The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-12 00:00:00

sent they did not kuow what were the p.c,portions for
plated vessels ; what the proper engines, or what the pro-
per armament. The Admiralty had acted therefore wisely
and judiciously 'n feeling their way. While he was wil-
ling to afford every encouragement to trade, he thought
the Government were wise in building at all events a cer-
tain proportion of their iron vessels themselves, and thus
creating a cheek upon the prices charged by private builders.
He should, therefore, vote against the third resolution.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITBREAD begged to assure the noble lord the
member for Totnes that the difference between seasoned
and unseasoned wood was not nearly so important as the
difference between good and bad iron. (Hear, hear.) So
sensible of that was the noble duke, the First Lord of the
Admiralty, that last autumn he appointed a committee to
make a series of experiments upon every description of iron
that could be submitted to them. That committee consisted
of the most eminent men unconnected with the navy, and
although they hadnot yet made their report he had no doubt
that their services would be found to be of the greatest
value. (Hear, hear.) As to the expensiveness of the build-
ings that would be required to be erected in the Govern-
ment yards, he had only to say that those at Chatham had
only cost £4,000. He could not deny that the accounts in
the Government yards were not altogether satisfactory, nor
would they be until a proper system of double entry had
been introduced, but it would have been more handsome in
the noble lord to have said that they were sufficient to show
that no labour was remunerated that was not performed,
and no stores paid for that were not received. (Hear, hear.)
The late Secretary to the Admiralty said it was a great
mistake to build iren-plated vessels of less size than the
Warrior. Now the stowage of (Joel of the Warrior and Black
Prince at full steam was for 7 days ; of the Resistanceand
Defiance for 8 days; and of the last design for 5 days; but
the stowage at ordinary steaming was for the Warrior and
Black Prince 14 days ; for the Resistance and the Defiance,
16 days ; and for the new design 10 days. That was at least
a mere satisfactary account than had been given of the mat-
ter. (Hear, hear.) Surely hon. members would not have
had the Government go on with nothing but the design of
the Warrior. Why, last year the Warrior herself was
gravely criticised because she was not entirely covered with
armour. Surely the only way in which to arrive at a satis-
factory result was to try different kinds of vessels. (Hear.)
Efficiency was the measure of value, and every gentleman
who had spoken that night had pronounced the iron-plated
ships which this country possessed to be as superior as was
possible to anything built or building in France. (Hear.)
When for instance they complained that some of our ships
were too small, they should remember that a very large
portion of the Emperor's were very small ones ; and if it
was a fault for the packing of our ships to be of wood, the
French ships were constructed entirely of that material.
(Hear, hear.) As to floating docks, he could only say that
they were not popular with naval men ; and he did not
believe that a dock capable of floating the Warrior could
be constructed for anything like £lO,OOO. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. SMITH was glad his hon. friend the member for
Sunderland had brought forward this question. His hon.
friend seemed to think that the question of iron as against
wood was settled. [" No, no," from Mr. Lindsay.] Then,
if it was not settled, why were we to cease building wooden
vessels ? At all events, if large ships were made of iron, he
(Sir F. Smith) must contend that small ones ought to be of
wood; and that because it was impossible to make them of
sufficient buoyancy with any other material. As to the
question of whether the government ought to go on with
the wooden ships they were building, he held in his hand
an important return which gave the number under con-
struction. He found that there were ten line-of-battle ships
and twelve smaller vessels. He found there was a 91-gun
ship of which only one and five-eighths of an eighth was
completed ; and five others of which only from half an
eighth to an eighth and a half was built. Surely the noble
lord would not go on with those ?
Lord C. PAGET—We are not going on with them.
Sir F. SMITH was glad to hear that; but he hoped the
noble lord would clear the slips—would pull what was done
to pieces and convert the materials. He quite agreed that it
was most important to proceed with due caution ; but what
he complained of was, that though five years had elapsed
since the necessity of having plated vessels was forced upon
the public, very little had been done towards solving the
many problems that must be decided before we could hope
to have a satisfactory fleet.
