§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he rose to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the fact, as he understood it had been stated on the previous evening, that Captain Coles had been consulted by the Admiralty with regard to the experiments about to be made on his shield or cupola; and that those experiments were to be under his direction; and if that be the case, can the noble Lord give any explanation of the letter from Captain Coles which appeared in The Times newspaper that morning, and which led to a different conclusion?
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that he had on the previous day, with the permission of the House, asked a question of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty with a view to eliciting information as to whether Captain Coles had been consulted by the Admiralty with regard to the intended experiment at Shoeburyness on the cupola shield fitted on board the Trusty Floating Battery, by firing at it from a 150-pounder gun. The noble Lord had distinctly stated that Captain Coles had been consulted. He should therefore like to have some explanation in respect to the discrepancy between that statement and a statement made by Captain Coles in a letter dated the 12th inst., which that officer had addressed to the editor of The Times newspaper, clearly denying his having been so consulted.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETSir, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord and to the hon. and gallant Member for Christ-church, for putting these questions. I have read in The Times newspaper this morning, with considerable regret, the letter from Captain Coles. For Captain Coles I have a great personal regard. His shield underwent a very severe trial some months ago, by firing at it with various guns, notably from 100-pounder Armstrong guns, and was considerably shaken. My noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) thought it would be very interesting that a further trial of that shield should take place with a still heavier gun—namely, with the 150-pounder Armstrong gun, which has been lately tried, and my noble Friend therefore ordered the shield should be repaired and put in order with a view to its further trial. Captain Coles came to me to the Admiralty, and represented that unless he could go down and 1619 inspect the repairs of his shield, he thought it might not he sufficiently strengthened in order to afford a fair test of its irresistibility against 150-pounders. When this was told to the First Lord of the Admiralty, my noble Friend replied, "By all means let him go down and himself inspect the shield, and suggest to the Admiralty any further strengthening which he thinks it may require;" and a letter was written accordingly to Captain Coles. Captain Coles has, I think, very injudiciously, and without reflection, sent that letter to The Times, in which he makes complaint that the Admiralty are carrying on this trial with the shield without consultation with him. I am very sorry that he has done so, and let me take this opportunity of making this remark on another portion of his letter. Captain Coles says, that he is not responsible for the construction of the cupola shield ship now being built, nor for the Royal Sovereign three-decker now being cut down. Let me distinctly state, that Captain Coles is not responsible for any of those ships. He is simply responsible for his own shield. He made proposals to the Admiralty to construct ships, but he is not a shipbuilder, and his plans were not at all available for the public service. What was available for the public service was his shield, and the Admiralty had consequently adopted it. We have consulted Captain Coles with regard to their construction, and, in short, have given him every opportunity of turning out the best shield he could; but I do deprecate an officer of the Royal Navy who is on full pay, like Captain Coles, writing letters to newspapers at a time when he is employed under the orders of the Admiralty on a very important work; and I sincerely trust that my friend Captain Coles will not repeat that conduct.