BRITISH IRONCLADS.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 741, 18 October 1870, Page 4

BRITISH IRONCLADS.

The reports of Vice - Admiral Sir Thomas Matthew Charles Symonds upon the trials of Her Majesty's ships Monarch and Captain, to which so many people have been looking forward with interest, have at length le3n ] üb'i hed, [and wi.l well repay persual. No such terse and • praitiable reports, so far as we can remember, have for a long time been laid before Parliament. Admit al Symonds points out drawbacks in either vessels, but is quick to recognise the superiority of both to all the broadsides under his command. Both ships, he says, are " very easy in a seaway, and can use their guns in any'sea in which an action is likely to be fought." Instructed to watch carefully " the effect of a sea combined with the force of a double-reefed topsailbreeze on the ship with low freeboard, whether there would be a liability of the height of the wave interfering with the efficiency of the fire of of the 12in guns of the Captain," he reports that,"the ship of low freeboard has shown no failing on this point ; . . . they hit a target (a small cask and flag) distant 1000 yards to windward (at the ViiirA shot) ; and in a treble-reefed topsail breeze at sea, shot were dropped 1000 yards to windward, the sea not interfering in any way." After a heavy gale on the night of the 29th of May, i; both ships were very steady ;" on the 2nd of June, in a long heavy swell from the N.W., when the greatest rolling of the Warrior was 16deg., the greatest rolling of the Monarch was odeg. , and of the Captain less than 4deg. On the 25th of May, when " the Minotaur's main deck was wet throughout by the sea entering the weather ports, and a great spray wet the poop " of the flagship, the turrets of the Captain were not in any way inconvenienced, Her hurricane deGk was dry, although the Sea washed freely over her main deck, " but in a far less degree than I anticipated." The admiral recommends the Monarch to ba altered by the removal of the forecastle, the bow guns, and also their protecting iron - plated bulk head, — and then " the Monarch would have no equal among present ships of war ;" and his verdict on the other vessel as she now floats, without alteration, is : — " The Captain is a most formidable ship, and could, I believe, by her superior armament, destroy all the broadside ships of this squadron in detail." This sentence of the admiral, who lias never been known as a partisan of turret ships — whatever Mr Reed may now think fit to assert in this respect — completely confirms the opinion of our special correspondent, who last year accompanied the combined squadrons under the Admiralty flag, and startled the public mind by writing :—" There can ba no manner of doubt that had the Monarch been an enemy, with her turret and four twenty-five-ton guns in working order, she could have steamed down on the fleet from her windward position, and have • sunk fully one-half of the ships before her own fire could have been silenced by her being sunk or blown up in turn." Such is the pith and substance of the reports which have jusfc been published. Tho reflections to which they give rise are very mixed, but we are sure the public, who are often puzzled by the disputes of rival inventors, but always ready to do justice to perseverance and success 0 fill ingenuity, will be prompt to recognise the merits of Captain Cowper Coles, whose efforts have at length been crowned with such indisputable success. In October, 1861, when we Averc commencing our broadside ironclad fleet, Captain Coles wrote to the Admiralty as follows : — "I will undertake to prove that on my principle a vessel shall be built nearly 100 ft shorter than the Warrior, and in all respects equal to her, with one exception — that I will guarantee to disable and capture her in an hour. She shall draw 4ft less water, require only half her crew, and cost the country for building at least LIOO,OOO less." In season and out of season he has ever, since maintained the same pretensions. In 1865 he obtained an Admiralty committee to consider his challenge, and it was in consequence of the report of that committee that it was determined to build the Monarch. Captain Coles protested against the lofty freeboard which the Admiralty constructors designedfor her. He declaredthat it wasof the essence of his invention that by concentrating the armament in turrets amitlship3 a high freeboard might be dispensed with, to the great advantage of the ship, both offensively and defensively. He obtained, at the close of 1868, permission to design a ship after his own idea, in conjunction i with Messrs Laird, of Birkenhead ; and the Captain is the offspring of their united ingenuity. Everyone at Whitehall declared that a ship with so low a freeboard would be swamped by the sea, and unable to use her guns. The Captain was tried under all the disadvantages of a raw crew, within a fortnight after she was commissioned, was tested by a most experienced admiral in rougher weather than most actions have been fought in, and the result is given in the reports from which we have quoted above. Seldom lias it been given to an inventor to reap in his lifetime so gratifying and complete a success. The two ships which carry off the palm in our navy, are the two which represent tho invention of Captain Coles, and it is easy to gather from the reports of Admiral Symonds which of their, as he thinks, embodies the preferable type. There have been two eminent naval designers in Europe during the last ten years — M. Dupuy de Lome, the advocate of broadsides, an eminent French engineer, but no sailor ; and Captain Cu]cs, of omy own navy, tho advocate of a rival system. ' ]