The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-05 00:00:00

CAPTAIN COLES' SHOT-PROOF SHIELD.

_ .
Admiral WALCOTT asked the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty whether ho had any objection to lay upon the table of
the house the correspondence which might have arisen be-
tween Captain Cowper Coles, of the Royal Navy, and the
Board of Admiralty on the subject of his shot-proof shield,
inclusive of the year 1855 up to the present time ; likewise
the report made on this subject by the late Admiral Lord
Lyons, and also that of Capt. Powell, of the Royal Navy,
ordered to be carried out on board of H.M.S. Trusty,
Lord C. PAGET said that the correspondence in ques-
tion contained much that it would not be desirable to make
public. With regard to the cupola, the plan was origi-
nally proposed to the Admiralty in 1855.
BURIAL ACT, &c.
Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE moved an address for re-
turns of all moneys borrowed and rates levied under the
public Burial Act in every parish in England and Wales
where the act had been applied; of the number of chapels
erected and the quantity of land assigned to the use of the
Church of England and to Nonconformist commu-
nities respectively, and the proportionate cost of pro-
viding the said chapels and burial grounds in
each parish paid out of the public rates ; of the number of
interments annually in the ground assigned to the Church
of England and the Nonconformist communities reFpec-
tively, and the average cost of interment in the said grounds
to the yearly parochial rates; and of the amount of church
rates levied in each of the same parishes during the years
the Burial Act has been in operation.--Ordered.
AUDIT OF JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.
Mr. 0' BRIEN asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce
any measure during the present session for an official and
effectual audit of the accounts of joint-stock companies?
TRANSATLANTIC STEAMERS.
Mr. SCULLY asked the President of the Board of
Trade, when he expected that the returns as to transat-
lantic steamers, ordered on the 25th February and 3d March
last, would be laid before this house ?

Mr. M. GIBSON said with regard to the first question,
that it was not the intention of Government to introduce
any measure relating to the audit of joint-stock companies'
accounts, and they considered the present system quite suf-
ficient. In reference to the question of the hon. member
(Mr. Scully), the returns alluded to were in progress, and
when completed would be laid before the house.
Mr. O'BRIEN gave notice that after Easter he would
move for the adoption of a more efficient mode of auditing
joint-stock companies.
CONVENTION WITH MEXICO.
Mr. FITZGERALD asked whether the Govern-
ment had received official information relative to the
convention said to have been entered into at Soledad be-
tween the Allied Powers and the Government of Mexico ;
whether the British Force had been or was about to be with-
drawn from the territories of the Republic ; and whether
instructions had been sent out to the British Minister ap-
proving of the terms of the Convention ?

Mr. LAYARD said that the Government had received
official information of a convention, not between the Go-
vernments of the Allied Powers, but between the commis-
sioners of the three Powers and the Government of Mexico.
It was true that the British forces had been withdrawn
from Mexico, with the exception of 100 men out of the ori-
ginal force. That remainder had been left for the purpose
of carrying cu merely the ordinary duty. Her Majesty's
G 4 eroment hod approved of the convention, and it war
thathoped that the convention will fulfil the expectations
were entertained of it.
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS IN IRELAND.
Col.
when the re u
D'eN,IN
' E a,ked the Chief Seeretaiy for Ireland
et
—llls of convictions at the Curragh Court-house
gaid Petty 5e,,,.
--'°" in Kildare in Ireland, ordered b the
house, would be laid upon the table ? y
Sir R. PEEL said
the sensed on the 28th returns in question were pre-
ult,
On the motion for N
, and were ordered to ELSON MONUMENTbe printed.
going into committee of supply,
Admiral WALCOTT drew the attention of the Chief Com-
missioner of
bate
oard of Works to the incomplete state in
which the base ofßthe Nelson 'Monument was still suffered
to remain.