Mr. DALGLISH said that when the noble lord the Sec-
retary to the Admiralty was in opposition, the burden of
his charges against the Admiralty of the day was that they
were always cutting and paring at the vessels. But now
the noble lord himself proposed to put up a little establish-
ment at Chatham to find out the best mode of building iron
ships. If the noble lord were to go to the iron building
trade of this country, and tell them the quantity and qua-
lity of iron he wanted, he would find that they woull either
perform what they promised or not be paid. (Hear, hear.)
Then his hon. friend the member for Norfolk seemed not to
have got over the recent panic about a French invasion.
Within the last fortnight he (Mr. Dalglish) had• been to
Toulon and Cherbourg, and he could assure his hon. friend
that any invasion, from that quarter at least, as far as the
building of ships was concerned, was out of the question.
At Toulon there were two small corvettes ; an iron frigate,
which was then ready to be launched, had been launched
within a few days past; and there was a trunepoi4 .r 600..
horse power. La Gloire was also there, and after passing
round her, he (Mr. Dalglish), although no great judge of
nautical matters, could not help saying he believed that the
iron ships built under the late Admiralty were infinitely su-
perior to La Gloire. At Cherbourg there were two corvettes.
There was also a steamer about to be coated with iron in
dock. They had also laid down the keel of a fourth vessel ;
but neither the steamer lately launched, and about to be
coated with iron, nor the other vessel, were nearly ready for
service. With regard to the motion of the hon. member for
Sunderland, there was one reason which should induce the
Admiralty not to press on the completion of these large
line-of-battle ships. It had always appeared to him that
when steam became the motive power of ships instead of
sails, that large three-decked and two-decked ships offered
a great resistance when urged against the wind. He
proposed to the noble lord to take the 90-gun ships now
built and building, and to case them with iron. The noble
lord would then have a fleet of iron ships quite as well
built and as effective as those of the French. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN said he thought the house was under
great obligations to the hon. member for Sunderland for
having brought this motion before the house. The discus-
sion had been so interesting, and the result so beneficial,
that he (Mr. Horsman) should be very sorry if the hon.
member detracted from the effect of what he had done that
day, by urging the house to a division which must lead to a
very false impression of what was the opinion of the house
on the question. There were very few hon. members who
did not agree with the spirit of his motion. Even on the
Treasury bench a general sympathy was felt for the views
which ho had expressed. The effect of what had been said
that evening was to acquit the present Admiralty of all
blame in this matter, and he (Mr. Horsman) thought they
fully deserved that acquittal. He thought that whatever
difference of opinion might exist in the house, they were
agreed in this, that every subject connected with the navy
was now well considered, and thoroughly thought out, and
that all those who were responsible to the house for the ad-
ministration of the navy, acted upon that responsibility,
feeling that every step which they took was carefully
watched by the house. For many years past the whole
question of Admiralty administration was a great mystery
in the house. It was felt that the administration was at-
tended with great expenditure, with very small return. And
here he must hear his testimony to the improvement ef-
fected by his hon. friend opposite (Sir J. Pakington). When
he came into office, the navy was at the lowest possible
point, and we had lost our command at sea. The right hon.
bart. the member for Droitwich profited by the experience
which other nations had gained, and he introduced the

question of the comparative superiority of iron over wooden
ships. The honourable member for Chatham (Sir F.
Smith) said he believed it was now understood that the
building of wooden ships would cease. He (Mr. Hors-
man) should rather think the conclusion to be that the
building of iron ships should be gradually increased, and
that of wooden ships gradually diminished. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. baronet went out of office, and the present
Board of Admiralty came in. The house had had some ex-

perience of the Duke of Somerset, when he was a member
of that house, as chairman of the committee on public
expenditure. Acting on that committee, the noble duke
established to himself a very high reputation in that house.
