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

an improvement that they were well worth the delay. lie 1
(Mr. Lindsay) deplored the haste—to call it by no harsher
name—with which the statement of Admiral Robinson. had
been putli,,hei. Five ship-building firms alone held con-
tracts for foreign Governments to the amount of no less
than £2,000,000 sterling ; and such charges might have led
to much mischief. These five firms employed 10,000 men,
on whom at least 50,000 persons were depending; and ha
put it to the h use whether this was a time, with the severe
distress in Lancashire, to run the risk of throwing so large
a body of starving workmen upon the rates. (Hear, hear.)
But supposing these wooden vessels were to be built, were
the dockyards in a proper state of efficiency for the con-
struction of these vessels? On this point he would bring
forward as a witness the committee which had been ap-
pointed by the right hon. baronet opposite; and he must
aid, he belit ved if the right hr n. baronet had remained in

ingly strong, for in addition to the thick external planking
whi h is fitted near the keel, the spaces between the frame
timbers are filled in with timber, the frames and fillings
being bolted together. Such ships are therefore superior to
any iron vessel I have ever seen with respect to strength of
bottom."
If any hon. member will move for the return, he will find
that of vessels lost the greater proportion are iron vessels.
We know that iron is brittle, and cannot rot:at blows like
wood. Let us take the case, which happened the other
day, of the Defence armour-plated ship, the key of whose
anchor struck against her side close to the water, and
knocked out a large piece. If such an accident had hap-
pened at sea, it might have caused very serious inconveni-
ence. It is the particular characteristic of iron that
although rigid it will not bear a sudden blow. lam an
advocate for iron ships, and if we could get over these diffi-
culties and one to which I am about to advert, I would
prefer to see iron armour-plated ships, but I believe in say-
ing so I am in a minority among naval officers. I can assure
the house that having discussed this question with very
1 many naval officers, the majority of them have said to me
that they would prefer to command wooden plated ships
rather than iron armour-plated ships. Now, I must refer
t.) the paper that has been laid upon the table of the house,
the report of the Controller of the Navy. In eoing so I wish
hon. members to understand that nothing was further from
Admiral Robinson's intention than to commit any injustice
towards the eminent shipbuilders who have been referred
to. We have every reason to be generally satisfied with the
treat contractors, but Admiral Robinson felt it to be his
duty to point out where their work did fail, and 1 think in
doing so he was only doing his duty as a publio servant.
(Hear, hear.) Admiral Robinson, however, has written me
a letter of which I will read a portion to the house :
" 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 issue 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-
building, was a source of the greatest delay and loss to 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 equare 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
cx remely severe. Sir, it pleases me beyond expression to
hear that those gentlemen 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 mer'ts 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 woad
possesses. In short, he says that after a lapse of years the
iron frame would have suffered next to teething 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 otherrcomplicated 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 in the bottom of a ship, would keep the
water entirely out. Yes, if you can get them ; because in
no 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
°lsmail importance as comp Area 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;
tad 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, it
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
of iron 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.) Don.
gentlemen may laugh, but will they tell me what they want ?
What is to be the form and size of the ships which are ti.
compose our future navy? In the present state of transition
no one can say. Yon. have got broadside ships, you have got
Mr. Reed's form of construction, and the turret ship. Who
can tell me which of these is the best ? Wo 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 expeci
that builders should complete them in less time; but the
reason why the Government has piused 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 cau make such changes as you please ?" We:l, we
i lid that once, but we burnt our fingers. We had very much
this sort of feeling when we ordered the Northumberland,
the Agincourt, and thee 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
31 inches and a 9 inch backing. This has been a moot point,
end it was only yesterday that experiments were made which
as far as they go are satisfactory, as showing that we did
right in choosing the 51 inch plates with a 9 inch backing.
When we ordered these ships we left ourselves a margin.
We said, " You can build these ships, and in the course of
a certain number of months we will tell you what is to be
the thickness of the armour plating and of the backing."
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 mere question whether you should have thicker

their recommendations would have been carried out,
aril millions of expense would have been saved to the
t ry. These might seem bard words to his noble friend;
hirt it must be remembered that the condition on which

Imn, gentlemen sitting near him (Mr. Lindsay) bad given
their support to the Government was that they
would adhere to the principles of retrenchment
and economy. (" Hear, hear," from the opposition.)

They had not fulfilled their pledges—(hear)--and it was
not they who had deserted the Government, but the noble
lord and his friends who had deserted them. (Hear, hear.)
He would also bring forward the evidence of the Royalcom-
mission which had been appointed by his noble friend ; and
thirdly, his noble friend himself. When the noble lord (Lord
C. Paget) sat on the opposite benches on the 11th of March,
1859, he gave a very graphic account of her Majesty's dock-
yards : he complained of the extravagant expenditure ; that
the ships were exposed to tinkering amputation, and every
kind of maltreatment; he said th It nothing could be effi-
ciently done without economy, and concluded by saying
the they wanted reconstru ;don at the Admiralty. (Hear,
hear.) Then the committee complained of the want of super-
intendence at the A dmiralty ; they said that the cost of la-
bour at her Majesty'4ards was on the average £5 95. per
ton, whilst in private yards it was only £2l2s. per toe. The
commission said that the department was rendered ineffi-
cient from tire construction of the Board of Admiralty, the
want of responsibility, and the absence of a system of ac-
tivate accounts, He believed his noble friend had made ,
most strenuous efforts to provide the house with accurate
accounts of the expenditure, and that he had very nearly
completely succeeded. But what had been done to carry out
the recommendations of thi committee in:other respects ?
The commissioners having pointed out that they found it
extremely difficult to arrive at the actual cost of ships in
the navy, called for a return from Pembroke dockyard,
where no repeirs were usually carried on. Setting aside a
sum of £352,000 for docket, ships, and building machinery,
they foun d that for a number of vessels representing tegether
65,435 tons, the average cost of building was £33 ss. sd.
for the hulls alone, exclusive of any fittings. Now, assum-
ing that the cost of building vessels under 1,000 tons in size
was £l5 a-ton, it was not too much to suppose that £l5 a
ton would be the cost for vessels exceeding 4,000 tons in
size. The Comptroller of the Navy had laboured very hard
to show that the building of a wooden ship in her Majesty's
dockyard cost less than that of an iron vessel in private
yards ; and he instanced the case of the Valiant, an iron
ship of 4,032 tons, which cost £172,677. But the cost of a
ship of 4,200 tons, at £45 a ton, the price at which wooden
ships were built in the navy, wasnot 1187,000 but £256,000.
He (Mr. Lindsay) wished to know how it was that this
country, wheso merchants were the most eminent in the
world, and whose merchandise was to be found in every port
and almost every house, could not turn out ships of war so
as to be in advance of the rest of the world. He thought we
ought to be able to do s ); and that we could do so—(hear,
hear)—and he hoped that by stopping the construction of
these wooden ships we should do so. (Cheers.) Therefore,
it was with the utmost confidence that he submitted the
motion of which he had given notice.
Lord C. PAGET—In rising immediately after the speech
of my hon. friend I shall lose the opportunity of answering
remarks which may be made by and by in the course of the
debate, but it is so important that the houselshould be made
acquainted with the bearings of this question that I think
it better at once to explain the views entertained by the
Government on the subject. I gather from the remarks of
my hon friend that he, at all even's, will be no party to ar-
resting the progress of armour plated ships, and, therefore,
as far as he is concerned, I have little necessity for advert-
ing to that point further ; but, inasmuch as other hon. gen-
tlemen may take a different view, and may think there is
no necessity for making any further progress, unless with
those ships which we have in hand, I shall address a few
observations to the house by way of explanation. First of
all, I am not going to make a detailed comparison between
the armour •plated fleets of this and other countries ; but I
may state generally that, great as our exertions have been
and still are, we are not in a position to abstain from further
efforts. (Hear, hear.) Now, upon this point it is very im •
portant that the house should be aware of the opinion of
eminent men in France as to the comparative naval position
of the two countries, extracted from an authority which the
hon. member for Rochdale will acknowledge—the Moniteur
de la Flotte. Flom that journal I have translated portions
of a paper read at the Academy of Science about a fortnight
ago t•y Admiral Paris, a great authority upon ship-building,
and himself employed in large works. I shall read the con-
cluding part. first, became it is vxry cfriking The a Rear.]

