HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE NINETEENTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND APPOINTED TO MEET 1 FEBRUARY, 1866, IN THE TWENTYNINTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA. SECOND VOLUME OF THE SESSION. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, March 12, 1866. MINUTES.PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading (39); Referred to Select Committee-Salmon Fisheries Third Reading--Consolidated Fund (£1,137,772).* fare, and would involve the re-construction of the navy, but rather on the side of economy than increased cost. Whether we adopted them or not we must be prepared to meet with them in all parts of the world. He wished to say a few words with regard to the merits of the invention, and also of some of the hardships of which Captain Coles complained; but before doing so he begged it to be observed that he had no personal acquaintance with that gallant officer, and offered no personal opinion upon the subject, because he was met by conflicting considerations. First-there was no more honourable and, in naval matters, no more capable man than Admiral Robinson, the Controller of the Navy. Secondlythe Admiralty as a Department, wholly irrespective of persons, was one of the LORD DUNSANY, in rising to put the worst institutions of the State. Question of which he had given Notice he was about to state would be based to the First Lord of the Admiralty, respect- mainly upon the published letters of Caping the Cupola principle of Captain Cowper tain Cowper Coles, respecting whom the Coles, for the Reports of the Committee general impression was that in some reof Naval Officers appointed to inquire into spects he had met with rather hard treatthe subject, said, he need not recall to their ment. The press had pretty unanimously Lordships' attention the difference between expressed such an opinion. The essence cupola and turret-ships, both of which of the turret system was the abandonment would effect a total change in naval war- of broadside armour and the substitution NAVY-TURRET SHIPS-CAPTAIN QUESTION. MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. What Previous to the success of the of circular revolving turrets on the upper | be great. deck mounting the heaviest ordnance used Royal Sovereign, the Admiralty had de in naval warfare. It was admitted that sired Captain Coles to send in a drawing of turret-ships would carry the heaviest guns a sea-going turret-ship; and, with the aslikely to be used, and it was not certain that sistance of an Admiralty draughtsman, he such guns could be carried as broadside did so. Very naturally, the Admiralty armament. If we imagined the 600-poun- submitted the design to a committee of der to be the gun of the future, the turret-distinguished officers, who reported against ship must be the ship of the future. Hither- the particular model, but in favour of the to our artillerists had not succeeded in system. After that Captain Coles seemed producing a satisfactory 600-pounder; but to expect that the Admiralty would avail recent experiments at Shoeburyness had themselves of his services to construct a seaproduced remarkable results, and it was, going turrret-ship. It did not appear, howat all events, possible that before long we ever, that any communications passed bemight see a 600-pounder gun used. In tween him and the Admiralty till the 9th of the meantime 300-pounders were being September, 1865, when Captain Coles wrote used, and turret-ships were being built for to inquire whether it was intended to take other nations if not for ourselves. Already any steps in the matter. On the 14th the one was crossing the Atlantic for the Peru- Admiralty sent a reply to the effect that it vian navy, and we might soon hear of her appeared likely a ship with two turrets encountering a Spanish iron-clad. Of Cap- would be designed, in which case the Adtain Coles he had no personal knowledge, miralty would avail themselves of Captain but it was well known that he was a man of Coles' assistance. After that a long intergreat genius, resource, and perseverance, val occurred before Captain Coles heard At a lecture at the United Service Club he anything more on the subject. At last, explained clearly and forcibly his position, however, on the 10th of January, 1866, stating that the Admiralty had adopted a he wrote to the Secretary of the Admiralty design by Mr. Reed for a cupola ship named asking when he might expect the drawings. the Favourite, in allusion to which Captain On the same day Captain Coles wrote a Coles named his model the Naughty Child. letter upon his supposed hardships to The Captain Coles evidently thought that favour Standard newspaper. Now he (Lord had been shown to Mr. Reed, and that the Dunsany) thought that the letter was an cold shoulder had been given to himself. objectionable letter, and there could be no When the English and French fleets were doubt that it was an objectionable practice at Spithead great interest was excited by for persons employed under Government to the Royal Sovereign, which was a two-write to newspapers respecting what had decker, and, from a variety of circumstances, was never intended to be a sea-going ship. The turrets of Captain Coles were adapted on the Royal Sovereign, and the success of the turrets, as turrets, was, on unquestion-, able authority, most complete. In a report upon the Royal Sovereign Captain Sherard Osborn said that the ship