Page images
PDF

sailer and sea-boat, although the highest expectations are justly entertained of them, cannot at present be stated.

* The hired vessels appear to have been all discharged.

NOTES TO ABSTRACT, No. 24.

* The Howe and St.-Vincent ; of a similar construction to the Nelson. The first, of 261934 tons, began building at Chatham in June, 1808, and was launched March 28, 1815; the second, of 261234 tons, began building at Plymouth in May, 1810, and was launched March 11, 1815. For the principal dimensions of these ships, and some account of their masts and yards, see the preceding page.

* One of these was the Isis, first built as a quarterdecked 50, of 1190 tons, draught-measurement, from the reduced lines of the late danish 80-gun ship Christian VII. ; as were also the Salisbury, the single ship, of 1199 tons, in the first “Built” column of class T in No. 23 Abstract, and the Romney, the single ship, of 1227 tons, in the same column and class of the present abstract. After the Isis had been constructed, it was thought advisable to cut her in two, and add an additional port and space to her length; and also, to take away her poop, forecastle, and quarterdeck, or at least as much of the latter as reached from forward to about a beam afore the mizenmast. This made the Isis a flush two-decker, with a short quarterdeck, or large roundhouse, merely intended as a roof to the captain's apartments, and increased her measurement to 1321 tons. The number of guns she was to mount, in her old and in her, new state, was the same, 58; but the alteration in her construction gave the Isis nearly a double superiority in force, as the following statement will show:

Quarterdecked. Flush.
Guns. Pdrs. Guns. PdrS.

First deck. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 long 24 28 long 24
Second deck. . . . . . . . . . 24 22 12 2 > y 24
Quarterdeck. . . . . . . . . . 2 >> 6 28 carrs. 42
Forecastle. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 carrS. 24

58 58 13roadside metal in lbs. . , 560 948 Men and boys . . . . . . . . 350 * 450

According to this, the Isis gained two additional ports of a side on her first, and three on her second deck, instead of one on each, as had previously been stated. The fact is, her foremost or bowport (meant to be vacant) on the first deck was considered to be

sufficiently aft to admit a standing gun, and a fresh chase-port was cut through farther forward. This gave the ship 14 guns of a side on that deck. With respect to her second deck, the substitution of carronades for long guns caused the ports to be altered, and admitted them to be nearer together; which at once gave the required number. The second of the two ships in the “Built” column of this class was the Java, of 1458 tons, constructed from a draught prepared by the surveyors of the navy, and made a trifle shorter and narrower than the Leander and Newcastle, but established with precisely the same force in guns and men. The principal dimensions of the Java were,

ft. in. Length of lower deck. . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - , 171 : 11% Breadth extreme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 : 6 Depth in hold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , 14 : 3

Burden in tons 1458.

NOTES TO ABSTRACT, No. 25.

* Whatever remarks may have suggested themselves upon the eligibility of this plan of reform in a national point of view, will be found in their proper place in the body of the work. Our present business is with the details of the system, particularly as they affect that arrangement or classification of the ships, which is the groundwork of these abstracts. How to effect the change from one plan of rating to the other, without disorganizing the particular abstract, into which the new classification, from the date of its commencement, naturally fell, was long a subject of difficulty. At length, I decided to arrange the old and new classes in the manner adopted in the abstract before us, and to remove the ships to their new stations by the pair of converted columns; a method that, if not quite so intelligible as could be wished, possesses the merit of not disturbing, in the slightest degree, the arithmetical connection of the figures. Class A is the same in each rating. B receives the San-Josef, and parts with the building ships, London and Princess-Charlotte. C takes the latter, along with the Ocean, and gives up the San-Josef. D merely parts with the building ship Trafalgar. Old E is extinct. Old F, or new E, takes the last-named ship, and parts with the Ocean, and becomes exalted from the second to the first rate. Old G is extinct. Old H, or new F, receives, along with promotion, one ship, the Prince, from the last class but one (old a and new X) of the abstract. Old K divides into new G and H, comprising the whole of the second rate; and old L and M distribute themselves into the first five classes of the third rate, I, K, L, M, and N. Old G is new P; and old P, by transferring its six individuals to the hospital and receiving ship class, bedcmes extinct. It should here be remarked, that the official register of the new rating, as did that of the old, takes no note of the calibers of the guns, or of the size of the ships: hence, the seven new classes from I to P inclusive form but three in the admiralty list. The explanation, just given, of the process of removing the line classes may suffice, without investigating the remaining classes, further than to point out where, by the new arrangement, a class is raised above the heads of any other class or classes. Q, the first new under-line class, is an instance of this, having formerly rated three classes lower. The strict numerical gun-force is here, indeed, a little defective; as the ships of the next, or R class, carrying heavier metal and being, as well as larger, a full third stronger in frame, ought to take precedence of the ships of Q. The comparison made, in a former note, between the Isis in her intended, and the same ship in her actual state of construction, will best explain, why a flush ship, of any given number of guns, ought to be classed above, and not with, a quarterdecked ship of the same number of guns. Thus, R and S 58s, in the new rating, rank above T 58; that is, they do so in the abstract before us. But, in the official register, where no such distinction is acknowledged, the ships are all huddled together in one class; even although the ships of T are established with a less complement, by 100 men, than those of R or S. It is also worthy of remark, that, as the quarterdecked ships, now that they have the whole of their guns enumerated, rank much higher than formerly ; so, except in the case (Q) cited in the last paragraph, and in any other (old and new R for instance) wherein a pair of bow-chasers may have been omitted, the flush ships, mounting no additional guns, undergo no change in their classification. Thus, M and N, from being close neighbours, separate, the one into Z, the other into D, with three classes intervening. In the old rating there are 50, and in the new but 42, cruising classes. According to the official register, however, there should be but 36 of the latter; the two classes distinguished by caliber, (K and M,) the two by size, (O and P,) and the three by decks, (S, T, and E,) not finding places in it, while a 34-gun class, of one individual, is added. The reason for excluding the latter from the abstract will appear in a note to class Z, and that for admitting the whole of the former has already been stated. It should be mentioned that, when the new regulation was first adopted, two additional classes, an 82 and a 38, made their appearance in the list, and several of the ships in the other classes were differently arranged. But, shortly afterwards, the 82 was incorporated with the 80, and the 38 with the 42; and the other ships became, with the exceptions hereafter to be noticed, classed as they appear in this abstract. But, besides the classes arranged under the head of “New Rating,” the official list still contained a set of classes of the “Old Rating,” such as the 98, the 64, the 50, the 38, the 36, the 32, and some others. The alleged reason for this was, that the ships composing those classes, being laid up for permanent “ harbourservice,” had no armament belonging to them. If entitled to no armament, why were they designated as 98,64, 50 gun-ships, &c.? None of the ships in the new rating carry any guns until they are fitted for sea; and yet all alike bear a designation significant, not of their “ordinary,” but of their commissioned force. The term is meant as descriptive of a class, composed of non-effective, as well as effective ships: why, then, not include the harbour-service ships among the former; or else, class them together as “harbour-service ships,” without any reference to their original rank in the navy Having thus, in illustration of this rather complex abstract, entered, at a tolerable length, into the minutiae of the plan upon which the new classification of the british navy is conducted, I shall proceed to point out and explain two or three of the more important of those few cases in which I have been induced, chiefly for consistency sake, to remove ships from one class to another, without the authority of the official list.

