.... .... £200,000 30,000 for the consideration of the public, and, I hope, of the Government, so far as regards manning, the cost of which, when in full operation, I may summarise as follows:Training 6,000 boys Allowance of £10 to each seaman entering the Navy from Merchant Service, say, 3,000 annually Appropriation for pensions to 100,000 enrolled and Reserve men, even if every man entered the Reserve Force Allowance to cover cost of enrolled or Reserve men making their appearance at the different record offices .... .... .... .... 125,000 50,000 £405,000 or little more than one-third the cost of the current expenditure for a similar purpose. In my introductory chapter I called attention to the number and description of our ships of war, and I ventured to express an opinion that, however formidable we might be in ironclads and huge floating citadels, we had no means of affording sufficient protection to our vast and wide-spread maritime commerce, or to our great commercial depots. I further remarked that the cost of maintaining the system of convoy, adopted by our forefathers, would now be so enormous-even if it were practicable, which I think it would not be that we should consider some well-devised system whereby our merchant ships would, in a great measure, be able to defend themselves when the necessity arose. More than twelve months ago I had a conversation on this subject with Mr. James Laing, of Sunderland, a gentleman, of much sound sense and great practical experience as a shipbuilder; the result of that conversation was that steam ships of from 1,200 to 3,000 tons register tonnage could, at an extra cost of from £700 to £1,200 each in the course of their construction, be built of sufficient strength to carry at the bow and stern 6-ton guns, carrying 120 lb. shot. Captain Wilson, to whom I am indebted for most of my information about modern naval tactics, informs me that shot from such guns could be propelled to a distance of three miles, that they would perform good practice at two miles, that in clear and calm weather they would be safe to hit once in four times at a mile distance, though probably not more than one in ten during the smoke of war, at a distance of 1,000 yards. Nevertheless, these guns would be most effective armaments, and I question if their shot at close quarters, or even moderate range, would not penetrate most of the ironclads of foreign nations.* Anxious to make myself, as far as I could, master of this subject, I mentioned to Lord Clarence Paget, when he and Mr. E. J. Reed paid me a visit in the course of this autumn, the scheme for manning I had in view, and asked their opinion especially on the point, how merchant ships could be made to protect themselves in the event of war. While giving a general approval to my then crude scheme, Mr. Reed was of opinion that however valuable these heavy long range guns might prove, he thought that a merchant ship fitted to carry four 64-pound guns, which would not exceed the cost of the original construction of the vessel estimated by Mr. Laing, would be even more effective for the purpose of defence. That question, however, I must leave naval officers, shipbuilders, and gunners to decide. What I now contend for is, that if Government granted the sums I have named to * All the experiments show that a 64-ton, or 7-inch gun, with a charge of 30 lbs. and a projectile of 115 lbs., penetrates at 1,200 yards through a 4inch plate, with an 18-inch wood backing; that at 600 yards it penetrates through 5-inch iron plates, and 10-inch teak backing; and at 300 yards through 6-inch iron plating, and 20-inch oak or teak backing. any owner of a steam vessel of a certain size and speed who was disposed to construct his ship, so as to be able to carry either of these armaments when required, and agreed to retain her under the British flag, we could, for a comparatively insignificant sum, produce an auxiliary fleet that would go far towards effectually protecting our commerce, and, in the event of war, would render services of inestimable value to the nation in other respects. I cannot suppose that shipowners would object to this extra weight in the construction of their ships, if they were reimbursed the original cost, as they would be compensated for the extra weight by the extra strength, especially if applied at the fore and after ends, where merchant steamers are generally weaker than they should be in proportion to the strength of the other portions of their hull, and where extra strength is so essential in the case of collision. I see that this question has been mentioned within the last few months by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and by Mr. Brassey,* Captain Wilson, and others, in the discussions of the United Service Institution and elsewhere; but the subject does not appear to have been followed up to the extent I have in view. Some writers and speakers very Mr. Brassey, who recently read an interesting paper on this subject at the United Service Institution, remarks, "There are included in our Merchant Navy eight steam ships of 3,000 tons and more, 24 of 2,500 to 3,000, 55 of 2,000 to 2,500, 165 of 1,500 to 2,000, and 167 of 1,200 to 1,500 tons." We could thus turn out almost instantly in the emergency of war upwards of 400 armed ocean steamers of from 1,200 to 1,000 tons each; and if necessary to extend our auxiliary force we could turn out somewhere about 12,000 steamers of between 50 and 200 tons, which, if furnished with guns or used to carry torpedoes, would in themselves present such a guard to our shores and harbours that the nations of Europe combined, would think twice before they attempted to blockade our ports, much less invade us. The Whitehead torpedo is a weapon especially well adapted for the protection of merchant ships, and if carried by such vessels during war, that force would become most valuable for offence as well as defence. properly object to these schemes on the ground of the encumbrance to merchant steamers carrying in peace huge implements of war, and therein I entirely agree with them. But all I suggest is that our largest and swiftest steamers could be advantageously constructed to carry them when required, and that would only be in the event of war, where it would be necessary to protect our seaports, and especially our commerce afloat; and thus the nation would derive, to the full extent, the advantages of the combined schemes I have ventured to suggest. When that contingency arose, I should supply steamvessels thus constructed, with the necessary guns and ammunition from our arsenals at home and abroad. If they were in our home ports they could, almost immediately, on the declaration of war, be equipped, and if abroad at the time, they could receive their armaments from our nearest naval stations, in the Mediterranean, Canada, India, Australia, China, and the Pacific. Portions of their crews, if not the whole, having passed through the training I have suggested, would understand how to work these guns, and thus we could, almost instantly produce, in all parts of the world, an auxiliary force for the purposes of defence, which no other nation could do, unless it possessed similar facilities, and had a Merchant Service of equal dimensions. We should then present a front, which would in reality, bid defiance to "the world in arms" against us. Of course, to carry out these arrangements, innumerable details would require to be considered; but, so far as I can ascertain, they are of a nature which could be easily overcome by the executive officers of the Admiralty, practically familiar with the subject. As objections might be raised to bringing into our training-ships, the lowest order of boys, a few of whom came from reformatories and had been convicted of crime, however trivial, I may remark that they are now separated by the existing system, which I desire to see continued and extended; but if a boy bore a good character while he was in the training-ships, I should not send him forth with a brand on his forehead, which his subsequent good conduct had obliterated. We do not ask, in our dealings with mankind, the origin of those persons with whom we have transactions; so long as we find that they have borne, for years, an unimpeachable character, and are honourable in their dealings, we care not whether they are the sons of peers, peasants, or even convicts. If a boy, at the age of sixteen, were still bad, I should inform the shipowner about to employ him of his true character, or I should endeavour to dispose of him in some other way. I have now said all I have, for the present, to suggest on the question of manning; but as a great political question, to which I have already incidentally referred, is to be again raised in Parliament-I refer to the effect which the Declaration of Paris, of 1856, must produce, in the event of war, upon our maritime power and commerce-I shall, in the ensuing chapter, endeavour to deal with that subject. |