PAPER MONEY
Mr. H. BAILLIE moved an addreaß
r
agreement entered into by the Government of i Copy of the
tho Bank of Bengal, for the issue of paper ia with
Sir C. WOOD said it was not intended to 111
interfere with
thi existing arrangement.
THE NELSON MONUMENT.
Mr. CO WPER, in answer to the hon. and gallant ra,,a_
her (Admiral Walcott) who had brought the subject before
the h:use, said that en order had been given in 1858 to Sir
E. Landseer for the cimpletion of the lions for the base of
the statue. But he supposed in this, as in other cases,
they could not always command genius, and perhaps the
distinguished, artist to whom the work was entrusted was
studying the habits of lions—(laughter)—and he bad been
seen frcqeently in the Zoological Gardens. (Renewed
laughter.) The consequence was that they might look
f sward to a work of greater perfection than if it had been
executed at the time the order was given.

POLAND.
Mr. DENMAN called attention to the condition of Po-
land, and moved for papers in reference thereto. Ile refer •
red to the partition of Poland, and quoted the words of Lord
Macaulay in reference to that political event, in which he
dPsignated it like tearing a living man limb from limb. lie
then went, in detail, through the different steps that had
been taken by Ruesia to denationalise Poland sub-

soquent to the partiticn, and in violation of
the treaty of Vienna ; notwithstanding which
the feeling of nationality it the.. minds Of the people of
Poland was undiminished. In the conferenc which took
place between the great powers of Europe prior to the
Treaty of Paris in ISM, Lord Clarendon me lived an assur-
ance on the part of the Emperor of Eassi I : hat certain in-
stitutions would be granted and certain things done for
Poland, and on the faith of that promise,

•
Lord Clarendon made no further demands in reference to
Poland. He thought that the Government must be in pos-
session of papers relating to what had taken place in refer-
ence to Poland at that convention, and he thought it was
not only due to that unfortunate country, but to this coun-
try, to have those papers produced, to show that English
feeling was in favour of the cause of Poland. He then
gays a copious narrative of the more recent transactions at
Warsaw, dwelling upon the persecutions experienced by the
Poles in 1861, and the petty, irritating orders of the Rus-
sian authorities, and contended that no real attempt had been
made by the Imperial Government to give the Poles the in-
stitutions they so eagerly desired, though he did not know
that the Emperor of Russia was acquainted with the acts at
Warsaw done in his name. He justified his appeal to the
House of Commons in this matter, and moved for the papers
he had referred to.

Lord PALMERSTON observed that everybody who had
turned his mind to the history of Poland must feel for the
Poles great admiration for their qualities and sympathy for
their misfortunes. There was no doubt that the stipulation
in the Treaty of Vienna that the Poles should have a con-
stitution, and national institutions had remained till 1830 a
dead letter. In that year the Poles thought they had an op-
portunity of emancipating themselves ; the attempt was
successful; they were subdued, and the authority of Russia
was restored, The Russian Government thought they were
then entitled to abolish the constitution which the Emperor
Alexander had given. But this was not a question between
that Government and the Poles; the engagement was con-
tracted
between Russia and the other Powers of Europe,
and the British Government thought they were fairly en-
titled to remonstrate against the abolition of the constitu-
tion. Our remonstrance was not attended to; nevertheless,
this was a grievance of which the Poles might justly com-
plain. If the organic statute had been fairly carried out,
the condition of the Poles might still have-been tolerable.
Unfortunately, that was not the case; there was a national
antagonism between the Russians and the Poles. Recent
events were greatly to be lamented ; but he did not see that
that house could be a judge between the two parties. At
the same time, it was difficult not to express an opinion,
_ _ _ _

and, as an individual member of the house, he thought
_ _

the Poles had cause of complaint. It seemed to him,
however, that a nation in their circumstances ought to
consider the effect of any conduct they might be ad-
vised to pursue, The revolt of 1830 was intelligible; but in
recent transactions the Poles could not feel that they had
any fair prospect of obtaining what they sought. Was it
wise, then, to adopt that offensive system of demonstrations
described by Mr. Denman ? These were acts which could
produce no effect upon the condition of Poland, while they
were calculated to irritate the Russian authorities. On the
other hand, he must say it was totally unworthy of those
authorities to have visited with acts of severity and cruelties
which nothing could justify these harmless demonstrations.
He hoped, and he believed, that these acts had not been
sanctioned or even known by the Emperor of Russia, who
had appeared to him a kindhearted and benevolent man. As
to the future, the Poles should be advised to look at the so-
cial changes going on in Russia, which must sooner or later
lead to the extension of political privileges to the nation,
and he should say to the Poles, " Wait for that." At all
events, it was not a matter in 'which this country could
wisely or usefully interfere. He was unable to say whether
the papers moved for could be produced.
The discussion was continued by Mr. Hennessy, Sir H.
Verney, Mr. M. Milnes, and Mr. Griffith.
_ . _ _

