The Sun. — London, England, 1863-03-13 00:00:00

an improvement that they were well worth the delay. He (Mr. Lindsay) deplored the haste—to call it by no harsher name—with which the statement of Admiral Robinson had been published. Five ship-building firms alone held con tracts for foreign Governments to the amount of no less than £2,000,000 sterling ; and such charges might have led to much mischief. These five firms employed 10,000 men, on whom at least 50,000 persons were depending ; and he put it to the house whether this was a time, with the severe distress in Lancashire, to run the risk of throwing so large a body of starving workmen upon the rates. (Hear, hear.) But supposing these wooden vessels were to be built, were the dockyards in a proper state of efficiency for the con struction of these vessels? On this point he would bring forward as a witness the committee which had been ap pointed by the right hon, baronet opposite; and he must add, he believed if the right hon. baronet had remained in office their recommendations would have been carried out, and millions of expense would have been saved to the country. These might seem hard words to his noble friend; but it must be remembered that the condition on which hon. gentlemen sitting near hi m (M r . Li n d say ) h a d g i ven their support to the Government was that they would adhere to the principles of retrenchment and economy. (" Hear, hear," from the opposition.) They had not fulfilled their pledges—(hear)—and it was not they who had deserted the Government, but the noble lord and his friends who had deserted them. (Hear, hear.) He would also bring forward the evidence of the Royal. com mission which had been appointed by his noble friend; and thirdly, his noble friend himself. When the noble lord (Lord C. Paget) sat on the opposite benches on the 11th of March, 1859, he gave a very graphic account of her Majesty's dock yards he complained of the extravagant expenditure ; that the ships were exposed to tinkering amputation, and every kind of maltreatment ; he said that nothing could be effi ciently done without economy, and concluded by saying that they wanted reconstruction at the Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) Then the committee complained of the want of super intendence at the Admiralty; they said that the coat of iitr hour at her Majesty's yards was on the average £5 98. pen ton, whilst in private yards it was only £2 12s. per ton. The commission said that the department was rendered ineffi cient from the construction of the Board of Admiralty, the want of responsibility, and the absence of a system of ac curate accounts. He believed hie noble friend had made most strenuous efforts to provide the house with accurate accounts of the expenditure, and that he had very nearly completely succeeded. But what had been done to carry out the recommendations of the committee in:other respects ? The commissioners having pointed out that they found it extremely difficult to arrive at the aotoal Inc t of ebir. in the navy, called for a return from Pembroke dockyard, where no repairs were usually carried on. Setting aside a sum of £352,000 for docks, ships, and building machinery, theyfound that for a number of vessels representing together 65,435 tons, the average cost of building was £33 ss. sd. for the hulls alone, exclusive of any fittings. Now, assum ing that the cost of building vessels under 1,000 tons in size was £l5 a ton, it was not too much to suppose that A 45 a ton would be the cost for vessels exceeding 4,000 tons in size. The Comptroller of the Navy had laboured very hard to show that the building of a wooden ship in her Majesty's dockyard cost less than that of an iron vessel in private yards ; and he instanced the case of the Valiant, an iron ship of 4,032 tons, which cost £172,677. But the cost of a ship of 4,200 tons, at £45 a ton, the price at which wooden ships were built in the navy, wasnot £187,000 but £256,000. He (Mr. Lindsay) wished to know how it was that this country, whese merchants were the most eminent in the world, and whose merchandise was to be found in every port and almost every house, could not turn out ships of war so as to be in advance of the rest of the world. He thought we ought to be able to do so ; and that we could do so—(hear, hear)—and he hoped that by stopping the construction of these wooden ships we should do so. (Cheers.) Therefore, it was with the utmost confidence that he submitted the motion of which he had given notice. Lord C. PAGET—In rising immediately after the speech of my hon. friend I shall lose the opportunity of answering remarks which may be made by and by in the course of the debate, but it is so important that the house:should be made acquainted with the bearings of this question that I think it better at once to explain the views entertained by the Government on the subject. I gather from the remarks of my hon friend that he, at all events, will be no party to ar resting the progress of armour•plated ships, and, therefore, as far as he is concerned, I have little necessity for advert ing to that point further ; but, inasmuch as other hon. gen tlemen may take a different view, and may think there is no necessity for making any further progress, unless with those ships which we have in hand, I shall address a few observations to the house by way of explanation. First of all, I am not going to make a detailed comparison between the armour -plated fleets of this and other countries ; but I may state generally that, great as our exertions have been and still are, we are not in a position to abstain from further efforts. (Hear, hear.) Now, upon this point it is very im portant that the house should be aware of the opinion of eminent men in France as to the comparative naval position of the two countries, extracted from an authority which the hon. member for Rochdale will acknowledge—the Moniteur de la Flotte. F.rom that journal I have translated portions of a paper read at the Academy of Science about a fortnight ago by Admiral Paris, a great authority upon ship-building, and himself employed in large works. I shall read the con cluding part first, because it is very striking. The Admiral says — "But, whatever be the future consequence of building iron ships, it must be remarked that we are so much in ad vance of other nations, that a marked superiority exists at present on our side." (Hear, hear.) Now, I trust these words have been heard by the hon. member for Rochdale—[Mr. Cobden—" More shame for you"] (a laugh) because I saw him wince under the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Lindsay), when he said that he thought it would bo necessary that continual progress should be made in the building of armour-plated ships. Now, I can distinctly assure the house that it is absolutely necessary we should continue to build armour plated ships over and above those under construction. (Hear.) Taking large and small we have now under construe tion 21 vessels which are to bear armour plates—a smaller number than are being constructed over the water. (Hear.) Assuming that the house will not for a moment agree with ray hon, friend the member for Rochdale that it is not necessary we should make further progress, I come to the interesting point upon which my hon. friend's motion is founded—the respective merits of wooden and iron armour plated ships. Now, nothing can be more fallacious than what we hear right and left as to iron ships being imperish able because they are made of iron. Why, Sir, it is well known that in the construction of armour-plated ships there is necessarily a very large quantity of wood used, because we find in practice that no iron plates wit stand the shock of heavy guns, unless they have a cueh'on behind composed of wood. Therefore, you have at once in armour-plated ships a very destructible substance which is more liable to decay than any other part. Therefore, whether we build armour-plated ships of wood or iron, we must use a certain quantity in the one case of iron in the other of wood. But iron ships, b es ides having a large quantity of wood, which is liable to decay, have other great defects. They are extremely liable to foul, (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend says that merchant ships which go over the world are built mostly of iron, that they go their voyage, come home, and again go out, being for months without docking. But we have found that the Resistance had a marked superiority over the other ships with which she tried, and what is the reason ? She had been two months less time out of dock than the Defence, three months less than the Black Prince, and five months less than the War rior. (Hear, hear.) It was quite incorrect, therefore, to say that the Warrior had not been docked for two years. Captain Cochrane had said that when six weeks afloat she lost one knot an hour. (Hear, hear.) That was a very im portant point. It is idle for my hon. friend to tell us that because iron merchantmen can go over the world without docking men-of-war can do so too. This is an important point which my hon. friend did not bear in view. A mer chant ship goes out for a particular purpose, she takes in her cargo, and comes back upon a return voyage. But what does the navy do ? Their normal position, so to speak, is in harbour—they are to protect our c ommerce; and, instead, of being kept constantly in motion , they arestatiened at va rious foreign places, where there is necessarily great ag gregations of grass and shells and various other things. Now, hear what Admiral Paris says on this point : "There are differences of opinion as to the materials . of which armour-plated ships should be built. Th e En g lish have adopted iron, we wood. The first is adapted to very large constructions, lasts longer, but it greatly interferes with speed and steerage, owing to the immediate deposit of grass and shells, necessitating continual docking and paint ing." I only wish to show there is not only a question of a loss of !peed but of actual steerage. We have it not officially, but it has been stated in newspapers, that a conflict recently took place between the Alabama and the Hatteras, and the d cleat of the latter was attributed to the foulness of her bot tom. I do no t ' ,vouch for t h e f ac t , b u t suc h i s th e cause assigned. I