says—
" But, whatever be the future consequence of building
iron ships, it must be remarked that we are so much in ad-
vance of other nations, that a marked superiority exists At
present on our side."
(Hear, hear.) Now, I trust these words have been heard
by the hon. member for Rochdale—Nr. Cobden—" More
shame for you"] (a laugh) because I saw him wince under
the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Lindsay), when he
said that he thought it would be necessary that continual
progress should be made in the building of armour-plated
ships. Now, I can distinctly assure the house that it is
absolutely necessary we should continue to build armour-
plated ships over and above those under construction.
(Hear.) Taking large and small we have now under construc-
tion 21 vessels which are to bear armour plates—a smaller
number than are being constructed over the water. (Hear.)
Assuming that the house will not fur a moment agree with
my hon. friend the member for Rochdale that it is not
necessary we should make further progress, I coma to the
interesting point upon which my hon. friend's motion is
founded—the respective merits of wooden and iron armour-
plated ships., Now, nothing can be .more fallacious than
what we hear right and left as to iron ships being imperish.
able because they are made of iron. Why, Sir, it is well
known that in the construction of armour-plated ships
there is necessarily a very large quantity of wood used,
because we find in practice that no iron plates wil
stand the shock of heavy guns, unless they have a cush'on
behind composed of wood. Therefore, you have at once in
armour-plated ships a very destructible substance which is
more liable to decay than any other part. Therefore, whet her
we build armour-plated ships of wood or iron, we must use
a certain quantity in the one case of iron in the other of
wood. Bat iron ships, besides having a large quantity of
wood, which is liable to decay, have other great defects.
They are extremely liable to foul. (Hear, hear.) My hon.
friend says that merchant ships which go ever the
world arc built mostly of iron, that they go their voyage,
come hone, and again go out, being for months without
decking. But we have found that the Resistance had a
marked superiority ovsr the other ships with which she
tried, and what is the reason? She had been two months
less time out of dock than the Defence, three months less
than the Black Prince, and five months less than the War-
rior. (Hear, hear.) It was quite incorrect, therefore, to
say that the Warrior had not been docked for two years.
Captain Cocbrane had Bair.; that when six weeks afloat she
lost one knot an hour. (Hear, hear.) That was a very
im-
portant point. It is idle for my hon. friend to tell us that
because iron merchantmen can go over the world without
docking men-of-war can do so too. This is an important
point which my hon. friend did not bear in view. A mer-
chant ship goes out for a particular purpose, she takes in her
cargo, and comes back upon a return voyage. But what
axes the navy do ? Their normal position, so to speak, is in
harbour—they are to protect cur commerce; and, instead,
of being kept constantly in motion, they are stationed at
various foreign placer, where there is necessarily great ag-
gregations of grass and shells and various other things.
Now, hear what Admiral Paris says on this point :
"There are diffei enccs of opinion as to the materials of
which armour-plated ships should be built. The English
have adopted iron, we wood. The first is adapted to very
large constructions, lasts longer, but it greatly interferes
kith speed and steerage, owing to the immediate deposit of
..grass. and shells, necessitating continual docking and paint-

Ispoonleaybwoitshottaoasultaelwethere is not only a question of a loss of
it has been stated in newspapers,
We have it not officially, but
i that a conflict recently
look place between the barua and the Hatteras, and the
defeat of the latter was aattributedthof to the foulness of her bot
font. I do not vouch for but such is the cause
Admiral Paris, and the hon.
asgigncd. I have referred to
member for Sunderland will 8 ,
wathhoseoisoapihniigohn alutwhiol-i
rity, as aliioT.llillo.
bllounp,rgeezndtleeml
'annivill adait
ttohaftortraheaFsrveinecoll.
mention.
have not been unsuccessful in their efforts
slid navy and have as admirable knowledge or the
pr inciples
ref ;lava' construction. Admiral Paris says-...“
Its
feet is clue tn
to it; weakness against shot or siejlrema,htest
&
nliOit strike below the armour plaig when the vcasel to' l'hlt.
c .using prohab!y the loss of the vessel in spite of the num,-
ions watertight compartments." This opinion of Admiral
Paris, I believe—indeed I know—is also the opinion of M.
Dapaz de l'Ornio, for I have the authority of the Controller
for saying that ho has received a letter .from that distin-
gish
fored gentleman, in which his preference is shown
rather to be
wood than iron. My hon friend has quoted from
Mr. Scott Russell on this question of. iron ships as compared
with wooden ships. Now, the right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Droitwich presidedito ltast year at a meeting of the
Institute of Naval
inArwchhiohehses svhen a paper was read by
Mr. Scott Russell,recommended strongly that
w it should get our fleets built by
thatlim and of iron. But it
ha, opened that there was also atmeeting another very
mu 'tient and distinguished shipbuilder,Mr. Ditchburn,
who is well known as having producedsome very remark-
able ;vessels, and who is as much an iron ipbuilder as Mr.
'Scott Russell. Mr. Ditchburn said,—
" In considering the strength of ships, it is right to rt
ntterabet • that in ships of war the bottom is made z

