The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-10 00:00:00

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

CHELTENHAM MILITARY AND GRAND AN-
NUAL STEEPLECHASES.—WEDNESDAY.
The Military Steeplechase of 5 sovs each, with 50 Boys
added, for horses the property of officers, list 71b each.
Winners extra. Three miles. The second saved his
stake.

Lieut.-Col. Burnaby's (Grenadier. Guards) the Martyr,
13st 31b (including 241 b extra) (Mr. Lawson) 1
Captain Lindsay's (4th Hussars) Waverley, list 71b
(Mr. Lawrence) 2
Mr. Starkey's (9th Lancers) Wallace, list 71b.. (Owner) 0
Betting-7 to 4on the Martyr.
Wallace refused the first leap, repeated it at the second,
and went no further. Waverley made running for three-
quarters of a mile, when he fell, and the Martyr took it
up, finally winning in a canter by 10 lengths.
The Arle Plate of 30 sovs (handicap), added to a sweep-
stakes of 5 sovs each. Three miles. The winner to be
sold for 60 sovs.
Mr. B. Land's Ascot, lOst 31b
Mr. Adey's Emily Harris, 9st 101 b
.. (Knott) 2
Mr. English's Gamecock, 9st 41b
Deception and Comet also ran.
Betting, at first, was 2 to 1 each agst Ascot and Decep-
tion, but closed at 5 to 4 agst Ascot, 3 to 1 agst Emily Har-
ris, 4 to 1 agst Deception, and 6 to 1 agst any other.
Comet set off with the lead, Ascot and Deception lying
abreast next her, and Emily Harris waiting ; thus they
went round the top turn, where Emily dropped about two
lengths behind. Comet tell at the fence beyond the large
field, where Ascot took up the running and carried it on to
the hurdles before the water-jump, where he was headed by
Deception. The four cleared the water simultaneously, and
immediately afterwards Deception went to the front apd
remained there to the last fence but mai, into which she
dropped her hind legs, and was passed by the other three
in rapid succession. Emily then closed, and raced with
Ascot to the distance, where the horse shook her off, and
won easily by two lengths, Gamecock being a bad third.
The Grand Annual Steeplechase, of 10 sovs each, 5 sovs
forfeit, 3 sovs only if declared, with 100 sovs added; cer-
tain penalties ; four miles. The second saved his stake.
Mr. Cartwright's Penarth, lOst 121 b (including 71b extra)
(G. Holman) 1
Mr. Riley's Medora, list (Owner) 2
Mr. H. Lington's Willoughby, lOst 21b.. (Mr. Edwards) 3
The following also ran :—Cockatoo, Yorkshire Grey,
Black Rose, Ace of Hearts, Pineapple, Xanthus, The Her-
mit, and Pullaway.
Betting—Even on Penarth, 6 to 1 each agst Black Rose
and Pullaway, 7 to 1 each agst Medora, Cockatoo, and Ace
of Hearts, 8 to 1 agst Yorkshire Grey, and 10 to 1 agst any
other.

Xanthus and Medora were the first off, but, after going a
few strides, the former took a clear lead, and Black Rose,
Hermit, Willoughby, Yorkshire Grey, and Medora fol-
lowed him in the order named until they went behind the
stand; there Willoughby, Black Rose, and Hermit leaped
abreast over the fence, Xanthus dropping back to Yorkshire
Grey. At the next fence Pineaple fell on landing, the others
going on as before. Willoughby now took a decided lead,
and increased the pace, which extinguished the hopes of
Xanthus. Pullaway swerved against the Ace of Hearts at
the drop fence and knocked him down, and on coming into
the large field, on the far side, Willoughby, Hermit, Black
Rose, and the Grey lay in front, Pullaway, Penarth, and.
Medora being about six lengths behind them. At the water
jump, Willoughby, the Grey, Rose, and Hermit came to-
gether, and the latter fell. Xanthus and Ace of Hearts pulled
up. They then disappeared, and on reaching the far side
Yorkshire Grey fell. At the fence beyond the large field
I Black Rose fell heavily and broke her thigh. Willoughby's
lead soon afterwards decreased, Penarth and Medora catch-
' ing him at the last hurdle. Penarth then tock the lead, and
won in a canter by a length, Medora beating Willoughby
by a neck for second place ; Cockatoo walked in fourth.
The Consolation Scramble (handicap) of 1 soy each, with
20 added. Two miles over the country.
Mr. B. Land's Ascot, lOst
Mr. F. Marshall's Deception, lOst 21b.... (Mr. Edwards) 2
Mr. Adam's Sunbeam, 10st 21b (G. Holman) 3
The following also ran :—Brunette, The Martyr, Ace of
Hearts, E. Harris, Comet, Catherine, Killarney, Biscuit,
and Black Eagle colt.
Betting-5 to 4 agst Brunette, 4to 1 agst Deception, 6
to 1 agst Sunbeam, and 8 to 1 against any other.
Black Eagle made running for three quarters of a mile,
when Ascot took it up, with Brunette in attendance. The
mare fell at the last fence, and Ascot beat Deception after
a fine race by a head ; bad third.

