details by the individual at tho Board. to
whom this department is more particularly in-
trusted, and the fact that you have stated as to the
numbers of able or ordinary seamen retained by the
system is very easily accounted for.
" In quiet times, when no panic existed to ' fright
the isle from her propriety,' the duty of manning
his ship was left entirely to the officer in command-
Ordinary seamen were rejected so long as there
were able seamen in the market, and many flee
young men were consequently lost to the servie.e,•
The continuous service system obviated this evil!
which I assure you existed to a greater extent than
could be imagined. The ordinary seamen accepted
it to insure employment in the Royal navy, which
was too often refused. The bill of last year is open
to the same objection ; it does not provide what we
require immediately, neither do I think it ever will•
,
On the contrary, I believe it would fail in time 01
need.
" CHANNEL FLEETS AND CHANNEL DEFENCES.
" Cherbourg appears to be the great bugbear 01
the day; for England it is the best port in which;
the French fleet could rendezvous. In whatove'
portmust Francehave
onein
attendance; enemy)
shores the worse for us. Chrbourg can easily'',
thheasfu a
r fleetther
fi.orn there
our
most easily—be watched from Spithead, or better
still from Portland. Coals are one of the greatest
essentials in future maritime warfare ; we cantle;
afford to expend them in blockading. The fleet
with the most coal would be most effective. Admit
that the opposing Channel fleets meet, under Pre:
sent circumstances, it is probable that both veoula_.
be nearly annihilated. But for a moment let 111 j: •
imagine that 'our fleet had sustained the greatv`,,,. •
loss. Are we to dbpend upon the chances of a siagro
battle for the safety of our homes? We 0ught....%
have a Channel force—l will not call it a fleet 4.. u
quite independent of the Channel or any other fleet'
This force should ever be at hand ; it should
marked for and appropriated for Channel service'
and Channel service only. No temptation, no elr,
cumetance, should induce us to divert it from its ill
tended purpose—namely, to give security to our
shores, and to relieve the country from those fits
occasional panic or negligent security which ha
00.
already entailed upon us such enormous expense°
The destruction of the opposing fleets would be 11
hindrance to the attempt at invasion. Even admit
4
that part of that of the enemy survived the sin
while the whole of ours had been destroyed? I
should have reliance on my proposed Channet
force successfully to prevent invasion. One grew,
future which has changed the whole system ofd 0
fence on our part, and which seems to me to hay
been entirely overlooked by the various 'spealc,est
and writers on the subject, is the fact that the smalle.o,
gunboat is armed with weapons equally eniseh%t
vous and destructive as that on board the large
,ship in the service. The Cockchafer carries agueo,
of equal calibre, equal range, and throwing a
jectile equally destructive as any gun carried Y. 7
the Duke of Wellington. In former times the 00
of the vessel determined the size of the es ealle0;
and consequent length of range. The 32.pounut0
of the ship of the line could cut the frigate
ribands before the 18-pounder of the latter could
Of any avail. In the same way the 18-pounder fe
the frigate overwhelmed the 12 or 9-pounder of ore
sloop, and, again, the sloop disposed of her well
Pigmy opponents. Small vessels had but small
chance of disabling their more powerful pursue'it
Many shot might be fired with good aim, but t.
took many to disable or even to cripple the giel,lo
" In the present day, one projectile from lil
pigmy striking mast, yard, or bowsprit of the Pillr,
s
suing giant, down it must come—indeed, it naiBo
be lodged in a more vital point, and the °
sequences be more serious than even the loss lie
co
spar, and it must be remembered how large. the
target to be aimed at on the one hand • and he
small the target on the other. Let
us have swarm of these pigmies and Cockchafers-0.c9
",
would be •the force of all others to prevent 1%
vasion under all and every circumstance'
e
Brand them for Channel service, and that atoll.
;
Keep them rigged as fitting for Channel serviej
and not for long voyages, when square sails 010
more canvas may be necessary. I believe 3,(0110
would succeed in manning them, although you 0
not succeed in doing so in large ships liable to go
foreign, if you es lit olly impress upon our 0,
faring home population that there is no intention 'i
askethem to serve till their homes are threatenei
and to serve only in defence of their homes.- admit I was the originator of the Coast -Volunteer'
but I am not to blame for its failure or rather PA r,
„
tial failure. The rules that I would have '4
blished, the details necessary to carry it out as 0,
posed by myself, have all been altered, and, in mans
instances, set aside. The evidence taken before the
late commission on manning bears me outin tho
assertion, and I could have proved it, had it bee o
.is
thought right to examine me. Frem the monle"
I went to the Board of Admiralty, I have strenu-
ously advocated the necessity of an available rei
serve to.a large extent. To meet the objections °t
all, to combat the prejudices of others, the subject),
must be well studied. Carrying out details se
making regulations are not the least difficult part.
change constant chene of boards—above all, the 1r":0
quent change of the individual at the head of t',3
board—renders it almost a hopeless task"'s
requires perseverance in one system in detail 11.0
well as a whole. No scheme can
prosper that
so constantly altered, and, above
all any schell'
on the subject of manning the navy, as well °s
establishing dreserve, must be steadily persevere4l
in, and the one end kept constantly in vi'sv.
'[here are two distinct requirements—how to iu~
sure the services of a large body of able seam%
at then shortest possible notice for your neel.
and uisees, necessary all over the worlut
and how, at the same time and at equally sh,ele
notice, to 1 ring together a strong force of seafaring,ll:l,
men, sufficient to defend the Channel and repel
vasion. The latter is the more easily accomplisher
of the two. Both are absolutely necessary to °fit
existence as a great nation, and when t! e
shall be undertaken in real c irnest I have no tear
but both may be accomplished, although the Inea-0
sures recently adopted, with respect to bounty h.q.'s:,
increased the difficulty, and cannot but be Pre./.-;
dicial t 3 the formation of any permanent resell' '
most assureily rendering it more expensive.
"Yours sincerely,
M. F. F. 13EnKELEY-

"Berkeley Cast'e, Oz t. 6."

The telegrams received yesterd ty from St. Pet( r.B:
burg state the quantity of tallow shipped off at 71,297 easi'';
against 78,695 at the same date last year. There Wei
22,130 casks storel un, and about 18,000 of all torts rc
•
mairthig to be disposed of,