Mr. DENMAN withdrew his motion.
IRON-PLATED SHIPS AND FORTIFICATIONS,
Mr. OSBORNE moved a resolution, " That it is expe-
dient to suspend the construction of the proposed forts at
Spithead until the value of iron-roofed gunboats for the de-
fence of our ports and roadsteads shall have been fully con-
sidered." He urged, as an apology for the motion, the great
importance of the question and the unsatisfactory nature of
the answer from the Treasury bench, Sir G. Lewis having
held out no hope that the construction of the forts would
be abandoned. He (Mr. Osborne), however, did not ask
that the works should be at once abandoned ; his mo-
tion went only to their suspension until the value of
iron-roofed vessels had been tested, which he thought was
no excessive demand upon the Government. After a rapid
review of the question of national defence, and of
the discussions upon the propositions of the Govern-
ment, he read the description of the " peculiarly formidable"
forts at Spithead given by the Royal Commissioners, which
they at the same time admitted would be totally incapable of
stopping the passage by iron-clad steamers. He referred
also to the letter of Sir Richard Dundas, who had recom-
mended that an immediate outlay of money would be more
properly expended upon iron steamships. He complained
that, after the large sum expended upon Armstrong guns,
the armament of the navy was in an eminently unsatisfac-
tory condition. He adverted to the action in Hampton
Roads, and to the feats of the Merrimac and the Monitor,
the invention of which he claimed for Captain Cowper Coles,
whose plan had been submitted to our Government six years
ago, and quietly put to bed ; but while we were reflecting
the Americans had been acting. He insisted that it would
be good economy for the Government to forfeit their con-
tract for the erection of the forts.

The motion was seconded by Sir M. PETO, who deduced
from the report of the Royal Commissioners, and the evi-
dence taken by them, an argument against the utility of the
forts for the defence of Portsmouth. He regarded the whole
scheme, he said, as a gigantic folly.
Mr. BENTINCK considered that the resolution, though
it went in a right direction, did not go far enough, and he
proposed to add the following words :—"And that this house
will, on an early day, resolve itself int 6 a committee for the
purpose of empowering the Government to apply any por-
tion of the moneys which have been voted for the construc-
tion of forts to the construction of iron sheathed vessels."
He was, however, prevented by the forms of the house from
moving the amendment.

Lord PALMERSTON said—The subject which has been
brought under the consideration of ...the house by my hon.
friend and the hon. gentleman opposite is one the import-
ance of which it is difficult to exaggerate—(hear, hear)—be-
cause it involves nothing less than some of the dearest and
most vital interests of our common country. (Cheers.)
Therefore I trust it is unnecessary for me to say that I accept
cordially and frankly the assurances which have been given
by those who have made this motion and supported it, that
they do so in no party spirit; that they do not propose this
as a party question; that they do not seek to obtain any
momentary party triumph; and that they are actuated by
a sincere and patriotic desire that that course should be
pursued which is most conducive rapidly and efficiently to
provide for the defences which are requisite for the into-
reAs of the country. (Cheers.) I can assure the house on
the part of the Government that they go into the considera-
tion of this subject upon precisely the sameprinciples. We
should be ashamed of ourselves if we were to be led by pre-