'AWE LPA iiLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 10 minutes past twelve
o'clock.

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented in favour of an altera-
tion in the present law of licensing public-houses, and in
support of the Metropolitan Local Management Act.
CLERGY RELIEF BILL.

Mr. BOUVERIE, on moving the order of the day for
the second reading of this bill, said that the object of the
bill was to remedy what was admitted on all hands as an
evil. During late years a great number of those who had
entered orders in the Church of England had changed their
religious opinions, and had thought it their duty to resign
their benefices. He referred to the case of such men as
Archdeacon Manning, Baptist Noel, and Archdeacon
Woodhouse. There was considerable ignorance in the
public mind in reference to this subject, and it was
not generally known that persons entering holy
orders for the Church of England were saturated
with oaths of subscription. They were compelled by the
Statute of Elizabeth to subscribe to the 39 articles, the oath
of supremacy, and the oath of allegiance. It had happened
frequently that an alteration took place in the minds of
ecclesiastics as well as other persons, and in reference to the
Book of Common Prayer they might cease to believe that
it contained all that was true, though they had originally
subscribed to that dogma of the Church. He drew atten-
tion to the fact that the Book of Common Prayer was
formed with a view of excluding from the ministry of the
Church of England some of the worthiest men of the time.
He contended that clergymen who were desirous of
seceding from the Church of England were placed under
circumstances of great hardship, because they were not at
liberty to become dissenting ministers, as was laid down
in the case of Barnes v. Shore. This act of William and
Mary was intended to relieve clergymen under such cir-
cumstances, but it was rendered imperative by other enact-
ments. A clergyman was prevented from becoming a
barrister by the 6th canon of 1603, and in the case of a
clergyman whose petition he had presented to the house,
the benchers of the Middle Temple had refused him admis-
sion to their body in accordance with the provisions of that
canon. A clergyman could not embrace any other lay
occupation without being liable to prosecution in the
Ecclesiastical Court, and, on conviction, being sentenced
to six months' imprisonment by the act of George 111.,
t
passed in 1794. It appeared, however, that clergymen of
Church of England might become priests of the Roman
Catholic Church with impunity, which he asserted, was a
more anomalous state of things. Having adverted to the
publication of the " Essays and Reviews," which he con-
sidered a work of no great ability, but which had the effect
of introducing difference of opinion in the minds of members,
of the Church of England, he said it was a great hardship
to compel persons to remain in the ministry of that Church
when they desired to be released from their sacred func-
tions. The object of this bill was to facilitate the release
of persons from such functions, when it was according to
their wish to be exempted from them, which, he contended,
would promote the purity and prosperity of the Church of
England. He was aware that the object which he proposed
by this measure was one of great difficulty and delicacy,
and, as he was only desirous of securing proper legislation
on this important subject, he would not, if agreable to the
house, refuse to refer the bill to a select committee. (Hear..
hear.) He concluded by moving the second reading of
the bill.

