The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-17 00:00:00

ANOTHER LARGE ISSUE OF

THE WEDDING SUN

Is now Publishing.

Notwithstanding that we had anticipated and
prepared for an immense circulation, the demand
OA Tuesday was at once so rapid that the whole of

our first impression was exhauseed within a few

hours after we went to press. Wo are still enabled,
though not without difficulty, to meet the yet in-
creased demand for copies of this Es traordin9ry

Edition, though the greatest care is required in
the delicate process of its colour printing.

THIS DAY.—Morning,... h. m. —Afternoon, 12h. 35m.
TO-51ORROW.—Morning, lh. Om.—Afternoon lh. 27m.

The Weather—Sun Office, March 17, 1863,

THERMOMETER.
Highest since Noon yesterday .. 42
Lowest during the night
This day at N00n....
.East; fresh and squally, with cloudy weather.

kfog.
dr‘\‘

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1863.

In the House of Lords, yesterday the Union Relief
Aid Act (1862) Continuance Bill, the object of which
is to extend the power of unions in the distressed dis-
tricts in Lancashire to make rates in aid and to
borrow money, 4Tad which bad come up from the
Commons, was read a second time, as was the
Sidmon Exportation Bill.
The Malt Duty Bill was read a third time and
passed.

The house then adjourned.
In the House of Commons a new writ was or-
dered to issue for the election of a member for
North Lancashire, in the room of the Marquis of
}Ludington, who has accepted the office of a Lord
of the Admiralty.

Mr. GREGORY gave notice of his intention to cal,
attention shortly after Easter to the affairs o:
Turkey.

Mr. B. COCHRANE drew attention to the affairs
of Greece, according to his notice, and a discussion
ensued, in which Mr. Gregory, Mr. M. Milnes, Mr.
Layard,"Lord J. Manners, Mr. H. Seymour, Lord
H. Scott, Mr. D. Griffith, Mr. Gave, Mr. C. C.
Clifford, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. S. Fitzgerald
took part; the motion, which was one for the pro-
duction of papers, being is the end withdrawn.
On going into committee of supply,
Colonel BARTTELOT moved an address to the
Crown, praying that the stoppage from the pay of
cavalry and horse artillery officers for forage be
discontinued.

Sir G. C. LEWIS opposed the motion, on the
ground that it would add £20,000 to the army
estimates.

On a division the motion was lost by 107 to 75.
The house then went into committee of supply on
thf, army estimates. Some votes were agreed to.
The other business having been disposed of, the
house adjourned.

The controversy which has arisen between the
promoters of iron and of wood for building our
ships of war promises to become a very pretty
quarrel—much as the famed battle of the Gauges,
and will end, we suspect, with much the same re-
Ell`. That one has its own unrivalled qualities
over the other cannot be gainsaid, though the fact
be admitted with a gradge--iron, for rigidity and
strength, is ten times superior to wood. Bat wood
still holds its head above water for all that, and
'CIA not strike in its buoyant spirit without a
struggle. Those who advocate the one and repudiate
the other but serve to confirm the old adage, that
two of a trade cannot agree. For our own part, we
frc,.:!y admit that iron has the advantage, and must
ultimately prevail in the construction of our Navy
Ibut wood cannot be altogether dispensed with.
inaLid, wood must still keep its place in our Dock-
yards, but only subservient to iron for durability.
That each has its defects, as well as its merits, is
undoubted,
mid, where they can be used beneficially,
we say, " both is best." It will not do for England
to cast off her old friend, to whom she owes her

w customer, pro..
pre-eminence on the seas, for a ne
mite he ever so fairly. Wood has been fully tested,
and has hitherto answered our puipose; but, as
science improves in its discoveries, we must conform
to circumstances, and keep pace with the march of
time on the road of improvement.
The public demand for a larger increase to our
Navy, and that suddenly, has raised this great
question as to the best way to attain it—and the
:,:vernment having decided for two reasons; first,
tlyvt they had bought more than was wanted; and,
se,,,ndly, that, unless they used up that wood, it
would be lying unprofi tubly in the Dockyards,
all the men would be lying idle—therefore,

ing double bottoms, thwartship bulkheads, water-
tight compartments, sluice-doors, &c., and various
other complicated arrangements, which add both to
the weight and cost of an iron ship; the rapidity
with which the bottom of an iron ship gets foul,
and the immense loss of all the ship's qualities that
follows from the adhesion of marine zoophytes; no
practical remedy has been found for this serious dis-
advantage; repeated docking and cleaning is the
only palliative; the extreme uncertainty as to the
quality of the materials used ; in fact, the small

quantity of really good iron of the best ship-build-
ing qualities that can be found in the market ; the
prodigious ravages caused by the splinters of iron
when the plates are broken and smashed by shot ;
and the far greater facility with which iron ships
can be pierced below their armour-plating by sub-
marine guns than wooden ships; lastly, as the pro-
gress that may be made by artillery, and all de-
structive agents of warfare, is quite without a limit,
the immense price pai-I in an iron ship for dura-
bility may not be an advantage, as new forms for
ships of war may, before long, be absolutely requi-
site—the iron ship of to-day, for which so large a
price has been paid, may not be the weapon we
require to-morrow. It may prove therefore wiser

_ - --
and more economical to supply the wants of the

moment by a cheaper and less durable structure,

which at least is of the same quality as those with

which we may have to contend. The most able

designer of war ships in Europe, whose success has

- - been so remarkable, M. DUPUY DE L'OME, is of this
• •

opinion, and constructs the ships that are to form
the French line-of-battla of wood in preference to

iron."

