If the science of Naval Architecture depend on certain physico-mathematical laws, as no doubt it does, it is monstrous to imagine for a moment that such laws can be developed by a flight of fancy, or that a man is born with an intuitive optical perception of the lines of least resistance, &c., or, in the jargon of the craniologists, that he has a naval-architectural bump on his skull; yet one would think that such was the case, when we see men, we cannot say philosophers, start up and loudly assert that they are in possession of the secret of construction; and they are believed because their hypotheses are never submitted to the examination of those who are capable of detecting their fallacy.
The Experimental Squadrons have, with a multitude of perplexing results, elicited, it must be confessed, at least an interesting fact, viz. that there has been an establishment seventeen years in this country, in Portsmouth dockyard, for the scientific education of naval architects, for the Royal [p027] Navy.[8] From the plan of education, as laid down by the Commissioners of Naval Revision in 1810, it appears that, to a requisite knowledge of the practice of their profession, the gentlemen composing this body of naval constructors unite a sound and competent one of its theory[9].
It can only be from such a source that we can look for the improvement of our men of war, and it is to be regretted that every means should not be taken to avail ourselves of it: but unhappily such is the force of prejudice that, unless some alteration should be adopted in this institution, it will be in vain to expect advantage from it.
The objection urged against this establishment, namely, that the scientific education it gives to its members precludes them from the attainment of a due knowledge of the practical construction of our ships, is so absurd, that none but weak or jealous minds could ever have brought it forward. Shall it be laid down, in the present age, as an axiom, that a profound ignorance of the principles of his art is the one thing essential to the formation of what is generally meant by the term “practical man?” We contend that, having made, in vain,[10] a long and most indulgent trial of a system without science, if we may use such an expression, we must extend to one in alliance with it, a like patronage, before we can be allowed to pronounce a fair and legitimate judgment upon its efficiency.
But even in the peculiar path in which the naval architects educated at Portsmouth might be supposed to excel, we do not find that any opportunity is allowed them to come forward, nor shall we see this until some effort is made by the heads of our naval departments, to allow a broad and open competition to take place. It may be urged, that the learned Professor at Portsmouth (Dr. Inman) in himself includes all that can have [p028] possibly been taught or understood in the establishment over which he presides, and that therefore he is the representative of it in the late and present trials for the palm of excellence; but we cannot by any means assent to this: many of the students must have left his tuition seven, eight, and nine years, and must be between thirty and forty years of age; and it would be strange indeed, if during such a period, and in the prime of life and intellect, some of these, if not all, had not cultivated the science after their own bent of mind, and formed original ideas on the subject: we say, therefore, that Dr. Inman’s constructions cannot be called the production of the establishment—they are merely the effort of one man, whose attention it appears is distracted by a multiplicity of occupations, and can only, along with the vessels of Capts. Symonds, Hayes, and Sir R. Seppings, be deemed criterions of the particular views of an individual.
Mysticism and ignorance always accompany each other; and we may reckon that in proportion as the latter disappears from amongst our ship-builders, so will the absurd vagaries of the former recede, and the subject be placed at last on the true principles of philosophical induction, instead of the caprices of imagination. We look forward, therefore, to this new body of naval architects for the expulsion of all quackery from their profession, and for the exposition not only of what we really do know, but also of what we do not know about it: this is the only way to arrive at truth, which should be the sole object of all investigation; but which we are afraid has hitherto been sadly garbled and perverted wherever it has had to do with naval architecture in this country.
But we repeat that we do not see that the nation is at all likely to benefit from the science or exertions of those gentlemen so long as they are placed in situations where a superior education can have no other effect than producing disgust and chagrin in the mind of the possessor; and if the institution at Portsmouth be designed for no better purpose than that of supplying house-carpenters, joiners, and still more inferior trades, with foremen, it had better be abolished. Some would regard it, as at present used, as a gross mockery on the public [p029] at whose expense it is supported; it is certainly a cruel one of those who have been induced, by the fair and brilliant prospects held out to them of support and encouragement, to devote their lives to this branch of the public service.
But to return to the Experimental Squadron: it is with regret that we must conclude, upon a careful consideration, that, although the experiments are carried on with so much vigour and interest, they are evidently founded on imaginative views, and that there cannot exist any thing like legitimate data where so many failures and anomalous results obtain. Who can read the account of the first Experimental Squadron[11], without immediately perceiving that the constructors of the contending vessels, however sanguine each might have been of the success of his particular fancy, met with nothing but the most perplexing results? We see sometimes one and sometimes the other vessel claim the palm of excellence, and finally leaving the subject as much in the dark as ever. This is the natural consequence of the non-application of inductive philosophy to the question before us, and the most important conclusion that can be gathered from the experiment is, that we have begun at the wrong end, and that it is high time to employ analysis instead of synthesis to effect the desired objects: for in the present state of the theory of naval construction in this country, there are yet no data existing to effect with precision and confidence the synthetical composition of a ship.
We cannot refrain here from noticing the paucity of information contained in the reports hitherto made on the first Experimental Squadron. The best one[11] is but little removed from a ship’s log book, and in some respects is inferior to it: it is of such a scanty nature, that we can scarcely inform ourselves on any point, and that only in a relative degree, of the qualities of the vessels composing it: we cannot find out any mention of their absolute velocities on the different points of sailing, which is a most important omission. We are neither informed in what way the observations were conducted, whether they were made simultaneously or not: unless the former, any attempt at comparison must be very doubtful, if not entirely fallacious. Circumstances of wind and the weather may very widely alter in the [p030] course of a short time, and every endeavour at legitimate analogy be destroyed by such variation. We strongly suspect that this is one cause of perplexity; and another prolific one is the vague idea given of the strength of winds by nautical language. Nothing but the determinations of the anemometer should ever be allowed to appear in an account of such experiments. Every circumstance attendant on the quantity and trim of sail, the heeling, the rolling and pitching of the ship, position of the rudder, &c. should be accurately ascertained and tabulated; for it is next to an impossibility and a wilful waste of time to attempt to institute comparisons without pursuing a system of tabulated results, which should be kept in the same form on board each ship.
We must also express our regret that the scientific professor at Portsmouth does not appear to have ascertained the position of the centre of gravity of any of his ships, with regard to height, by the simple and easy experiment long known in principle, and described lately with geometrical rigidity in two or three publications by some of his pupils[12]. The knowledge of the position of this point would have placed him so far above his competitors, in so many important particulars, that we are surprised he should have thrown away his advantage, and descended to a level with his less scientific opponents. We are afraid that, here again, imaginative views have stepped in, and taken the sober mathematician from the only path by which excellence can be attained. We are at a loss to conceive how the stabilities of his ships can be said to be ascertained without the knowledge of the position of this point.