♦ious opinions, or if, by a desire to adhere strictly to plane

and opinions which at a former period have been enter-
tained, we were to shut our eyes and close our cars against
facts and reasonings which are entitled to mature reflection,
and which may alter previous opinions or confirm them.
Those facts and reasonings deserve, and not only deserve
but require, the most calm and deliberate investigation.
They are not matters which turn on one accidental event,
or on the opinion of this or that man, however distinguished
by professional knowledge and merit either in the army or
navy These are questions involving great expenditure
and great outlay, and an outlay and expenditure which the
Government ought not to undertake without having weer-
tained beforehand, as far as experiment can ascertain it,
that that which they are about to do, and which they call
upon Parliament to furnish the means of doing, will bo really
effective for the purpose for which it is intended. lam not I
surprised that the public in general should have been struck
with the encounter in the American waters, not having turned
their minds attentively to the question as to .he degree to I
which iron plating is proof against cannon shot, and the i
extent to which experiments have been made. lam not
surprised that the public at large should have their eyes
opened, and their minds struck, by tho conclusions naturally
derived from the event which has taken place. But I can
assure the house, although it may be unnecessary to do so
after the statements and explanations made by the First
Lord of the Admiralty, that these matters have occupied
the anxious attention of the Government for a great length
of time. (Hear.) Experiments have been made in order to
test questions of great importance with a view to the con •
cl'isions at which we could safely arrive. Take one instance,
which has been adverted to by ono of my hon. friends—the
relative value of rifled cannon and smooth-bored cannon in
attacking iron plating. The impression originally was that
rifled cannon would be more destructive. But, on the con-
trary, it is found by careful experiments that within those
short distances at which ships are likely to engage the
smooth-bored gun is more effective than the rifled gun.
When you come to think of it, it is natural that it should
be so, because a smooth-bored gun sends out a ball with
much greater initial velocity than a rifled gun. The shot
from a rifled gun, being longer than that from a smooth-
bored gun, and meeting with less resistance, though it goes
further and straighter, preserves its velocity longer, and at
i
a distance is more effective. But the solid sphere—the solid
ball_ realer out of a smooth-bored gun, starting with
Kia.sh
edinitial ve'ocity,
anitial ve'ocity, does not get that velocity dirai •
bc.ing a
greater moat:on-IPo
certain limit of distance, and, the momen-
tumund of velocity and weight, strikes with
shot. (CheersT,Ti within 300 or 400 yards than the rifled
car.fully made
viously entertaind.
b:tvaot is one instance in which experiments
altered the opinion which was pre-
y triedto,r3esiet shot. That has been tried,
the power of the arraZear.) Well, then, with respect to
and very successful)
target representing the sides
of the Warrior, at a very sh4orat
izieedaistance—some 300 or 400
yards, or less-200 yards,
it has been found
that the largest shots we are now Zatt
bit of using have
not succeeded in piercing the targe. Thehaa
naturally led the Government for
conclusion to which the public mind has
Borne eteixPeriments have
sadlyato
rived
that
lanY r
by a knowledge of what took place in the American
But that which happened there, :though a lesson7ma t ei:
way, is also a warning in another; because it not only