ought to be cleared from the imputation which had been
cast upon them as a body. (Hear, hear.) There had, no
doubt, teen some difficulty in getting iron of the exact kind
which the Admiralty required, but the manufacturers were
now more capable of producing it. He had that day been
told by one manufacturer that he was going to turn
out armour-plates 12 inches thick. One great advantage of
iron over wood was that it required no seasoning. The sys-
tem of contr. cting for ships, as at present in practice, was a
bad one. In the case of engines the parties contracting
were required to send in their plans, and were judged ac-
cording to those plans. That system had raised our engine
makers to the head of the world, and the adoption of a
similar system in regard to he building of ships would pre-
vent the recurrence of the complaints about bad workman-
ship, and would insure that the contracts would be en-
, trusted only to men who knew how to build a ship, and
would give their attention to it The adoption of such a
course woud do more than anything else to develope the
shipbuilding talent of this country, and would place our
navy in a position such as it had never hitherto occupied,
(Hear, hear.) If the Admiralty were allowed to cut out
these frames, they would in a few months be converted into
something else, and in two or three years but little of the
original timber would be left. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
He looked upon this as an attempt to get in the small end
of the wedge for an expenditure of £1,300,000, or £1,500,000
u the plea that we are going to spend only £5OO or £6OO.
In his opinion it would be better to sell the timber and wait
for a few months, until we saw what Captain Coles's ship
and the Royal Oak would do. We had tested our iron ships
—let the Government now transfer their crews into four of
the wooden ships, send them into the Atlantic for 12 months
and then decide whether they would build iron or wooden
ships. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. EWART, as a director of the Peninsular and
Oriental Company, stated that they had now 41 iron vessels,
of an aggregate burden of 61,700 tons, and were building
fix more of a burden of about 12.300. Those vessels had
been built by contract on the Tyne, the Thames, the Clyde,
and the Mersey, and had given the most complete satisfac-
tion. The troopship Himalaya, the best transport on the
service, was built for them by Messrs. Mare, and afterwards
sold to the Government. Two or three of their iron
steamers, having become antiquated in form, were being
converted into sailing vessels, and Lloyd's surveyor, in a
' report, dated August, 1862, said of one of them, " The bot-
tom plating externally presents a most satisfactory appear-
ance, being free from corrosion, with scarcely any defective
rivets, or any leaking butts or seams." That vessel was
built in 1847—(hear, hear)—and, as she had performed a
great deal of hard work, he thought that this was a good
proof how faithfully she had been built. Another vessel,
the Galleone, constructed by Messrs. Laird, was now in
the Shannon in almost as perfect a state as when she was
built. As additional proof of the capability of private
builders to construct iron ships he might refer to the
steamers now employed in the postal service between Holy-
head and Dublin. In the case of those vessels a form of
tender was sent to a few of the most eminent builders,
merely specifying the size of the vessels, the speed desired,
and the accommodation required, all te.e rest being left to
the contractors. How far satisfactory the result had been
was known to every one in the house. As a large props. e-
tor in steam-packet companies, he had the greatest cunfi:
deuce in building ships by private contract.
Mr. CONINGHAM took the same view, and thought
iron might be even still further improved upon by steel.
Mr. JACKSON said the question was not whether they
were to build iron or wooden ships, but what they were to
do with the artisans in the dockyards. The principal evil in
the system of the Admiralty was that it was overridden by
red-tapism and officialism; and it seemed that a sum of
£1,400,000 was to be paid, not for work done, but in the
shape of superannuation to non-effectives.
Mr. G. BENTINCK said that there was a great deal
more involved in the motion than met the ear. They were
ostensibly discussing the comparative merits between
wooden and iron ships, but he thought that was the least
important part of the question; and it seemed to him that
his noble friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had dis-
posed of it in two sentences when he told them that
there was a great deal to be said on both sides, and
that no one could venture to say what might be the result
of the experiments that were now going on. His
own opinion was, that the best mode of ship-building
was a mixture of wood and iron—(hear, hear) —an iron
frame and wooden planks. He was willing to give the
fullest credit for sincerity to those who spoke on both sides
of the question, and it was only reasonable that persons
should have a preference for the system which tallied best
with their own views and respective commercial pursuits.
But the question was not whether they were to build ships
of wood or iron, but whether they were to be independent
of private yards, or to be solely dependent upon them. He
did not think it would be well to have the interea a of the
navy entirely dependent upon private yards. (Hear, hear.)
The real meaning of the motion was, that the House of
Commons should take the details of the business of the
navy out of the hands of the Government. (Cries of " No,
no.") He contended the practical effect of the motion
would be to express the dissatisfaction of the House of C 3131-
) mons with the manner in which the Government conducted
' the business of the navy, and take upon itself the duty and
responsibility of the executive; and he could not conceive
