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

lying in harbour, and the ships of the navy, in-
stead of being constantly in motion, were sent off
to foreign siations to protect our commerce,
and there they 19y in harbour where there was
an aggregation of grass and shells. Speaking of
iron ships, the French admiral, whom he had
befere quoted, said their greatest deft ct arose from
their weakness against shot and shell which
might strike below the armour plates when the ves-
sel rolled, causing, probably, the loss of the vessel.
The noble lord then said that Admiral ROBINSON,
the Controller of the Navy, had no intention to
cast blame on the contractors to the Admiralty, but
had only thought it his duty to point out where
they had failed in certain parts of their works.
Then, as to iror, the Admiralty were satisfied
with 22 tons to the square inch for strength,
whereas 25 tons was required for the best. He
then came to the question, were they to plate
with wood or iron. If they were to plate with
iron they must be prep red to state distinctly
and specifically what it was they wanted.
Was any man in this country prepared to
say what we wanted ? (Laughter.) Hon. gentle-
men might laugh, but could they tell what they
wanted ? It was impossible ; the navy was in a
state of transition. They had now got the broad-
side ships, the ships on Mr. Reed's construction, and
the turret ships. Who could tell which were the best
of these ships ? It was impossible to say what might
be required three years hence; and if they were
to construct iron ships they could not be com-
pleted in less time than two years and a half.
Would any one be bold enough to say what would
be the armour plates which would be required two
years and a half hence ? That was the practical
difficulty in entering into fresh contracts. He
might be told by certain contractors, " You can
put the ships into our hands and make any changes
you please." They had already done so, and had
barnt their fingers. They had done so with regard
to the Northumberland, the Agincourt, and Mino-
taur. At that time the Admiralty had nothing
to guide them as to the thickness of the plate re-
quired, whether they should be 4 inches or 51.
They chose the sf, but it was not until yesterday
that they had been enabled to test that they were
right in that decision; but it was impossible to say
what would be the kind of armour or ship required
three years from this time." The noble lord
concluded hoping the House would leave the
matter in the hands of the Government.
Mr. LAIRD supported Mr. LINDSAY in favour of
iron ships, while Mr. BENTINCK supported the
Government, on the ground that no living man
could say what would be the result of the various
experiments now taking place. Sir M. PETo was
decidedly in favour of iron, as was also Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON. Sir JOHN HAY also was in favour of
iron, and recommended the reconstruction of
the Board of Admiralty. Hs thought the appoint-
ments there should no longer be of a political
character, in which we entirely agree. Lord
PALMERSTON reviewed the various opinions
offered, but would not enter on the question as to
the reconstruction of the Board of Admiralty,
whether it should be of iron for its rigidity, or of
wood for its pliability. Those who were for iron
reminded him of the old story that there was
nothing like leather--and, eventually, the resolu-
tion was negatived by a majority of 164 to 81.

The Bill for Security from Violence came before
the house on Wednesday, and gave rise to some
discussion. Sir G. GREY, as usual, this session spoke
against the bill, and found himself in the minority.
So large a majority as 63 decided in favour of the
bill, and rejected the amendment for that day six
months. This is highly satisfactory, for
some preventive measure is highly necessary
as regards the ruffians whom it concerns. It
is really surprising how men of intelli-
gence can stand up in Parliament and defend such
lawless characters as those who stalked about our
streets so lately, and rendered a walk in the
most populous city in the world about as safe as a
journey through the wilderness. Mr. HADFIELD
proposed as an amendment that the bill be read
a second time that day six months. He gave as a
reason for his objection that "corporal punishment
would brutalise mankind." Really one could
almost fancy the hon. member intended a joke upon
a serious subject. How in the name of common
sense can any mode of punishment still further
brutalise a man who is capable of stopping
an unoffending passenger in the steeet
and inflicting injuries that threaten life, and it
Inot to that extent, at least that cause great in-
convenience, that may last while life endures.
This is the great mistake nowadays. Convicts are
considered as sacred from all annoyance; they are
to bear a charmed existence, and no one is to do
them ill. They are to have the best of food, and
first-rate medical attendance. If they suffer in
health means aro at once devised to rectify the
error committed. There are many who will agree
with Mr. HADFIELD, but those who take a right
view of the question will rejoice that ho was
defeated. Mr. ADDERLEY spoke to the point with
great decision, energy, and spirit. He said that
" It was said that juries would not convict if flog-
ging was to be the punishment. He thought the
feeling of the public was entirely misapprehended.
He believed the public were prepared to see the
punishment of death inflicted on garotters for the
second ( ffence. The right hon. gentleman
opposite said the health or age of garotters
might not be always such as allow the punish-
ment of flogging being inflicted. But he was of
opinion that the man who was in health enough to

spring from his lair to commit an act of violence

was prima facie healthy enough to be flogged." Sir
G. GREY'S views on this subject were most unsatis
factory, considering that he is in a position of such
consequence, It is not too much to affirm that all
he said had better have been left unspoken, and
that he did not say what an English Minister
should have said in similar circumstances. His

arguments were absurd from beginning to end.
He said that he supported the amendment, be.
cause the law wets sufficient to punish all kinds

of offenders. This is a direct contradictio❑ to the
testimony furnished during last autumn by myriad
sufferers. He deprecated a " panic legislation."
All this is very fine, but if the Home Secretary
and his subordinates had been so perfect, how is
it that the decorum of our city was so disturbed,
and the general quiet of its inhabitants dissipated
so signally when those lawless ruffians stalked
abroad. Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that his hon.
friend w.:nld not have come forward had Govern-