The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-23 00:00:00

‘,„

leytorm their a

11.REA11:117211 ER.

A Ell' s PAP-Ett.'
, , ----, -
z-- 71:-F.,7, •-• \
\':i,-"
. , • ‘,....,it4 „, ,
, ;-- ~,*r i' •• e, i
01 th ONOt 'l/4'

to p „ay, it
quence that they should-be protected frottriskAina
so be encouraged to approach without apprehension
any vessel that may require their asiiistance.
I forward the certificate of the Master of the
Stirlingshire, herewith.—l have, &c.,
JAMES TRAILL.
NV

e concur. HY. HARRIS,
Nautical assessors.
ROBT. SCOTT,
The Lords of the Committee of Privy Council
for Trade.

PROPOSED FORT BEHIND PLYMOUTH

The :Defence Commissioners' report to the Secre-
tary of State for -War, with reference to the pro-
posed fort behind Plymouth Breakwater, is as fol-
lows

"In compliance with the instructions contained
in your letter of the sth inst., we have carefully
considered whether it is advisable to proceed with
the construction of a fort inside Plymouth Break-
water as recommended in our report of Feb. 7,1860.
" The question referred to embraces two conside-
tions—lst. The necessity of placing a fort on or near
the breakwater for the defence of the anchorage.
2d. The position in which such a work should bo
placed.

, w© point
" With regard to the first would ob-
serve that although the works at Pi kl c ecombe, Stad-
don, Drake's Island, and the citadel
bring a heavy
fire to bear upon the channels leading to Plymouth
Sound and Hamoaze, and command a certain portion
of the Sound, a great pert of that anchorage is not
covered by the fire of those works, except at long
ranges. A fort either on or near the breakwater
will to a great extent supply this deficiency, whilst
at the same time it will bring a fire to bear on any
ships that might take up a position outside the
breakwater for the purpose of bombarding the dock-
yard, or firing into vessels at anchor in the Sound.
A fort so placed would also be in the best position
for supporting floating defences, and for affording
protection to any of our sea-going fleet seeking re-
fuge under its guns.
" With respect to the second consideration, the
choice seems to be limited to three positions-Ist. A
fort might be placed on each end of the breakwater.
2d. It might be erected on the breakwater near its
centre. 3d. It might be placed in a suitable position
inside the breakwater.

" Each of these plans has been already carefully
considered. The first has much to recommend it.
Forts on each end of the breakwater would bring a
closer fire to bear on each channel leading to the
Sound, and would command a large'portion of the
anchorage by a cross fire.
"It will be seen from the report of Messrs.
Walker, Burges, and Cooper, engineers of Plymouth
breakwater, addressed to the Under Secretary of
State for War, and dated June 21, 1861, that before
the recommendation of this commission was acted
upon this proposal was fully investigated.
"It appears that it would be necessary to lay
the foundation of the eastern fort at low water neap

tides, and that of the western fort at half tide level,
spreading them considerably to distribute the
weight of the superstructure over a large area of
the breakwater, and, in some places, extending
the base below low-water mark. Moreover, the
heavy seas which set in during southerly gales
would break with great force against the walls
of the forts, and thus produce increased ac-
tion upon the existing foreshores' by the
recoil of the waves, rendering it necessary
to secure the foot of the present paved slope by a
buttress work of granite masonry dovetailed
together vertically and horizontally. The expense
of constructing foundations in the sea would, there-
fore, not be avoided by adopting this proposal,
whilst the lower tier of guns in the works would
lose muck of their efficiency, even in moderate
weather, owing to the wash of the sea up the gentle
slope of the exterior side of the breakwater, the top
of which is very little above the level of high water
spring tides. But the great objection to placing
forts on the break water is, that the limestone rubble,

of which it is chiefly composed, cannot be depended
upon as a durable foundation for a superstructure
of far greater weight than it was originally calcu-
lated to bear. This is shown by the subsidence
which has actually occurred to the works of Cher-
bourg breakwater. These objections to the erection
of a smaller fort at each end apply with greater
force to placing a fort on the centre of the break-
water, its breadth being insufficient to receive the
whole of the foundation, which would therefore be
partly on the rock inside and partly on the break-
water ; the difficulty of construction would thus be
much increased, as the same mode would not be the
most efficient for both portions, and the danger of
subsidence of that part on the breakwater would