anything more mischievous and dangerous, or more uncon-
sth utional, than that the House of Commons should become
the executive in matters of detail. (Hear.)
Mr. H. ROBERTSON said he should cordially support
the motion of his hon. friend the member for Sunderland.
tie had reed the report of Admiral Robinson, and it seemed
to him that the very reasons he gave for building ships of
wood should have induced the Government to build them
of iron. Reference had been made to the large sums paid
for alterations; but did hon, members know how that oc-
curred ? It arose from the imperfect instructions given to
the contractors. There was the Warrior, for instance. A
sum of £i4,000 was paid for alterations in that vessel, or
something like 25 per cent. of the whole cost—not owing
to any fault of the contractor, but because of the incomplete
designs furnished by the Admiralty. These was no diffi-
culty in getting iron in this country of any quality; anti
contractors, if they had the money to pay for it, could get
it of as good quality as the G vernment.
Mr. BEECROFT said the Admiralty report contained a
reflection on the iron masters of this country which they
did not deserve. They had spared no expense to meet the
requirements of the Government with armour plates of the
very Lest quality. Any quantity of good material could be
obtained by paying a proper price for it. No iron ship-
builder would use bad material if he knew it, as it would
materially injure his reputation. He was of opinion we
ought to give up wooden ship building, and he instanced
what France was doing in iron shipbuilding in consequence
of its superiority over wood.
Sir S. M P ETO congratulated the house that this was not
a party question, but one in which all parties took a deep
interest. The question of wood and iron was discussed in
that house 14 years ago, and it was in consequence of what
the then First Lord of the Admiralty said that the use of
iron was delayed in the construction of our ships of war,
and there had been a want of appreciation by successive
GoVernments of the value of iron over wood. The result of
the motion would not be an interference with the executive,
AS stated by the bon, member for West Norfolk (Mr.
Bentinck). All they were debating was the best materiel
to be used in the construction of the navy, and on the in•
vitation of the Government. (Hear, hear.) There was no
desire to prescribe to the Government any particular course
for them to take, but to impress on them that what was done
should be the best for the service of the country. The hon.
gentleman then entered at considerable length into the de-
tails of Admiral Robinson's report, and he concurred with
him when he said that iron was the best material, and not
the less so from the saving it would effect in repairs. He
(Sir M. Pato) wished to see the dockyards in the most
efficient state, but to make them so it was notnecessary mil-
lions a year should be spent in the repairs of wooden ships.
The rece• t accident to the Great Eastern and the accident
to the Great Britain in Dundrum Bay proved that iron
ships would stand, and their superiority to wooden ones.
He had invited the opinion of the managers of the Penin
sular and Oriental Steam-packet Company, and of the
Royal Mail Steam. packet Company, and the evidence of
both was most, unmistakeably in favour of the use of iron
As for fouling, the wooden vessels constructed after the
model of the Admiralty would foul just as readily as those
which he proposed to build. He had it on the best autho-
rity, that quite recently no less than forty tons of barnacles
bad been removed from off the bottom of La G!oire. As for
the results of splintering, they would be the same in both
cases. With respect to what France was doing, he believed
that if France was in the position of England, if she had
iron as plenty and as cheap as England, France would give
up building wooden ships. France was but too happy that
we were thus neglecting all the great advantages. He was
confident that England was able to build iron-plated vessels
better than any country in the world, and he regretted ex-
tremely to see the Admiralty depreciating the confidence
entertained towards English ship builders throughout the
world. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. HAY said the best evidence in favour of iron was
the repe't put in circulation by the Admiralty themselves.
Theta certainly was not the least doubt that iron was more
durable. Ile agreed with the Admiralty that it was very
desirable they should have copper-bottomed ships, but it
was not impossible to apply copper to the bottom of iron
ships. With regard to the question of the test of iron being
fixed at 22 tons to the square inch, that test had been re-
commended by the committee of which he was chairman,
from the fact that steel bore a test of nearly forty tons, and
many descriptions of iron a very much higher test than 22
tons. He agreed with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr.
Bentinck) that the fact of such a question as this coming
before the house was an additional reason for considering
the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. In regard to
that question, he was in favour of the formation of about 14
different departments, the heads of which should be respon-
sible to a Minister of Marine, who in turn should be respon-
sible to Parliament.
Sir F. BARING—I thought the question before us was
that of iron ships or wooden ships, and not that of the con-
struction of the Board of Admiralty. 1 shall not be tempted
to follow the hon. and gallant member into the lattet ques-
tion, but, lest the house should have any
misapprehension
as to the opinion of the committee which satlast year, I may
say there was not a tingle person examined, who had been
First Lord of the Admiralty, who did not say that he con-
sidered himself responsible for all that was done, (Hear,

