HL Deb 12 March 1866 vol 182 cc1-14
LORD DUNSANY

, in rising to put the Question of which he had given Notice to the First Lord of the Admiralty, respecting the Cupola principle of Captain Cowper Coles, for the Reports of the Committee of Naval Officers appointed to inquire into the subject, said, he need not recall to their Lordships' attention the difference between cupola and turret-ships, both of which would effect a total change in naval war- 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. Secondly—the Admiralty as a Department, wholly irrespective of persons, was one of the worst institutions of the State. What he was about to state would be based mainly upon the published letters of Captain Cowper Coles, respecting whom the general impression was that in some respects he had mot with rather hard treatment. The press had pretty unanimously expressed such an opinion. The essence of the turret system was the abandonment of broadside armour and the substitution of circular revolving turrets on the upper deck mounting the heaviest ordnance used in naval warfare. It was admitted that turret-ships would carry the heaviest guns likely to be used, and it was not certain that such guns could be carried as broadside armament. If we imagined the 600-pounder to be the gun of the future, the turret-ship must be the ship of the future. Hitherto our artillerists had not succeeded in producing a satisfactory 600-pounder; but recent experiments at Shoebnryness had produced remarkable results, and it was, at all events, possible that before long we might see a 600-pounder gun used. In the meantime 300-pounders were being used, and turret-ships were being built for other nations if not for ourselves. Already one was crossing the Atlantic for the Peruvian navy, and we might soon hear of her encountering a Spanish iron-clad. Of Captain Coles he had no personal knowledge, but it was well known that he was a man of great genius, resource, and perseverance. At a lecture at the United Service Club he explained clearly and forcibly his position, stating that the Admiralty had adopted a design by Mr. Reed for a cupola ship named the Favourite, in allusion to which Captain Coles named his model the Naughty Child. Captain Coles evidently thought that favour had been shown to Mr. Reed, and that the cold shoulder had been given to himself. When the English and French fleets were at Spithead great interest was excited by the Royal Sovereign, which was a two-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 unquestionable 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 be great. Previous to the success of the Royal Sovereign, the Admiralty had desired Captain Coles to send in a drawing of a sea-going turret-ship; and, with the assistance of an Admiralty draughtsman, he did so. Very naturally, the Admiralty submitted the design to a committee of distinguished officers, who reported against the particular model, but in favour of the system. After that Captain Coles seemed to expect that the Admiralty would avail themselves of his services to construct a seagoing turrret-ship. It did not appear, however, that any communications passed between him and the Admiralty till the 9th of September, 1865, when Captain Coles wrote to inquire whether it was intended to take any steps in the matter. On the 14th the Admiralty sent a reply to the effect that it appeared likely a ship with two turrets would be designed, in which case the Admiralty would avail themselves of Captain Coles' assistance. After that a long interval occurred before Captain Coles heard anything more on the subject. At last, however, on the 10th of January, 1866, he wrote to the Secretary of the Admiralty asking when he might expect the drawings. On the same day Captain Coles wrote a letter upon his supposed hardships to The Standard newspaper. Now he (Lord Dunsany) thought that the letter was an objectionable letter, and there could be no doubt that it was an objectionable practice for persons employed under Government to write to newspapers respecting what had 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 DUKE OF SOMERSET

The Question put to me by the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) involves, in fact, two or three different subjects, and, in answering it, the most convenient course I can adopt will be to say, in the first place, that I shall have no objection whatever to lay upon the table the Report of the Committee who have examined into the design of Captain Coles' turret-ship, and to give your Lordships all the information in my power in reference to that inquiry. The noble Lord has asked whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to adopt the cupola or turret principle. Now, my Lords, as long ago as the year 1862 the Admiralty actually did adopt that principle; and I may say now, in justice to the Dockyard officers at Woolwich and Portsmouth, that those officers greatly assisted Captain Coles by giving him practical information in order to enable him to carry out his design. I believe, indeed, that Captain Coles would himself admit that whatever merit there may now be in the turret system, Captain Coles is largely indebted to those Dockyard officers I see it frequently stated that the Admiralty from the first opposed Captain Coles and put obstacles in his way, and I therefore ask your Lordships to let me revert for a few moments to the connection which has subsisted between Captain Coles and the Admiralty. When I came to the Admiralty in 1859, I found that in March that year Captain Coles had already applied to the previous Board, of which Sir John Pakington was at the head, requesting that his plan might be tried. The Board intimated to him that his application had been laid before the then Constructors, that they had disapproved the system; and that consequently the Admiralty declined to adopt it. When 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 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 un-suited 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 