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

what prematurely by the hon. member for Sunder-

kola. Mr. LINDSAY, on the order of the day for
going into Committee of Supply, rote to move a re.
solution—" That it is not expedient to commence at
the present building wooden ships which are to be
cased with iron armour plates." And a long but
very interesting debate ensued. As we have before

expressed our own opinion in favour of building the

five ships proposed to be built, of wood cased with

iron seeing, that we have several now near comple-
tion, we shall rather select such portions from the

speeches of honourable members as bear on the point
rather than obtrude cur own. 'Air. LINDSAY

said that though he was a large shipowner he pro-
fessed no particular knowledge of shipbuilding
farther than from his conviction of the superiority
of iron over wood, he had not for ten years ordered
any ships of wood, bat all of iron. The hon. gentle
man observed that " in introducing this question he
would confine himself to two points—first, were
those five new ships, proposed to be built of wood or
iron ?—secondly, were they to be built in her MA-
JESTY'S dockyards or under contract by private
builders? Now it was for the House to decide
whether wood or iron was the more suitable mate-
rial for the construction of ships of war. It was
well known that iron was ten times stronger than
wood—that a one-inch plate of iron was stronger
than a ten-inch plank of English oak. There could be
no doubt that it was only by means of iron bolts
and rivets that wooden ships became the strong
vessels they had often witnessed. In the case of
iron ships, the keel, the keelson, and the sternpost,
might be formed into one solid piece of iron, and
those fastened with bolts and rivets to the other
parts of the iron, forming a vessel infinitely stronger
and more serviceable for all purposes than a wooden
plated ship; whereas the paper laid on the table by
the Admiralty, furnished by the Controller of the
Navy, argued that it was advisable to continue
the construction of wooden ships with the view
of having them afterwards plated with iron.
The first difficulty raised in that paper was that
of procuring the proper quality of iron. Well,
but that was a point which could be easily
solved, and was dependent upon the price
to be given for it. The second objection
raised was, that iron ships were so liable to fouling.
Well, as to that point, he had iron vessels trading to
the farthest parts of the world, and he had not
found any great inconvenience to arise in regard to
that matter. It was a well ascertained fact that
upon entering into fresh water the barnacles and
other material that collected on the ship's bottom
were cleared away. A third objection raised was
the destructive character of the iron splinters that
fell around upon a shot entering the side of one of
those ships. Well, he confessed he had no expe-
rience himself upon_ this point, and was, therefore,
unable to give an ()Onion ; but he had two or three
witnesses of great repute and authority who had
spoken upon this subject. Mr. SCOTT RUSSELL, in
an able pamphlet upon the navy of England, went
into the whole question of the strength of ironships,
and the Effect of shot upon them. The writer came
to the conclusion that iron ships might be built as
strong as wooden ships of far greater dimensions
and weight and much stronger than wooden ships
of equal w eight and measurement—ships which
would have less draught and would carry much
heavier weights ; that iron was far more durable,
safer against the danger of fire, safer against the
danger of explosive materials, safer against the
effects of red hot shot and molten metals ; and
that iron ships could be made for all practical
purposes impregnable even against solid shot. The
hon. member for Birkenhead (Mr. LAIRD), who
is a gentleman of great experience upon this sub-
ject, and was therefore much more competent to
guide the house in the best possible way of con-
structing our ships than the Controller of the
Navy, maintained the superiority of iron ships.
Captain HALSITAD, an officer in her Majesty's
service in the years 1861 and 1862, delivered some
able lectures upon this question in the United
Service Instite.tion, and expressed himself in some-
what similar tenets in favour of the superiority of
iron vessels -over wooden ones. Mr. LINDSAY then
adduced tb e testimony of Captain HALL, who com-
manded. the Nemesis, an iron ship, in China.
Wooden, ships in China were laid up for weeks
together for repairs, while the Nemesis was re-
paired in 24 hours—she was hit 14 times, and
one shot had actually passed through her
—ire at one side and out at the other without
canai.ng a splinter. Mr. LINDSAY believed that
armonr-plates on wooden vessels did not add any
strength to the structure, but that they rather
lei Lded to weaken .them and to make them top-
he avy. There was no occasion to go to France for
a witness. The Admiralty had brought forward a
itness, who was a Frenchman, to prove that
-wooden chips were equally strong for all purposes.
He could refer them for evidence upon the subject
to any master shipwright in the kingdom. Nothing
was more difficult than to find wood strong enough
'or the stern frame, and it was still more difficult
/o fasten the stern frame of a ship on account
of the ttemendous vibration caused by the
movement of the screw. In the Edgar, a 90 gun
ehip, of 600 horse power, the vibration and the
strain were so great that the master shipwright
said, "For GOD'S sake, stop this engine,-or you will
drive the sternpost out of the ship." Mr. LINDSAY
then defended the eminent builders of iron ships in
private yards from the aspersions cast on them for
.‘ slovenlinen" by the Admiralty, and then said
that if Sir JOHN PAKINGTON had remained in office
hie would have carried out the recommendations of
the committee appointed en the state of the Navy.
IsLansass further said that he would remind his
noble .friend (Lord C. PAGET)and the noble viscount

th,? hotkd of the Government, that they had 'le-
ceeed tot office on the ground of retrenchment and
economy. They ..r,.ad not fultilicd these plcdgue.
Ho anti the rest of the independent members had
not id.) two nehl::, friends ;it was Lie two noble
irif,rlds who had left them. He was not objecting
ft) thu building of those five ships if they were
le they were required to maintain our
pr sit ion in Europe, by all means build them. He
wJulti never roise- his voice against the maritime
!,uprerniey of England. But why were those five
to be built ? de wanted a distinct under-
tAanding betore they ware allowed to go on, and
11c_.ft the resolution in the hands of (be House.

11 twes i ary.