Our small class of 74-gun ships lately converted into frigates carrying fifty 32-pounder guns, we are fearful can only produce disappointment if ever brought against the American frigates (not by conversion, but by construction), which carry sixty-two guns of the same calibre, and are 180 feet long on the gun deck.
We must not forget also that our active neighbours the French have now adopted a most formidable description of [p036] frigates, with curvilinear sterns[20], and many other important improvements. They mount 60 guns and carronades—viz. 24-pounders on the gun deck, and 36-pounder carronades on the flush deck.—The former calibre is equivalent very nearly to 26, and the latter to 39 lbs. avoirdupois.
When we reflect on these circumstances, we cannot but feel surprised that so many frigates of inferior force and dimensions should be building in our dockyards. In time of emergency they will only bring on us a repetition of former disasters and deficiency. We contend that, instead of building ships of only equal force to those of our rivals, and thus waiting for the developement of their designs before we can venture on a single step, we should build beyond them in every respect. It must and ought to be recollected, that peace in these matters produces a contest of intellect, and those will have the advantage in it who attack instead of standing on the defensive. We ought to lead the way, and to be at the head of the maritime world, not in number alone, but also in the individual force and qualities of our ships.
Having expatiated on the advantages of an increased ratio of length to breadth in relation to the hull of a ship, we will just glance at some of the principal effects it would have upon the masting and sails; and here again we conceive that Professor Inman has, in common with many others, relinquished the many good effects resulting from it, for the inadequate one, of being able to carry a somewhat greater quantity of sail, which must necessarily be lofty, and which, (setting aside this detracting circumstance,) as the velocity of a ship varies only as a fractional power of the surface of canvas spread, cannot produce the degree of fast sailing to be wished for, but at an immense and impracticable quantity of sail[21].
A greater proof of the inadequacy of the present system of [p037] lofty sail cannot be cited than the fact of its not procuring, under the most favourable circumstances, a rate of sailing rarely exceeding one-fourth the velocity of the wind.
As the number of masts should be so regulated as to create facility in managing the canvas, which is well known to be at present hardly manageable in a gale of wind, on board large ships, from the enormous size of each individual course and topsail, we should not hesitate, therefore, to have four vertical masts, as recommended by Bouguer, instead of three, in ships built in accordance with the principles we have been discussing. This would, cæteris paribus, require shorter masting and smaller yards, and the sails being much less, individually, would be more easily managed and not so liable to accidents.
From what has been said, and the actual experiments now pending, it is apparent that the theoretic construction of ships is at a very low ebb in this country; yet a fine opportunity now presents itself, if we choose to avail ourselves of it, for rescuing the nation from this generally acknowledged odium. Let a proper use be made of the corps of Naval Architects we have, somehow or other, at last got, and let their exertions, under a degree of encouragement equal to that bestowed on the old ship-builders in vain for so long a period, be directed towards the improvement of their art. If they fail, they cannot claim the excuse of having their endeavours repressed; if they succeed, as no doubt they will, in advancing their profession to something beyond mere carpentry, we shall be enabled to bid adieu to the old and ruinous method of blundering, under the reign of which nothing but disappointment can ever be reasonably expected.
We have seen and do still see the immense advantages derived by our country from the encouragement of those branches of science connected with its manufactures and agriculture; and if we wish to keep our present superiority, we must follow up vigorously this principle in all its universality. To the cavils of ignorance and bigotry against such a mode of proceeding we would answer, in the words of one of the most enlightened members of the present administration, “This country cannot stand still, whilst others are advancing in science, in [p038] industry, in every thing which contributes to increase the power of empires, and to multiply the means of comfort and enjoyment to civilized man.”[22]
It is to be hoped, therefore, that His Royal Highness the Lord High Admiral will extend to this most important national institution, the School of Naval Architecture, the same vigilant and scrutinizing eye that every other branch of our naval system is at this moment experiencing from him, and that he will extend to it that fair play and encouragement which has hitherto been denied to it. As a seaman, he can fully appreciate and understand how much the bad qualities of a ship may neutralize the best exertions of the most experienced and skilful sailor; and, on the contrary, what a degree of confidence may be insured in naval operations with excellent ships. We feel persuaded, therefore, that he will not allow others to think for him in a matter of so much national importance, and thus allow private ends to interpose to the disadvantage of public views; but that he will investigate and judge for himself. We would humbly suggest to His Royal Highness to inquire into the individual acquirements and productions, both of a theoretical and practical nature, of those who have been educated in this establishment, and he would soon be able to decide whether they be fitting or not for the important task of constructing our ships, and for the confidence and protection which we think we have shown has hitherto been ill-advisedly withheld from them. Such a line of conduct would very soon carry our naval architecture to a pitch of excellence worthy of imitation, and instead of being indebted to foreigners for models, we should be able, with just pride, to point to the productions of British science and intellect in this noble art.
[7] By referring to Lloyd’s List, it will appear, upon a moderate average, that three English merchant vessels are lost every two days!