have referred to Admiral Paris, and the hon. me tuber for Sunderland will admit that he is a high autho ri'y, as also M. Duprez de VOrme, whose opinion I will mention. The hon, gentleman will admit that the French have not been ay—" unsuccessful in their efforts to form a splen • did navy and have an admirableknowled ge of the principles a of naval construction . Admiral Paris shot s or Its greatest which defect is due to its weakness against m i g ht strike below the armour plating why th e vessel rolls causing probably the loss of tht , a , vesselin spite o f the nume rouswatertight compartments. This opinionth _f. Admiral Paris, I believe—indeed I know —is 1 Duprez do l' Orme, for I have the auth a o s° rity oefotre Cloonntorfolille; for saying that ho has received a letter from . that distill gnished gentleman, in • which his preference is shown to be rather for wood than iron. My h on. friend has quoted from Mr. Scott Russell on this question of iron ships as compared with wooden ships. Now, the right hon. baronet the mem bF for Droitwich presided last year at a meeting of the Institute of Naval Architects, when a paper was read by Mr. Scott Russell, in which he recommended strongly that we should get our fleets built by him and of iron. But it happened that there was also at that meeting another very cininent and distinguished shipbuilder, Mr. Ditchburn, who is well known as having produced some very remark a! le vessels, and who is as much an iron shipbuilder as Mr. Scott Russell. Mr. Ditchburn said, — In considering the strength o f s hip s , it i s r i g ht t o re member that in ships of war the bottom is made exceed- ingly strong, for in addition to the thick external planking whi , h is fitted near the keel, the spaces between the frame timbers are filled in with timber, the frames and fillings being bolted together. Such ships are therefore su., rior to any iron vessel I have ever seen with respect to str:ngth of bottom." If any hon. member will move for the return, he will find that of vessels lost the greater proportion are iron vessels. We know that iron is brittle, and cannot res st blows like wood. Let us take the case, which happened the other day, of the Defence armour-plated ship, the key of whose anchor struck against her side close to the water, and knocked out a large piece. If such an accident had hap pened at sea, it might have caused very serious inconveni ence. It is the particular characteristic of iron that although rigid it will not bear a sudden blow. lam an advocate for iron ships, and if we could get over these diffi culties and one to which I am about to advert, I would prefer to see iron arrcour-plated ships, but I believe in say ing so I am in a minority among naval officers. I can assure the house that having discussed this question with very many naval officers, the majority of them have said to me that they would prefer to command wooden plated ships rather than iron armour-plated ships. Now, I must refer to the paper that has been laid upon the table of the house, the report of the Controller of the Navy. In doing so I wish hon. members to understand that nothing was further from Admiral Robinson's intention than to commit any injustice towards the eminent shipbuilders who have been referred to. We have every reason to be generally satisfied with the treat contractors, but Admiral Robinson felt it to be his duty to point out where their work did fail, and 1 think in doing so he was only doing his duty as a public servant. (Hear, hear.) Admiral Robinson, however, has written me a letter of which I will read a portion to the house ence between packet ships and those intended for the pure ooses of war. If a merchantman that goes from London to 'bins, to the West Indies, or to the Cape (it Good Hope. ,its her b atom fouled and loses a portion of her speed, and• ehet is a material thing, the power of steerage, what is the consequence ?—a delay in her voyage. She may arrive some days or weeks later than she ought, The steerage being merely to keep her in a straight course, it does not very much matter, except she is taken in a storm or finds herself in any difficulty, whether she steers less well or perfectly. But in regard to ships of war, speed and steerage may be of the utmost possible consequence—in an action everything' may depend upon them. (Hear.) A battle may be lost trom some defect in them, and no man can tell the disas trous results to a country of the loss of a naval engagement. (Hear.) Now, it is perfectly clear that iron ships require repeated cleansing of their bottoms, and as a great part of the service of the navy is performed in distant places, where your ships. are required to remain for two or three years without coming home, an iron ship is not fit in the present condition of things for such a service. You could not send the Warrior or a ship of the same kind to the West India station, for they would have to go into dock, and when their services were wanted they would be getting their hot- - toms cleansed from the incrustations. But would your wooden ships be less effective as men-of-war than the ships of the nations which they might, have to encounter? Hon. gentlemen seem to imagine that a wooden ship coated with iron is the same as a wooden ship not so coated, A ship coated with iron is strengthened in every possible way by beams, by iron put on internally, and therefore where a wooden ship not coated with iron may be strained, that will not be the case with a wooden ship strengthened with armour. My noble friend has stated that a great number of naval officers say they should very much prefer having the command of a wooden ship armour-plated to an iron ship plated in the same way. Opinions are very much di. vided upon the matter. Well then, that being so, what do the Admiralty intend to do ? Why. in the course of this summer there will be a mode of testing by experiment the qualities of the Royal Oak, a ship built of wood, but strengthened with an iron coating, as compared with those of the Hector, a ship of the same size, but built entirely of iron, and the result of that experiment will instruct the Admiralty as to the course to be pursued with respect to the number of ships necessary to be built. But my hon. friend, instead of leaving to the Admiralty to determine, as is their proper function, what is best for the public service, calls upon the house to rush in by a hasty decision, bind up the hands of the Government, and take from them that responsibility which belongs exclusively to them. (Hear,) Tbis house, by de ciding upon a question of shipbuilding. will assume to it self a function which, with all due deference, I contend it is perfectly incompetent to perform—(hear, hear)—and if the result were to be that by yielding to perform the wishes of the house the Government were turned aw ay from that course which they are disposed to pursue, and if the time should come when we were without the number of ships which we ought to have, in order to be on equality with other Powers, it would be all very well for the Government to say, " The House of Commons are answerable." The house would reply, " You ought not to have submitted to a wrong decision of the house—you are answerable, and we shall wr- ak upon you that resentment which the nation ought properly to feel against an Executive that has done its duty." (Hear.) Well, thee, Ido entreat the house not to consent to a course which would be most unwise. There are certain functions which belong to a deliberate assembly, and others which belong to an Executive, and alth ,ugh a deliberate assent ly may usurp the function of an Execu tive, it acts unwisely in doing so. (Hear, hear.) The re sponsibility ought to rest upon the Executive, and the house ought to judge by the acts of the Government whether they properly or improperly perform their duty. (Hear.) All that we want is that our hands should be left untied, in order that we may build the best navy which from time to time may be possible. The experience of every month may lead to a considerable modification of preconceived notions, and errors hastily committed cannot be hastily repaired. (Hear.) When an hon. gentleman remarked that iron ships would last 30 or 40 years my hon. friend behind me said " Well, Heaven forbid, because long before we may find them superseded by other inventions better adapted to the service." (Hear.) There are several kinds of ships—broad sided, squeresided, and what are called sinking ships—that is ships which are to be filled with water so as to expose very little surface to the fire of an enemy, are urged by some persons but the question cf the rival merits of all these is to be solved by experiment. Only one thing is well ascertained —namely, that in power of resistance a ship with iron plating and a thick wooden side behind the iron is equal to the Warrior. Therefore, whether wooden ships plated with iron are to be regarded simply as ships for sea going purposes or for purposes of action, they are capable, on the one hand, of maintaining their position in any part of the world ju t as much as any other wooden ship is, and on the other hand, they are as well able to resist shot as an iron ship would be. Therefore, when the r'ght hon. baronet says the papers on the table show we would gain neither in time nor in money by building wooden iron-plated flips, I must beg to differ from him, because if the preparations which may be made in the dockyards with very little et pense be carried out a wooden iron-plated ship can be put together in a twelvemonth, whereas an iron ship would take two years and a half. (Hear.) No doubt the question of ex pense is not very material, but it is something, and I did net expect that from that quarter of the house (pointing below the gangway, on the Ministerial side) we should have urged upon us an arrangement which, not only in point of time, but of money, would involve a greater expendi•ure. (Hear.) Therefore I do hope and trust the house will leave to the Government that proper discretion which belongs to theut in regard to the defence of the country; that it will not pre scribe any one particular course; but that, as Governor - lat is responsible to the house for the conduct of its depart mental arrangements, it will leave them free to act upon the best information which they can obtain