The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-23 00:00:00

Cost and repairs of the Impregnable, now a

harbour ship £160,432
But the story of the Tremendous is a more interest-
ing one. The hair-breadth escapes of this ship, in the
perilous service of lying in harbour at Sheerness and
Chatham, boarded every year by her "enemy," the sur
veyor, ordering repairs for her, and ultimately dooming
her to be taken to rie:.es and sold for old timber, are ro-
mantic. Like the Impregnable, her name was a misap-
plication of a strong word. 'Clie Tremendous was, among
ships. a friendless orphan. Nobody st emed to have any
friendship to her. They ran up bills of repairs against
her to take away her character, and still ordered
more, until the event came which they seem to
have had in view. Her name and fame became
such a reproach; extravagances of other ships in
their " repairs" being laid to her charge, that
the Lords of the Admiralty at last signed her death-war-
rant, and she was taken to Deptford to be destroyed. The
work of destruction began, but, like the heroine of a
mile-drama, doomed to suffer for another's crime, her de-
liverers appeared at Deptford just in time to save her,
and she was saved—has changed her name, and is now
a respectable frigate, and may be heard of any day by
itiquirin, for the Grampus.
The ft7ll,)wing "Extracts from the Annual Surveys"
give the leading ficts in official language:—

" Sheerncs3, 1835.—Tranendous requires a middling
repair."

Sne••rness, 1837.—Tremendou3 requires a middling
repair, arid wili colt 31,9871."

1843.—icenii;ndous requires a middling
repair, and Will cost 31,9871.; atier suct► repair she may
last six years."

(These two sum are not explained.)
"June 28th, 1843.—1 would recommend that the Tre
mendous, as she wilt require more than 32 0001. to muk•
her fficic.nt for service, be selected to replace the Duke
a a laztret at Standgate Creek, being found unfit for
further service. (Signed) W. SYMONDS."
•• Admiralty Order, 15th July, 1843—Tremendous not
to be fitted, as another ship in iieu o the Duke is not
re quired."
" December 19th, 1843—Proposed, with other ships,
to be sold or taken to pieces, as more economical than
to repair.
(Signed)

" W. 'SYMONDS."

" Admfraliy Urder, 28th February, 1844.-2.&ire-
mendous, at Sheerness, to be prepared for being sent to
Deptford, to be broken up."
Next follows a report, dated May 2, by Captain Hill,
stating how his attention was drawn to the ship after
the breakage had begun; that she was in a sound con•
dition, " not having been at sea, or in commission, since
she had a large repair."
Next comes an " Admiralty Order," dated May 4,
1844, stopping the work of up-breaking. And this is
followed by an order to appoint surveyors to examine
her, " Taking care," says the order, "not to recommend
any who have been engaged in any of the former or
present surveys of this ship." From this it would ap-
pear that the Admiralty doubted the propriety of en-
trusting her fate, though her sound timbers were now
exposed, to those who had before passed sentence on her.
She was saved accordingly.
Next comes "A return of the expense of converting
the Tremendous, 74-gun ship, into a frigate of reduced
form ; number of days in hand, cost in labour and ma-
terials, in comparison with cost of building a new ship."
In hand from 21st May, 1844, to 10th January, 1846:--
Cost of materials £8,028
Workmanship 6,006

Total
Comparative cost of building a new frigate of equal
class and armament:—
Materials
Workmanship

... £33,354
... 11,813

Total

-445,167
14,034

Difference ... £31,133
The difference is a key to many of the moat remark-
able phenomena in ship-building, repairing, altering, and
fitting up, now in progress in the dockyards. The ship
was supposed to be worthless, except as for old materials.
She was discovered to be worth converting into a fifty.
gun frigate. The difference between the cost of her
eonversion, and the cost of a new frigate, is credited to
the country as a saving. Accordingly, steps are taken
to enrich the country by a succession of such savings,
of which a few specimens are subjoined.
The Prince Regent was a three decker. A master
shipwright and an admiral superintendent thought she
would make a good two-decker, carrying 90 or 100 guns
and would only cost 25,0001. to be cut down to that class.
After a correspondence with the Admiralty, in which it
came out that the razieing of the Windsor Castle, on
some former occasion, had cost 40,5801., and of the Ocean
45,4321., the estimated cost for the Prince Regent was re-
duced to 24,500/. On the 16th of March, 1844, the
Admiralty ordered the ship to be cut down. The
surveyor of the navy suggested that, in cutting
down ships, they cut away the soundest parts, and left
the unsoundest, which were in the bottom. The sur-
veyor, Sir William Symonds, was not so potent as he
once was. He was now a builder of experience, but he
was fast growing out of favour. The prospect of having
an excellent two-decker for 24,500/. seems to have
charmed the Admiralty, and they seem, by the return,
which they ordered, to have contemplated a number of
other cheap
etwo-deCkers, to be made out of the Hiber-
nia, Queecohar
hioartlotte, St. Vincent, Britannia, Howe,
Princess
iimpregnable, Camperaown, Nelson,
Royal George, ait:i
ships that had never been Adelaide (the three Nit being
Symonds reminded the A.ena " seal). But Sir William
would be "redo eq„l twelveralty oat such •i reduetioe
decks mounting 240 guns,"
and would ce tthe effectiavenrpwowl!rhof the navy."
This seems to have let in
upon the Admi-
Ley paused, and the Prince
illeert-IS.ont only was re-
ratty; h
duced. The estimate for cutting
a ninety
gun ship had been 24,500/,
more actuawllicotsot
29,315/. than the estitutetieng a
trifle more, namely,
service done to the country, even by Sir
Symonds, in preventing, e
for a time, the reduction of'n
twelve decks instead of one, will appear to be consider-
able. Here is an official " return of the actual cost of
the Prince Regent, repairs, alterations, &c., sailing from
Portsmouth 24th March, 1848:"—
Cost of cutting down and repairing her hu11... £37,673
Mast and yards • • ••., 2,954
Rigging and stores ... 13,188