shows us what armour will do, but whiq kind of vessel will
not do. (Hear.) In the first place, with respect to the
power of that American armour to resist shot, I should say
that the great part of the shots fired in the recent engage-
ment were hollow shots; and it is well-known that hollow
shots will nct make that impression on armour which solid
shots are enabled to produce. On the other hand, though
the Monitor and Merrimac were well enough adapted for
the smooth water in which they had to act, yet those who
happened to look at the report which was published as
coming from America, would see that the crews of those
ships were very nearly sunffoe,amteodr,eobveecra,utshee, bdeeinckgsvwereyreloswo
in the water and confined below, they had not sufficient air,
when the action began; and,
near the water's edge that, in the case of Ericsson's vessel,
the sea, in roughish weather, got over and came down the
funnel, so that there was a chance of all going to the hot tom.
(Hear.) Therefore, it will not do to take these vessels as
your model, and when the house is told that they cost com-
paratively but a small sum, and were completed in a short
space of time, I must gay that it is not ground sufficient for
us to go on with respect to the ships we may construct.
(Hear.) My hon. friend the member for Liskeard went
through a list of improvements which have taken place in
implements of war. He told us about the crossbows, the
matchlocks, the flint locks, the percussion locks, the Brown
Bess, and the Enfield rifles. No doubt, human ingenuity
and the progress of science from time to time make great
changes in the implements of destruciion. So for a long
time we were content with sailing ships. Not many years
ago it was foun I that a sailing ship was no match for a
ship propelled by steam, and then the right hon. baronet
opposite (Sir J. Pakington) began, with great credit to
himself, what he announced as " the reconstruction of
the navy"—namely, the substitution of ships pro-
pelled by steam for sailing vessels. That was a
great improvement at the time. (Hear, hear.)
Since then other nations have covered their ships
with iron sides. We have not failed to follow their exam-
ple. Tho Admiralty is busily engaged in doing so. The
right hon. baronet led the way by ordering that very splen-
did ship, the Warrior. On that model the Black Prince
was also made, and these are seagoing vessels, which those
floating batteries are not. In addition to these, my noble
friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has ordered others,
and in the course of this year there will be four iron ships
afloat and fit for sea. In the course of the next year two
other iron ships will be afloat and fit for sea; and by the
end of this year, I believe five wooden ships will be plated
with iron and fit for sea, and the Achilles, a large ship, is
to bo built next year. Besides all this, four other iron ships
are ordered, and are in progress of construction, and ten-
ders are sent out for the construction of a ship on the cupola
system, which I believe will turn out most effectual for
coast purposes. (Hear.) Whether it can be made capable
of going to sea is another thing, but for all purposes of coast
defence we are of opinion that the construction of that ves-
sel will turn out most effectual. (Hear.) The experiments
made on these cupolas are perfectly successful. They have
turned out proof against any shot fired against them, and I
have no doubt that a ship so constructed will prove to be of
the greatest possible value." (Hear.) These things show
that the Admiralty is not inattentive to the matter, but has
been actively engaged in the work, as far as the means af-
forded by Parliament permitted, and has already realised
some means of defence of this kind; and other means are
preparing which will provide us in the year 1864-with 16
iron ships, of different size., but all of a very respectable and
formidable character. (Hear.) Then comes the question
whether, with respect to the defence of Portsmouth and
the anchorage at Spithead, forts or iron vessels are the
best. Much has been said in disparagement of the re-
port of the Defence Commission, but gentlemen seem to
forget that the recommendation of that commission was
that both forts and floating batteries should be constructed,
and that £1,000,000 should bo allotted to the construction
of floating defences. We felt, in considering the question of
the expenditure of several millions of money for the purpose
of creating defences for oar chief ports and dockyards,
which I humbly think are of great importance, that we
were justified, inasmuch as the fixed defences were perma-
nent works, which would last for a great many years to
come, in dealing with them as improvements of the freehold,
and in charging the expense on the freehold for a certain
number of years, by means of a loan, or terminable annuities
for a limited period of time. We doubted, however, whe-
ther we should be justified in applying the same principle
to floating defences, inasmuch as, however constructed, they
cannot be considered as equally durable and permanent
with fixed forts. Therefore we omitted to recommend to
Parliament to provide for the construction of the floating
defences out of a loan, and left them to be provided for out
of annual votes. it appears now that it is the opinion of
the house that no time ought to be lost in multiplying these
floating defences. (Hear, hear.) If we were to follow the
advice of the hon. member who has just sat down, and to
provide for all commercial ports ships on Captain Coles's
principle, the expense certainly might be very consider-
able; but probably the hon. member would be content
with such a number as would be. sufficient for the defence
of our dockyards and most valuable ports. Some gentle-
men have said that it is nonsense to think of fortify-
ing the coasts to prevent invasion. No one ever dreamt of
that, It is obviously impossible. It is said that. if you
erect forts the enemy would not come near them,
