The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-02 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1863.

There was a rather sharp discussion on the Navy
RFAimates on Thursday evening, which must result
b.l some public good, if it did not meet all the re-
qoirements of hon. gentlemen most conversant with
matters of shipping. The heavy amounts demanded
for wages and repairs excited much, and we think
very deserved, comment from both sides of the
house, for what concerns the Navy belongs
to the independence of the nation, and not to the
especial benefit of either party—no matter which
happens to be in office. The great contest was between
iron and wood for men-of-war now building or about
to be built. Our experience is as yet but in its in-
fancy as to the working of iron. Its hardness
is allowed, and its efficiency placed beyond doubt as
to durability, but as to its warlike applicability we
are as yet completely at sea. We have had no
proof how far our present ideas or expectations may
be realised. So that until we test its presumed
const:uctiveness by actual experience, much of our
prophetic assertions must be taken for what they
are, worth. So far as we have yet had a fair trial, I
lhatters look well on the whole, but even then we
'Red constant changes and alterations suggested,
andmany of them are deemed indispensable. Indeed,
the theory very seldom results in being established •
satisfactorily in practice. How could it be other-
wise ? We are embarked in a new undertaking
altogether, and fancy that our experience
in the old must be a proper guide in
the new. And so far it ought, but the mistake con-
sists in presuming overmuch. Renee the frequent
mistakes that occur at every step. Argument has
little weight against official authority which too
often presumes on very insufficient knowlege, and
frequently dictates from the very arrogance
of
power much against the public interest.
As iron engrosses public attention at present
almost to the exclusion of anything else in naval
affairs, the debate became more exciting than ever
as to the proposed construction of five moreships of
Wood similar to the Royal Oak and other vessels of
her
class. Objection was taken that as iron was
now allowed to be the best material it was next to
useless building more vessels of wood which was so
liable to decay, whereas iron would last fifty years
at least. The ministerial answer to this was
time and cost. As we had now more wood in stock
than ever, it was considered cheaper to use up that
material than to pay for iron, seeing that the 'wood

was already paid for. And the more so that
economy was pressed on the Government to such an
extent that they had reduced the Estimates more
than a million from those of last year. Besides,
time was an essential argument in the matter. They
could construct the five frames of wood in far less
time than those of iron, and at far less cost.
Indeed, it was considered very expedient to have
the ships completed with the least possible delay.
This was admitted, but still—there was nothing
like leather in the patriotic mind—and so iron, and
nothing but iron would be thought of. In this
dilemma Lord PALMERSTON undertook to sus=
pend the building of the wooden frames
until an estimate was furnished of the comparative
time and cost of wooden frames covered with
armour-plates, and iron frames backed with wood
and covered with armour, which was undoubtedly
the best, so far as our present experience went.
But iron ships would take two years and a half to
build, and then there was a great difficulty in keep-
ing their bottoms from becoming foul. Again, it
was considered that old ships covered with armour
would not be so good as ships newly framed out of
timber for the purpose, because the latter would be
constructed on a different principle, and would not
contain unsound places. This reasoning seemed to
convince the house so far, and the vote was allowed
to pass for armour-plating those ships now com-
pleted and ready for their armour, his lordship
pledging the Government that the construction
of the five wooden frames should be suspended until
the comparative estimates were furnished which
would be in about a fortnight hence.
Now, we humbly think that as time presses, and
as Lord PALMERSTON said they were in a hurry for
more ships, there can be no valid objection to build
those five ships of wood, seeing that they could be
constructed in less than a year, one at each of our
great building yards—say Deptford, Woolwich,
Chatham, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke
—making up half a dozen, which would employ
the workmen and use up the timber, rather than let
it be damaged by time. If those ships now con-
structed of wood, and ready for their armour-plat-
ing, are good for warlike purposes, where is the objec-
tion to a few more, in order to complete the comple-
ment necessary to place our Navy on aproper footing?
And the more so, that as the number of ships
wholly to be constructed of iron will take a long
time, it is but right that we should be in a good
condition with the best we can get in the shortest
time possible. Nobody can tell what emergency
may suddenly arise, and we ought to be prepared
for all contingencies.