The noble lord the Secretary to the Admiral ty had also earned
some distinction in the house, of which he had been fre-
quently reminded, often in no friendly spirit, of being a great
naval reformer. For three years the noble lord made motions
of which he had been reminded that evening, condemning
the great waste of money in the public expenditure, and
the general maladministration of the navy. The two first
motions did not make much impression, but the last of the
three made a very great impression upon the house, and,
in the opinion of many persons, greatly contributed to the
circumstance of the noble lord occupying the post which he
now filled with great efficiency. There was only one
point as to which he felt any doubt ; it was not as to any
failure of intention on the part of the noble lord to carry
out his reforms, but he (Mr. Horeman) felt great
doubt as to his power. The right hon. baronet who
seconded the amendment said that the little that had Wm
done during the present administration was a proof that the
noble lord lacked power ; ho had not even the power, as the
house discovered the other day, to send a telegraphic mes-
sage to which the Prime Minister had pledged himself ill
that house. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Some lion, gentle-
men seemed to suppose that the noble lord was at the head
of the Admiralty. The noble lord, on the other hand, was
perfectly conscious of his inferiority to even a junior lord of
the Admiralty. It had been said that it would be impossi-
ble that year to initiate any reform in the Admiralty. He
(Mr. Horsman) was one of those who thought it a pity this
committee had ever been appointed. He thought public
opinion was quite prepared for reform without the appoint-
ment of a committee. They must now wait for their report;
but when it did come he hoped his noble friend would then,
whatever might be the views of this board as to hia pos!tion,
vindicate his own views, assert his own power, and carry
out those reforms which he wor the first to initiate. He
would then prove himself to be one of the most beneficial
reformers who had ever sat on that bench.

Mr.W.WILLIAMS said that £320,090,0,00 of money had
Wu expended iu thy utviy since tha terzaiaatim of the

French war, of which V 0,000,000 had been voted fur the
dockyards; and whilst our navy was double that of France,
we were still terrified by the bugbear of a French invasion.
He trusted that now the extravagant waste of this depart-
ment would be put an end to, and that some lasting check
would be placed on the Board of Admiralty.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—My right hon. friend the member
for Stroud has referred a goof deal to the report of the
DockyardCommissioners,and has expressed a strong opinion
that the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had en •
tirely fulfilled all that he had ever stated to the house, and
more especially what he stated in a speech he made two
years ago, which attracted considerable attention. I have
no wish just now to raise a question of a controversial na-
ture, especially as my noble friend has already addressed
the house, and is unable therefore to answer anything I
might say. It is therefore with pain that I advert to what
fell from my right hon. friend, but the clear interests of
truth and justice stand above all reasons of courtesy. I am
sorry to be compelled to say that I cannot concur in the
view which my right hon. friend has taken of that part of
the report of the commission. We have before us that re-
port, we have fresh in our recollection what was the language
of the noble lord in 1859, and I find that the report of the
commission does not uphold that language. I find also a
special memorandum written by Admiral Robinson, the
present Controller of the Navy, who succeeded Sirß.Walker
in the position which the latter filled with so much ability
for many years—l find in that memorandum distinct refe-
rence to the language of the noble lord in that speech, and
a most distinct declaration that the noble lord had failed to
establish the statements he had made. lam sorry to be ob
liged to advert to this point, and I would not have done so
but for the unqualified language in which the right hon.
member for Stroud expressed himself. Ido not say the re-
port casts any censure upon the noble lord, but it does not
bear out his own statements. At the time the noble lord
made those statements I questioned their accuracy, and
expressed my wish that they should be tested by a com-
mittee. I did not impute anything, for I had no doubt
that my noble friend believed the statements he made were
accurate but I entertained an opinion that they were
made upon insufficient grounds. Those statements have
been tested by a Royal Commission, and, as far as I can
gather from the report, they have been found to be erro-
neous. I will not enter further upon that point, except to
subscribe to the approbation that has been expressed of
the manner in which the commissioners performed their duty.
