504 Mr. John Scott Russell [May 16, 



was the Americans, too, who first built ships of large size, and carried 

 off our best freights in their large wave-line clippers. When going to 

 war with such a powerful nation it became necessary to take stock 

 of our fighting material. The Government did take stock of your 

 fleet ; and the extent of your navy, fit for a naval battle, at the begin- 

 ning of the present year — as announced in a powerful leader in the 

 * Times' — was one ship of the line. At the present moment we have 

 two ships of the line fit for service, the ' Warrior ' and the ' Black 

 Prince,' and no more. This serious point is no longer a matter of 

 speculation. It is now universally accepted as a fact, — and accepted 

 by us on a very small naval engagement in American waters, the con- 

 test of the ' Merrimac ' and ' Monitor,' — that an iron vessel of war is 

 better than a wooden, one; while the battle of the * Merrimac' with 

 the * Congress ' and * Cumberland ' has settled the point in dispute 

 eight or nine months ago, viz. that a wooden vessel could not sustain the 

 attack of a ship of war in iron armour. Sir John Hay, the chairman 

 of the naval commission, is quoted in an excellent article in the 'Quar- 

 terly Review,* as using this expression, — " The man who goes into action 

 in a wooden vessel is a fool, and the man who sends him there is a 

 villain." 



Let us now inquire how this revolution has come about. How is it 

 that our brave sailors ought no longer to face our enemies from behind 

 our wooden walls ? This revolution has been chiefly brought about by 

 the introduction in artillery of horizontal shell-firing. A certain 

 General Paixhans, a Frenchman, contributed more than any one else 

 to this result. He made cannon of eight to ten inches bore, by which 

 explosive shells — which previously had been fired up in the air and 

 had to come down again upon their object — could then be fired straight 

 at the mark, especially at a wooden ship, which was as good a target as 

 an enemy could possibly desire. This horizontal firing was for a long 

 time a favourite idea with artillerists ; but they had very little oppor- 

 tunity of trying it in practical war. Sir Howard Douglas, speaking of 

 its effects, says, '* a shell exploding between decks acts in every di- 

 rection ; under the deck it would blow up all above it ; on deck it 

 would make a prodigious breach below it, at the same time that it 

 would act laterally." The shell which accidentally exploded in the 

 * Medea,' on the lower deck, killed the bombardier and several of the 

 crew, knocked down all the bulkheads, and threw the whole squadron 

 into consternation ; and the like effect was to be expected from an 

 enemy's shell lodged before its explosion had taken place. The first 

 experiment on a large scale in actual war was at the commencement of 

 the Russian war. The Russian fleet, sneaking about the Black Sea, 

 put into Sinope, and in a very short space of one morning sank and 

 l9urnt the Turkish squadron. This battle was the entire effect of hori- 

 zontal shell-firing. The true nature of this horizontal fire has had 

 another illustration. You were all astonished, and wanted to know 

 why Sir Charles Napier did not take Cronstadt, and that our other 

 fleet did not take Sebastopol. It was well known to professional men 