Coles under the direction of the War Office, and I therefore spoke to Mr. Sidney Herbert, who was then Secretary for War, on the subject. He told me that it had been in course of construction at Mr. Scott Russell's yard, but that there had been so many difficulties experienced, and so many disputes had taken place between Captain Coles and the Constructors, that he thought he should never complete the cupola at all, and he added: "If you think the cupola will be of any use to you I shall be very glad to give it to you." I said I would try it, and see what I could do with it. I accordingly took the cupola from Mr. Scott Russell in May, 1861, and put Captain Coles in communication with the Dockyard officers at Woolwich. In about four months' time, after a good deal of trouble, we finished the cupola, and it was placed on board the Thunderer. We made an experiment which was, I thought, a very satisfactory one, as it showed the great power of resistance offered by the cupola to the guns of that day, I therefore went so far as to determine to take in the next Navy Estimates money for building a cupola vessel for coast defence. Now, when I am told that we did everything we could to impede and stop the progress of this invention from the very first, I think it is somewhat hard upon me, when the fact is that I went out of my way to bring the principle forward for experiment. I complimented Captain Coles on his success, and in 1862 took money for a cupola vessel for coast defence, and the drawings were prepared. Towards the end of March, 1862, accounts were received of the Monitor, and everybody was for building vessels of that class and character. However, we ordered an iron 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 appointed to a post under the Admiralty in order that he might superintend the fitting and arrangement of his own vessels. But it is said that the Admiralty adopted a rival plan—that we adopted "the box" principle, which was a new idea of Mr. Reed's, and one opposed to Captain Coles' principle. Now that is entirely incorrect. The box principle was not an idea of Mr. Reed's. It had been adopted in the case of ships provided with armour-plating in the centre, but which had not armour-plating on the ends. It had been adopted in order to lighten the ends of the Warrior, in order that she might be able to carry her heavy armour-plates, and it was carried out in the Defence and many other vessels, including the French ships the Magenta and the Solferino. It had been acted upon by Captain Coles himself; the box principle being to have bulkheads in those ships which were protected in the centre by armour-plating, but the ends of which were left uncovered in order that they might be light. The statement that we discouraged Captain Coles' cupola principle is, therefore, not correct; and the statement that we adopted a rival principle is also contrary to the fact. The description of vessels that were to be built afterwards was, of course, a matter of doubt, because Captain Coles from the first was most anxious to build a sea-going cupola-ship. He said his plan never could be properly carried out until he built a ship rigged and armed and fit to go to sea. But a difficulty arose here. It was necessary to decide as to what sized gun we should have onboard. If you have the guns placed in ports and you require larger guns, you can increase the size of your ports; but if your ship is to be a cupola or turret-built ship it is necessary you should know the size of the gun that is intended to be put in. We were discussing this question in 1862, and it was thought we should get a 300-pounder gun; but when we came to that size Captain Coles said he must give up the cupola and adopt the turret. The cupola was then given up and the turret substituted. This, of course, caused some delay. We inquired about the guns. We then had a 300-pounder gun, and I went to see it tried at Shoeburyness, but it unfortunately burst; and this gave rise to some doubt about the sized gun we could have. Since then we have got a large gun, not a 300-pounder, but a 250-pounder gun. From that day forward Captain Coles was continually employed by the Admiralty superintending the preparation of those guns. It is quite true that he did express his desire to compete with a vessel called the Favourite. That was a wooden ship which we had at Woolwich. We were most anxious to get a small ship armour-plated, and we asked Mr. Reed could he make a design for the plating of the Favourite. He said that she would labour under disadvantages; that she would not be so good as a vessel built for the purpose of being plated; but he would undertake what we required. Well, that vessel was plated, and I may say that the experiment was very successful. Captain Coles wished to build a vessel to compete with the Favourite, but we thought that would not be quite fair. I objected from the first to competition between Constructors acting under the Admiralty. It appeared to me that such a system would lead to mutual recrimination, and that it would be impossible for me to go on if such an unpleasant state of things arose as this competition was sure to bring about. Captain Coles' wish always was to compete. His first proposal was to compete with the Warrior, and build a vessel with eight cupolas. But a vessel of that kind, built on his principle and armed with 68-pounders, would have been a vessel of no value ultimately; and it would have been an injustice to his own system to have applied it to such a ship. It was the same with the Favourite. She was not a ship with which it would have been fair to test Captain Coles' principle. Having looked very anxiously at all our ships, we resolved upon having the experiment tried with the Royal Sovereign, in preference to any other vessel at Portsmouth. We did not send her to sea till 1864, because she was not ready to go. We put Captain Sherard Osborn on board, because he had an especial predilection for turret ships. I was so anxious to have Captain Coles' principle tested under the most favourable circumstances that I gave the command of the ship to an officer who was a friend of his, and who at the same time was devoted to turret-ships, in order that it might have a fair trial. The noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) only read one report on the performance of the Royal Sovereign; but she went to sea and the report made of her when she came back was not very encouraging. It showed that she would do very well for a vessel intended to sail along the coast from one port to another, but it was not very encouraging in respect of a ship intended for sea-going purposes. Indeed, anybody who saw the Royal Sovereign when fitted with Captain Coles' invention would be struck with her appearance as not being that of a sea-going vessel. Again, your Lordships will bear in mind that the Admiralty have not only to make vessels good for fighting, but good for the seamen also. If ships are not comfortable for the seamen there is great trouble as regards discipline. It has been said that vessels which do not rise much above the water are better for fighting; but for the men on board they are very uncomfortable. We have a report from the Scorpion, which was one of the unfortunate rams built at Liverpool, and which we purchased there. We received a report from the captain of that vessel in which he complained of the conduct of a portion of the crew, and attributed it to the fact that the lower deck of the Scorpion was as uncomfortable as possible. As our ships have to go about the world it does not do to have them as uncomfortable as possible for the crews. It must be remembered that our seamen have to live aboard their ships, and that if we mean to get men to enter the service we must make the ships as comfortable as possible. Well, in 1864 Captain Coles proposed to build another ship—one to compete with the Pallas. We were still against encouraging a system of competition, but the following Minute was made by the Board:— 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 construction of a vessel on those lines. I appointed 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 question necessary to be considered was, what amount of armour she should bear? It is very easy to build a turret-ship so that she may be perfectly able to go round the world, and yet not be fitted to cope with another vessel. If you build a ship fitted to carry the heaviest guns, in my opinion she ought either to be plated with the heaviest armour or else not plated at all; and the Americans are rapidly coming round to that opinion, for they are building vessels of 300 tons intended to carry the heaviest guns, but not plated. In giving directions to the Constructor we accordingly took the best and strongest models. I was anxious that the vessel should resemble the Hercules target, and be calculated to resist not only the 300-pounder, but the 20-ton gun. That would have been a most satisfactory vessel; but when the details came to be worked out I was obliged somewhat to reduce the weight, I, however, insisted on having a vessel with 8½ inches of iron, a 7 inch plate outside, and an inner coating, making it up to 8½ inches, with 18 inches or 20 inches of wood. The vessel was moreover to carry four of the largest guns, to be a thoroughly good sea-going vessel, and a comfortable home for seamen. When we came to lay down her lines we found that we should have a vessel up to 330 feet, and that it was necessary her deck 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 Scorpion, when if you send her to distant parts 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 sea-boat 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 my notice I sent to the Department to say that whatever attacks might be made upon them, or whatever misstatements might be published, they were not to defend themselves. This I did to put a stop to controversies in the newspapers, which otherwise would have been endless; but in justice to the Department I felt that I could not allow it to be attacked by a salaried officer who since 1862 had been receiving pay every week. I therefore wrote to Captain Coles, saying that he must take his choice whether he would continue to serve the Admiralty, in which case he must desist from his attacks; er else, if he wished to persevere in them, he must resign his office and take up an independent position. He then undertook that while he was employed at the Admiralty he would not continue his newspaper attacks, and I at once said I should be very glad to have the benefit of his experience; because Captain Coles has now had great experience on these subjects, and I do not hesitate to say has learnt a great deal from the Admiralty. Both at Woolwich and at Portsmouth he has been engaged with professional officers of great skill in building turrets; and half, probably, of his experience is consequently due to service with the Admiralty. The vessel of which I have spoken will, I think, be more powerful than any which has yet been built, and for the estimate the Admiralty must take the entire responsibility. I have told Captain Coles, however, that we should give him every opportunity for forming and offering opinions, more particularly as to the turrets, their mode of fitting, Sue. With regard to the turret principle and its supposed importance to heavy guns, I have the high authority of Captain Cooper Key for saying that these can be worked equally well along a broadside as in turrets. Captain Cooper Key says— No practical reasons exist why a heavy gun should not be worked on a broadside with the same security as in a turret; and I am satisfied that there is no difference between the two systems in this respect. And Captain Cooper Key, we must remember, has had great experience in the Excellent. Up to 12-ton guns I see no reason why they should not be worked as broadside guns; but when they become larger and go up to 18 or 20 tons, my own opinion is that we shall require the central principle of working. At the present moment we have