as to which class of ' vessels may be best sui ed to the wants of the country. Mr. HENLEY said the noble lord had placed the ques tion in rather a different light when he asked the house to leave the Government to do what they the sight best of two course.. Neither the paper ho held in his hand nor the army estimates left any freedom of choice to the Go vernment to do which of two things they thought best. (Hear, hear.) Did they stand upon that issue ? The noble lord the Secretary for the Admiralty said that time was everything, and the French were before us already ; and therefore we ought to have five more of these ships. But what progress was he making. He said that it had not yet been decided what sort of vessels we were to have; and therefore we were to keep behind the French until after the promised experiments. As for putting ships 11P in frame, so that they could be finished in twelve month9r that was very well, but would not putting them up in 'raffle take time ? (Hear.) He should, atter the speech of tho noble lord, vote for the resolution, because he felt that the arguments put forward in the document that had been circulated were altogether opposed to the result sought to be arrived at. Mr. BOUVERIE was opposed to all Government ship' building being left to private contractors, and referred to the inconvenience suffered by Government at the beginning of the Crimean war for want of small arms, and which ultimately led to their being compelled to establish a small' arra factory of their own, The house then divided— For the resolution Against Majority for the Government —B4 The house went into committee of supply pro forma. Sir G. C. LE WIS stated he would deter the army esti., mate until to-morrow. LAND INCLOSURE. Mr. BRUCE obtained leave to bring in a bill to autho rise the enclosure of certain lands, in pursuance of a repor t of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales. The bill was subsequently read a first time. ROYAL FORESTS. On the motion of the ATTORNEY. GENERAL, the select committee on Royal Forests was nominated as 0 1 ' lows : Mr. Torrens, Mr. Attorney-General, Sir John Trol lope, Mr. Henry Austin Bruce, Mr. Watlington, Viscount Enfield, Lord Lovaine, Mr. Cox, Mr. Gathorne Hardy, la' Butler, Mr. Ker Seymer, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Macdonoght Mr. Caithorpo, and Mr. Peacocks. The bowie adjourned at 20 minutes past 11 o'clock. Importing Tea without colour on the leaf pre vents the Chinese passing off inferior leaves as in the usual kinds. Horniman's Tea is uncoloured, therefore, akver!l s good alike. Sold in packets by 2,280 agents. Births. DRUMMOND.—On the 12th inst., at Hampstead, the Hon. Mrs. Maurice Drummond, of a daughter. GALLOWAY.—On the 11th inst., at The Dell, Rock F errYt Cheshire, the wife of Robert Galloway, of a son. ROTA —On the 11th inst., the wife of Dr. Roth, 16A. Old Cavendish.-street, of a son. • Marriages. BARTRUM—OSBORN.-011 the 10th inst., at Calverlei Cnutch, near Bradtord, Arthur Clement Bartrum, Esq., of Brad ord, Yorkshire, to Mary Bacon, eldest daughte r of George Osborn, of Bolton Lodge, Bradford BEAUMONT BLACKETT.--On the 10th inst., at Matfett Cnuteh, Nortnumberland, Godfrey Wentworth, Capia lo Scots Fusilier Guards, the eldest son of Captain and the Hon. Mrs. Beaumont, to Anna Maria, third daughterof Sir E. Brackett, Bart., of Matten. Deaths, BERENS._At Kevington, Kent, Richard, only child of Biondi d B. Berens. CAVE.—On th e 10th i nst., Arthur Watkins, eldest chil d of Lewis W. Cave, Esq., of Berrylands, Surbiton, barry,ter" a t-law. Eviti3 .—On the 10th inst., at King's Lynn, Elijah Eyre' aged 63. EUSTACE —On the 11th inst., at 38, Great Russell-street, 131oomsbury, soddenly, Mr. Wm. Eustace, aged 63. HARLAND.—On the 10th inst., at Sutton Hall, Yorkshi re ' William Chalice Harland, Esq., aged 60. WRANGIUM.— On the 10th inst., at The Rocks, near BElt Digby C.tyley Wrangham, Esq., one of her Majes t y Sergeants -at-Law, aged 58. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANDIIN.„ of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, No. 11 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County Middlesex.—Friaay. March 13, 1863. THE SUN, LONDON, FR . armour plate and thinner backs. But what is the question before the public now ? Here are the Americans, who have adopted the turret principle ; but they built things which the moment they went to sea went to the bottom. The Monitor, as soon as she was caught in a gale of wind, was shown to be unfit for sea. Now, we do not like ships that go to the bottom. (Laughter.) We want to build ships which shall be seaworthy. We are told that if we have turrets we cannot carry masts and rigging, as they would in terfere with the range of the guns. That and other diffi culties we are endeavouring to get over, and I trust they will be got over. Ido not wish to speak too confidently of turret ships, because they are still matters of speculation. I have confidence in them, but many officers and other great authorities have not. Then, we have Reed's plan, which is a square tower in the centre of the ship, and Mr. Reed says that by concentrating your weight in and near the centre you may have thicker armour as a coating to that tower. We are [trying his principle, and we are also building ships wholly armour-plated. Mr. Whitworth tells you that he will pierce through any armour-plating you may have, not only with shot but with shell; and if he is right, what is to become of armour-plating ? I trust these vessels will resist shell, but I mention these matters, though at the risk of wearying the house with matters of detail, for the purpose of showing that it is impossible for any Government now to undertake to give distinct specifica tions, such as would be absolutely necessary if they desired to build ships by contract. It is impossible in 1863 to give such specifications as should rule the building of iron ships for the navy of 1865. We have, however, given this subject our careful consideration, and we be lieve that we must progress gradually, and not by fits and starts, as has hitherto been the case, which only pr duce alarm in the country. The Government be lieve that the navy is in a satisfactory state with respect to the present year, and in a satisfactory state of progress for the year to come also ; but it is still absolutely necessary that we should progress in building ships. We are of opi nion that on the whole it is advisable that we should pre pare a certain number of wooden frames for armour-plated shpts. I shall be told by those interested in iron that if we build the vessels of iron we may reduce the dockyards. Nothing is more fallacious than that. I have a statement, showing the proportion which ship-building bears to other work in the dockyards, and it appears that the immense part of the business consists of repairs and in provid ing for the fitments and requirements of the fleet. In 1858 the total amount of wages paid in the dockyards was £941,490. Of this there were expended for wages on build•• ing, including conversions, £191,135, leaving for wages for see e.ae, see ter /tie great Past- Less of repairing and outfitting, £750,355. In 1859-60 the total amount of wages expended in the dockyards was £1,483,511. The wages expended on all the services I have alluded to, with the exception of building, was £1,012,143, leaving £171,468 for wages on building and conversions. In 1860-61 the total amount of dockyard wages was £1,364,372, out of which only £324,509 were expended for wages on building and conversions, leaving for wages expended on all the other services £1,039,863. I assure the house that it will be impossible to reduce the dockyard wages by under taking to build proposed ships of iron in private yards. Therefore, in that respect, I think that my hon. friend's re marks will entirely mislead the house. Taking into con sideration that we want to progress gradually, and we are not at the present moment prep-red to say what the arma ment and upper works of our ships should be, I think it a wise thing to have a certain number of frames laid out, so that if we find exertions are taking place elsewhere, we can in a moment set to work and build the ships. We could finish a ship such as I now allude to in a year, whereas to build one iron ship by contract would take two and a half years or two years at leasi. Thus we might go on gradually progressing, and if there should be a necessity for additional exertions we might put up an additional frame and get additional workmen. This in my opinion would be, on the whole, the most advisable course, and preferable to entering into contracts for iron ships. If, however, it should be the pleasure of the house that the Government should construct these ships of iron, the house must be prepared for a supplemental estimate, but I trust that the amendment of my lion, friend will not be agreed to. Lord LOVA NE could not agree with some of the re marks of the noble lord (Lord C. Paget). If the contrac tors did not perform their work properly, they should be made responsible. But, as the house could not enter into any consideration of the experiments which were tried by the Government, he did not think it would be well to take the motion out of the hands of the Government. He should therefore oppose the motion. Mr. DALGLISH said that the great companies, such as the Cunard and the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Companies, examined the vessels that were built for them, and took care that they were properly built of the best ma terials. Why could not the Government take similar care, and establish a proper test for the very best quality of mal leable iron ? He hoped the house would consider the ques tion carefully, and did not believe that the Royalidockyards could turn out ships better and quicker than private yards. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that the hon. member for Sun derland would persist in his motion. Mr. LAIRD said the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had given the very best reasons in favour of building ships of iron when be stated the great bulk of wages iu the dockyards was paid for repairs. Surely if that were so, they ought to look out for some material which would not ruin the country by entailing these excessive and continual repairs. (Cheers.) The noble lord, as a reason for not commencing iron vessels, said they could not yet tell what sort of ships would be required. He wished to know whether, when the plans were finally settled, vessels could be altered at a cheaper rate if constructed of wood than iron, and in the public instead of in private dockyards. (Hear.) The noble lord, in his excessive fondness for wood, spoke as if it was of primary importance even in an iron ship. Any one at all acquainted with the subject must know that an iron ship like the Warrior was a perfect vessel before the teak backing was introduced, and in the event of any de fensive armour of a more effectual kind than the present being discovered, the teak could be removed and the new material substituted at very little coat. In the case of a wooden ship, however, the planking would most probably be torn to pieces were such an operation attempted. The noble lord supported his allegation that iron ships were very apt to foul by referring to the Warrior, but if that were the worst instance which could be adduced it rather went against the noble lord's argument. (Hear, hear.) T hen again in the case of the fight between the Alabama and the Hat teras, of which, however, he knew nothing beyond what had appeared in the newspapers, it was the superior force of the former, and not thefouling of the latter, which decided the contest. In Admiral Robinson's report it was stated that while iron ships were more rigid and durable than wooden ones, they were more open to damage by missiles under water. He disputed that assertion. When the Great Eastern, an iron vessel, with a double bottom, lately struck on a rock at New York, she could have returned at once to this country without being repaired, had it not been for the underwriters. (Hear, hear,) Again, about 23 years ago he built an iron vessel called the Nemesis, which, on a voyage from Liverpool to Portsmouth, ran on some rocks. The water got into the fore compart ment only ; and she steamed on to Portsmouth, where she was docked and fully repaired within a week, and at the cost of only £lO. That vessel was built in the usual way, and was not inspected by the Admiralty. Her safety on the occasion referred to was due to her bulkhead being perfectly watertight • . A similar event occurred in the East Indies, where a vessel belonging to the India Com pany, after having struck and suffered considerable damage steamed to a place of security 15 miles from the scene of the accident, where she was repaired at a small expense. He had no hesitation in saying that had that vessel been made of wood it would have been lost. It was true, perhaps, that the injury done to an iron ship was usually of a more local character than in the case of a wooden ship, but then the repairs were also more local. When an iron-plate sustained any damage it could be taken out, and replaced at the cost of a few pounds, but a wooden ship could be repaired only at an enormous outlay. At Liverpool and elsewhere ship building was being carried on at present to a great extent ; but he could not hear of any large wooden ships on the stocks. (Hear, hear.) The shipowners had all made up their minds that iron ships were more serviceable and economical and would have nothing to say to wooden ones. (Hear.) The Peninsular and Oriental Company some years ago de liberately adopted iron as the material of their ships, and had seen no reason to repent the experiment, but, on the contrary every reason to adhere to the new system. The Cunard vessels, which crossed the Atlantic in all weathers, and braved the most severe and trying storms, were also of iron. (Hear.) In the event of a shell exploding below water the chances were that a wooden vessel would go down, whereas an iron one would probably be affected only in one compartment, and would continue to float. It was a great mistake to suppose that armour plates strengthened a ship ; so far from doing so they actually weakened her, because the immense weight added to her sines rendered it necessary to cut off the upper deck. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said the wooden vessels could be got ready in a very short time, but it was well known that when oven the smallest craft, such as gunboats, were constructed in great haste itwas not long before their worthlessness was discovered. (Hear, hear.) The Admiralty must take care that in their hurry they did not use insufficiently seasoned timber, which before a year or two was over would be seized with dry rot. It would also be welt to find out before more wooden ships were built whether those which had already been iron -plated would hold out against a storm at sea. That was still a matter of doubt. When the French began to reconstruct their navy they could not build iron ships. They applied to him, and he built a number for them. But the Emperor had given great encouragement to the con struction of iron vessels in public and private yards, and the result was that the French were becoming quite expert at the work. (Hear, hear.) As long as wood was used for our fleet we should have to go to other countries for a sup ply of timber ; but if we used iron we should be independent of foreign aid. The difference in cost between iron and wooden ships ought not to deter us from adopting the former material. The great point was to get ships which would last a long time without repairs—these were the cheapest in the end, There could be no doubt that the Admiralty report had produced much suspicion and distrust in regard to the ironmakers and shipbuilders who held contracts for the navy. If any of them had supplied bad iron or done im perfect work, they ought to be exposed ; but, on the other hand, if they had fulfilled their contracts honestly, they "There is an expression in the paper presented to Parlia ment relative to the materials of which armour-plated ships should be built which may be misunderstood, and if so may be annoying to the feelings of iron shipbuilders. By ' the general slovenliness of the work performed' I mean only this—that the general standard of iron shipbuilding work in the trade is so far below what the Admiralty has considered necessary, and has enforced upon its contractors, that they have complained again and again of our insisting upon work being better done than was habitual in the trade. I may add that there is no quality of work that we have exacted from our contractors, no degree of excellence in workmanship that we have required from them, that we have not our selves put in practice in our own dockyard at Chatham while building the Achilles." Upon this point I may quote from a letter which the Admi ralty have received from Messrs. Napier, the eminent ship builders, dated March 11. Those gentlemen say ;-- "The unusual test by which the quality of the iron was ascertained, and which had not previously existed in ship imitat....„ ... ......00. , ... , or ciao . 6. VM,VOIJ Cei Fiay .UU MS LO us, and this could not have been foreseen when we made our estimate. In attempting to attain the strain of 22 tons per square inch, and otherwise satisfy the inspectors, we had to pay a very large amount beyond what could ever have been expected from the previous experience we or any other ship builders were possessed of, and, moreover, had the greatest difficulty in getting, at any price, iron which w ould stand the test from the most eminent ma kers either in England or Scotland." The test required is 22 tons to the square inch, but Pro fessor Fairbairn says that the best material ought to bear a strain of 25 tons to the square inch, so that we do not exact so much as scientific awhority states we ought to require. Well, then, it is said that the Admiralty inspectors are ex remely severe. Sir, it pleases me beyond expression to hear that those gentleman do watch the interests of the public. (Hear, hear.) In former days, as we have heard, the inspectors used to be so intimate with the contractors that they always approved everything which the con tractors did ; and it is to their credit that they now do try to protect the public. (Hear.) Having thus endeavoured to make peace between the Admiralty and the shipbuilders, for whom we have the highest respect, I may now, with out troubling the House in detail with the statements of the Controller, say that in my opinion his views as to the comparative meets of wood and iron are extremely lair. He gives to iron the credit of great durability, and of much greater strength in very large structures than wood possesses. In short, he says that after a lapse of years the iron frame would have suffered next to nothing as compared with a wooden ship. I entirely go with him in this. But against those advantages he sets " the serious local weak ness of the comparatively thin plates of which the bottom of an iron ship is necessarily composed (I have given instances of that in the Defence and other vessels) ; the danger, con sequently, of getting on rocks in such ships," and " the necessity which this weakness entails of constructing double bottoms, thwartship bulkheads, water-tight compartments, sluice -doors, &c., and various othercomplicated arrangements which add both to the weight and cost of an iron ship." My hon. friend tells us that these watertight compartments, even if a hole were made , n the bottom of a ship, would keep the water entirely out. Yes, if you can get them ; because in to case in the ships supplied to the Admiralty have the watertight bulkheads been watertight. I trust that they will be supplied in the new ships ; but as yet not one of those ships has bulkheads or sluice-doors which are per fectly watertight. The fact is, that the question of wood versus iron is one which may be argued any way. On both sides the greatest possible amount of argument may be ad duced. The advocates of iron may show immense advantages over wood. On the other hand, those who are not devoted to iron, but who take a disinterested view of the matter, are bound, in stating the case to the public, to show that iron armour ships are not altogether without very serious defects. There is another matter—the relative cost—which I agree is of small importance as compared with the necessity of having the best article. It is, I think, not quite fair to bring into a debate of this kind the Admiralty management for years past in our