but would land elsewhere ; and that you cannot fortify
the coast so as to prevent a landing. Well, all you can do
is to take certain valuable points of the utmost im-
portance, such as the dockyards, and leave the rest to be
protected by the army on land, and by the navy. Ridicule
has been attached to the Martello towers. I do not
believe that they deserve any ridicule of the kind at-
tempted to be thrown on them. Taking ships as they were
when those towers were built, and the modes of warfare
then pursued, I am inclined to think that the Martello
towers constituted a respectable means of defence. They
have now gone by, like Brown Bess and other things, and
now the chief use of those towers is to test the power of
guns to destroy. One of them has proved a very useful
target, and has been employed to the relative value of pro.
jectiles of different kinds. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.)
Therefore, the real question, which the House is now con-
sidering whether it is desirable to suspend for a time,
and until a more serious decision can be arrived at upon
fuller information, the construction of the forts at Spit-
head, for the purpose of applying, in the meanwhile, to
the construction of iron ships, that amount of money,
which otherwise would be spent on the forts. (Hear,
hear.) Well, Ido not mean to deny that there is a great
deal of plausibility in that recommendation, nor do I at all
mean to say that the Government are indisposed to adopt
that course. (Cheers.) The contracts for these forts, as
already stated by my hon. friend the member for Liskeard,
are not contracts for completing the forts. They are contracts
for the foundations up to the level of low or high water as it
may be. Indeed, the Government have not yet made up their
minds as to what would be the best construction of forts to
be built on these foundations. It was thought at one time
that a certain thickness of iron-10 inches—would be suffi-
cient. It was found by experiment that that would not do,
and that further power of resistance would be necessary. So
far, therefore, from the Government having entered into a
contract for the erection of these forts, they have not as let
been enabled accurately to ascertain what would be the best
description of fort to be constructed. The contract simply
relates to the foundations, and undoubtedly, if the house
I
thought some delay would be advisable in regard to proceed-
ing with those foundations—there is only one quarter in
i
which a large amount of work is already laid down—that
1 opinion might be acted on ; but you would, of course, under
those circumstances, have to make amends to the contractor
for the loss of time, for the discharge of workmen with
whom he may have entered into engagements, and also for
the materials provided. (Hear, hear.) Some expense would
therefore be entailed by such a course of proceeding, but it
might be prudent to incur that expense for a time, until this 1
question can be more fully, deliberately, and calmly cowl-
dered. (Hear, hear.) The state of the matter at present
is this :—I proposed to the house the year before last a bill
to enable the Government to raise £2,000,000 for the pur-
pose of erecting dockyard fortifications at Portsmouth and
Dover. This was a sum, as it were, on account for the pure
pose of beginning and carrying on to a certain extent, as far '
as could be effected in the course of that year, the different
works specified in the Eitimate laid before Parliament.
More time was found to be necessary than was then ima-
gined for the purpose of making accurate drawings and
arranging the purchase of land, and, though I am speaking
of what took place nearly two years ago, the £2,000,000
which I have mentioned will not be payable for work done
until about June or July next. It will, however, be payable
at that time for works sanctioned by Parliament, and under-
taken in consequence of that sanction. Well, it would be our
duty in the course of the present session to apply to Parlia-
ment for further powers to issue terminable annuities to con- '
tinue those works, among which would naturally be the forts
proposed to be erected at Spithead. It would, however,
be perfectly in order—and, if the muse wishes it, there
would be no difficulty on the part of the Government—
to take this course :—My right hon. friend the Secretary
for War has already instructed the Defence Commission to
examine the question as to the utility of those forts, as com-
pared with floating defences, and as combined with those
defences, and has asked them to send in a report on the sub-
ject. That report will be in the hands of the Government,
in all probability, before the lapse of any great length of
time. No great expense would perhaps be incurred by
desiring the contractor to suspend for a couple of months—
say the works in connexion with those foundations which
he has laid. When that time has expired we should have
to submit to Parliament a bill for the -further issue of those
those
oielarovdmseeeiebnfi
before
fbreotl
rswe
e,
hato
hen:
enhtmuoe ir,
sus
tui ehlsyspe;
yet ahnwt ldtodhfuoetlhrd
ieatnnhtl
bioinrnt
think
would be for Parliament
eafirtt i
period
whichiooldlwholly
to
theirdiscontinue
they-
tion, and to what extent they would think it desirable to de-
vote a portion of the terminable annuities to the rapid con-
struction of floating batteries for the purpose of our coast
defence. That fleeting defences can be constructed more
rapidly than forts there is no doubt, and there is, perhaps,
as little doubt that so long as those floating defences were
not sent elsewhere—so long as they were available, and had
their machinery in order, they would, in all probability be
as effectual, for the purpose of which I am speaking, as
forts. There is, however, this consideration to be borne in
mind with regard to the relative power of forts and iron-
ght of armour and the
cwaesiegdhsthoifpgsun.
sAinlitmheitciasseseotftao tshheipeeei
which has to float. The
whole weight of a ship's armour and guns included must