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

there is no such limit to the weight of guns or means of de-

fence which you can employ in the me of forts, because it
is obvious you may have in connaxionwith a fort any thick-

ness of rampart or bastion you plea, and any weight of
guns you can work. But it is said tlat it would take seve-
ral thousand trained artillerymen to nan these forth. Now,
I feel assured my hon. and gallant friend (Sir F. Smith)

will not back that assertion, because it is well known that
the working of the guns in batteries i 3 to a great extentper-
formed by what are termed handspike-men, and two trained
artillerymen to a gun are quite sufficient. It is not true,
therefore, that the whole number of men required to work
a gun should be necessarily trained artillerymen, or that
men taken from our dockyards and mlitia—men not skilled
in the science of artillery practice—could not discharge
many of the duties which would be required. In the first
place, therefore, the number of trained artillerymen which
we should want to man our forts \Quid not be so great as
is represented ; and, in the next place, I am convinced that
the improvements in guns will keep full pace with the
improvements in armour-plates. I am told that the
French have already constructed a gun which has
pierced their armour-plates. Their iron is, perhaps, not so
good as ours ; but they boast that they have a gun which
will penetrate armour-plates. I hive no doubt we shall
have a gun of the same sort, and itis clear, in my opinion'
that, with a view to permanent defence, a combined fixed
and floating defence is that which would most completely
answer the purpose which we have in view. There is at
the same time no doubt that time is a great element in this
matter, and that if you can get your floating defences
rapidly you had better do that than wait for a long time for
your land defences. (Hear, hear.) It ought, however, to
form a question for careful consideration whether you
should only postpone or abandon these permanent defences,
which would, I believe be found to be of great value, espe-
cially in connexion with floating defences. This, then, is
the state of the case. Wo are quite willing to accept the
disposition which I think seems to prevail in the house—
(cheers)—and to facilitate the more rapid organisation of
floating defences. (Hear, hear.) A question arises in con-
nexion with this subject—the relative advantages of ships
built entirely of iron, like the Warrior, with only wood in-
terposed between two iron skins, and ships such as the five
now being constructed, wooden "
hips simply uazuu witu.
iron, which admits of two opinions. Each has its advan-
tages. There is no doubt that a ship with iron ribs, and
an iron skin with teak beyond it, and iron plating on the
teak, is a much better sea boat than a wooden veseel, be-
cause the iron ribs will not give way to the same extent as
wooden ribs when exposed to the agitation of the sea.
Upon the other hand, iron bottoms are liable to get foul,
and hitherto no method of securing them from becoming
so has been discovered; whereas -wooden vessels may be
coppered below the water -line, and would not stand in
need of the cleansing which iron-bottomed ships would
require. It must also bo borne in mind that line-of-battle
ships, such as those now existing, can be more rapidly
converted into iron-cased ships than you can build
iron ships from the beginning. We have a great many
three-deckers and two-deckers of wood which I quite admit
aro not competent to meet in action iron ships. It would
seem therefore to be the most economical arrangement to
convert more of them into iron-cased ships, and that could
be done more rapidly than you could construct a vessel like
the Warrior or Achilles made entirely of iron. One great
change in naval warfare has not, I may add, been adverted
to much in the course of this discussion. I allude to the in-
troduction of large guns sending hollow shot and shells. It
is quite clear, as was proved by the fire of the Merrimac on
the Cumberland and afterwards on the Congress, that shells
sent into wooden ships are most destructive. Now, one
great advantage of iron casing is that shells, at all events,
will not penetrate it, though solid shot will, and we all know
that a shell bursting between decks, as in the case of the
Congress, is a missile of a very formidable character. But,
be that as it may, what we propose is that, my right hon.
friend having already instructed the Defence Commissioners
to reconsider their former report, and to state again what,
with all the knowledge acquired by the events which hap-
pened the other day in America, they consider the most
effectual method of providing for the defence of the country,
we should give notice to the contractors to suspend for the
present future works. It would also propose that soon after
the recesss we should bring the matter again under the con-
sideration of the house, lay the whole thing before them,
and ask them to say what they think, on the whole, would
be the best course to pursue—whether we should include in
the terminable annuities a sum for the more rapid and more
extensive creation of armour-cased vessels for defensive pur-
vacs, and whether we should on that account, for the pre-
sent, at all events, suspend any further operations upon the
Spithead forts. (Cheers.) That would be a matter which the
house would have under their full consideration. Our only
wish, as I am sure it is the wish of the house, is to do that
which is best for the public interest. (Cheers.) We have
no personal feeling, we have no official feeling, we have no
party feeling in the matter. (Cheers.) There can be but
one common object among us all, and that object is far too
important to be rashly and hastily decided. (Hear, hear.)