dockyards. But, since this matter has been al luded to, I cannot quite pass over it. Now I cannot help saying that my hon. friend is misleading the house, if— when he alludes to the reports of the Dockyard Commission and the Committee presided over by Admiral Smart, he gives the house to understand that those reports have not been very carefully considered by the Admiralty, and that great improvements have not in consequence been intro duced. Take the report of the Committee. The gist of Admiral Smart's criticism was the apathy of the dockyard officers, owing to the system then existing. Well, Sir, we agreed in this criticism, and we did in the dockyards that which has had grave political consequence. (Hear.) We established a rule by which for the future no artificer should be promoted to a higher grade after the age of 45, thus giving young men from the time of their entering the service an opportunity of fitting themselves for higher posts, and if they have not so fitted themselves by the time they are 45, we hold that they are no longer fitted for promotion The consequence is that we are taking young men to super. intend the artificers, instead of men of an age when we could not expect from them anything like effective superinten dence. (Hear.) Then there is the Royal Commission. My hon. friend pays me a few compliments upon this, but if he will look at some papers which are now on the table he will see what has really been done in conformity with the re port of that Commission. Here are two papers which will give my hon. friend some little amusement if he will take \ them home with him to-morrow. One is the balance- sheet of the cost of manufactured articles in her Majesty's dock yards for 1860-1; and another is a return of expenses in curred ,in building, converting, repairing, and fitting her Majesty's ships. By referring to the first return my hon. friend will see the cost of every article. It is prepared on the double-entry system, and is, I believe, as correct an ac count as is to be found in any mercantile establishment in the kingdom. We have adopted many other recommenda tions of the Royal Commission, though some of them we could not adopt. For example, it was recommended that there should be laid on the table the expenses incurred on her Majesty's ships, and that the Estimates should be ac companied by an annual programme of shipbuilding works; and I now state to the house exactly what we are doing, and what ships we have got for our money. I mention these things to show that the report of the Royal Commission has been a text-book for the Admiralty; and I am sure that, if the house has patience, our shipbuilding accounts, which were very indifferent a few years ago, will be well framed, and will represent fairly the cost of the ships at the Royal yards. Moreover, my belief is that if you come to look at these accounts you will find that the work is not so expen sive in the Royal yards as the house supposes, and as I con fess that I used to suppose. (Hear.) I will turn now to the very important point whether we are to build of wood or of iron, and I beg th e hou s e to consider that if we build ofiron we must be p re p are d a t once t o s t a t e di s ti nc tly an d specifically what we want. Now, is any man in this coun try prepared to state what we want? (A laugh.) Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but will they tell me what they want ? What is to be the form and size of the ships which are to compose our future navy? In the present state of transition no one can say. You have got broadside ships, you have got Mr. Reed's form of construction, and the turret:ehip. Who can tell me which of these is the best ? We are making experiments, and are watching the performances of each class ; but until we have got specimens of all these ships at sea, and can fairly test them , it is im p ossible to say what we shall want three years hence; For the house must re member that if we enter into contracts for iron ships we must be prepared to state what is wanting at this future period. It has been shown that vessels under contract cannot be finished under that time, and I do not think we can expect that builders should complete them in less time; but the reason why the Government has paused before entering into fresh contracts is because we are not prepared now to state precisely what, not the bottoms, but the upper works of these ships should be, which are to be completed three years from this date. I shall perhaps be told by some shipbuilding authority, "Why not put it into our hands, and as we go on you can make such changes as you please ?" Well, we did that once, but we burnt our fingers. We had very much this sort of feeling when we ordered the Northumberland, the Agincourt, and the Minotaur, The house will remem ber that there has been great discussion whether the armour plates should be 41 inches thick with an 18 inch backing, or 5 3 / 4 inches and a 9 inch backing. This has been a moot point, and it was only yesterday that experiments were made which as far as they go are sa ti s f ac t ory , as s h ow i ng th a t we did rightin choosing the 51 inch plates with a 9 inch backing. When we ordered th ese s hi ps we l e f t ourse l ves a marg i n n "l b u er ea o ll i b m ull ot c t l th t s he w s e e m sh il i l ps t , el a l n y d o i u n w th h e at co i u s r t se o b o e f . ess of the a rmour plating and of the backing. " a t : i V c e e e r t s h t a a i i in e ' d kn , The time came, but the experiments tried were altogether insufficient, and at the end of three months we ware just as unable to come to a decision as w h en we entere d i nto th e contract. The builders then said, "W e h ave arrived at a stage whe n y ou must decide one way or the other." This is a were question whether you should have thicker , AY EVENING, MARCR 13,_ 1863. ought to be cleared from the imputation which had been hear.) As to the question rea ll y before us, I must sa y Ido l he would find himself very much in the position ot of n the I con east upon them as a body. (Hear , hear .) Th er e ha d , no no t look upon it in quite the same li g ht as some hon. g en- tractors referred to ;n thia paper, who could n h th , doubt, teen some difficulty in getting iron of the exact kind tlemen. If it be a question of sci ntific knowledge as to the work in time, and wh. , , if 1 hey could, w. ul,l do a vet which the Admiralty required, but the manufacturers were best mode of building ships Ido not think lam competent foolish thing if they did finieh it, becans•e hey would buil , now more capable of producing it. He had that day been to decide it, The Secretary of the Admiralty has told us 1 a ship which would decay. (Hear) Assuming I lim her told by one manufacturer that he was going to turn that we have the opinion of the professional adviser of the in my view, that the Controlle of the Navy is the firs. out armour-plates 12 inches thick. One great advantage of Board, who is responsible for his advice, office r and in addition he auargument thmity founded on on this matter of time, I s the n woo obl den e viss co hip has unt's iron over wood was that it required no seasoning. The aye - tells us that a large majority of the s whom timegood, and a tern of contr .cting for ships, as at present in p r actice, was a consulted prefer wood to iron. He adds, that the profes- no advantage in point of time over an iron one. (Hear.) bad one. In the case of engines the parties c on tracting s ional advisers of the French Government have expressed Then, what becomes of his next argument, that there is at were required to send in their plans, and were judged ac- the same opinion. We mac be all wrong; but lam sur- advantage of money? I hope the House of Comm ns wiil cording to those plans. That system had raised our engine prisei, I confess, to hear a gallant officer tell us that such agree with me that the weakest and worst view we could makers to the head of the world, and the adoption of a opinions are absurd and not worthy of consideration, I ad- take of the question is, that it is not one of money. (Hear, similar system in regard to ~he building of ships would pre- mire the confidence with which he and other gentlemen hear.) Do not build the cheapest vessel if it is not the best. vent the recurrence of the complaints about b a d wor kman- h a ve stated their opinions ; but the little weight they seem Whatever money you are going to extend let it be for the ship, and would insure that the contracts would be en- inclined to give to that ot others does not increase my con- best article, and let the country have the advantage of it trusted only to men who knew how to build a s hip, and fid e nce in their judgment. (Hear.) Neither am I inclined In the body of the paper I find a statement of the compa would give their attention to it The a d o ption o f suc h a t o enter into the discussion between the contractors and the rative cost of the Valiant, as compared with that of a wooden course would do more than anything e l se t o develope the C on troller of the Navy. I admit that there are words in ship. The for whichreportshows s of in navy in a position such as it had never hitherto occupied, hurt the feelings of men who are as honourable and as in- favour of the wooden ship, in favour of the worst of two (Hear, hear.) If the Admiralty were a ll owe d t o cu t ou t telligent as any other body of men, and as capable of doing things, for the house must remember that. But 1 must these frames, they would in a few months be converted into the work they undertake. I believe there are good con- observe that on looking at the schedule attached to this something else, and in two or three years but little of the tractors, but I know also there are bad contractors. But at statement I find that though the Hector and the Valiant original timber would be left. (Hear, h ear , an d a l aug h.) the commencement of our building iron ships it is not sure are ships of precisely the same tonnage (4,063 tons), with Ho looked upon this as an attempt to get in the small end prising that the Admiralty should change their plans, nor the same number of guns (3 2 ), and the same horse power of the wedge for an expenditure of £1,300,000, or £1,500,000 that contractors should find a difficulty in c a rrying them out. (800), the cost of the fernier is £162,677, while that of the ( n the plea that we are going to spend only £5OO or £6OO. But the question before us seems to m e to be what the latter is £206,300, or rather £207, 212 . Why is the most In his opinion it would be better to sell the timber and wait house will do with the resolution. I am n ot p re pared to costly iron ship selected for comparison with the wooden for a few months, until we saw what Captain Coles's ship give an opinion whether or not iron is better than wood at one in the body of the paper ? If the least costly iron ship and the Royal Oak would do. We had tested our iron ships the present moment ; much less am I prepared t o sa y w hich hoe been selected the advantage of money as well as that of —let the Government now transfer their crows into four of will be the bet ter material three years hence. When i r on time would be in favour of the iron vessel. (Hear, hear.) the wooden ships, send them into the Atlantic for 12 months was first recommended for shipbuilding I remember that the Then as to the question of durability, we have this statement and then decide whether they would build iron or wooden vessels constructed of it were supposed to be utter failures, of the Controller : ships. (Hear, hear.) and were so regarded by the French naval authorities as well "An iron ship has much greater durability in certain Mr. J. EWART, as a director of the Peninsular and as by the Admiralty in this country ; and if the opinion o f parts of the structure, indeed in all parts where no wood is in contact with the iron, than a wooden ship; and after a Oriental Company, stated t hat they had now 41 iron vessels, the house had then been taken, it would no doubt have been lapse of years the iron frame would have suffered next to of an aggregate burden of 61,700 tons, and were building decided that no iron ships should ever be built. I only nothing as compared with a wooden ship." six more of a burden of about 12.300. Those vessels had mention this to show that what may happen to-day may be I appeal to the common sense of hon. members whether been built by contract on the Tyne, the Thames, the Clyde, quite reversed a few years afterwards. (Hear.) As to the this paragraph is not conclusive against the wooden ships. and the Mersey, and had given the most complete satisfac- statement of the Controller of the Navy, lam not sure that (Hear, hear.) As to the splinter argument, Ith nk the hon. tion. The troopship Himalaya, the best transport on the it is so ridiculous as hon, gentlemen seem to suppose. The member for Wakefield has disposed of it. Next c omes the service, was built for them by Messrs. Mare,and afterwards hon. member (Sir M. Pe te ) stated that these iron ships objection founded on an iron ship getting upon a rock. My sold to the Government. Two or three of their iron would last for 50 years. Now, if all your screw wooden first answer to it is that her Majesty's ships had much better steamers, having become antiquated in form, were being ships and sailing vessels would last 50 years, lam afraid keep off rocks, but if she gets on a rock is there no danger converted into sailing vessels, and Lloyd's surveyor, in a you would not find it a very economical arrangement in to a wooden ship ? I speak in the presence of naval men report, dated August, 1862, said of one of them, " The got- these times of change and improvement. (Hear.) But the when I say I believe the danger is much greater to a wooden tom plating externally presents a most satisfactory appear- question now is what we are going to vote. This resolu ship in such a case. I are reminded of the occurrence to ante, being free from corrosion, with scarcely any defective tion does not say that we are to have a certain number of the Conqueror, which is an illustration of what I say. The rivets, or any leaking butts or seams." Th a t vessel was ships and that they are to be built of iron. The wording wooden ship has not the advantage of watertight compart built in 1847—(hear, hear)—and, as she had performed aofit is that we are not to build ships of a particular oescrip- "-"."'— (hear, hear)--bur I think no great we ght can be pee,. ewe, ea teem wiwk, ho thought that this was a good tion. De those who are going to vote tor the resolution " attached to the rock argument. (Hear.) The noble lord proof how faithfully she had been built. Another vessel, mean that they are prepared to vote for iron ships, or will the Secretary of the Admiralty has reminded us that, we are the Galleons, constructed by Messrs. Laird, was now in its words cover those who wish to prevent the construction in a transition state, and that we cannot tell what inven the Shannon in almost as perfect a state as when she was both of iron and of wooden ships. (Hear, hear.) But sup- lions we may have within two years. That is true, but it built. As additional proof of the capability of private pose you bind yourselves to the employment of iron only. is equally applicable to one side of the question as well as builders to construct iron ships he might refer to the Is that wise ? 1 should have thought hat at this time, to the other. (Hear, hear.) You are going to lay down steamers now employed in the postal service between Holy- with the great improvements and changes which are taking five men-of-war, and before you lay them down you must head and Dublin. In the case ot those vessels, a form of plat© both in artillery and in shipbuilding, it would be well decide what they are to be. The only remaining argu tender was sent to a few of the most eminent builders, to leave the executive Government as free as possible, not ment I think it necessary to touch is that founded on the merely specifying the size of the vessels, the speed desired, tying their hands either one way or the other. (Hear, alleged success of the French armour covered wooden Ia It he confess hmaaveveneht hewea l air tdrhd readagai surprise;n generallythat an d becauseas p gt a o at r , n d i trhn ini , ta privateo t f h does. t celebratedhh oe conver tor onC agreev o e n r , and the accommodation required, all tae rest being left to hear.) It is not very prudent to bind yourselves at any the contractors. How far satisfactory the result had been time, but when all these changes are taking place—when s t w r h o i was known to every one in the house. Asa large propre- you are calling upon the Government to follow the im tor in steam-packet companies, he had the greatest confi- provements of the day—is it wise to say, ~ I here is one deuce in building ships by private contract, thing which you shall not do, and another thing which estrous.iPliie.r's whatslt . ' ship La Glom, wh i ch , as yet has only been backwards and Mr. CONINGHAK took the same view, and thought you shall do, and you shall be bound by this resolu- forwards between Toulon and Algiers, was so strained iron might be even still further improved upon by steel. tion? " (Hear, hear.) Without, therefore, expressing Mr. JACKSON said the question was not whether they an opinion on the re lative value et' these two materials, I while cruising in the Mediterraneae, in consequence of the weight ot her armour on a wooden structure, as to make it a were to build iron or wooden ships, but what they were to object strongly to bind the House of Commons and the Go- grave question with the french whether they should not do with the artisans in the dockyards. The principal evil in vernment. (Hear.) One question raised by the hon. mem- give up wood and take to iron. My impression with regard the system of the Admiralty was that it was overridden by ber (Mr. Bentinck) is worth considering—namely, who to the Normandie. the Magenta, and Solferino is that they red-tapism and officialism; and it seemed that a sum of is to be responsible for the conduct of the navy —the Execu £l,4oo,ooo was to be paid, not for work done, but in the rive or the House of Commons ? My impression is that have not yet had a fair trial. I believe that none of them have had a trial which could be compared with that which shape of superannuation to non-effectives. whatever form of Admiralty you h ave, the y should be re- the Warrior had a year ago in the Bay of Biscay, where Mr. G. BENTINCK said that there was a great deal sponsible both for the building of the navy and the whole never a ship of war w, nt through a severer test, nor came more involved in the motion than met the ear. They were business of the department. Ido not think it wise, unless into harbour in a better condition after such a trial. But ostensibly discussing the comparative merits between for the strongest reasons, nor do I think it constitutional, wooden ships, in consequence of the enormous weight of wooden and iron ships, but he thought that was the least for the house to take into its own hands the government of their engines, which the house will remember must be lire important part of the question ; and it seemed to him that the country, and to interfere with the responsibility of the spective of the weight of armour-plating, are obliged to go his noble friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had dis- Executive. At present the First Lrd is responsible. But into dock to be repaired after they have been exposed to posed of it in two sentences when he told them that suppose we should be wrong in the decision we now arrive heavy weather. I cannot sit down without referring to that there was a great deal to be said on both sides, and at, who will be responsible then? (Hear, hear.) Again, the portion of the Parliamentary paper on this subject which that no one could venture to say what might be the result Admiralty think that additional expense will be occasioned throws a most harsh, and as I think a most unjust stigma of the experiments that were now going on. His by adopting this resolution. In that case it will, of course, on the shipbuilders of this country, many of whom have own opinion was, that 'the best mode of ship-building be their duty to come down for an additional vote. It they made contracts for building ships for the Royal navy. I was a mixture of wood and iron—(hear, hear) —an iron follow the decision of the house, they must ask the house to cannot understand how the Board of Admiralty can have frame and wooden planks. He was willing to give the provide the money. Who becomes rasp. nsible for the