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. Ths
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 1563 to give
such specifications as should rule the building of iron
ships for the navy of 1865. We have, however, given
his 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
£041,490, Of this there were expended for wages on build .
ing, including conversions, £191,135, leaving for wages for
all the other services in the yards, and for the great busi-
ess 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
Ind a half years or two years at least. 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. It, 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 hon, 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 quese
tion carefully, and did not believe that the Royal:dockyards
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
.cages in 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
he 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
eak 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 cost. 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.) Thenagain
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 £4O. 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 bad that vessel been made
of wood it wouli have keen 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
mind, that iron ships were more serviceable and economical
and would have nothing to say to wooden ones. (Hear.)
Uhe Peninsular and Oriental Company some years ago de.
.iberately 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
sides 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
even the steeliest craft, such as gunboats, were constructed
in great haste it was 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 he well 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 reeult 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
ironmakera 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 flailed their contracts honestly, they

hear.) As to the question really before us, I must say Ido ; he would find himself very tench in thece pue l rnition of tieh on.
not not look upon it in quite the same light as some hon. gen- tractors referred to in 'hie peper, not h
tlemen. If it be a question of sci, trifle knowledge as to the work in time, and whe if they could, weulti CIO a ven
best mode of building ships Ido not think lam competent is lisle thing if tiny did finieh it, becenee ht'y wound built
to decide it, The Secretary of the Admiralty has .old us a sbip which wend decay. (Herr) Ateu eine. I to righ
that we hove the opinion of the protessiona• adviser of the iin my view, that the Centrell - of the newt i th, fin
Board, who is responsible for his advice, and in addition he authority on this matter of time, I say the noble vneeunt's
tells us that a large majority of the officers whom he has 1 argument founded on time is good, and a wooden ship has
consulted prefer wood to iron. He adds, that the profes- no advantage in point of time over an iron one. (Hear.)
sional advisers of the Frenca Government have expressed Then, what becomes et his next argument, that there is an
the same opinion. We mete be all weong ; but lam sur- advantage of money ? I hope the House of Comm ns will
prise 1, I confess, to hear a gallant officer tell us that such agree with me that the weakest and worst view we could
opinions are absurd and not worthy of consideration, I ad- take of the question is, that it is not one of money (Hear,
mire the confidence with which he and other gentlemen hear.) Do not build the cheapest vessel if it is not the best.
have stated their opinions ; but the little weight they seem Whatever money you are going to exeend let it be for the
inclined to give to that ot others does not increase toy con- best article, and let the country have the advantage of it
fidence in their judgment. (Hear.) Neither am I inclined In the body 01 the paper I find a statement of the compa-
to enter into the discussion between the contractors and the rative cost of tbe Valiant, as compared with that of a wooden
Controller of the Navy. I admit that there are words in ship. The former is stated at £?.06,000, an] the latter
that retort which I wish had net been there, and which may at £187,000, which shows a saving of about £ • 9,000 in
hurt the feelings of men who are as honourable and as in- favour of the wooden ship, in favour of the worst of two
telligent as any other body of men, and as capable of doing things, for the house enust remember that. But 1 must
the work they undertake. I believe there are good con- observe that on looking at the schedule attached toaliant, this
tractors, but I know also there are bad contractors. But at statement I find that though the Hector and V
1 the commencement of our building iron chips it is not sure are ships of precisely the same tonnage (1,063 tons), with
pricing that the Admiralty should change their plans, nor the same number of guns (32), and the same horee powhe
er
that contractors should find a difficulty in carrying them out. (800), the cost of the former is £162,677, wf t
But the question before us seems to me to be what the latter is £106,360, or rather £207,212. Why is the most
house will do with the resolution. I am not prepared to costly iron ship selected for comparison with the wooden
give an opinion whether or not iron is better than wood at one in the body of the paper ? It the least costly iron ship
the present moment ; much less am I prepared to say which has been selected the advantage of money as well as that of
will be the better material three years hence. -When iron tme would be in favour of the iron vessel. (Hear, hear.)
was first recommended for shipbuilding I remember that the Chen as to the question of durability, we have this statement
vessels constructed of it were supposed to be utter failures, of the Controller :
and were so regarded by the French naval air horities as well nAn iron ship has much greater durability in certain
as by the Admiralty in this country ; and if the opinion of pnarcots
contactis ron, wooden an,
lapse of yeats the iron frame would have suffered next to
decided that no iron ships should ever be built. I only nothing as compared with a wooden chip."
mention this to show that what may happen to-day may be
I appeal to the common sense of hon. members whether
quite reversed a few years afterwards. (Hear.) As to the
this paragraph is not conclusive against the wooden ships.
statement of the Controller of the Navy, I am not sure that
(Hear, hear.) As to the splinter argument, Ith nk the hen.
it is so ridiculous as hon, gentlemen seem te suppose. The
member for Wakefield has disposed of it. Next comes the
hen. member (Sir M. Peto) stated that these iron ships
ejection founder on an iron snip getting upon a rock. My
would last for 50 years. Now, if all your screw wooden '
first answer to it is that her Mejesty's ships had much better
ships and sailing vessels would last 60 years, I am afraid
keep off rocks, but if she gets on a reek is there no danger
you would not find it a very economical arrangement in
to a wooden ship? I speak in the presence of naval men
these times of change and improvement. (Hear.) But the
when I say I believe the uanger is much greater to a wooden
question now is what we are going to vote. This resolu-
ship in such a case. lam r- minded of the occurrence to
lion does not say that we are to have a certain number of
the Conqueror, which is an illustration of what I say. Ihe
ships and that they are to be built of iron. The wording
wooden ship has not the advantage of watertight compare
of it is that we are not to build ships of a particular tieserip-
mew B—(hear, hem) -hut I think no great we ght can be
lion. DD. those who are going to vote for the resolution
attached to the rock argument. (Hear) The noble lord
mean that they are prepared to vote for iron ships, or wilt
he secretary of the Admiralty has reminded us that wear
its words cover those who wish to prevent the construction '
in a transition state, and that we cannot tell what inven -
both of iron and of wooden ships. (Hear, hear.) But sup- ions we may have within two years. That is true, bur it
pose you bind yourselves to the employment of iron only
is equally applicable to one side of the question as well as
Is that wise? 1 should have theught hat at this time,
to the other (Hear, hear.) Y u are going to lay down
with the great improvern nts and changes which are taking
five men-of-war, and before you lay them down you must
place both in artillery and in shipbuilding, it would be well
decide what they are to be. The only remaining argue
to leave the executive Government as free as possible, not
moot I think it necessary to touch is that founded on the
tying their hands either one way or the other. (Hear,
alleged sure as of the Ft each armour eever, d wooden
hear.) It is not very prudent to bind yourselves at any
ebips. I confess I read that pinnate of the Con
time, but, when all these changes are taking place—when
trotter's statement with surprise; because it does not agree
you are calling upon the Government to follow the inn
with what I have heard generally stated in private eonver•
provements of the day—is it wise to say, " there is one
stations. I have heard again and again filet th celebrated
thing which you shall not do, and another thing which
ship La Gloire, which as yet bas only been backwards and
you shall do, and you shall be bound by this resolu- torwards between Toulon and Algiers, was so strained
tion ? " (Hear, hear.) . Without, therefore, expressing
while cruising in the Mediterranean, in consequence of the
an opinion on the relative value of these two materials, I
weight of her armour on a wooden strue ure, as to make it a
object strongly to bind the House of Commons and the Go
grave question with the French whether they should not
vernment. (Hear.) One question raised by the hon. mem
give up wood and take to iron. My impression with regard
her (Mr. Bentinck) is worth considering—namely, whit
to the Normandie, the Magenta, and Solferino is that they
is to be respensible for the conduct of the navy—the Execu-
have not yet lied a fair trial. I believe that none of them
ive or the House of Commons ? My impression is that
have had a trial which could be compared with that which
whatever form of Admiralty you have, they should be re- the Warrior had a year ago in the Bay of Biscay, where
sponsible both for the building of the navy and the whole
never a ship of war went through a severer test, nor came
business of the department. Ido not think it wise, unless into harbour in a better condition after such a trial. But
for the strongest reasons, nor do I think it constitutional,
wooden ships, in consequence of the enormous weight ot
for the house to take into its own hands the government of
their engines, which the house will remember must be irre-
the country, and to interfere with the responsibility of the
pective of the weight of armour-plating, are obliged to g
Executive. At present the First Lrd is responsible. Bu '
into dock to be repaired atter they have been exposed to
suppose we should be wrong in the decision we now arrive heavy weather. I cannot sit town without referring to that
at, who will be responsible then? (Hear, hear.) Again, the
pertion of the Parliamentary paper on this subject which
Admiralty think that additional expense will be occasioned
;brows a most harsh, and as I think a most unjust stigma
by adopting this resolution. In that cese it will, of course,
.ei the shipbuilders of this country, many of whom have
be their duty to come down for en additional vote. It they
made contracts for building ships for the Royal navy, I
follow the decision of the house, they must ask the house to cannot understand how the Board of Admiralty can have
provide the money. Who becomes rasp nsible for the ex-
allowed themselves to place upon the table of this house a
penditure ? The Queen's Government do not ask for it,
reflection upon men of high character and standing so se-
and are not responsible for it. They come down in obedience
vere and HO utter!) unmerited as I believe this to be. (Hear,
which
they be-
to the vote of the house, and ask for moneyhear.) No exceptions are made. The hon. member for
glove is not wanted for the service of the country. This is
Birkenhead has alluded tc this subject, and what must be
an extremely inconvenient course. I thought that one 01
the feelings of those able and eccomptished men his sons,
the duties of the House of Commons wen to check the G.-
who are an tenement to their profession, ashen they find
vernment in the expenditure, but the House of Common,.
heenselves included in the category of shipbuilders a ho an
seem to me to be going beyond their proper functions when
:inlay of slovenly work and of using dishonest materials?
they press the Government to increase the expenditure and (Hear, hear.) W hat must be the feelings of that venerable.
to tax the country, when the Government is of opinion thai and accomplished man, Mr. Napier, of Glasgow, whom I
no such expenditure is requisite. (Hear, hear.) teel proud to call my friend, when he finds hiniself accuse;
Sir J. PAKINGTON—The noble lord has most fair]) also of slovenly work and dishonest materials ? (Hear.
redeemed the pledge he gave on a former evening, that this
hear.) Another house in this town, the Than*,
subject should be first of all explained by a statement on the Iron Company, constructed the Warrior ; Mr. Napier, 0,
part of the Admiralty, which we have all received and read, Glasgow. built the Black Prince And what right has any
and then that an evening should be set apart to carry on the
department to come down to this house, and, in order is
discussion which the importance of the subject demands. bolster up a bad case -- (cheers)—to stiginatiee in this man-
And, whatever may be the result at which the house may er men of the highest possible character and standing ?
arrive to-night, I hope that no hon. member will vote •
(Hear.) I deeply regret the course which has been talc,,:
except under a full sense that the decision he is about ,u this matter, and I know of nothing to justify it. 1;
to give is one of extreme importance, both as regards dealing with private firm', you may be liable to treatmt n t.
the future efficiency of the navy and as regards the which exception may justly be taken. But to stigmeis, ~
finances of this country, so far as they depend upon out whole class, and that class embracing some of the most die-
prospective naval expenditure. (Hear, hear.) I quit,- tinguished men in the country, is a matter which I think
agree with what has been just stated—namely, that of the the Board of Admiralty will regret, and which I have reao
members of this house a great majority, and I am one 01 with pain and sorrow. (Hear.) Sir, this question ties in s.,
the number, would not venture to pronounce a decided narrow compass. I, for one, do not desire to take any cours
opinion upon their own part and from their own knowledge which would involve any undue interference with ~he Exe
as to the comparative advantages of these two modes 01 euchre; but we hive to decide to night a matter ~f grey.
building. But, on the other hand, we ate bound to give importance to tee country, and if the hon. member for Sun
weight to evidence—we are bound to decide upon the weight Berland presses his motion to a division undoubtedly I snail
of testimony before us ; and since I have sat in this house I find it my duty to vote with him. (Cheers )
never heard so one-sided a debate as this. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I concur with the right hen
The right hon. gentlemen who has just sat down passed no
gentleman who has just eat down on two points—namely,
opinion, upon the relative merits of wood and iron. Th,
first, that this is a most important question, and next the•
only other lion, gentleman who has spoken otherwise that,
in support of the motion is the hon. member (Mr. Bentinck), the house ought to confine itself to the words of the motion
of my hon. friend. Therefore I abstain own entering
and he too carefully avoided any opinion upon this point.
into that field which was opened to our view by other mem-
But then I entirely diesent from the notion that we are now
bere—namely, an intimation that my hon. friend ought to
called upon to decide any other question than the one in
have included in his motion the reconstruction of the Boon
volved in the wends of the motion. It has been said that
of Admiralty. Whether that meant that the Board of Ad-
this is a question whether you will build in her Majesty's
tniratty ought, like our ships, in his opinion, to be con-
dockyards or in private yards. Again, the right hon, Ben-
sour ed by contract, and made of iron, I will not inquire
tlernan has asked whether the house is prepared to take, ui
of the hands of the Executive government a matter of detail. (A laugh.) I believe that my hon. friend, in the other hand,
instead of wishing that the Board should be made of more
I do not refuse to attach due importance to either of these
hard and more stern material, would rather wish them made
considerations. I am not disposed to abandon her Majesty'',
cotter and more plastic, and more liable to be moulded ac-
dockyards in o, der to build our ships in private yards, but
cording to his opinion. (A laugh.) But the right hon.
I believe that he would not be a wise man who laid down
gentleman said that the debate hitherto has been one-
-1 for the future either course. (Hear, hear.) I believe that
sided. Well, in some degree I concur in that opinion,
we shall in the management of our navy have abundant
because I think that many of those who have spoken
work for her Majesty's dockyards,, and that, en the other
hand, we should act most unwisely if we were to reject that nave taken a very one-sided view of the question. (Hear,
assistance which we have derived, and may again derive, hear.) It is very natural that gentlemen who by then
:oily experience know the advantages and facilities which
from the ability and the talent n, be found in the private
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
regard to the other objection of taking out of the hands of
to be mad© of iron. It is the old story—that everything
the Executive Government a matter of detail, I am not din-
eheuld be of leather. (A laugh) They say that iron is the
posed to underrate its importance, but I submit to • the
only mate] fel, Well, but I think the whole of this discus-
house that this is an objection which you may push too far
sion has turned on a misconception as to what has been
(Hear, hear.) The House of Commons has an important
and what is intended to be the course of the Admiralty.
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
I say it is a question of principle. (Hear, hear.) It is a mos,
debate without knowing what the Admiralty has done would
important question, affecting the future welfare of the navy,
have imagined that—whereas the Admiralty has pertina-
and I entirely agree with the hon. baronet (Sir M. Peto),
ciously persisted in building nothing but wooden ships, and
who said that we ought to approach the subject solely with
whereas it has been shown in this house by recent expo-
reference to its merit',, and without considering whether
the resolution comes from one party or the other, or whe- rience that iron is the preferable material—this house has
;her it affects one Board of Admiralty or another, but that a right to interpose and arrest the Admiralty in its vicious
t;,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 t
meat upon the evidence before us. (Hear.) The right hen nave recourse to iron. But what is the fact ? Is it true
that the Admiralty have set their faces against building iror
baronet had just told us that we should give weight to the
,hips, that they have set their faces against building shins
opinions of the officers of the Executive Government, and
by contract, and that they have done nothing but build
in particular that the opinion of the Controller of the Navy
wooden shipe ? Why, quite the cntrary. Out of the 2 i
is in favour of the course taken by the Admiralty. Now
ships that are built and building 11 aro of iron entirely, of
is that true? I have no means of knowing Admiral Rabin:
which 10 were built by col tractors. Therefore I say then
son's views, except by the paper before me ; but I say that
is no ground for assuming that the Admiralty are indisposed
this paper does net bear out the intention of the Board ot
either to build iron ships or to build those iron ships be
Admirelty. If Admiral Robinson be in favour of the view,
means of private trade and contract. The Achilles is th,
of the Admiralty, certainly this paper does not inferto
,sly one of those iron ships built in a Government dock
us of that fact. On the contrary, I think it can readily be
yard The question then is, we have 11 ships actuates
shown from it that the Admiralty have made a serious ruin
ifloat, and five more of wood cased with lion that are con--
take in the decisiou which has given rise to this discussion
tructing, making 16 in all, the French—tor it is no use is-
nt hat was the argument of the noble lord at the head of ''
guieing the state of the matter—(cheers) —having built, in
the Government the other night? He justified the decision,
tieing now engaged in building 27, whether the Admiraltyof the Admiralty on two grounds. He said that which has
ere right or wrong in proposing to add five to the 16 than
been repeated this evening by my noble friend the Secretary
ire now building, and thus giving us within one, and only
of the Admiralty—namely, that the Government are de-
one, ut the number the French will have. [Lord C. PAGET
sirens of as soon as possible completing a number of armed
was understood to say that the French had 31.] We de
ships, I think that question has been raised unnecessarily
out wish to overstate the question. (Cheers.) Now, sir.
There is no man in this house who bas urged the Govern-
a great deal has been said with rag ad to the rad-
went more than I have to lose no time in building those
ships; and the feeling of the house is in favour of such
e fire merits of wooden and iron ships, and I think that
course. (Hear) Then the noble viscount said there were two
wheress some members tak® exception to the statement of
reasons for following the plan laid down by the Admiralty aIY noble friend, if the Admiralty were to-morrow to
—the one time, the other money. I presume that when w, Issue a contract for an iron ship they would be at a loss to
have an official paper before us proceeding from the Con• know what particular thing they de. ire to have. I agree
troller of the Navy, we are to regard it as the production to
with my noble frieno, and think that. if this house, according
the first authority within his own department. What doer ,o the debate this evening, were to order these five ships,
he say on the question of time ? - he person to whom the order would be given would be at a
c' To build the wooden ship leisurely and to the best ad- loss to know whet sort of ship it was intended he should
Rs long ; but if an much pressed make; for a great variety of opinions have been stated by
vantage would take about
as the contractors have been for the ' Hector,' and if the hon. members who have spoken as to what is the best kind
workmen were entirely uninterrupted, the period might be of ship. My hon. friend the member for Finsbury says that
shertened to 12 months." only yes'erday he obtained intormation tending to show
With this statement before me I confess it was with n;. , hat wooden ships cased with iron and sheathed with cop-
little astonishment I heard my noble friend the Secretary o per are not likely to answer the purpose. . norher hon.
the Admiralty say that the wooden ships might be built it, member thinks that iron is likely to be superseded by steel
12 months. Another gentleman has said that different methods are every
Lord C. PAGET—What I said was that, after the ships day invented for the preparation of iron. So that reaper, it
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-
-12 months. mine, if of iron, what sort of ship would be best for the put-
Sir J. FAKINGTON—We do not want "if" and con- pose two years hence. there is one objection that no
. toNow,
ditions in this matter. We want a plain and unconditional one deniesiron ships, and that is the outhoe.
statement. (Hear, hear.) We have got a plain statemen it the bottom.as appliedmy noble friend has stated, on the au
that the building of an iron ship is solely a tion of time rity of C path. Cochrane, that the Warrior losheseae knot every
The building of a wooden ship is not a quuesetsion of time. six weeks
whatoat theb froiulhint gh..onN. ow,
Nothing is so dangerous as hurrying a woodenci ship. What who have takene baronet° oalgls a one-
danger proceeds from hurrying it? Rapid decay. When sided view of the question, g and who are all for iron, have
my noble friend committed himself, as I think most incau- founded their argumentveryna uoh on the analogy between
timely, about the 12 months, if we took him at his word ,packet ships and. men-of-war, forgetting the Brea t differ-