The last thing heard Total
of the. S
Prince Regent was her
" behaviour " in a stormy passage to Lisbon, at the be-
ginning of Jana. dry, 1849, in the squadron of Sir Charles

Napier, which " behaviour " is reported to have been so
good, in comparison with the bad behaviour of certain
three-deckers, and of herself when she belonged to that
class, that a case seems to be made out for the reduction
of the rest. The arithmetic of the Admiralty will de-
monstrate what the country gains by cutting down three
&vizors, which dip their portholes into the sea in the
gentlest of breezes, some of which they dare not send to
sea at all, as a breeze would lay them on their beam ends
or send them to the bottom; or if ballasted sufficiently
to be steady, the quantity of ballast required would
bring the water mark above the lower ports. One of
these three-deckers which has not been and cannot be
sent to sea, is the Nelson, built and named in honour of
the most famous of the working admirals, but lying in
dock, a monument of satire upon the political jobbers
who take upon themselves the management of the navy.
But the cutting down of larger vessels to a smaller size
is carried to a greater extent among ships of the inferior
class. There is a return, dated the Ist of May, 1848,
showing the saving, and, consequently, the accession of
wealth, to the country by cutting down nine 42-gun fri-
gates to corvettes. It is shown that, to have built cor-
vettes, the cost would have been 27,0001. each, whereas
the nine have only cost as follows:

Curioa ..• .. • ... ...
Aigle (expense returned as " unknown; not in

Office")Magicienne

Amazon
Daedalus
Brilliant

Havannah

Trincomalee

Amphitrite

£3,790

6,610
8,104
5,464
8,321
9,707
11,721
15,238

Making a total of ... ... ... £68,955
Nine at 27,0004 each would have been £243,000
Deduct ... ... ... 68,955

And there is an accession of wealth

to the country, according to the
Admiralty, amounting to 4174,045
•••
There have been many more ships cut down than
those referred to in this section; but the specimens here
given are deemed sufficient to illustrate the Admiralty
system.
That system seems to be founded on the supposition
that nobody is likely to have penetration enough to see,
or power of reasoning to comprehend, that the cost of
building the large ships should be the proposition in
the question of profit and loss on cutting them down.
As thus:—

Cost of building a three•d4 cker
Cost of rtducing that three-decker to a two-

... £82,000

decker

Total cost
Cost of building a two-decker

53,815

... ....£135,815
... ... 60,000

Loss by the Admiralty system of getting a

two-decker

75,815

But the " cutting down " is a trifling matter compared
with the " adding to the length " of ships to make them
into steamers.

This leads to an examination of the steam navy, a
more serious financial subject now than the sailing navy.
Thirty-four sailing frigates, which cost 45,0001. each, or
upwards, were found to be useless from mal-construc-
tion. One of them WAS lengthened. and made into a
steamer, at a cost of 59,4891., and the rest are to be
similarly dealt with. And this is to be done because the
steam-frigates, built of iron, are now alleged to be unfit
for ships of war. Thirty of those first-class iron steamers
were built by order of the Admiralty, in opposition to
the opinion of the practical servants of the dockyards,
without the iron being put to the proof as a material
for war. One of them, built and named in honour of
the town of Birkenhead, is, however, talked of as a ship
fit to be placed under fire, to prove how many broadsides
she will bear before going to the bottom.
No less costly method of proving the applicability of
iron to war ships has been suggested than a battery
upon one of the most expensive naval steamers. Proofs
were not sought until thirty such frigates were built,
and others ordered; and now, still without the proof,
thirty-three timber-built frigates are being transformed
into steamers, to supersede those of iron, at an expense
for transformation greater than their original cust iu