ex- allowed themselves to place upon the table of this house a fullest credit for sincerity to those who spoke on both sides penditure ? The Queen's Government do not ask for it, reflection upon men of high character and standing so se of the question, and it was only reasonable that persons and are not responsible for it. They come down in obedience vere and so utterly unmerited as I believe this to be. (Hear, should have a preference for the system which tallied best to the vote of the house, and ask for money which they be- hear.) No exceptions are made. The bon. member for with their own views and respective commercial pursuits. lieve is not wanted for the service of the country. This is Birkenhead has alluded to this subject, and what must be But the question was not whether they were to build ships an extremely inconvenient course. I thought that one of the feelings of those able and accomplished men his sons, of wood or iron, but whether they were to be independent the duties of the House ot Commons wa- to check the Go- who are an ornament to their profession, when they find of private yards, or to be solely dependent upon them. He vernment in the expenditure, but the House of Commons themselves included in the category of shipbuilders aho are did not think it would be well to have the mteres•s of the seem to me to be going beyond their proper functions when guilty of slovenly work and of using dishonest materials? navy entirely dependent upon private yards. (Hear, hear.) they press the Government to increase the expenditure and (Hear, hear.) W hat must be the feelings of that venerable The real meaning of the motion was, that the House of to tax the country, when the Government is of opinion that and accomplished man, Mr. Napier, of Glasgow, whom I alsofeel p o r f o u s d le v t o e h c l a y l I w m e r y k t r a i e n n d d , d w i s h h e e n h e h s e t finds m ate r h i i a m l s ? self accused navy out of the hands of the Governme n t. ( Cries of " No, Sir J. PAKINGTON—The noble lord has most fairly , Commons should take the details of the b us ine ss of the no such ex p enditure is re q uisite. (Hear, hear.) no.") He contended the prac tical e ffect of the motion redeemed the p led g e he g ave on a former evening, that this hear.) Another house in this town, the Thames would be to express the dissatisfaction of the House of Corn- subject should be first of all explained by a statement on the Iron Company, censtructed the Warrior ; Mr. Napier, of mons with the manner in which the Government conducted part of the Admiralty, which we have all received and read, the business of the navy, and take upon itself the duty and and then that an evening should be set apart to carry on the department Glasgow, built the Black Prince And what right has any .bolsterertaenupo of the to tbtia come ed heaigs eh —ed highest possible se t sr o isl_e this house, case—(cheers)—to rstigmatis etie te r and, an di n in st orderstanding ding t to of the executive; and he could not conceive discussion which the importance of the sulfect demands. man anything more mischievous and dangerous, or more uncon- And, whatever may be the result at which the j house may stitutional, than that the House of Commons should become arrive to -ni g ht, I ho p e that no hon. member will vote (Hear.) I deeply regret the course which has been taken the executive in matters of detail. (Hear.) except unde r a full sense that the decision he is about in this matter, and I know of nothing to justify it. In Mr. H. ROBERTSON said he should cordially support to give is one of extreme importance, both as regards dea li ng w ith pr i va t e fi rms y o u ma y be liable to treatment to the motion of his hon, friend the member for Sunderland. the future effic i e n cy of the nav y and as regards the which exception may justly be taken. But to stigmatise a B e had read the report of Admiral Robinson, and it seemed finances of this country, so far as they depend upon our whole class, and that class embracing some of the most dis to him that the very reasons he gave for building ships of prospective naval expenditure, (Hear, hear.) I quite tingtuahed men in the country, is a matter which I think wood should have induced the Government to build them agree with what has been just stated—namely, that of the the Board of Admiralty will regret, and which I have read of iron. Reference had been made to the large sums paid members of this house a great majority, and I am one of with pain and sorrow. (Hear.) Sir, this question lies in a for alterations ; but did hon. members know how that oc- the number, would not venture to pronounce a decided narrow compass. I, for one, do not desire to take any course eurred ? It arose from the imperfect instructions given to opinion upon their own part and from their own knowledge which would involve any undue interference with the Exe the contractors. There was the Warrior, for instance. A as to the comparative advantages of these two modes of eutive ; but we have to decide to night a matter of grave sum of £44,000 was paid for alterations in that vessel, or building. But, on the other hand, we are bound to give importance to the country, and if the hon , member for Sun something like 25 per cent, of the whole cost —de not owing weight to evidence — we are bound to decide upon t h e wei g ht and presses his motion to a division undoubtedly I shall to any fault of the contractor, but because of the incomplete of testimony before us ; and since I have sat in this house I find it my duty to vote with him. (Cheers.) designs furnished by the Admiralty. There was no diffi- never heart so One-Sided a debate as this. (Hear, hear.) Lord P ALM ERsTON—Sir, I concur with the right hon tufty in getting iron in this country of any quality; and The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down passed no gentleman who has just set down on two points—namely, contractors, if they had the money to pay for it, could get opinion upon the relative merits of wood and iron. The first, that this is a most important question, and next that it of as good quality as the Government. only other hon, gentleman who has spoken otherwise than 1 the house ought to confine itself to the words of the motion Mr. BE ECROFT said the Ad m i ra lty report contained a in support of the motion is the hon. member (Mr. Bentinck), of my hon. friend. Therefore I abstain 'rem entering reflection on the iron masters of this country which they and he too carefully avoided any opinion upon this point. into that field which was opened to our view by other mem did not deserve. They had spared no expense to meet the But teen I entirely dissent from the notion that we are now bers—namely, an intimation that my hon. friend ought to requirements of the Government with armour plates of the called upon to decide any other question than the one in have included in his motion the reconstruction of the .13,,ard very Lest quality. Any quantity of good material could be volved in the words of the motion. It has been said that of Admiralty. Whether that meant that the we.n ibttwill el sot tt aeehhnmas o ooadtr a tohttebih r ugee d eoiloemhnrdp o tit :hi t mndmuhaoiiannooaorddnncree :-..:., Ad obtained by paying a proper price for it. No iron ship- this is a question whether you will build in her Majesty's miraity ought, like our ships, in his opinion, to be con builder would use bad material if he knew it, as it would dockyards or in private yards. Again, the right hon. gen -1 ihes(gs attuned nAoioaedstrnrtetddl eetdailra cording admgang nodha b d:tn. mvo y ) eoscl his arol more t,iuds believe st wishingi contract, tpe a hr c i aasnt t hots , mttaiahtetenah, opinion.tdt material, hdea mnee m ( gdydAß a r e d hombl ew e oaaa ohruotoldreu. laugh.) friend,lhsidel should concur ) o aroi u n tabucht , l i uhßeed I rre utitrbho i ir t , materially injure his reputation. H e was of opinion we tlernan has asked whether the house is prepared to take uut ought to give up wooden ship buildin g , an d h e instanced of the hands of the Executive Government a matter of detail. what France was doing in iron shipbuilding in consequence Ido not refuse to attach due importance to either of these of its superiority over wood. considerations. I am not disposed to abandon her Majesty's Sir S. M. P ETO congratulated the house that this was not dockyards in o, der to build our ships in private yaree, but a party question, but one in which all parties took a deep I believe that he would not be a wise man who laid down interest. The question of wood and iron was discussed in for the future either course. (Hear, hear.) I believe that that house 14 years ago, and it was in consequence of what we shall in the management of our navy have abundant because I think that many of those who have spoken the then First Lord of the Admiralty said that the use of work for her Majesty's dockyards, and that, en the other have taken a very one-sided view of the question. (Hear, iron was delayed in the construction of our ships of war, hand, we should act most unwisely if we were to reject that hear.) It is very natural that gentlemen who by their and there had been a want of appreciation by successive assistance which we have derived, and may again derive, Governments of the value of iron over wood. The result of from the ability and the talent to be found in the private daily experience know the advantages and facilities which the motion would not be an interference with the executive, building establishments of this country. (Hear.) With the contractors have, and who are also in the habit of mould ing iron to their will, should think that everything ought as stated by the hon, member for West Norfolk (Mr. regard to the other objection of taking out of the hands of to be made of iron, It is the old story—that everything Bentinck). All they were debating was the best material the Executive Government a matter of detail, lam not dis should be of leather. (A laugh.) They say that iron is the to be used in the construction of the navy, and on the in- posed to underrate its importance, but I submit to the only mate) ial, Well, but I think the whole of this discus vitation of the Government. (Hear, hear.) There was no house that this is an objection which you may push too far. sion has turned on a misconception as to what has