It requires to be fully and fairly considered, and we are
quite ready to go with the house, after the recess, into that
full, fair, and calm consideration. (Loud cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON complimented Lord Palmerston on
having exercised a wise discretion isi uwcUing to tite motion
of the hon. member for Liskeard.
Mr. LINDSAY objected to referring the question again
to the defence commission, who could only be expected to
report as they had done before.
Sir M. PETO inquired if it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to discontinue the building of wooden vessela,and
transfer the labour hitherto devoted to them to the conver-
sion of wooden vessels into iron.
Lord C. PAGET—I should not have thought it necessary
to say anything on this occasion, for I think the house is
perfectly prepared to listen to the proposal of my noble friend
at the head of the Government—namely, that after the re-
cess this subject shall be fully and fairly discussed, and that
Government shall be prepared with a proposal. (Hear.)
My object in rising is to call attention to a statement by my
right hon. friend the member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pak-
ington), that the Government had altogether neglected that
part of the recommendation of the Royal Commission which
had reference to the floating batteries. My right hon.friend
must have forgotten that principally in consequence of the
strong recommendation made by the commission in regard
to floating batteries, with a view to assist the forts at Spit-
head and other places, the Government thought it right to
convert the frames of five line-of hsttle ships into iron-
cased ships to be plated as floating defences. The only
distinction I know between the proposal of the commission
and that carried out by the Government is that, instead
of taking a part of the vote of credit for those ships, the
Government thought it better to include them in the
ordinary estimates for the year. I will only add this,
that in deference to the opinion of the house upon
that most important matter, which. is growing every
day in importance, namely, the question of the defence of
our coasts, the Admiralty have taken still further steps to
augment our fleet of iron-plated ships without increasing
the ordinary estimates of the year. (Hear, hear.) I may
tell the house that we have ordered a considerable number
of the men who were to be employed in building small
vessels to undertake the work of cutting down one or more
of our large line-of-battle ships. A tree-decker is about
to be cut down. She will be either fitted upoet Captain
Colea's cupola plan, or, at all events, the will be plated.:
Mr. OSBORNE—For harbour defence ?
Lord C. PAGET—For Channel defence. Our line-of-
battle ships arc very superior to this Monitor or Merrimac,
and they will be fit, not only for harbour defence, but for
taking their part anywhere on the coast of England. Not
only that, but we have under consideration the cutting
down of more line-of-battle ships. A; this inothent, if we
chose—if it were necessary—we have 20 line-of battle ships
that we believe would make very effieent plated ships for
the defence of our coasts. It is said that the Americans in
the course of a few mut* plated this Monitor, and we in
this country are behindWd ; Lut supposing we were at war
to-morrow, do you suppose we could not put forward our
energies and create Monitors .)y the dozen in a few months?
(Hear, hear.) We have given large estimates, and I believe
in these estimates we are gradually preparing and adapting
our fleet to the wants of the day. The hon. gentleman the
member for Sunderland alks of timber ships. Now, I
think there is a great conusion among the public in re-
gard to this question of wooden and iron ships. It is
thought that because thee iron-plated ships are imper-
vious to shot, the whole navy should be built of iron. i
But nothing is more vularable than an iron ship, unless
it be iron-plated. Small fret ships, with merely an iron skin,
such as the Himalaya, andsessels in the merchant navy, aro
the most vulnerable of all. If a shot strikes them it splin-
ters the iron, and is fatal o the crew on board. For that
reason and others, it is ver undesirable that we should give
up building :small woodervessels for the protection of our
commerce. If the housoshould deem it necessary that a
larger sum shouldbe appepriated to the navy, all I can say
is, that no opposition wil be offered by the Admiralty.
Sir. J. PAKINGTOI asked what draught of water
those vessels would drav?
Lord C. PAGET—M belief is that they will draw about
26 feet.

Sir M. PETO asked thether it was the intention of the
Government to discontiue the building of wooden vessels
altogether.
Lord C. PAGET—T a very great extent, There will be
scarcely any building °wooden vessels at all.
Sir. F. SMITH con4Atulated the Government upon the
determination they lit arrived at, but Mr. LINDSAY
doubted the propriety (referring the subject to the Defence
Commission.
After some further °bate, in which Mr. Crossley, Mr.'
Monsen, Lord V. Tertest, Sir J. Elphinstone, Sir J. Hay,
and other hon. merolms took part. the motion for going into
committee of supply Nis put and negatived, and Mr. Os-
borne's motion becam the original question.
Mr. BENTINCK thl moved his addendum, which was
opposed by Sir G. T,
Leas, 'on the ground that no portion of,
the money already "r(ed for fortifications was loft to benp-,
propriated to the bulling of iron-cased ships, or any other
purpose.
With a view to met this objection, Mr. BENTINCK.
altered his amendmet by he insert'on of the words, " not
already expended o4pproipriatcd."
Lord PAL bIERSION said that the amendment as altered
would not pledge th house to any decided action.
Mr. CROSSlantjAought it would entail an addition to