on all occasions behaved remarkably well, that she was more buoyant and rolled less than might have been anticipated, that her turret-guns worked admirably, and that she was the most formidable vessel of war he had been on board, and would easily destroy, if her guns were rifled, any of our present men-of war. Captain Osborn added that vessels like the Royal Sovereign were well calculated to defend the coast, and that if we had a sufficient number of them our ordinary fleet might be sent abroad, and we should still be secure at home. Taking the least favourable view of the case, turret-ships for harbours would release seagoing ships, and the gain to the navy would taken place in their particular Department. There was, however, a very curious circumstance connected with this letter. An agreement had been entered into between the Admiralty and Captain Coles, which contained a proviso that Captain Coles should be at liberty, by means of lectures, models, or otherwise, to diffuse the knowledge and show the advantages of his inventions, so that if, on the one hand, it might seem that Captain Coles had been wrong in writing to the papers in a tone condemnatory of the Government, on the other hand it appeared probable that under this contract he had a right to do so. Such being the case it might, perhaps, have since appeared to the Admiralty that it was right that an officer who was so distinguished and whose inventions had been, or might be, of great value to the country should be leniently judged and restored to the advantages which he formerly possessed. He would, therefore, ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to adopt the Cupola or Turret Principle invented by Captain Cowper Coles, R.N.; and, if so, whether it is true that the Assistance of the Inventor (although offered) has been refused, and his extra pay and Allowances stopped? He also moved "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty requesting that the Report of the Committee of Naval Officers appointed to examine the Design of a Turret Ship designed by Captain Cowper Coles, should be laid before this House." the principle, I again called the attention of the Constructors of the Navy to the merits of Captain Coles' invention. For myself, being rather fond of experiments, I was rather inclined to make a trial of it ; but I received a Report from the Department to the effect that it was totally unsuited for sea-going ships, and that it was extremely doubtful whether it was even suited for coasting vessels. That was not encouraging; but I had heard that a small cupola was being constructed by Captain THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: The Ques- Coles under the direction of the War tion put to me by the noble Lord (Lord Office, and I therefore spoke to Mr. Sidney Dunsany) involves, in fact, two or three Herbert, who was then Secretary for War, different subjects, and, in answering it, the on the subject. He told me that it had most convenient course I can adopt will be been in course of construction at Mr. Scott to say, in the first place, that I shall have Russell's yard, but that there had been so no objection whatever to lay upon the table many difficulties experienced, and so many the Report of the Committee who have ex- disputes had taken place between Captain amined into the design of Captain Coles' Coles and the Constructors, that he thought turret-ship, and to give your Lordships all he should never complete the cupola at all, the information in my power in reference to and he added: "If you think the cupola that inquiry. The noble Lord has asked will be of any use to you I shall be very whether it is the intention of the Admiralty glad to give it to you." I said I would to adopt the cupola or turret principle. try it, and see what I could do with it. Now, my Lords, as long ago as the year I accordingly took the cupola from Mr. 1862 the Admiralty actually did adopt that Scott Russell in May, 1861, and put Capprinciple; and I may say now, in justice to tain Coles in communication with the the Dockyard officers at Woolwich and Dockyard officers at Woolwich. In about Portsmouth, that those officers greatly as- four months' time, after a good deal of sisted Captain Coles by giving him prac- trouble, we finished the cupola, and it was tical information in order to enable him to placed on board the Thunderer. We made carry out his design. I believe, indeed, an experiment which was, I thought, a that Captain Coles would himself admit very satisfactory one, as it showed the that whatever merit there may now be in great power of resistance offered by the the turret system, Captain Coles is largely cupola to the guns of that day. I thereindebted to those Dockyard officers. I see fore went so far as to determine to take it frequently stated that the Admiralty from in the next Navy Estimates money for the first opposed Captain Coles and put ob- building a cupola vessel for coast defence. stacles in his way, and I therefore ask your Now, when I am told that we did everyLordships to let me revert for a few mo- thing we could to impede and stop the ments to the connection which has subsisted progress of this invention from the very between Captain Coles and the Admiralty. first, I think it is somewhat hard upon When I came to the Admiralty in 1859, I me, when the fact is that I went out of found that in March that year Captain Coles my way to bring the principle forward for had already applied