It performed a difficult duty with impartiality and ability,
and the report it presented to the house is a most valuable
document, throwing great light on the former administra-
tion of the navy, and likely to prove a guide in those future
reforms of the naval administration which all parties seem to
require. With regard to the motion of the hon. member for
Sunderland, lam very glad it has been made ; it touches a
subject that ought to be brought under the consideration of
the House of Commons. But I think the answer of the
noble lord the Secretary of the Admiralty was not quite so
clear as it should have been. lam not sure that I under-
stood it, and I doubt whether the house understands what
is the exact position of the Admiralty on this question. The
real question raised by the hon. member for Sunderland is,
how far, in the present state of doubt as to the construction
of iron vessels, the Admiralty proposes to proceed in build.
ing wooden line-of-battle ships ? Ido not understand
what the answer to this question is. The nobl. lord has
told us we have 67 line-of-battle ships; but it is notorious
that we have net that number. 53 is about the number we
have afloat; 67 would be the number if every ship now on
the stocks should be completed. (Hear, hear.) But how
many of them are to be completed ? To this question, I
think, we ought to have a clearer answer than we have yet
received. It is no new question; the attention of Parlia-
ment has been direeted to it for years past ; and it is not con-
fined to iron ships only. There is another point of great
importance that the noble lord has himself raised to-night;
it is whether the new inventions in artillery will riot entirely
set aside the two and three-deckers in which we have hereto-
fore trusted so much—(hear, hear)—and whether it maynot
be expedient to build our most powerful vessels with one
deck only. (Hear.) The policy of the late Admiralty was
this—that whatever might be done with regard to single
decked and iron-covered ships, it was the duty of the Go-
vernment of the day, looking to the state of Europe, to keep
England safe, as far as all nautical experience could ensure
its safety. (Hear, hear.) The intention of the late Admiralty
was not to exceed the number of 69 wooden line-of-battle
ships, and on reaching that number to pause, and see how
far the iron ships would supersede the old system of build-
ing. lam sorry the noble lord has not stated more dis-
tinctly the intention of the present Admiralty on this
point. I wish he had stated where we are to stop in the
construction of wooden line-of-battle ships. As to the
motion of the hon. member for Sunderland, I quite agree
with the principle of his first resolution ; I think there is a
point at which we ought to suspend the construction of
wooden ships. But I hope the hon. member will not press
the motion to a division, for I should be sorry to give a vote
that may be liable to misinterpretation; and I think the
motion tends to take out of the hands of the Executive Go-
vernment a matter that ought to be left to its discretion. As
to the hon. member's last resolution, I cannot vote in favour
of it. I believe the Admiralty has done wisely in building
one iron ship in a Government dockyard. The hon. mem-
ber for Finsbury (Sir M. Peto) has referred to the different
classes of iron shins oraored by the late and proc,nnt Admi-
ralty; he has stated that some of those recently constructed
will not steam more than eight knots per hour. The noble
lord admits that the two smallest of these vessels—the Re-
sistance and the Defence—will have a speed of only 11
knots an hour; yet he says that the ship of the greatest
speed will have the greatest advantage over an opponent.
I think this statement is unsatisfactory. The late Board
of Admiralty ordered an iron ship of 6,000 tons : they
were unwilling to order a ship of that size; the ex-
pense was enormous, and the experiment one of much risk.
But they adopted that size solely because they found it
would be impossible to combine all the elements of a man-
of-war in a vessel of smaller dimensions. The present
Board of Admiralty had built smaller ships, but at the sac-
rifice of speed. lam afraid that building these smaller and
slower ships is a serious mistake. My noble friend says we
have no experience to guide us with regard to these ves-
sels. That is perfectly true. We are proceeding in the
dark. We have not yet had one of thess ships at sea,
The Warrior was the first launched, but four months have
since elapsed ; I understand her plates are still not fixed
upon her ; and I fear that it will be months before she is fit
for sea. Why not send one of these ships to sea as soon as
possible so that we may test their seagoing qualities ? I
hear that the reason why the Warrior has not yet got her
armour plates is on account of the tonguing and grooving
plan which has been adopted. The plan is of doubtful ad-
vantage ; but this is the cause of the delay. The hon.
member for Coventry has alluded to the enormous weight
of the wood which is placed upon the Warrior between
what is called the skin of the ship and the outer armour.
