The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-12 00:00:00

It it should be objected that in this fleet there are but six
ships, I answer that six such ships are enough to form a
fleet. At the most moderate estimate they will cost more
than two millions sterling, and therefore, in money value,
no less than in offensive and defensive powers, will be equi-
valent to 20 of our old 100 gun line-of-battle ships. It is
easy to say there ought to be a much larger number of such
vessels, and that is a subject upon which different opinions
may fairly be held ; but in my humble judgment it would
be wrong to swell the taxation of the country, especially at a
time like this, for the mere purpose of " bloating" our
armaments to that extent.

We have neat in progress a second set of no less than nine
iron-cased ships, all capable of co-operating together as a
eflae
ee
ht
sbt
ee ca amn sa et
ft
rhoemy
113
to e acl h2:k
knots
a obtosu. t 40, Ofotohteosne s
five b u r
adreenb,
ea ni
gd
built of timber (like most of the French vessels), and then
plated with iron, while the remaining four are to be
ofiron throughout. The five plated timber ships are the
Prince Consort, the Royal Alfred, the Royal Oak, the
Ocean, and the Caledonia, all of which will steam from 12
to 14 knots. When we consider that they are to be plated
all over from stem to stern, and will therefore each carry
a large number of protected guns, we might without
exaggeration consider that of themselves they are not
unworthy to be called a formidable fleet. But there
is not the shadow of a reason why we should not join with
them the iron ships Hector and Valiant, which are as nearly
as possible of the same tonnage, and which are expected to
steam at just the same rate. The remaining two of the nine
vessels are the Defence and the Resistance, each of which
is of 3,700 tons burden, and have actually steamed at 111
knots. So that here we have another splendid fleet of nine
—or, to say the least, of seven—well-matched vessels, all
much more nearly equal than those which composed our
fleet during the wars, and all undoubtedly capable of co-
operating in the most reliable and perfect manner. What
can possibly be meant by saying, under these circum-
stances,
ands t am
With
cui et
ht st ,e
regardrt
lhy a that
unable we etoa rt
the
oe"
Defenceebounijlsdei
tnu
rg a
nen. odfleet aRt all"esis
t a
nI
caem,
a whollym 0
most
t
singular error has obtained currency. In his pamphlet on
"The Fleet of the Future" Mr. Scott Russell gives an
imaginary conversation between Lord Clarence Paget and
the constructors of the navy, with the view of showing how
the designs of these vessels were originated—a conversa-
tion which is intended apparently to reflect exclusively
upon the Secretary to the Admiralty, but which seems to
me to indicate so poor a 'spirit, and such very attenuated
conversational powers on the part of the constructors that,
if I were they, I certainly should not thank the author for
his representation. lam sure Mr. Scott Russell is not
fair to those gentlemen when, in answer to a request from
Lord Clarence Paget, he makes them humbly say, or
rather ejaculate—" My Lord, I am sorry, but, if you
please, it can't be done." lam certain this is not the
language of real life, but imaginary conversation with a
vengeance.
But to return to the vessels. Mr. Scott Russell does them
great injustice when he says they are no better than " what
are technically called mere tubs." It is true that they are
very imperfectly protected ; that their ports are compara-
tively low; and that their speed is less than 12 knots. But
this is all that can be said against them. As regards their
lines, they are really most excellently formed vessels; and
it seems to me a great exaggeration to pronounce a ship with
ports seven feet above the water capable of steaming at
what many consider a very good speed, and formed so as to
behave admirably in a sea-way, a " mere tub." I deny
altogether that a ship of this kind is what we technically
understand by that expressive phrase. It seems to have
satisfied Sir Morton Pete, however, for in his speech in the
House of Commons on the Ist of the month he spoke of
these ships as " two of the veriest tubs imaginable," and so
gave Lord Clarence an opportunity of telling him truthfully
that he did not understand what he was talking about.
I do not think I need extend these remarks upon Mr.
Scott Russell's letter any further except to say that I agree
with him in believing that we have wasted money in build-
ing so many unprotected wooden ships. Even on this sub-
ject, however, much might be said in mitigation of a harsh
judgment. We muet remember that the Board of
Admiralty are compelled to rely greatly upon their profes-
sional advisers, and professional shipbuilders are only just
now awakening to the fact that we can build small irea-
-cased vessels as well as large. I was myself told only
three months ago, by naval constructors in high po-
sitions--and very able naval constructors, too—that the
unng was impossime. rortunateiy, nowever, it i..et only
possible, but practicable, and even easy.
I do not feel at liberty to speak more fully upon this
point at present ; but 1 have succeeded very recently in
demonstrating that even without the single experimental
feature introduced into the Enterprise (the erection of an
iron top-side upon a wooden bottom) we can build cor-
vettes, sloops, and even gunboats, either of wood or of iron,
protected with iron armour of the usual kind ; and not
partially, or imperfectly protected, either, but absolutely
coated all over from end to end. This is a result so satis-
factory and so momentous that, until it was actually se-
cured, I scarcely hoped to see it accomplished. The effect
of it will be to sweep away at a stroke the necessity for
making our iron-cased ships so extravagantly large and
costly, and to enable us to seud our flag all over the globe
in shot-proof vessels of all sizes, as perfectly adapted to our
various necessities as our wooden fleets ever were.