As oar system of iron plating is at present but
experimental, why should the thickness be limited
to 41 inches, when it has been proved that shot can
be sent though six or seven inches at 200 yards, or
even at a further distance? Suppose that an ex-
periment of some three inches thick were tried on
the new ships, and to limit the tonnage, to 3,000
or even to 2,000 tons, instead of larger, as in-
dicated by Lord CLARENCE PAGET, for the diffe-
rence in weight would give two or perhaps three
miles more in speed, and speed is as great an
essential as power. Besides our ships are not to
be always fighting pitched battles or thundering
at fortifications, and it is absurd to be encumbering
a vessel with heavy armour constantly, which may
only be required once in a war to do battle on a
grand scale. The days of the Nile and of Tra-
falgar will never be experienced by fleets
manoeuvring as of old—such as trying to get
the weather gage and breaking the line—these
must now give place to fighting on a new
principle—such as at close quarters, or boarding
when opportunity offers. So we think that until
experience assures us of the best mode of equip
ping a man-of-war, we shall not be far wrong in
trying what a thinner coating of:iron may effect.
Let us try what a good ship in light armour can
do—she will cost far less, and may prove in the
main more efficient for the purpose. It is well
worth the trial, for be it remembered that a thick-
ness of only one inch of iron will glance off a shot
striking the side of a vessel at a slight angle, while
three inches will resist it almost at point blank.
Besides, taking the motion of the ship into account
with the sweeping swell or undulating sea, the
chance of damage by shot will be considerably re-
duced. Thus lightly armed ships will be like so
1
much cavalry, ever on the alert, and ready for mis-
chief at any moment.

To steer a middle course seems to be incompatible
with the prejudiced and one-sided views entertained
by many otherwise intelligent individuals. They
are
" All in extreme and nought in the degree."

Thus towards the end of the eighteenth century a
British Minister, rather than vouchsafe their just
demands to our North American colonies, involved
the country in a bloody, unpopular, and disastrous
war, when fair treatment and moderation would have
secured the affection and support of a loyal colony.
Such a mistake could not be perpetrated in the pre-
sent advanced state of constitutional government ;
but if such men as Professor GOLDWIN SMITH
had any weight with others than the Man-
chester sahool (whose influence on public opinion,
we are happy to say for the credit of the nation, is
fast waning) serious damage might be done to our
mercantile prosperity. As it is, it matters little
what a few fanatics may preach, and a few
deluded dupes believe, the common sense and pride
of the great bulk of Englishmen pass it by with
pity rather than anger. Because it has been deemed
expedient to take into consideration the demand
of the desire of the people of the lonian Isles to
be reunited to the kingdom of Greece, up start
men hardy enough to demand on the plea of eco-
nomy that England shall relinquish all her colo-
nial possessions. In the United Service Magazine
of this month there is an excellent article on our
colonial empire, in -which the subject is fully
I argued, and the absurdity of the project fully
exposed. It shows that the dependencies of the
British Empire must be divided into two classes—
viz., those which are in a strict sense colonies, and
which require protection from the Home Govern-
ment, and which in return only offer a home to the
emigrant and supply the home market with colonial
produce; and those which are held as naval sta-
tions, convict depots, and such dependencies
as are maintained chiefly for objects of Impe-
rial policy. In considering, therefore, the expense
of our colonies, which causes so much concern
to Messrs. BRIGHT and COEDEN and the Professor,
it must be borne in mind that a considerable portion
of the expense incurred by this country in main-
taining troops in the colonies and in fortifying har-
bours is required for the convenience of our navy
and to protect our commerce. Under this head may
be classed Gibraltar, Malta, Hong Kong, St.
Helena,
Bermuda, Falkland Islands, Labuan,
and the
West African settlements at Sierra
Leone, Gambia, and the gold coasts ; while
Canada, British Columbia, the Australian
Colonies, New Zealand, the Cape of Good Hope,
Natal, British Kaffraria, Jamaica, Honduras, Bar-
badoes, B:c., are simply commercial stations which
in time may drop off from the parent tree, or rather
like young birds who, when they feel their strength,
leave their mother's nest and maintain themselves.
Let any one glance at a map of the world