The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-12 00:00:00

put on, board men .of-war, coming if their services should be
wanted for that purpose? (Hear, hear, from Lord C. Paget)
I understand the noble lord by his cheer to confirm that
statement.
Lord C. PAGET—They are disposable.

Sir J. PAK INGT ON—I am very glad to hear that there
is so large an available force ; I only regret it is not larger.
In connection with this I must express the great satisfac-
tion with which I heard the concluding part of the noble
lord's statement, in which he informed the committee that
tho Admiralty has decided without loss of time to erect bar.
racks for our seamen in port. I think preceding Boards of
Admiralty are open to some censure for not having at an
earlier period undertaken this improvement, and I am happy
to hear from the noble lord that the necessary operations
are really to be commenced. I will now turn to what fell
from the noble lord with respect to the reserve force. lam
sorry to say I don't think this part of the noble lord's
statement so satisfactory. In speaking of the new reserve
force, his prospective calculation was 7,000 men.
Lord C. PAGET—The actual number is 4,000.
Sir J. PAK INGTON—Precisely. 7,000 is the number
my noble friend hopes to have at the termination of another
twelvemonth, but the present numher is 4,000, and he cal-
culates the expense of these 4,000 at £107,000.
Lord C. PAGET—The cost of the 7,000 is taken in the
estimate.

Sir J. PAKINGTON—I am very glad to hear that.
There is another part of this important subject—the only
part—on which lam bound to say the noble lord was not
perfectly clear. I allude to the number of boys in training.
In the training ships he said there were 2,000 boys, and
subsequently I understood him to state that there were
9,639 boys.
Lord C. PAGET—We have 2,000 boys in training ships
specially devoted to boys, but we have on board receiving
ships, flag-ships, and the fleet generally a total of 9,639
boys.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—that makes the statement of the
noble lord much less satisfactory. In our training ships
there are'only 2,000, and the number of 9,639 includes all
the boys who form part of the crews on board our ships.
While I do not at all undervalue the great importance of
the Naval Reserve recommended by the Royal Commission
on Manning the Navy, and think the Admiralty only doing
their duty in carrying out that portion of their recommen-
'dltion, I must say I myself have attached more interest and
importance to the recommendation of the Royal Commis-
sion with reference to training boys. (Hear.) I believe
the best and most effective means by which we can insure
the manning of the navy is by training boys on a large scale.
(Hear, hear.) And, bear in mind, the recommendation of
the Royal Commission relative to the training of boys for
4:10 royal navy went to training boys round the coast with
a double 4ject. One object, no doubt, was to assist in the
best manntr to man our navy ; but another object, only
secondary in importance to that, was to improve our mer-
cantile marine by training boys in such a manner as to in-
sure that improvement as a national advantage of first-rate
importance, an advantage which would react in a most
valuable manner on that body of sailors to which in times
of emergency we must look for recruiting the Royal navy.
(Haar.) With these opinions, I confess I was sorry to hear
by the statement of the noble lord that the Admiralty were
doing so little. lam afraid from this statement I must infer
they are doing nothing towards carrying out this portion of
the recommendation of the Royal Commission—by far the
most important part of their valuable report. All that
most interesting portion of my noble friend's statement
with regard to the great and important question of iron •
plated men-of-war I heard with the most unqualified satis-
faction and approbation. Ido not put my opinion in com-
petition with that of my noble friend, he being an experi-
enced naval officer, but I hope without presumption, from
the attention I have been obliged from my official position
to give the subject, I may say the noble lord has not ex-
pressed an opinion here in which I do not entirely concur.
The only portion of his statement to which I have any dis-
position to take exception is with regard to the delay
which occurred in the case of the Warrior. The noble lord
stated that the contractors were to blame. I cannot allow
this opportunity to pass without saying that I think that
delay most unfortunate, When the late Board of Admi-
ralty entered into the contract for building the Warrior the
contract was that she should be launched in May last. Then
we were told she would be launched in August ; but the
event did not take place till the end of December. The
noble lord says that was the fault of the contractors ; but
unless Z have been misinformed,,l am inclined to think that
one cause of the delay had been the alterations which, from
time to time, were adopted by the Admiralty and enforced
on the contractors. •

Lord C. PAGET—I said that the contractors were to
blame for the delay as to the iron ships generally ; I did not
particularise the 'Warrior.

