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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 5,

not be greater than the weight of the water which she dis-
places. If it were greater the ship would go down. Now,
there is no such limit to the weight of guns or means of de-
fence which you can employ in the case of forts, because it
is obvious you may have in connexion with a fort any thick-
ness of rampart or bastion you please, and any weight of
guns you can work. But it is said that it would take seve-
ral thousand trained artillerymen to man these forts. 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 is to a great extentper-
formed by what arc termed handspike-men, and two trained
artillerymen to a gun aro 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 militia—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 would 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 have no doubt we shall
have a gun of the same sort, and it is 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. We 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 ships simply cased with
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 -lihe, and would not stand in

need of the cleansing which iron-bottomed ships would
require. It must also be borne in mind that line-of-battle
ships, such as those now existing, can bo 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

are 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 dono more rapidly than you could construct a vessel liko
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, anil 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-
l:l)Bes, 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 in acceding to the 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 vessels,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-battle 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 tho vote of credit tor 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 three-decker is about
to be cut down. 14he will be either fitted upon. Captain
Coles's cupola plan, or, at all events, she will be plated.:
Mr. OSBonNE—For harbour defence ?

Lord C. PAGET—For Channel defence. Our line-of-

battle ships are very superior to this Monitor or Merrimac,
and they will be fit, nut 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. At this moment, if we
chose—if it were necessary—we have 20 line-of battle ships
that we believe would make very efficient plated ships for
the defence of our coasts. It is said that the Americans in
the course of a few months plated this Monitor, and we in
this counts y are behindhand ; but supposing we were at war
to-morrow, do you suppose we could not put forward our
energies and create Monitors by 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, talks of timber ships. Now, I
think there is a great confusion among the public in re-
gard to this question of wooden and iron ships. It is
thought that because these iron-plated ships are imper-
vious to shot, the whole navy should be built of iron.
But nothing is more vulnerable than an iron ship, unless
it be iron •plated. Small iron ships, with merely an iron skin,
such as the Himalaya, and vessels in the merchant navy, are
the most vulnerable of all. If a shot strikes them it splin-
ters the iron, and is fatal to the crew on board. Fcr that
reason and others, it is very undesirable that wo should give
up building ',small wooden vessels for the protection of our
commerce. If the house should deem it necessary that a
larger sum shouldbe appropriated to the navy, all I can say
is, that no opposition will be offered by the Admiralty.
Sir. J. PAKINGTON asked what draught of water
those vessels worild draw ?

Lord C. PAGET4l;.belief is that they will draw about
26 feet.

Sir 111. PE ro asked whether it was the intention of the
Government to discontinue the building of wooden vessels
altogether.
Lord C. PAGET—To a very great extent. There will be
scarcely any building of wooden vessels at all.

Sir. F. SMITH congratulated the Government upon the
determination
doubtedthey had arrived at, but Mr. LINDSAY
thepropriety of referring the subject to the Defence
Commission.ppriety

After some further debate, in which Mr. Crossley, Mr.
Monsell, Lord V. Tempest, Sir J. Elphinstone, Sir J, Hay,
and other hon. members took part. the motion for going into
committee of supply was put and negatived, and Mr. Os-
borne's motion became the original question.
Mr. BENTINCK then moved his addendum, which was
opposed by Sir G. LEWIS, on the ground that no portion of
the money already voted for fortifications was left to be ap-
propriated to the building of iron-cased ships, or any other
purpose.
With a view to meet this objection, Mr. BENTINCK
altered his amendment by the insertion of the words, " not
already expended or appropriated."
Lord I'AL MERSTON said that the amendment as altered
would not pledge the house to any decided action.
Mr. CROSSJ.4I4X thou& it would entail 102 addition to