I will not venture to contradict the hon. gentleman, but
my information leads me to believe that he has greatly
exaggerated the weight of the wood when he says it
amounts to 1,000 tons. [Sir J. Paxton explained that ho said
the weight of the wood in this position would be 400 tons.]
Even that, as far as I can learn, would be double the actual
weight. I have always understood that the weight of her
whole armour would be 1,200 tons, 1,000 of which would
consist of iron plates, and 200 tons of intervening wood.
The hon. member proceeded to say that, instead of having
wood, the whole thickness of armour should be iron. That
is a question which is not at all decided yet, and which is
still being discussed by the scientific men of the day. One
of the points which has come before the Institution of
Naval Architecture is whether it would not be far better
to construct these ships so as to make one thickness of
iron serve for all purposes of defence. There is
a diversity of opinion on this subject, and as yet
we are in the infancy of the question. How necessary is it,
therefore, that the Admiralty should proceed with boldness,
I admit, but at the same time with caution; and, above all,
how necessary is it that some of these ships should be prac-
tically tested at sea, so that we may ascertain the best form
of construction. (Hear.) In the censures which have been
passed upon the Admiralty for increasing the stock of tim-
ber I cannot concur, for I think they have done wisely in
making such a proposal. I see no prospect of the abandon-
ment of the construction of wooden ships. (Hear.) I see no
prospect of adopting iron exclusively in shipbuilding, for
the smaller class of vessels and frigates will, I believe, be
built, as heretofore, of wood. Let the house bear in mind
that we have suffered and are suffering from a deficient stock
of timber, and from having beet compelled to use unsea-
soned timber in building some of ships. (Hear, hear.) In
the French dockyards an abundant stock is kept in hand,
and this vote is ono which I hope the house will willingly
assent to, (Hear, hear.)
Admiral WALCOTT thought that timely consideration
should be given to the plan of construction before our ships
were commenced. Economy ought to be studied, no doubt,
but only so far as was compatible with the efficiency of the
navy and the integrity of the empire. (Hear.) The noble lord
had enumerated the naval strength of certain foreign nations,
which provided, he said, altogether 50 line-of-battle ships,
while we had 67. The right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington)
, had put our ships down at 53 only, though he admitted that,
including those on the stocks, we might have 67. But, if we
possessed 67, the number was not more than was demanded
by the exigencies and necessities of the country. (Hear,
hear.) Consider the number of our colonies and depen-
dencies. They numbered, he believed, about 50. Then look
likewise at the vast extent of our commerce. Wherever a
ship could swim there was to be found a British flag, and
under these circumstances we v, ere called on to maintain a
navy double that of all other countries combined. (Hear,
hear.) lie was at a less to understand what could be the
object of France in getting together so large a naval force.
She had few colonies to defend, and he could not under •
stand why she should want 37 line-of-battle ships and 45
largo frigates, except to intimidate other countries. She
would have to go a long way before she intimidated Eng-
land. He gave every credit to the right hon. baronet below
for having placed the 'Warrior and the Black Prince on the
stocks. He had visited the Warrior and thought her the
finest model of a vessel possible, but he found that she could
only carry six and a half days' coal; that a great part of
her hulk and her stern was unprotected, and that she drew
a large draught of water, which last was a great disadvan-
tage For the complete protection of our shores, and to
meet all exigencies, we required, in addition, a class of
smaller vessels. In a great measure he' (treed with the
11011, member for Sunderland as to stopping the building of