Sir H. HEAT HCOTE—who had an amendment on the
paper, to the effect that in the event of the bill being read
a second time he could move its being referred to a select
committee—said that he would not press that amendment
after the concession that had been made the hon. member
(Mr. Bouverie). He contended that the house ought
to proceed with great caution before they con-
sented to an alteration in the existing law,
which affected the inner life of an important religious
community. He denied that the hon. member (Mr,
Bouverie) had made out any case in support of his argu-
ment by reference to the writers of the "Essays and Re-
views," because these persons did not want to be released,
from their functions, but assumed to themselves to be the
Church itself. He considered that the bill would have to
undergo great modifications in committee before it satisfied,
the public mind, or effected the object which it proposed,
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. M. MILNES considered that an alteration in the
existing law was requisite, but that the present bill would
nct meet the case. He thought that the Church should be
empowered to release clergymen from their functions with-
out branding them with degradation.
Lord STANLEY supported the principle of the bill,
and quoted a pamphlet by the Bishop of Exeter, published
in 1849, commenting on the hardships of clergymen
being coerced to remain in sacred orders in the Church of
England, when their opinions had undergone an alteration.
He thought it was most desirable, both on the ground of
conscience and for the benefit of the Church itself, that such
persons should not be retained in the ministry against their
inclinations. As the bill was to be referred to a select com-
mittee, he would not offer it any opposition in its present
stage, but he thought it required alteration before it could
be efficient in obtaining the object for which it was
intended.

Mr. WALTER also supported the principle of the bill,
on the ground that it was for the benefit of the Church
itself. Men entered holy orders at an early age, and before
they had opportunities of mixing with the world and test-
ing the soundness of their views on religious doctrines, and
he considered it would be desirable if the Church en-
couraged persons to enter the ministry later in. life than they
did at present.

Mr. HUBBARD and Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the
11

Sir G. GREY said as it was agreed that the bill should
be referred to a select committee, he would not offer it any
opposition at present.

The bill was then read a second time, and referred to, a
select committee.
METROPOLITAN LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS

AMENDMENT BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive were agreed to.

On clause 6,

Mr. AYRTON complained that the provisions of the bill
0 f t
aMetropolitantaxes,
that Board
board
of
assessment
n this respect as bgeaivw.negotroiknos in
vMestltCe.rhedsjpwnedictithelatthol authority
stahmoreitpyowtoer the
jus-
tices of the peace. He hoped that in regard to this matter
the committee would adhere to the principle adopted by the
house last session, in conformity with the recommendation
of the select committee to whom it had been referred. He
moved the omission of certain words of the clause.
Mr. BRISTOW defended the clause, and said that its
only object was to simplify the existing law by enabling
the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out their opera-
tions.

After some desultory conversation, in the course of which
Mr. BRISTOW stated that a clause similar to this had
been fully considered by the select committee before whom
all the parties interested were represented by counsel, and
which had examined a number of witnesses,
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 7,
Mr. AYRTON moved, as an amendment, the ir itrodue-
tion of words to the effect that the basis of assessmc :nt of the
City of London should be the sewers rate.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive were agreed to,
On clause 15,
Sir J. SHELLEY moved an amendment to the effect
that certain words should be introduced in order to secure
a more effectual audit on the part of the Board of Works,
which was agreed to.

The other clauses to 23 were agreed to with some verbal
amendments.

On clause 24,

Mr. AYRTON objected in
a
and clause 38 was
the Board of Works oeconferred
fneerry
single sitting, and moved an amendment.
The clauses to 37 were agreed to, ted
votingto thelarge po
sumswer s
o itf
The clause as Panended was agreed to.
omitted.
Clauses to 42 were also agreed to.