•-, wAr. I :4 • s I I, 0
r'hiror, to W s, 111,11,s or to t 01
r h tr.• 111 f‘vtrltri ,mitt 1 i5e..).1.,..rti r

s hr. a-, a 111, lut s , t

1' y If; •.1. S i•
flays IN wf, ks J., t,r site 'fig': t. Til,- • r-g•-• 5.. ing
wet.ly to keep her in a a., sight eour,,,, it ,for-s not v. ty
much matter, except she is taken in a storm or finds herselt
in any difficulty, whether she steers less well or pr-rfectly.
But in regard to ships of war, speed and steerage may be of
tho utmost possible consequence—in an action everything
may depend upon them. (Hear.) A battle may be lost
from some defect in them, and no man can tell the disas-

trous results to a country of the loss of a naval engagement.
(Hear.) Now, it is perfectly c:ear that iron ships require
repeated cleansing of their bottoms, and as a great part of
the service of the navy is perfortnei in distant places, where
your ships are required to remain for two or three years ,
withcur coming home, iron ship is not fit it, the present
condition of things for such a service. You could not send
the Warrior or a ship of the same kind to the West India
station, for they v. ou!d have to go) into dock, and when
their services were wanted they would be getting their but-
turns cleansed from the incrustations. But would your

wooden ships be less effective as men-of-war than the ships
of the widens which they migh:, hey° to encounter? lion.
gentlemen seem to imagine that a wooden ship coated with
iron is the same as a wooden Chip not so coated, A ship
coated with iron is strengthened in every possible way by
beams, by iron put on internally, and therefore where a
wooden ship not coated with iron may he strained, that
will no: be the case with a wooden ship strengthened with
armour. My noble friend has stated that a great number
ot naval officers say they should very much prefer having
the command of a wooden ship armour-plated to an iron
ship plated in the same way. Opinions are very much di.
vided upon the matter. Well then, that being so, what do
the Admiralty intend to do? Why. in the course of this
summer there will be a mode of testing by experiment the
qualities of the Royal Oak, a ship built of wood, but
strengthened with en iron ceating, a compared with those
of the Hector, a ship of the same sire, but built entirely of
iron, and the result of that experiment will instruct
the Admiralty as to the course to be pursued with
respect to the number of ships necessaty to be built.
But my hon. friend, instead of leaving to the Admiralty
o determine, as is their proper tunction, what is best tor
the pubic service, calls upon the betties to rush in
by a hasty decision, bind up the hands of the
Government, and take from thin that respeneib lity which
belongs exclusively to them. (Hear.) This house, by de-
ciding upon a queeien ot shipbuild.ne. will assume to h-
eel+ a furiction which, with all due de"erence, I contend it
is perfectly incompetent to pertorm—(hear, heat)—and if
'he result were to be that by yieldeeg e: per (yin the wishes
of the house the Government were turned am Ky from that
course which their are disposed to pursue, and if the time
should come when ikte were without the number of ships
which we ought to have, in order to be on equality with
orhet Powers, it. would be all very well for the Government
to say, "1 he House of Commons are answerable." The
:touse would reply, " You ought not to have submitted tort
wrong decision of the house—you ere answerable, and we
shall wreak upon you that resentm +let which the nation
ought properly to feel against an Ex« cut tve that has done its
luty." (Hear.) Well, they, Ido entreat the house not
to consent, to a course which would be most unwise. There
are certain fuucti ns which belong toa deliberate assembly,
and others which belong to an Executive, and alth .ugh a
deliberate aseem ly may usurp the function of an Execu-
tive, it acts unwisely in doing so. (Hear, hear.) The re-
sponsibility ought to rest upon the Execut ye, and the
house ought to judge by the acts of the Government whether
they properly or improperly perform their duty. (Hear.)
All that we want is that our hands should be left untied, in
order that we may build the best navy which from time to
time may be possible. The experience of every month may
lead to a considerable modification of preconceived notions,
and errors hastily committed cannot be hastily repaired.
(Hear) When an hon. gentleman remarked that iron ships
would last 30 or 40 years my hon. friend behind me said
Well, Heaven forbid, because long before we may find
them superseded by other inventions better adapted to the
service." (Hear.) There are severe'. kinds of sbips—brotet-
aided, squeresided, and what are called sinking ships—that
is ships which are to be filled with water so as to expose
very little surface to the fire of an enemy, are urged by
some persons but the question cf the rival merits of
all these is to be solved by experimt nt. Only one thing is
well ascertained—namely, that in power of resistance a ship
with iron plating and a thick wooden side behind the iron
is equal to the Wart ior. Therefore, whether wooden shipe
plated with iron are to be regarded simply as ships for sea-
;teeing purposes or for purposes of at titre, they are capable,
on tht one hand, of maintaining their position in any part
of the world just as much as any other wooden ship is, and
on the other hand, they are as well able to resist shot as an
iron ship would be. Therefore, when the r ght hon baronet
says the papers on the table show we would gain neiller in
-ime nor in money by building wooden iron-plated ships, I
must beg to differ from hits, because if the preparations
which may be made in the dockyards with very little ex-
sense be ca: tied out a wooden iron. plated ship car, be put
,ogether n a twelvemonth, whereas an iron ship would take
wo years and a half. (hear.) No doubt the question of ex-
.tense is not very material, but it is something, and I did not
eteect teat from that quarter of the house (pointing below
• he gangway, on the Ministerial side) we should have urged
upon us an arrangement which, not only in point of time,
ell of money, would ievelve a greater expendi ore (Hear.)
Cherefore I eci hope and trust the house will leave to the
Government that proper discretion which belongs to them
regerd to the defence of the country ; that it will not pre-
a3ribe any one particigiar course; but that, as Goverruu nt
reap besible to the house far the cen tact of it, depart-
mental arrangements, it will leave them free to act upon the
oest in!ortnetioa which they can obtain as to which class of
vessels msy be best sus ed to the wants of the, country.
Mr. HENLEY said the neble lord had placed the ques•
ion in rather a different light when he asked the house to
.eave the Goya, went to do what they th: ught best of
wo course 4. N,ither the paper he held in his hand nor
the at tny estimates left any treedorn of choice to the (1,)-
vornment to do which of two things they thought. best.
(Hear, hear.) Did they st:+nl upon that issue P The
uoule lord the Secretary for the Admiralty Fetid that time
was everything, and the French were before us aliewlY ;
,end therefore we ought to have five more of these ships.
But what progress was he making. He said that it had
not yet been decided what sort of vessels we were to have;
unit therefore we were to keep behind the French until
atter the promised experiments. As for putting ships up
in frame, so that they could be finished in twelve months,
that was very wed, but would not putting them up in (ranee
take time ? (Hear.) He should, atter the speech of the
noble lord, vote for the resolution, because he felt that the
arguments put forward in the document that had been.
circulated were altogether opposed to the result sought to
be arrived at.
Mr. BOUVERIE was opposed to all Government ship-
building being left to private contractors, and referred to
the inconvenience suffered by Government at the beginning
of the Crimean war for want of small arms, and which
ultimately led to their being compelled to istablish a small-
arm factory of their own,
The house then divided—
For the resolution
Against
Majority for the Government —B4
The house went into committee of supply pro forma.
Sir G. C. LE WIS stated he would deter the army esti-
mate until to-morrow.
LAND INCLOSURE.

Mr. BRUCE obtained leave to bring in a till to autho-
rise the enclosure of certain lands, in pursuance of a report
of the Inclosure Commissioners far England and Wales.
The bill was subsequently read a first time.
ROYAL FORESTS.

On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
select committee on Royal Forests was nominated as fol-
lows : Mr. Torrens, Mr. Attorney-General, Sir John Trol-
lops, Mr. Henry Austin Bruce, Mr. Wallington, Viscount
Enfield, Lord Lovaine, Mr. Cox, Mr. Gat horne Hardy, Mr.
Butler, Mr. Ker Seymer, Mr. Kinuaird, Mr. Macdonugh•
Mr. Caithorpo, and Mr. Peacocke.
The rouse adjourned at 20 minutes past 11 o'cl .ck.

Importing Tea without colour on the lest pre-
vents the Chinese passing off inferior leaves as in the usual
kinds. Horniman's Tea is unco4gred, therefore, avw(l3
good alike. Sod in packets ley 2,28n1 agelits.