been desire to prescribe to the Government any particular course (Hear, hear.) The House of Commons has an important and what is intended to be the course of the Admiralty, for them to take, but to impress on them that what was done duty to discharge, and I deny that it is a question of detail. Any one who had come into this house and had heard this should be the best for the service of the country. The hon. I say it is a question of principle. (Hear, hear.) It is a most debate without knowingwhat the Admiralty has done wr.uld gentleman then entered at considerable length into the de- important question, affecting t he future we lfare of the nav y , h a ve imagined that — whereas the Admiralty has per of Admiral Robinson's report, and he concurred with and I entirely agree with the hon. baronet (Sir M. Pete), ciously persisted in building nothing but wooden ships, and him when he said that iron was the best material, and not who said that we ought to approach the subject solely with whereas it has been shown in this house by recent expe the less so from the saving it would effect in repairs. He reference to its merits, and without considering whether rience that iron is the preferable material—this house has (Sir M. Pete) wished to see the dockyards in the most the resolution comes from one party or the other, or whe a right to interpose and arrest the Admiralty in its vicious efficient state, but to make them so it was notnecessary mil- ther it affects one Board of Admiralty or another, but that lions a year should be spent in the repairs of wooden ships. we are bound to discharge our duty to the best of our judg- course, and to tell it to build no more wooden ships, but to The recent accident to the Great Eastern and the accident meat upon the evidence before us. (Hear.) The right hon. have recourse to iron. But what is the fact ? Is it true to the Great Britain in Dundrum Bay proved that iron baronet had just told us that we should give weight to the that the Admiralty have set their faces against building iror ships would stand, and their superiority to wooden ones. opinions of the officers of the Executive Government, and ships, that they have set their faces against building ships He had invited the opinion of the managers of the Penin- in particular that the opinion of the Controller of the Navy by contract, and that they have done nothing but build sular and Oriental Steam-packet Company, and of the is in favour of the course taken by the Admiralty Now wooden ships? Why, quite the contrary. Out of the 21 Royal Mail Steam-packet Company, and the evidence of is that true? I have no means of knowing Admiral . Robin. ships that are built and building 11 are of iron entirely, of which 10 were built by contractors. Therefore I say there both was most unmistakeably in favour of the use of iron son's views, except by the paper before me ; but I say that is no ground for assuming that the Admiralty are indisposed As for fouling, the wooden vessels constructed after the this paper does n o t bear out the intention of the Board of either to build iron ships or to build those iron ships by model of the Admiralty would foul just as readily as those Admiralty. If Admiral Robinson be in favour of the views means of private trade and contract. The Achilles is the which he proposed to build. He had it on the best autho- of the Admiralty, certainly this paper does not inform only one of those iron ships built in a Government dock rity, that quite recently no less than forty tons of barnacles us of that fact. On the contrary, I think it can readily be yard. The question then is, we have 11 ships actually had been removed from off the bottom of La Gloire. As for shown from it that the Admiralty have made a serious mis afloat, and five more of wood eased with iron that are con the results of splintering, they would be the same in both I take in the decision which has given rise to this discussion• strutting, making 16 in all, the French—for it is no use .is cases. With respect to what France was doing, he believed 1 What was the argument of the noble lord at the head of guising the state of the matter—(cheers) —having built, or that if France was in the position of England, if she had the Government the other night? He justified the decision being now engaged in building 27, whether the Admiralty iron as plenty and as cheap as England, France would give of the Admiralty on two grounds. He said that which has are right or wrong in proposing to add five to the 16 that up building wooden ships. France was but too happy that been repeated this evening by my noble friend the Secretary are new building, and thus giving us within one, and only we were thus neglecting all the great advantages. He was of the Admiralty—namely, that the Government are de one, of the number the French will have. [Lord C. PA GET confident that England was able to build iron - plated vessels sirens of as so on as p ossible com p leting a number of armed was understood to say that the French had 31.] We do better than any country in the world, and he regretted ex- ships, I think that question has been raised unnecessarily. not wish to overstate the question. (Cheers.) Now, sir, tremely to see the Admiralty depreciating the confidence There is no man in this house who has urged the Govern a great deal has been said with reg it'd to the rela entertained towards English ship builders throughout the meat more than I have to lose no time in building those tie merits of wooden and iron ships, and I think that world. (Hear, hear.) ships ; and the feeling of the house is in favour of such a whereas some m em bers take exception to the statement of Sir J. HAY said the best evidence in favour of iron was course. (He ar ) Then the noble viscount said there were two the reps' t put in circulation by the Admiralty themselves. reasons for foll owin g the p lan laid down by the Admiralty mY noble friend, if the Admiralty were to - morrow to issue a contract for an iron ship they would be at a loss to There certainly was not the least doubt that iron was more — the one t ime, the other money. I presume that when we know what particular thing they de - ire to have. I agree with my noble friend, and think that if this boos© , according durable. He agreed with the Admiralty that it was very have an of ficial p a p er before us proceeding from the Con desirable they should have copper - bottomed ships, but it troller o f the Nav y , we are to regard it as the production of was not impossible to apply copper to the bottom of iron the first autho rit y within his own department. What does to the debate this evening, were to order these five ships , the person to venom the order would be given would be at a ships. With regard to the question of the test of iron being he say on the question of time ? fixed at 22 tons to the square inch, that test had been re- tt loss to know what sort of ship it was intended he should commended by the committee of which he was chairman, vantage would take about as long; but if an much pressed make ; for a great variety of opinions have been stated by To build the wooden ship leisurely and to the best ad- from the fact that steel bore a test of nearly forty tons, and as the con tractors have been for the ' Hector , ' and if the hon. members who haves poken as to what is the tare b y many descriptions of iron a very much higher test than 22 • period might be of ship. My hon. friend the member for Finsbury says that shortened only yes' erday he obtained information tending to show tons. He agreed with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. before me I With this statement confess it was with no that wooden ships cased with iron and sheathed with cop- Bentinck) that the fact of such a question as this coming workmen were entirely nlthhs a. u : r. d i n m te y r r n u o p b t l eed, friendthe t little astonishment the Admiralty saythat the wooden ships might be built in member thinks that iron is likely to he super , eded by steal. before the house was an additional reason for considering PA—Whatl said wa s th a t, a ft er th e s hip s day inv the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. ln regard to that question, he was in favour of the formation of about 14 12 months. Another e n g t e e n d t l f e o m r at the, e h t, a r s e s p a a i r d a t t h i e a n t d o 1 ff t e r r o e h n . t m s e o t h t o h d a s t are rea l e i v y e r i y t. p different deartments, the heads of which should be respon- Lord C. GET we re cut out, if energy were appli e d, th ey cou ld b e b u ilt i n you had to order a ship, it would be very difficult to deter sible to a Minister of Marine, who in turn should be respon -12 months, mine, if of iron, what sort of ship would be best for the p ut ' Bible to Parliament. Sir J. VAKINGTON. —We do not want "if" and con- pose two years hence. Now, there is one objection that no Sir F. BARING—I thought the question before us was iio s i this matter. We want a plain and unconditional one denies as applied to iron ships, and that is the fouling that of iron ships or wooden ships, and not that of the con- statement. struetion of the Board of Admiralty. 1 shall not be tempted (Hear, hear.) IVe have got a plain statement, of the bottom. My noble friend has stated, on the autho that the build ing of an iron ship is solely a question of time.- rity of Capt. Cochrane, that the Warrior loses a knot every to follow the hon. and gallant member into the latter clues- The building of a wooden ship is not a question of time. six weeks she is afloat by fouling. Now, those gentlemen tion, but, lest the house should have any misapprehension as to the opinion of the committee which satlast year, I may Nothing is so dangerous as hurrying a wooden ship. What who have taken what the right hon. baronet calls a one say there was not a single person examined, who had con- my proceeds from hurrying it ? Rapid decay. When sided view of the questio.a, and who are all for iron, have First Lord of the Admiralty, who did not say that he con- my noble friend committed himself, as I think most incau- founded their argument very much on the analogy between sidered himself responsible for all that was done. (Hear, stiously, about the 12 months, if we took him at his word packet ships and men-of-war, f org etting the great differ-