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 him (Mr. Lindsay) had given
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, besides 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 commerce; and, instead,
of being kept constantly in motion, they arestatiened at
various 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. The English
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 not ',vouch for the fact, but such is the 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 admirableknowledge of the principles
a
of naval construction. Admiral Paris
shot s
or Its greatest
which
defect is due to its weakness against
might strike below the armour plating why the vessel rolls
causing probably the loss of tht,a, vesselin spite of the
nume-
rouswatertight compartments. This opinionth _f.
Admiral
Paris, I believe—indeed I know—is 1
Duprez do l' Orme, for I have the authaos°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 hon. 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 of ships, it is right to 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 report
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 01'
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!ls
good alike. Sold in packets by 2,280 agents.