still remain.
" The site that has, therefore, been chosen for the
erection of the work is on a portion of the Shovel
Rock, inside and a little to the westward of the
centre of the breakwater, and as close to its inner
slope as practicable. The rock is comparatively
level at this spot, and is covered with a thin deposit
of fine silt. It has been carefully examined in a
diving bell, and it has been found to be in every
respect suitable for the foundation.
" The outside of the fort will be within GO yards
of the breakwater, its area will be less than half an
acre, and from its position it will not interfere with
the anchorage of a single ship. On this point we
have obtained the evidence of Commander Aylen,
s Would
s swing
the anchorage of ships of war, being so close
i foss
no
the Queen's harbour master Plymouth, who
states that the site proposed is not available
to the breakwater that it would be unsafe to
place a ship in such a positionthat h e
over it.
It also appears in his evidence that a portion of
the north front of the fort may be made available as
a coaling depot, in which case one at least of the
coal hulks now moored in the Sound might be dis-
pensed with, and the moorings she oc •
occupies be ap-
propriated to one of the ships of the fleet.
t, The expense of the foutid • ation of a work in the
position we have recommended •
will be less than
that of the two on the ends of the breakwater, and
all danger of subsidence will •
be avoided ; from its
position it will be protected from the wash of the
sea ; so that the lower tier of guns may be placed
as low as the top of the breakwater will allow ; and.
and communication with it will be practicable in all
weathers.
" On consideration, therefore, of all the circum-
stances, we are of opinion that a work behind Ply-
mouthbreakwater is necessary for the defence of tho
Sound, and that the site on which it is proposed to
erect it is the best that could be selected.
have, fie.,
" HARRY D. JONES, Lieut.-General,'
GEO. ELLIOT, Rear-Admiral, members
F. ABBOTT, Major-General, of the
A. COOPER KEY, Capt., R.N., Royal
J. H. LEFROY, Colonel, R.A. Commission.
JAS. FEROUSSON,
RICH. COLLINSON Capt. R.N.
Associated e
J. ST. GEORGE, Colonel, R.A.,Moin ra
WM. S. WISEMAN, Capt. R.N.,
H. D. HARNESS, Colonel, R.N.:
; Lieut.ClßE
WM. F. DRUMMOND JERVOIS,O • • .9
and Assist. I.G.F. SecrotarY•

PROGRESS OF HULL.—Some interesting results
are disclosed in some statistics just prepared with respect to
the progress of the town and port et Hull. In 1861 the
population was returned at 109,000, and this year it is esti-
mated at 110,800, while in 1836 it was only 65,000, the in-
crease in 26 property rate-
able last year was X 238,504, aad in 1836 £176,559, showing
g and
dust :05,8cOle0a.raTnchees
an increase of £61,945. In 1860 the tonnage of the shipping
entering the port WaS 833,633 tons, as compared with
798,217 tons in 1860, against 421,938 tons in 1836
,190,044 tonsyienarsl:::
an increase of 376,279 tons. In 1860 the tonnage , showing
subjected to dock dues was 1,215,203 ton of thevessels
only 535,022 tons, showing an increases' and in 1837 it
was
or 133 per cent. In 1836 the area
of 680,181 tons,
23a. Or. 33p., while now the areaof of the docks was
40a. Sr. 28p. ; and the area of dock accomodation is
Dock is 17a., and the increase the proposed new West
In 1860 the number of steam to the Victoria Dock Ga.
1,182, with a total tonnage -vessels entering inwards was
with a total of 716
steamers
age of 350,932 tons, as compared
225,110 tons in 1855 ; of an aggregate burden of
outwards in 1860 and the number of steamers clearing
tons, ,F 3 was 1,191, of a total burden a 364,290
1,
212,086 tons
has mat
A p • comparedin
n with 772 of an aggregate burden of
1855. The sanitary condition of the popu-
lationerially improved of late.
Parliamentary return shows that 8,897 sheep
were killed by dogs within the constabulary districts in Ire,.
land in the year ending Ist Januarh 1862.