* Until the new system, the San-Josef mounted, on every deck, the same number of guns as the Ville-de-Paris. It appears, however, that the former ship is to carry 30, instead of 32, guns upon the third deck. Considering this either as a mistake in the register, or as an alteration not likely to be enforced when the ship is again, if she ever should be, fitted for sea, especially as the SanJosef is still allowed her 850 men, (50 more than a 110-gun ship's complement,) I have classed her as a 1 12-gun ship. The new plan of substituting Congreve's 24-pounders for the guns on the third deck, by equalizing the calibers in the two ships, renders nugatory the distinction between the classes of old B and C, and occasions the Ville-de-Paris and San-Josef to approximate more closely than ever in their armament.

* The Impregnable registers as a 104; and yet the Trafalgar, the building ship associated with her, is constructing from the former's draught, sqmewhat enlarged it is true, but chiefly in breadth, to increase her stability. Of the two 106-gun ships in the official list, the second is the Royal-Sovereign, of 2175 tons, a ship armed precisely as the 104s, except in being ordered two additional carronades for her quarterdeck; an alteration, in a threedecker, too insignificant and precarious to warrant the sacrifice of consistency. This consideration has induced me to substitute the Impregnable for the Royal-Sovereign; and the latter accordingly remains with the 104s.

* The probability that the new plan of arming the third decks of three-deckers with Congreve's 24-pounders, instead of long 12 or 18 pounders, will extend to these ships, if any of them should hereafter be required, or be found serviceable enough, to go to sea, is the reason that I have abandoned the former distinction between 18 and 12 pounder ships, and classed them, as in the official list, together.

* One of these ships, the Endymion, officially ranks as a 48. It is true that she mounts one gun of a side on the main deck less than the other five ships; but the latter were built from the same draught, and merely differ in being pierced for an additional port on the main deck. See p. 212. As the Endymion is old and nearly worn out, and her five class-mates, being built of soft wood, are not likely to survive her, I have chosen to retain the former with them, rather than remove her to a class, of which she would be the only individual. The official list contains a sixth 50-gun frigate, the Acasta; but, as she carries 18-pounders on the main deck, and is much smaller, I have ventured to assign her another place : moreover, she is an old ship, and cannot last many years longer. • - -

* These five ships are the Acasta, Cambrian, Lavinia, Révolutionnaire, and Forte. The first is the ship referred to in the latter part of the last note; and the two next ships are officially classed as 48s: the two last-named, therefore, are the only cruisers of this class requiring to have their pretensions discussed. The Révolutionnaire, it is believed, usually mounted 18 carronades, besides two long guns, on her quarterdeck and forecastle, making 48 guns in all, and, being of 1148 tons, was well able to carry them; but she now officially classes as a 46. The Forte, measuring 1155 tons, was built, plank for plank, from the draught of the Révolutionnaire, and consequently possessed the same capacities, Most unaccountably, however, (unless it be considered as a peaceestablishment,) the Forte has been assigned but 14 carronades, and, on that account, though manned with a full complement of a 46, descends to a 44. Considering that a war would instantly restore the Forte to her proper rank by the side of her prototype, I have ventured so to place her.

# The Seringapatam and Tigris, building from the draught of the late french frigate Présidente, afterwards named Piémontaise. The two former, the first of 1152, the second of 1162 (occasioned by a slight increase in her length from being constructed with a circular stern) tons, are registered as 46s; and, yet in January 1814, the Présidente appears to have mounted, along with her 28 guns upon the main deck, twenty 32-pounder carronades and two nines upon the quarterdeck and forecastle, total 50 guns.

In fact, the Présidente could have mounted (she was broken up in 1815) 80 guns on her main deck; and so can with ease (they being pierced for 32) the two ships building from her. The official register classes as 48s the Loire and Sibylle. It is true that these ships, obtaining two additional carronades each, did mount 48 guns; and so did the Amelia, Africaine, and Madagascar. The

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »