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

of SHAFTESBURY moved that it be read a second
time that day six months.
Earl GRANVILLE said that the Board of Trade had
directed an inquiry to be made into the various
schemes submitted for railways in the metropolis,
and suggested that the debate should be adjourned
for a week, when that inquiry would be completed,
After some discussion, in which Lord Ebury, the
Earl of Stradbroke, the Earl of Carnarvon, Lord
Taunton, Lord Redesdale, and the Earl of Malmes-
bury took part, the debate was adjourned for a
fortnight.

In the Commons,
Sir G. GREY said, in reply to Mr. Hennessy,
that he had laid on the table of the House the re-

ports relative to the subject of some officers of our
metropolitan force being sent to Poland.
Mr. LINDSAY moved the following resolution in a
committee of supply—" That it is nit expedient
to commence at the present time building wooden
ships which are to be cased with iron-armour
plates." The hon. gentleman, in supporting this
motion, contended that the experience of the ship-

builders and shipowners of the world served to
show the superior cheapness and efficiency of iron
!hips as compared with ships built of timber.
Lord C. PAGET said it was essential that we
should build iron-plated ships. He said that wood
had some advantages in works of that class, and he
would warn the House that if they insisted on
making the whole of the armour-plated ships of
iron they would have to incur great expense,
which it would be necessary to meet with increased
navy estimates.
Mr. LAIRD said that iron ships were better than
wooden ones for many reasons. The Warrior had
proved recently that iron vessels were superior in
speed to what had been stated. Mr. EwART said
that he could vouch, as being a director of the
Peninsular and Oriental Company, that the iron
ships which had been constructed for their service
by private contract had been most satisfactory.
Mr. CONINGEIAM and Mr. JACKSON supported the
motion.

Mr. BENTINCK thought that, though a great deal
had been said on both sides, the chief point was
atiil left doubtful, as nothing but time and war
could prove whether iron or wood was the best ma-
terial for ships of war. He should oppose the mo-
tion, as he objected to the House of Commons
assuming the functions of the executive.
Mr. ROBERTSON cordially supported the motion,
and advised the Government to employ private
shipbuilders.
Mr. BEECROFT defended the ironmasters from
the charge of manufacturing inefficient plates. He
thought wooden ships plated with iron were a mere
waste of money.
Sir S. M. PETO said that experience showed iron
ships were capable of undergoing hardships which
would destroy wooden ones. He could affirm that
wooden framed iron-plated ships with copper-
plated bottoms fouled quite as much as the iron
8:'11)s. When La Gloire was docked at Toulon 49
tons of barnacles and grass were taken from her.
Sir 1. HAT supported the motion.
Sir F. BARING thought the Admiralty should be
responsible for the building of ships.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it seemed to him the
r hole weight of evidence was in favour of iron. It
was a question of great national importance which
the House had a right to consider. After having
spoken
at some length on the advantages of iron
vessels, the right hon. lmronet announcedhis inten-
tion of voting for the resolution.
Lord PALMERSTON opposed the resolution, which
he said would tie the hands of the Government. He
thonght that iron ships had some special disadvan-
tages, though the Government were not indisposed
to construct them. He hoped the flot,e would leave
the matter to the discretion of the Government.
Mr. HENLEY said he should vote for the motion.
After a few words from Mr. BOUVERIE, the house
divideu, 4hen the numbers were 154 against the
resolution to 81 for it. The resolution was con-
sequently lost. The remaining business was then
disposed of, and the house adjourned.

The great question of naval construction, whether
it be of wood or iron, for the five ships deemed re-
quisite to put us vu a proper footing of defence in
case of earrgeneb was brought on taut night some-

what prematurely by the
l'a-ert. member for Sunder-
land. Mr. Lt., MAY, on the order of the day for
going into Committee of Supply, rose 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 our own. Mr. 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, but 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 2—secondiy, 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 tie-
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 opinion ; 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 iron ships,
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 ta 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 HALSTEAD, an officer in her Mejesty's
service in the years 1861 and 1862, delivered some
able lectures upon this question in the United
Service Institution, and expressed himself in some-
what similar terms in favour of the superiority of
iron vessels over wooden ones. Mr. LINDSAY then
adduced the 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
—in at one side and out at the other without
causing a splinter. Mr. LINDSAY believed that
armour-plates on wooden vessels did not add any
strength to the structure, but that they rather
tended to weaken them and to make them top-
heavy. There was no occasion to go to France for
a witness. The Admiralty had brought forward a
witness, who was a Frenchman, to prove that
wooden ships 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
for the stern frame, and it was still more difficult
to fasten the stern frame of a ship on account
of the tremendous vibration caused by the
movement of the screw. In the Edgar, a 90 gun
ship, of 600 horse power, the vibration and the
strain were so great that the master shipwright
said, "For GOD'S sake, stop this engice,'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
" slovenliness" by the Admiralty, and then said
that if Sir JOIIN PAKINGTON had remained in office
he would have carried out the recommendations of
the committee appointed on the state of the Navy.
Mr. LINDSAY further said that he would remind his
noble friend (Lord C. PAGET) and the noble viscount
at the head of the Government, that they had ac-
ceded to office on the ground of retrenchment and
economy. They had not fulfilled those pledges.
He and the rest of the independent members had
not left his two noble friends ; it was his two noble
friends who had left them. He was not objecting
to the building of those Ave ships if they were
necessary. If they were required to maintain our
position in Europe, by all means build them. He
would never raise his voice against the maritime
supremacy of England. But why were those five
ships to be built ? Ho wanted a distinct under-
standing before they were allowed to go on, and
left the resolution in the hands of the House.
Lord C. PAGET made a long and, we must add,
a good defence, taking time and circumstances into
account. He adduced the opinion of Admiral PARIS,
a distinguished French naval officer connected with
the Admiralty of France, who, after going into the
merits of wood and iron, and the various descrip-
tions of armour-plated vessels, said, " Whatever be
the future consequences of armour-plated ships, it
must be remarked that we are so much in advance
of other nations that a marked superiority exists at
the
r o
se
present on our side." Now he addressed this to
hon.popa membertlaat for
n Rocmorehda
le
p(
rNolgr
r.
eCs os
should B nEoNud who)l,
had be
made with armour-plated ships. Nothing could
be more fallacious than the statement they
left, to the effect that iron
shipsheard right and
were imperishable because made of iron.
In the construction of armour-plated ships
there was necessarily used a large amount of wood,
because they had found that iron plates would not