On clause 43,
moved the following addition, which was
as some other amendment :
mraafyftoerrbsueacopFrpoerotain "At end of
any business which by any local or other
agreed IA:, aBClCwEen
clause add, and
Act of Parliament or custom should be done by any such
at any meeting of
se and held within
afore-
said." day as :ve le:seirnyvdeo:yx:r Ys
and: taxit;i beforeda convened
o

Lord
f 7The clauses to 67 were agreed to.
FERMOY, the following was
o'f4 and such surveyor and inspector of
r:asnaandtcdheeesd
shallt oo t
60,
Bn,
wall each of them shall have all the powers
vested in such,
the said act, and authorities for that purpose which by the said act are
district surveyor; and in any proceedings
taken to ree,over the penalty under the said 103 d section of
presumpti. such evidence as may give rise to a probable
on that some person passes the night in such room
or celtal!, shall be evidence until the contrary be made to
`app': r that such has been the case." Some other verbal
an:Wittdraents were also agreed to.
and
Clauses up to 86, after several amendments, were disposed
Ulm
of, after which the chairman reported progress,
house resumed.
BILL. •
SMALL HOUSES EXEMPTION (SCOTLAND)

This bill was withdrawn on the understanding that it
would be introduced in a different shape.
LAND DEBENTURES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. SCULLY postponed his motion for the second read-
ing of this bill until the 7th May.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT ACT
AMENDMENTcommitteBe.ILL.
This bill passed through
EXCHEQUER BONDS (L1,000,000> BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
the house than adjourned.

Ira
ON IRON PLATED SHIPS OF WAR.

IRON versus WOOD.
It. 'was in the year 1835 or '36 that I took it into
.my head to have a yacht of about 30 tons burden
bait, having an iron bottom, the plates of seven-
eighths of an inch in thickness, but with the upper
works just above the water line of timber, on the
usrAal construction.

My object in so doing was, independent of the in-
creased strength of the bottom of the vessel, to ob-
tain, as I at that time conceived, a greater space for
accommodation in the hold, by dispensing in a great
measure Ttilth the necessary bulk and amount of bal-
last, conceiving that the weight of the iron plates,
ribs, arid keel would be nearly sufficient to enable
me tr, dispense with the usual ballast required for a
ves'jel of 30 tons.

I found, however, her buoyancy was such that
:although the iron work below the water line was
not less than ten tons of dead weight, still she sat
too high in the water, and was unable to carry a
sufficient spread of canvas ; I therefore added at first
four or five tons iron ballast, stowed in the usual
way. Still I found that in heavy weather this was
too little, till eventually I increased the amount of
ballast to not less than nine tons, at which I con-
tinued to sail this yacht during the remainder of the
period I possessed her, which extended to a period of
eight or ten years ; and I believe she was the first
iron sailing vessel ever built.

It will be seen from this that a small iron-bottomed
vessel, having plates of the unusual thickness of
seven-eighths of an. inch—each plate being six feet
in length and three feet broad—riveted flush to an-
gular ribs of tron, and with a keel one inch thick,
extendin gi.ts whole length, the dead weight of which
amour"ced to ten tons—all below the water line—
reqe,:ired an additional ballasting power of nine tons
to enable her to carry her canvas successfully in
rstrong breezes, In other words, 19 tons of dead
'weight below the water line was required to steady
a vessel of only 30 tons burden per measurement.
In the course of my yachting excursions it hap-
pened that on two occasions the vessel struck upon
rocks, but got off without sustaining the least injury.
It has been since ascertained, from sad experience,
that iron vessels, when they are driven ashore, or
`upon rocks, as in the case of the Royal Charter and
ninny others, soon break op or are dashed into
fragments ; but this arises chiefly from the great
disproportionate thickness and strength of the iron
plates used in their construction. The Royal
Charter, I believe, although she was a vessel of
1,000 tons and upwards, had no thicker plates in
ter bottom than my small yacht of 30 tons. Had
she been built of a proportionate strength with re-
ference to tonnage, her plates would have required
to be at least Bor 10 inches thick. In the course
of my peregrinations in my yacht, it often occurred
to me that if vessels of war were covered with iron
plates of one or two inches thick, which was at that
(1837) the heaviest known, they would be almost
imperious to shot or shell. At the same time, it
struck me that if the form of the vessel's hull was
so altered as to present at all times an angulated er
inclined plane to the direction from which a projec-
tile could strike her, that she would be still further
protected from injury, by the projectile glancing
off.