Sir J. PAKINGTON—I am informed that a sum of
£lO,OOO or £12,000 was expended on an alteration of the
plate 3 of the Warrior, in consequence of the Admiralty de-
termining that, instead of their being placed in contiguity
to each other, they should be turned and grooved. The
expense of these vessels is, we know, enormous, but I be-
lieve that their value will be proportioned to their cost.
(Hear.) Tho Admiralty are right in proceeding to build a
number of them ; but, as the noble lord himself admits, in
this complete change in the reconstruction of our men-of-
war we have in all probability much to learn. The late
Board of Admiralty took the greatest pains to ascertain the
most promising mode of constructing these vessels. and I
doubt not the present Board have done the same ; but still
the whole matter is experimental. (Hear.) I deeply re •
gret, therefore, that there should have been any delay not
only in launching the Warrior but in fitting her out and
rending her to sea, in order that it might as soon as possible
be tested before great sums were expended on other vessels,
how far the model adopted for her gives you what I trust
you have, but what I believe the French have not—viz., not
only an armour-covered ship but a good seagoing man-of-
war. I have great hopes that the Warrior and ships built on
her model are as fit to be sent across the Atlantic, or to any
other part of the world, as any other class of vessel. I doubt
whether as much can be said for La Gloire. I believe that all
the noble lord has stated as to the superiority of iron over
woods in these ships is fully borne out, and, notwithstand-
ing the criticisms that have been offered, I think we are
right in leaving the bow and stern of these vessels unpro-
tected with plates, with a view to insure those ether im-
portant desiderata, speed and good seagoing qualities. La
Gloire is, I believe, simply a wooden ship plated with iron
and very much what our own floating battery, the Trusty,
was in point of construction, and as regards the application
of 43/4-inch plates. Another important distinction between
the ships building in England and those being built by con-
tinental nations is this, that while La Gloire is tewooden
ship covered with 41-inch plates, the Warrior is an iron
ship, not only covered with 41-inch plates, but with 14 inches
of teak intervening between the armour and what is called
the skin. The noble lord also pointed out with great truth
that we do not know yet of what thickness the iron may be
that will give the required resistance; and therefore it will
be a great advantage to have vessels with such a floating
capacity that if thicker armour should be necessary they
will be able to carry it. With respect to the building of
other iron-covered ships of considerably smaller tonnage,
the subject is one on which I think we may fairly ask for
further information. The late Board of Admiralty decided
on building ships of the gigantic size which they adopted,
because, after the most anxious consideration and consulta-
tion with the most able scientific men in England and Scot-
land, they believed it to be impossible to combine in smaller
vessels all the requisites essential to such a man-of-war.
Last year the noble lord told us the present Board of Admi-
ralty had determined on building ships of what he termed
the " Resistance" class. The two ships of these reduced
dimensions are the Resistance and the Defence. I was
struck with that intimation, and I inquired what advan-
tage had been sacrificed, for, according to the information
we received, something must be given up to enable ships
of that reduced size to be built. The answer I obtained
was, " Yes, it is true we have made some sacrifice in order
to get a reduced size, and consequently a reduced cost, and
that sacrifice is the speed cea the ship." Now, I believe that
to make these armour-covered vessels what they ought to
be, effective men-of-war, you must have a good rate of
speed—(hear)—and I therefore think it most unfortunate
that the Admiralty should have determined to sacrifice that
important desideratum. I hope the noble lord will be able
to give some satisfactory explanation on this point, with
reference not only to the Defence and Resistance, but to
two other ships about to be laid down, because, if lam
rightly informed, two other ships out of six, if not exactly
of the same size as the Defence and Resistance, are at all
events to be of -greatly reduced dimensions compared with
the Warrior. In proposing to try the experiment of building
one armour-covered ship of the i, arrior class in one of their
own dockyards I think the Admiralty are acting wisely.
(Hear, hear.) The objectien to having timber ships built by
contract—namely, that it is almost impossible to secure
that the materials shall be well seasoned, cannot apply at
all to iron ships, or, at least, not in the same ratio ; but if
the Admiralty find that they can build these iron ships as
economically and as well in their own yards as by contract
it will be advantageous to do so. The noble lord's explana •
ton. of the very considerable reduction in the number of
hired labourers was, I think, quite satisfactory. I certainly
teard eith pleasure that the Admiralty intend to ask for a
r_tn,?h larger vote to increase our stock of timber. I agree
hra noble friend that it is a visionary idea that iron
entirelywill supersede wood in the construction of ships ;
and, to build your ships properly, you ought not to allow
your stock of timber to get so low as it has been during the
last two or
a rthfrraeuek yeals. The noble lord took some creditfor
u
giving
trme of the amount of work done in our
dockyards during
past year. I am afraid, however, that
his statement in this
respect was not so generally intelli-
gible as was to be deeire lie told us, indeed, the number
of tons built and the aura,,©r
eighths" completed, but
the. information he gave us "
tpoluobabel bli
public
e vi
fe: bn
se t found noif more t
vAuaLle when it goes forth toth'e
~r) technical as only to be understood by persons who haele
tram Admiralty,
acted business with- the
it showed how
r.ianybeen. of each class of ships has launched durin
year. (Hear, bear.) g tile
Lord C. rACT.g;T—You have only to divide by eight and
you will get the exact number of ships youwant. (A langh4)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I beg my noble friend's parao4 '
think even that will convey to the public
re'l
but I hardly
clear idea of what has been done, because within the yew."
some vessels may have been commenced, sours may hay%