to the previous Board, experiment. I complimented Captain Coles of which Sir John Pakington was at the on his success, and in 1862 took money head, requesting that his plan might be for a cupola vessel for coast defence, and tried. The Board intimated to him that the drawings were prepared. Towards the his application had been laid before the end of March, 1862, accounts were rethen Constructors, that they had disap-ceived of the Monitor, and everybody was proved the system, and that consequently for building vessels of that class and the Admiralty declined to adopt it. When character. However, we ordered an iron we first came to the Admiralty we were very much occupied with the affairs of China; so that until the latter part of the year 1860 I had not time to attend to the turret question. Towards the end of the year, however, being rather in favour of vessel to be built by contract, and also cut down the Royal Sovereign in order that we might have a fuller opportunity of trying the cupola system. We also decided that Captain Coles should be ap pointed to a post under the Admiralty in B 2 order that he might superintend the fit-true that he did express his desire to ting and arrangement of his own vessels. compete with a vessel called the Favourite. But it is said that the Admiralty adopted That was a wooden ship which we had at a rival plan-that we adopted "the box" Woolwich. We were most anxious to get principle, which was a new idea of Mr. a small ship armour-plated, and we asked Reed's, and one opposed to Captain Coles' Mr. Reed could he make a design for the principle. Now that is entirely incorrect. plating of the Favourite. He said that The box principle was not an idea of she would labour under disadvantages; that Mr. Reed's. It had been adopted in the she would not be so good as a vessel built for case of ships provided with armour-plating the purpose of being plated; but he would in the centre, but which had not armour- undertake what we required. Well, that plating on the ends. It had been adopted vessel was plated, and I may say that the in order to lighten the ends of the War- experiment was very successful. Captain rior, in order that she might be able to Coles wished to build a vessel to compete carry her heavy armour-plates, and it was with the Favourite, but we thought that carried out in the Defence and many other would not be quite fair, I objected from vessels, including the French ships the Ma- the first to competition between Construcgenta and the Solferino. It had been acted tors acting under the Admiralty. It appearupon by Captain Coles himself; the box ed to me that such a system would lead to principle being to have bulkheads in those mutual recrimination, and that it would be ships which were protected in the centre impossible for me to go on if such an unby armour-plating, but the ends of which pleasant state of things arose as this comwere left uncovered in order that they petition was sure to bring about. Captain might be light. The statement that we Coles' wish always was to compete. His discouraged Captain Coles' cupola principle first proposal was to compete with the is, therefore, not correct; and the state- Warrior, and build a vessel with eight ment that we adopted a rival principle is cupolas. But a vessel of that kind, built also contrary to the fact. The description on his principle and armed with 68-poundof vessels that were to be built afterwards ers, would have been a vessel of no value was, of course, a matter of doubt, because ultimately; and it would have been an inCaptain Coles from the first was most justice to his own system to have applied it anxious to build a sea-going cupola-ship. to such a ship. It was the same with the He said his plan never could be properly Favourite. She was not a ship with which carried out until he built a ship rigged and it would have been fair to test Captain armed and fit to go to sea. But a difficulty Coles' principle. Having looked very anxarose here. It was necessary to decide as iously at all our ships, we resolved upon to what sized gun we should have on board. having the experiment tried with the If you have the guns placed in ports and Royal Sovereign, in preference to any you require larger guns, you can increase other vessel at Portsmouth. We did not the size of your ports; but if your ship is send her to sea till 1864, because she was to be a cupola or turret-built ship it is ne- not ready to go. We put Captain Sherard cessary you should know the size of the Osborn on board, because he had an especial gun that is intended to be put in. We predilection for turret ships. I was so anxwere discussing this question in 1862, and ious to have Captain Coles' principle tested it was thought we should get a 300-pounder under the most favourable circumstances gun; but when we came to that size Cap- that I gave the command of the ship to an tain Coles said he must give up the cupola officer who was a friend of his, and who and adopt the turret. The cupola was then at the same time was devoted to turretgiven up and the turret substituted. This, ships, in order that it might have a fair of course, caused some delay. We inquired trial. The noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) only about the guns. We then had a 300- read one report on the performance of the pounder gun, and I went to see it tried at Royal Sovereign; but she went to sea and Shoeburyness, but it unfortunately burst; the report made