After revolving in my own mind for two or three
years the feasibility of the project, I at last, in the
month of October, 1840, ventured to address a letter
to the Admiralty suggesting the idea, and accom-
panying my letter with a diagram of a vertical
section of a three-decker, having the sides sloping
downwards to the water line, and proposing they
should be covered with the thickest iron plates
that eould be procured, To this letter I, about a
week afterwards, Itoeived the following laconic
answer :

"Admiralty, 26th Oct., 1840.
" SITI-1. have received, and laid before my Lords Corn-
mission.cirs of the Admiralty, your letter of the 21st inst.,
sugglesting a plan for constructing shot-proof vessels.—l
am, Sir, your most humble servant,

"J. G. BARLOW."
Nothing daunted by the cold reception given to
my suggestion, I some time after addressed
another letter to that body, with an improved
diagram of a two.decker, in which the angular form
of the vessel's broadside was still retained, but so
altered as to equalise and diminish the top-weight,
so objectionable in my first diagram. This letter the
Admiralty also acknowledged, but declined to give
me any encouragement of its adoption. Some time
after this, the attention of the public and authori-
ties was attracted by the Emperor Napoleon 111.
ordering the construction of iron-plated floating
batteries during the Russian war of 1854, which
successfully participated in the attack on the forts
of Kinburn.

This experiment of the French Emperor at
length opened the eyes of our naval officers and the
public to the necessity of adopting some measure by
which our naval supremacy might be maintained ;
and at length two large and powerful war steamers,
the Warrior and Black Prince, were ordered to be
built. So I found that, after the lapse of 20 years
from my first suggestions made in 1840, my ideas
have been carried out, without any recognition of
their originality by the authorities or public.
While these vessels were in course of construc-
tion, I sent a final diagram of a large vessel, iron-
clad, having but one deck, to carry the heaviest
guns, and still adhering to the sloping principle on
her broadsides ; and while I mention this, I recol-
lect a previous letter sent to the Admiralty, in which
I complained of the unnecessary size of th6l ports of
oar existing ships of war, which expose the gunners
to be shot down in detail by the improved small-
arms of the present day. Although Ido not recol-
lect receiving any answer to that communication, I
was glad to observe that the suggestion was
adopted, br the greatly reduced 81Z9 of the port-
holes of the \,rarrior and Black Prince.

A radical defect, however, is allowed to exist in
the construction of these two vessels, and that is,
that neither the fore nor after part is fully pro-
tected from the penetration of the shot. An enemy
attacking them, and knowing this defect, will be
sure to concentrate his fire upon these parts. One
or both of them, at least, ought to have been named
the Achilles, in allusion to the only vulnerable part
he possessed, viz., his heel.

Of what use would these two enormously-expen-
sive vessels be, if either their bow or stern were shot
away, though the centrepart should remain invul-
nerable ? Would they not lie simply as logs in the
water, having the crow and guns no doubt intact,
but unable to return to port except at a snail's pace
under canvas, encumbered with a wreck of iron-
Work hanging from their bow and stern, entangling
the screw?

It is asserted that if the bow and stern had been
covered with plates equal in weight to the centre, '
the sailing qualities of these vessels would have
been much impaired ; but this defect ought to have
been foreseen and provided against by an increased
breadth of
beam, also by having besides a deep
main
keevitb two other keels running parallel,
one-third
the length
eangth of the floor, which would have
bad the effect
rel.
way. cotistrguretatly steadying the vessel in a
ed as they are, they have, in
point of fact, no ht
el at all, the consequence of which
is that they mustyon "U'enormous rate in a heavy
cross sea.
At the same time,/ mast
• 84knewled that h. h
sideratum in such
rate of speed is a most important
geahigh
vessels, it being evident that the
at all times possess a great adve2taatest sailer will
age over o
ponent in being enabled to chooseLer 0 p-
or in running down her opponent. Still 1 ap s
plie
to the case of only two single vessels eato3l7 bating
other. Where a fleet of such vessels hap peach
pen to be
engaged, the advantages of speed will bein a
measure neutralised, as the slow sailers can retain
‘
such positions as will support their consorts against
the fast.
But without farther entering into a discussion
on those points, I beg to revert to the original
subject of the priority of the suggestion for
covering war vessels with iron plates or armour.
This, you will observe, I proposed to the Admi-
ralty SO far back as 1810, and at the same time
proposing the angular or sloping surface to the
broadsides of ships, to throw off projectiles, a mode
for
which a Mr. Jones, of Liverpool, took out a pa-
tent
only two years ago, just 20 years after I had
suggested the same thing to our Admiralty.
_lad in' regard to armour-clad Yew's, I was much

