The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-14 00:00:00

, . .
,-
, - 1"7--.--,
___.-- - /
_,"::---;‹ ,6
-.-e--
--k----, c--------c--- C.-C-- L- .--- /

.~~/~
L~ ~i

2-.---e,.)
~e_ a7Ze,..___,..

NEWSPAPER
111
-17.4,0- :II ( is, IT
--'_,
Sla
calk
r‘• - • X\46
ing of these ships in wood or iron, and
‘l\ or in the dockyards.
CI; k5;424 - sln a country like England, Whicii
of its prosperity to the abundance and ex.
4 • - • -146
'tl6 )
i7v4d_t.-Ne
it
its iron, we have felt something more than
to be told that " only a small quantity of real kgod a S

iron of the best shipbuilding qualities can be found
in the market." We leave this opinion to speak
for itself.

The paper admits the superior strength and dura-
bility of iron over wood, but imputes to iron cer-
tain disadvantages.
That the splinters from iron are more mischievous
than from wood, or that iron ships can be pierced
below their armour more easily than wooden ones,
are opinions of which no proof whatever is offered.
That plates of iron can, in exceptional oircum-
ste nets, be pierced more easily then wooden bltt,ortis
we admit ; but the example of the Great Britairr
in Dundrum Bay, and many others that could be
referred to, show that iron ships may be stranded
with more safety and less damage than wooden ones.
The bulkheads and eoubk bottom, which are
most disingenuously stated to be complicated
and costly arrangements, introduced to re-
medy local weakness, are in fact advantages•
which cannot he overvalued, which exist only in
iron ships, and for which wooden ones possess
nothing equivalent. The Great Eastern struck
lately on a rock, and was saved by her double
bottom. Many vessels have been saved by their
bulkheads, and, indeed, if there were no other re-
commendation of iron, this alone would be a reason
for preferring it to wood.
That a copper-bottomed ship will foul less rapidly
than iron bottom must be admitted; but better
dock accommodation and somewhat more frequent
cleaning will remedy this defect. Even copper
is not an absolute protection, and the fact that
the Warrior, having been nearly a twelvemonth
at sea without going into dock, came
home the other day doing up Channel 112
knots with half boiler power, and afterwards
joined the escort of the Princess Alexandra,
nearly keeping pace with the Royal yacht, doing
131 knots with full boiler power, proves that this
is by no means so great an objection as the Con-
troller of the Navy maintains. The great fact,
however, that all our large steam companies—the
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Com-
pany, the Royal Mail, the Cunard, &c.—have long
since abandoned wood and adopted iron, proves that
at least these drawbacks, be they what they may,
are more than counterbalanced by the advantages
of iron.

We are ignorant of the authority on which the
Controller announces that it is the opinion of M.
Duprez de l'Ome that wood is better than iron for
iron•cased ships, but we have very good reason to
believe that this gentleman employs wood only
because France possesses wood, but not iron, and
workmen in wood but not in iron, and uses the
means that he has at his disposal, although admit-
ting their inferiority, and we know as a public fact
that having begun in wood they are now resorting
to iron.

We could say much more on the question of the

time to be occupied in building in wood in the dock-
yards as compared with iron by the contractors, but
we are already trespassing too much on your space,
and we will only remark in conclusion on the com-
parison given as to cost, and the effect of one course
or the other on the navy estimates.
The Controller gives the cost of an iron ship at
£214,000, as compared with a wooden one at
£187,000, showing a saving of £27,000 per ship.
Without questioning these figures, which can-
not, however, be admitted as correct, we would ob-
serve that this is only the cost of the hull, and that
in each case is to be added, the cost being the same,
the machinery, say £50,000; the rigging and outfit
say £20,000; the armament, stores, say £20,000
more. The real difference, therefore, is not between
£214,000 and £187,000, but between £3o4,oooand
£277,000. In other words, on the cost of five ves-
sels as proposed, out of a million and a half for iron
the country is to save £135,000 even on the Con-
trollei's owu showing, and that for the sake of
this difference it is " wiser and more economical to
supply the wants of the moment by a cheaper
and less durable structure!' We do not believe in
the cheapness, but we only point out now how
small the economy is to be.
That if these ships are built of wood in the dock-
yards " no more money will be required than what
I already appears in the Navy Estimates, whereas if
built of iron by contract the whole of the money re-
quired to do so must be voted separately, in addi-
tion to the ordinary Navy Estimates, is a most ex-
traordinary statement.

Build these vessels as we may, the £50,000 for
machinery, the f.:40,000 for rigging, outfit, arma-
ment, &c., will alike have to be spent. If built of
wood in the dockyards, each ship will require above
1,000 tons of armour-plates to be purchased of
" contractors," which, with the expense of fixing,
will absorb some £50,000 out of the £187,000 put
down by the Controller as the cost of each ship. Of
the remaining £137,000, say roughly one-third in
wages, or £47,000, will be spent if the ships are
built in the dockyards, or saved if not; and of the
£90,000 balance, representing the material, thero
will be timber, &c., in the dockyard worth the
money if remaining there, or capable of being sold
for the money to the contractors, or saving the
money in the next Estimates by continuing in
stock.