The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1814-11-15

shSnt shan we expose our officers to this |
mcrtihcat,onf He hoped not. Mr.. H. then /
took view OF the cost and expense Of this
description Of vessels proposed by the bill as
compared with that of sloops Of war. and
also OF their relative efficacy TO the vessels
composing the navy Of the enemy, Of whose
vessels incomnssion, in number $50 at the
lAs accounts $50, besides the ships of the
line aod frigates, would be superior, and only
about A&schooners, &c. inferior to it. The
schooners to be authorised by the bill (upon
The ground. which he assumed, that they were
iascnded 20 be sehconersl would be inferior in
Force to three-fourehs Of the valuable mer-
chant ships. and superior only to such enemy's
Vessels as sail under convoy for the disper-
sion OF which they must wait before they could
operate upon them. Schocners, besides, were
unsafe sea-bcats, liable to lose their masts &
spars. which It would be difficult for them to
replace. ~
lie c. :rasted with these vessels the class
OF sloops of war, not greatly more expensive,
which he said were equal or superior to S3 of
the vessels OF the ener,iys navy, and which no
merchant vessel ever presumed to resist. Fcr
Sae sake OF humanity, even, he therefore
tnought they ought to be preferred. Much
reliance appeared to be placed on the fast
sainng OF these schooners. They I'd not, he
said, sail faster than well-constrocted square
rugged vessels and instanced the case of
some az the most SUI cesstul of our privsteers
Which were square risged; whilst those
which we're otherwise rugged had almcst all
Deem swept from the ocean by the, enemy's
cruizers He stated, in terms supplied by
his nautical experience, the reason Of the SUI
perio'1ty OF square rugged vessels. Our fri
gates he said, were able to overtake any
schooner that sale / the ocean. Ia short. he
considered 1t "a settled point, that cur square
rs5ea vessels ou,lt tr s;,ii.is we're superior
&c he schOoners built vito the same view.
Stops of war, he said, coulei be eoujpped
nearly rs soon as schooners, and were more
sihcient beyond all calculation. He wanted
something like naval force which should
noe degrade the character of the country. He
appealed TO the experience of our own sloops
OF war Argus, Peacock, &c. and said he was
0oe disposed to sanction that species of force
Thich ensured every thing but honor, and
would squander still more of that treasure
which he conceived to have been already Ia
vishly expended. He moved to amend the
o'it oy striking out OF that clause which des-
cTbes the force ofthe vessels, the words not
less than nor more than IA guns and nser-
Sins In lieu thereof the words "not less than
20 nor more than "a guns
Mr. IrscrsoN Of Penn. corrected the i'm
preston of n lr. Reed as 20 schooners," which
word was not contained in the bill, but the
word vessels" Mr.. I. was DESTROYS of a
mendinS the bill so as to read not less than
eight nor more than twenty-five guns" This
DC said, would be doing little more than exten-
ding the discretion Of the Navy Department.
n the particular in which he thought it might
De safely connded in; and, without subscrib-
ing TO the sentiments of either of the eentle-
Tnen, he die not despair of being able to sa-
1isty the corl7aat-ee that the amendment he
proposed would answer the purposes of the
government better Shanin It's present shape.
ahe limitation to IA guns, he appehended,
was inserted In the other louise on the molten
OF gentleman from MARYLAND (Gen. Smithl
Tor whose professional knowledge and gene
raj opinions on this subject, Mr.. /. said, he
had the greatest respect. But it was not the
tact, he believed, that the best priyateers we're
limited TO ID guns and for proof of this as
sertion be need only refer to the newspapers
OF the last week. One or two privateers
which h Vi lately come into port after reap
lnF 2 r1cn harvest on the ocean, Carried 10
guns. They were, however, manuel by adj
ventnrous men, accnst med to man and work
what are called the Baltimore schooners, and
who without any disparagement to the eff
Gers OF the navy, were better qualified than
they for that peculiar class of vessels. Mr..
!. favored the adoption of larger class than
that proposed by the bill, as better adapted
to our officers, and also TO the nature of the
service. He referred to the cruizes of our
o*1OISOt war, WiliStt DttI Dce1 OrlHldnt and
honorable to our country, annoying, mischie-
vous and discreditable to the enemy. He was
therefore in favor of leaving discretion in
She government to bsild or purchase vessel, of
different rates, from 8 to % guns
Mr.. lN'K217 of Md. said he was impressed
with the belief that the smaller description of
vessels embraced in the bill would be more
beneficial thai the large class now proposed.
At we take a view OF the cruizes of different
vessels, public and private, of various sizes, it
must be obvious that smaller vessels are ab,n-
dainty more efficient than the larger ones
ihe larger vessels had added to our glory,
o proved our military capacity Oh the ocean
never had the valor, intrepidity and nautical
skill OF any nation been more distinguished
than those of the y. States. But he was aston
ished to hear any gentleman assert that small
vessels were not more efficient in ANNOYING
the commerce OF the enemy. than large ones.
IL appeared to him that our naval military re-
nown had been raised to the highest point
and, IL he had the management, he would not \
again send out our larger vessels during the
war, for there would be little chance of meet
ifss with vesseisof the enemy except in squad
ron. Our objectis now to attack the enemy
where he is most vulnerable, in his commerce
--f''r that purpose, he was decidedly of opinion
the smaller class Of vessels was the best and
the eXpence OF them hot more than 80 or
81 600 dollars each. Britain now eDioyed al
most the whole carrying trade of the world. |
1t is in our power, in great degree, to de-
Ic,. ~ oil -.