' amused to find by the following extract, taken from
a respectable American newspaper, that our younger
brother, or Cousin Jonathan, claims to be the origi-
nal inventor of this, as indeed of almost everything
else of moment in science or invention. Unfortu-
nately, however, for his pretensions, is claim on
that point is dated, as in 1845, just fi ti e years later
than my own,

- -
Extract from the 'World, New York paper,
March 18, 1362 : •
" IRON-PLATED VESSELS AN AMERICAN INVENTION.
" Now that it is obvious that iron-plated vessels are de-
stined to effect a complete revolution in naval and coast war-
fare— the greatest change in the art of war since the inven-
tion of gunpowder—it ought to be a source of national
pride that the idea originated in our own country. The
United States gave the world the steamboat, the cotton gin,
the electric telegraph, the anesthetic chloroform, the reap-
ing machine, the cylinder press, and many other of the
grandest prizes of peace ; it is now to be written that the
same land of the free has furnished war with the most im-
portant appliance of modern time.
" The real inventor in this case is Robert L. Stevens, and
so history will recognise it,

" As long ago as 1845, the late Mr. Stevens, the designer
and builder of some of the best and speediest American
steamers, made a long series of experiments at the expense
of the American Government, to ascertain and measure the
resistance of iron plates to shot and shell. The result then
arrived at was, that plates less than an inch in thickness
would resist the impact of any shell then known, and that
a thickness of six inches of iron was impenetrable to every
projectile that was brought against it, no matter how great
the velocity, or how short the distance at which it was fired.
"The English and French vessels thus far built and
planned, so far at least as we know, have other inferior
features. They lie high in the water, instead of just rising
above the surface like the Monitor, and are more easily hit.
Their plates are laid vertically, or nearly so, and thus will
receive the impact of the shot at right,angles, instead of
obliquely, as in the case of the Monitor. Thus they are not
only more easily hit, but, when hit, the shct must tell upon
them with vastly greater effect.

" Americans then, through Stevens, were the first to
conceive and apply the principle of making vessels of war
invulnerable by the use of iron ; and, through Ericsson,
they have been foremost in seizing upon all the conditions
of that prineiple, and, in the quickest time, turning them
to the best account, History will record this to their
honour."

Such are the laudatory remarks with which our
transatlantic brethren herald forth their own
achievements, leading us to the conclusion that, in
arts or arms, unrivalled they must be by the Old
World, or even posterity.
It is very possible that some individual may have,
at a date previous to my communication to the
Admiralty in 1840, suggested the same idea, of
covering ships of war with armour plates; but I
am not aware that such a suggestion was ever made
in a tangible form, and which, like mine, can be
authenticated by a reference to Admiralty records.
Besides, I had for several years previous to address-
ing the Admiralty made np my mind on the subject.
lam suprised, in reading the report of the de-
bates of the committee appointed to report upon
the best mode of construction of armour-plated
ships, that they should pronounce an opinion that
the angular or sloping form of their broadsides
possesses no advantage over the upright or wall-
sided principle. Let any man who wishes to satisfy
himself on the erroneous nature of that conclusion
place a board or two in an angular position, covered
with a thin sheet of iron—say one-eighth of an inch
thick—and fire a pistol, loaded with ball, in a hori-
zontal position at the object (although I have not
tried the experiment myself), I am pretty sure the
ball will glance off, either upwards or downwards,
as it may strike above or below the angle. Let him
again try the same experiment on an upright board
similarly covered, and it is ten to ono the ball will
perforate through.