of her when she came and this gave rise to some doubt about the back was not very encouraging. It showed sized gun we could have. Since then we that she would do very well for a vessel in· have got a large gun, not a 300-pounder, tended to sail along the coast from one port but a 250-pounder gun. From that day to another, but it was not very encouraging forward Captain Coles was continually em- in respect of a ship intended for sea-going ployed by the Admiralty superintending purposes. Indeed, anybody who saw the the preparation of those guns. It is quite Royal Sovereign when fitted with Captain Coles' invention would be struck with her what amount of armour she should bear? appearance as not being that of a sea-going It is very easy to build a turret-ship so vessel. Again, your Lordships will bear in that she may be perfectly able to go round mind that the Admiralty have not only to the world, and yet not be fitted to cope make vessels good for fighting, but good for with another vessel. If you build a ship the seamen also. If ships are not comfortable fitted to carry the heaviest guns, in my for the seamen there is great trouble as re- opinion she ought either to be plated with gards discipline. It has been said that ves- the heaviest armour or else not plated at sels which do not rise much above the water all; and the Americans are rapidly coming are better for fighting; but for the men on round to that opinion, for they are building board they are very uncomfortable. We vessels of 300 tons intended to carry the have a report from the Scorpion, which heaviest guns, but not plated. In giving was one of the unfortunate rams built at directions to the Constructor we accordingLiverpool, and which we purchased there. ly took the best and strongest models. I We received a report from the captain of was anxious that the vessel should resemble that vessel in which he complained of the the Hercules target, and be calculated to conduct of a portion of the crew, and at- resist not only the 300-pounder, but the 20tributed it to the fact that the lower deck ton gun. That would have been a most satisof the Scorpion was as uncomfortable as factory vessel; but when the details came possible. As our ships have to go about to be worked out I was obliged somewhat the world it does not do to have them as to reduce the weight. I, however, insisted on uncomfortable as possible for the crews. It having a vessel with 8 inches of iron, a must be remembered that our seamen have 7-inch plate outside, and an inner coating, to live aboard their ships, and that if we making it up to 8 inches, with 18 inches mean to get men to enter the service we or 20 inches of wood. The vessel was must make the ships as comfortable as moreover to carry four of the largest guns, possible. Well, in 1864 Captain Coles to be a thoroughly good sea-going vessel, proposed to build another ship-one to and a comfortable home for seamen. When compete with the Pallas. We were still we came to lay down her lines we found against encouraging a system of competi- that we should have a vessel up to 330 tion, but the following Minute was made by feet, and that it was necessary her deck the Board:should be 14 feet above water. A ship with bulwarks may be somewhat lower, but in a cupola-ship it is necessary that she have no bulwarks, or at least that they should disappear in action. It may be said that we have made this ship unnecessarily heavy. But what is the use of comparing her with vessels like the Scor "My Lords will give him the aid of a competent draughtsman, but they wish him to understand that their object is not to institute a comparison with any other vessel, but to obtain a ship combining an armament of the heaviest guns with high speed and good sea-going qualities." Captain Coles again took the lines of the Pallas, and sent in a proposal for the con-pion, when if you send her to distant parts struction of a vessel on those lines. I ap. pointed a Committee of Officers, presided over by Lord Lauderdale. That Committee sat for six weeks, and took a great deal of evidence on the subject. I was extremely sorry that Captain Coles was not able to attend in consequence of illness; but having fully considered the question the Committee recommended us not to build a ship such as he proposed, and stated their objections to it. They further reported their opinion that it was most desirable we should build a cupola-ship to carry two turrets. Well, my Lords, I was quite satisfied to undertake this, and I called on the Constructors' Department to turn their attention to what they considered would be a good ship, carrying two turrets, and being at the same time a good sea-going ship. The first of the world she may have to meet ships armed like the Monadnock? We have the experiments at Shoeburyness to guide us, and we know what other nations are doing. I have seen it stated that slight armourplating round a vessel is quite sufficient for the purpose, and that she thereby becomes a much better sea-boat. Of course she does; and you would get even a better seaboat by dispensing with the armament altogether. Therefore, if you weight the vessel at all, you ought to make the armour really defensive. As soon as we had designed the vessel, I was very anxious to obtain suggestions from Captain Coles respecting the turrets. But at this time, unfortunately, Captain Coles had taken to attacking the Constructors' Department, and when these attacks were brought to |