But these were not the only disadvantages apper-
taining to iron. We had only one dockyard,
Chatham, where iron ships could be built—and if
we preferred iron we must have recourse to con-
tractors—people who never, " in one instance, kept
to their agreements, either as to time or cost."
These were serious disadvantages to be sure—but
these were not all—" The general slovenliness of
the work performed by iron shipbuilders rendering
the presence of an Admiralty inspector necessary on
the premises wherever the contract ships are build-
ing and leading to many difficulties between the
contractor and the Admiralty;" and further, " The
great temptations that beset the contractors, owing
to the cost and difficulty of procuring good iron, to
use inferior and cheaper metal." All these and
many more; but next as to time—" the iron ship
would take 25 months to build by contract, such
as the Hector ; and the wooden, to build leisurely
and to the best advantage, about as long ; but if the
workmen were much pressed, and were entirely
uninterrupted, the period might be shortened to 21
months."

So much for the Controller's eetimate of time
and character. Charges not likely to be endured
by honest men without a word or two in their de-
fence; and so we gave, en Saturday, a letter from
Mr. JOHN FORD, the Managing Director of the
Thames Iron Works, who built the redoubtable
Warrior—the first great iron war ship of this or
any other country. Mr. FORD feels, no doubt,
justly indignant at the gratuitous charges preferred
against the iron contractors, but we will let him
speak for himself. He says :—" To all these accu-
sations we give an indignant and complete denial.
We challenge the Controller of the Navy and all
his officers to produce a single example of
slovenliness in workmanship or inferiority in
material. We appeal to the thousands who have
seen the Warrior, to every practical man
who has examined her (and where are those
who have not?) as to her present condition after
more than twelve months' trial through the worst
weather, and to the reports of her captain, as our
vindication against these charges,and with the great
companies for whom we have built some of the
finest vessels afloat, with foreign Governments, by
whom we are largely employed, and with the pri-
vate firms for whom we have worked, w® hope that
we have established a reputation which will with-
stand even such a blow as one in the high position,
and armed with the authority of Controller of the
Navy, has thus sought to deal against it. With
respect to the charge of claiming exorbitant terms
for making alterations, we are able to prove that in
no instance have we received adequate remunera-
tion. Such an accusation could only have been
made by those who, not having to spend their own
money, know little of and care less for cost. As to
our failure to fulfil our engagements either as to
time or cost, we have specific facts to deal with.
The Controller states that we agreed to build the
Warrior for £210,225, including extras.' We
never made any such agreement, nor anything giv-
ing even colourable ground for such a complete mis-
statement.
Our original contract sum for the War-
rior was £190,225. On March 16, 1861, six months
before the Warrior left the Thames, we sent in to
the Controller an account of extras amounting to
£40,508, intimating at the same time that we had
all was finished we
other large claims, and When
we were paid
claimed, not the sum of £254,728, as stated by the
Controller, hut £269,600, of which
only £251,646."

He further says that the changes and additions
in the construction of the Warrior beyond her on

__________
it was indispensablf3 to build of wood__ for r— third
third
r.ason, that they had no iron at hand, and if they
bad there were neither toole; not then capable for the
work! Hence the dilemma. Still thesticklers for iron
would not budge in their demand—iron sl as the best
and iron they must have. So to calm the rising storm
in-Parliament, or rather to parry the attack, Lord
PALMERSTON, with his usual happy tact, became
politically honest all of a sudden, and proposed an
armistice—let them suspend their decision until an
estimate were furnished of the comparative time
and cost of wood and iron. Meantime he promised
to rest on his oars, while for his own part he frankly
confessed that iron was the best for building ships
of war, with a good balking of wood to support it.
And thus he captivated both parties by his wily
palaver, but only stooped to conquer in the end,
like a good naval captain-general, or a politic Ser-
geant EITHERSIDE !

The Premier kept good faith with the bellige-
rents, but the Controller of the Navy rather marred
the matter. He produced his report in such a
manner as to create a feeling of great excitement.
His own sympathy for wood was too apparent to
justify impartiality in his decision. He freely ad-
mitted the advantages of iron, but with qualifica-
tions that detracted much from its merits. He said
—"lron possesses these advantages over wood : an
iron ship can be built of larger dimensions than a
wooden ship with no loss of strength, An iron ship
has more rigidity and strength of structure, as a
whole, than a wooden ship, though locally weak
and liable to be penetrated by blows which would
fall harmlessly on a wooden ship. An iron ship
has much greater durability in certain parts of
the structure, indeed in all parts where no wood
is in contact with the iron, than a wooden
ship, and after a lapse of years the iron frame would
have suffered next to nothing as compared with a
wooden ship. But against these edvantages must
be set—The serious local weakness of the compara-
tively thin plates of which the bottom of an iron
ship is necessarily composed : the danger, conse-
quently, of getting on rocks in such ships, and the
necessity which this weakness entails of construct-