But the most conclusive evidence of the sound-
ness of the views I have maintained since 1840 is
afforded by the results of the late naval engage-
ment on the American waters, between the Merri-
mac and the wooden frigates, the Cumberland and
Congress, which latter was, in less than half an
hour, sunk and destroyed by the former ; and when
the Monitor—another and differently constructed
iron vessel—was pitted against the Merrimac, they
both pounded into each other for three hours with-
out making any sensible impression, till the latter
withdrew, probably from having injured herself on
the bows by her repeated blows in running into the
Cumberland, and the same attempt on the low-
hulled Monitor.

Had she struck the latter on the circular tower
battery, I think it is probable the Monitor would
have careened over, and gone down.
This fight, I think, fully establishes the supe-
riority of armour-clad vessels over wooden ships,
and solves the problem—iron v. wood—which has
been debated for 20 years, but at the sad sacrifice
of the lives of 250 brave men.

And we may now look upon all the trials made
by our own officials and the Admiralty, at an enor-
mous expense to the nation, as simply mere expe-
riments.

The Merrimac, however, was originally a wooden
ship, and altered as she now is, having her armour-
plates laid over her hull on the sloping or angular
principle, proves how effectually that form is adapted
to throw off projectiles.
This ought to direct the attention of our own
naval authorities to the propriety of altering and
plating many of our present ships of the line, and
also our heavy frigates, which, in my humble
opinion, could easily be done at far less expense to
the nation than building a new fleet of iron steamers.
The Monitor, from what I can gather from the
accounts of her construction in the newspapers,
seems to be much the same as that projected by
Captain Coles, at present building in some one of
our naval arsenals. It strikes me, however, that
both these vessels are only adapted to be service-
able in smooth water. In a sea-way I suspect
neither of them would be of much use.
It further occurs to me, since it I's found to be
almost impossible to na-Ake any serious impression
by projectiles on iron-plated ships, thatother means
might be adopted to disable them. Those means
I would consist in an attempt to entangle or disable
the screw by directing shot with chainwork• at-
tached, or logs of wood, from the bow guns of the
attacking vessel when at close quarters.
Another method which I think could be applied
also when in close proximity would be by a common
fire-engine hose and nozzle, worked by the ship's
engines, to pour a stream of you water (supplied by
a tank placed below the water-line) down the
smoke funnel of the enemy's vessel, which, if well
directed and in sufficient quantity, would soon ex-
tinguish the fires under the boilers, and generate
such an amount of steam and noxious gases as
would soon suffocate the firemen, and perhaps the
crew of the vessel so attacked.

If such a mode of warfare proved successful it
would neat become a question how to counteract
this mode of attack. This could only he done by
altering the smoke funnel so as to run along the
upper deck, and terminating near the stern, having
a circular shot-proof shield protecting its ex-
tremity.

The funnel itself might be so constructed with a
joint just above the upper deck, so that when not
in action it may again be placed upright.
In conclusion, I beg to add that I have again ven-
tured to address a letter to the Admiralty, offering
•to send diagrams of the alterations which I think
are required on our present line-of-battle ships and
frigates, to render them shot-proof, but whether
these authorities will enkrtain my proposals made
in 1862 with any better grace than those in 1840
remains to be seen.

JAMES AIACNAIR,

- - -----
STATE OF TRADE.

LEICESTER, April 9.—The hosiery trade remains
quiet, most branches sharing in the almost general
flatness. Both the home and foreign demand are
dull. At Loughborough and the country districts
generally business is extremely flat, and there is a
Wools
geed deal of distress among the operatives. Yarns
are hi-I. in
rice but
nin4rus
eprice, but not much in demand, and
_ :ohne their productions to what is wanted.
isrol74tilling at late prices but are not in demand.
this week It. ':ms, 9th.—There is fully as much doing
slightly inert The demand for cotton goods is
Tut plain nets are still selling at
little:111Y
low prices.
quillings. The d 18 a good demand for Mechlin
for several sorts of silk
Iraictehgeomodasrkceotntfionreetiythhere,
have been a few buyers
and the tone of the trade o.:.°lne and foreign trade,
j,2 hosiery there is very ' " is more healthy.
ri
,I i,,,,n hie. Yarns remain firm irY, improvement
IlleQ, although but little is being used at presentl