only one 20-ton gun, and that is not satisfactory in its performance; it does not consume properly the powder suitable for so large a weapon, and its discharge has not the weight and force which it ought to have. But I believe we shall soon have a more powerful weapon. I asked Mr. Whitworth if he could make a gun that would pierce the Hercules target, and he said, "Yes; but I cannot do it under 24 tons." We have not yet got to that; but my belief is that we shall very soon get to an 18 or 20-ton gun, and shall then be obliged to carry a centre battery. It only remains for me to add that although these designs have been prepared by the Department, there has been no opposition to Captain Coles, but, on the contrary, an earnest desire to co-operate with him in producing the best ship that we possibly can. I believe I have now answered all the Questions of the noble Lord. I have not felt it necessary to touch upon one part of his Question, because to do be would be to revive questions now happily at an end, and I hope for the future that all will work together for the public service. There is no objection to give the Reports that the noble Lord asks for.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

said, he had not the advantage of being in the House when the Question was put by the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany), but he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from the noble Duke in reply. The noble Duke had entered not merely into the merits of the cupola and turret-ships, but into their strength and dimensions, the power of the cannon, thickness of the armour-plating, and the various points connected with the experiments—subjects of the very highest importance, and such as were not usually debated in that House. Taken as a whole, it seemed that the opinion of the noble Duke was directed rather against the progress of what was known as the cupola-ship. The question of training guns on a turntable was one to be determined by common sense. Every one had seen the enormous weight of a railway engine and tender turned on a turntable by the power of one man. The invention, as it was called, of Captain Coles, consisted in placing a heavy gun on a turntable, and in protecting it with an iron turret. Nothing could be more simple than the adoption of such a principle, by which the heaviest guns could be trained in the most exact manner. A somewhat similar principle was adopted in the olden time on board what were called "Long Tom schooners," which were small vessels carrying one heavy gun amidships; and in the present day either the size of the ships must be greatly increased, or else the enor- mous artillery must be carried amidships. That was the whole mystery of the case; and by adopting the principle of Captain Coles, or of anybody else, we should avail ourselves of the system of a turntable carried amidships. The complaint was that Captain Coles had not had a fair chance hitherto of proving the merit of his invention, and he (the Earl of Hardwicke) must say that the impression left upon his mind by the speech of the noble Duke was that he was not very favourable to Captain Coles. It also appeared that Captain Coles had not had a very good ship placed at his disposal for the purpose of carrying out his invention, and what he now asked for was to have a good ship placed at his disposal. He was glad to hear from the noble Duke that at length an admirable vessel was about to be placed at Captain Coles' disposal, so that he would have an opportunity of testing his invention. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) did not at that time intend to go into the question of guns and of armour plating, and he would merely say that the desire of the country was that experiments should be undertaken once for all to determine the best calibre of guns, the dimensions of ships, and the thickness of armourplating, so that at last we might obtain a good ship properly armed. In one instance, where large broadside guns were being worked, it required thirteen minutes to shift the gun, which might have the effect of losing an action.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

The noble Earl appears to think that the Royal Sovereign is the only ship ever intended for Captain Coles, whereas, in fact, the Prince Alfred, a remarkably fine vessel, was expressly designed for the trial of his invention, although that vessel was not completed until a year after the time allowed for its building.

LORD DUNSANY

said, the noble Duke appeared to think that unless armour-plating was invulnerable, it was utterly worthless; whereas it would be a great thing to keep out shells. It was of the utmost importance that we should secure large guns, because without them, although we might succeed in making holes in the vessels of the enemy, we could not possibly expect to be able to detach their plates. Then, again, it must be remembered that there was this difference between a turret and a broadside ship, that the plates in the latter were much more liable to injury, because a shot entering through the porthole would take the armour of the opposite side of the ship in what was termed "reverse," and under those circumstances would cause more disaster than would be the case if the vessel were struck in the ordinary way.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, he had paid great attention to this matter throughout the debate, and it appeared to him that it was not only necessary to use a very large gun amidships, but that to do so the turret system must be employed. It required, however, an engineer to construct a proper turntable, and a shipbuilder to build a suitable vessel. He understood the noble Duke to argue that Captain Coles was no shipbuilder, and he (the Earl of Ellenborough) felt perfectly certain that he was no engineer. Instead, therefore, of being entitled to build this ship, Captain Coles was exactly the last person who should have been selected for that purpose.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.