The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-09 00:00:00

THE DEFENCES OP SPITHEAD.

A parliamentary paper, issued yesterday, con-
tains the report of the Royal CoMmissioners on the
National Defences, on the proposal for substituting
iron cased vessels for forts at Spithead. Sir R.
Dundas suggested-1. That iron-cased ships should
be substituted for the forts ; 2. That as the stone
batteries would not be a sure defence against iron-
plated ships, money would be better expended this
year on the equipment of such ships than in the
construction of batteries; 3. That as it is desirable to
determine by what means defences can be most
readily provided, a speedy and economical mode of
attaining this object would be afforded by convert-
ing certain steam and sailing ships of 'the line into
iron-cased steam vessels, capable of being propelled
at a speed of seven to eight knots.
The Commissioners report :—Before entering into
a general discussion on the subject, we beg leave to
reply to each of these propositions as follows ; 1.
That when, last year, we prepared our report, we
were then fully alive to the fact that iron-plated
vessels would in future be extensively used for pur-
poses of war ; and this fact was carefully weighed
by us in all the conclusions we then arrived at.
We submit that since that time no experience has
been gained which should induce us to alter the
opinion we then expressed as to the comparative
value of fixed and floating defames. 2. With
regard to the second proposition, the additional
information obtained during the last twelve months
has convinced us that there is no practical difficulty
in the construction of the forts at Spithead, and
that the expense will not be in excess of the sum
stated in our report ; further, that, taking all cir-
cumstances into consideration, the relative cost of
forts and floating batteries is so much in favour of
the former as to induce us to adhere to the opinions
we then expressed, the more especially as
we are convinced, for reasons to be given here-
after, conjunction with a
ally answer the purposes for which they were
smftearll, that
auxiliarythe fofurrtuseuf will,uaitning
defences, effectu-
designed, whilst we do not consider that any amount
of floating defences, the presence of which can rea-
sonably
Ali be calculated upon
re-
quired object. We cannot therefore concur in the
I would effect the
suggestion that o construction of these forts
should be postponed; on the contrary, considering
that it may take three years to complete them, it
appears to us that the works cannot be too soon
commenced or prosecuted with too great vigour.
3. As regards the third proposition, we have to re-
mark,
proposed by Vice-Admiral Sir R. S. Dundas
in a e
maybe the advantages of the
relative economy, the iron
rrks,pe thatet
to whatevertimen
d
plating of certain line-of-battle ships will not give
the class of vessels that is best adapted to the ser-
vice which we have in view. Their great draught
of water will materially limit their power of ma-
noeuvring in the shoal waters oZ Spithead, the
Solent, and the mouth of the Thames ; their speed,
also, if it be only seven to eight knots, will be in-
sufficient. Departmental reasons, of which we
are not in a position to judge, may make it expe-
dient, as a measure of immediate defence, to plate
some of the existing wooden vessels with iron ; but
it is our duty to point out that the class of vessels
for which we recommended an expenditure of
£1,000,000 in our report dated 7th February, 1860
(pars. 35 and 37), is in every respect preferable, as
a permanent auxiliary, for harbour defence;