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

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 would stand
the test from the most eminent makers 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 the house to consider that if we build
ofiron we must be prepared at once to state distinctly and
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 impossible 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
53/4 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 satisfactory, as showing that we did
rightin choosing the 51 inch plates with a 9 inch backing.
When we ordered these ships we left ourselves a margin
n"lbuereaolli bmullotctlthtshewsee
mshililpst,elalnydoiunwthheatcoius rtseo
boef.
ess of the armour plating and of the backing."
at :iVceee rtshtaaiiine'dkn,
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 when we entered into
the contract. The builders then said, "We have arrived
at a stage when you 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 really before us, I must say Idol he would find himself very
much in the positionot of
nthe
I con
east upon them as a body. (Hear, hear.) There had, no not look upon it in quite the same light as some hon. gen- 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 visscohip 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 practice, 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 contracting sional 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 bad workman- have 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 ship, and fidence 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 adoption of such a to 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 else to develope the Controller 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 allowed to cut out 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, hear, and a laugh.) 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 (32), 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 carrying 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 me 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 not prepared 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 to say which 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 iron 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 of 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 comes the
service, was built for them by Messrs. Mare,and afterwards hon. member (Sir M. Pete) 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." That 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
heconfesshmaaveveneht
hewea lair
tdrhd readagai
surprise;n generallythatan d becauseaspgt
aoatr,
n di
trhn ini ,
ta
privateo
tf
h does. t
celebratedhh oe
conver-
tor onC agreevoenr ,
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
stwrhoi
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, which, 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 relative 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 have, they 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 porfo usdle
vt oe
hclayl I
wme
rykt r
ai enndd ,dwi
shheenh
ehset findsm ate
rhiiaml
s ? self accused
navy out of the hands of the Government. (Cries of " No, Sir J. PAKINGTON—The noble lord has most fairly
,
Commons should take the details of the business of the no such expenditure is requisite. (Hear, hear.)
no.") He contended the practical effect of the motion redeemed the pledge he gave 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
totbtia comeed heaigs eh
—ed
highest
possible
se tsroisl_e this house,case—(cheers)—to
rstigmatisetie te r and,an di
nin
st orderstanding
dingt 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 thej house may
stitutional, than that the House of Commons should become arrive to-night, I hope that no hon. member will vote (Hear.) I deeply regret the course which has been taken
the executive in matters of detail. (Hear.) except under 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 dealing with private firms you may be liable to treatment to
the motion of his hon, friend the member for Sunderland. the future efficiency of the navy 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 the weight 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 Admiralty 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.nibttwill
el
sotttaeehhnmasoooadtratohttebihrugeedeoiloemhnrdpotit
:hit
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(gsattunednAoioaedstrnrtetddl
eetdailra cording
admgang nodhabd:tn.
mvoy)
eoscl his
arol
more
t,iuds
believe
st
wishingi contract,
tpeahrci
aasntthots,
mttaiahtetenah,
opinion.tdt
material,hdea
mneem( gdydAßar edhombl
eweoaaa
ohruotoldreu.
laugh.)
friend,lhsidel
should
concur
)oaroi
untabucht,l i
uhßeed Irre
utitrbhoiirt ,
materially injure his reputation. He was of opinion we tlernan has asked whether the house is prepared to take uut
ought to give up wooden ship building, and he 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 the future welfare of the navy, have 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 not 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 soon as possible completing 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 members take exception to the statement of
Sir J. HAY said the best evidence in favour of iron was course. (Hear) Then the noble viscount said there were two
the reps' t put in circulation by the Admiralty themselves. reasons for following the plan 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 time, 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 official paper before us proceeding from the Con-
desirable they should have copper-bottomed ships, but it troller of the Navy, we are to regard it as the production of
was not impossible to apply copper to the bottom of iron the first authority 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- ttloss 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 contractors have been for the ' Hector,' and if the hon. members who haves poken as to what is the tare
by
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.di nmteyr rnuopbtl 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 was that, after the ships 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.Anothere
ngteendt lfeomr at
the,
eht,arsespaai
rdatthi
eant do 1 ffterroehn.t mseot ht ohdast arerea
lei vye riyt.
p
different deartments, the heads of which should be respon-
Lord C. GET
were cut out, if energy were applied, they could be built in 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 put'
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,
forgetting the great differ-