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

THE SIiIi,IMONDONII FRIDAY -.EVE*ING, APRIL I'2, 1861.

penditure and operations of the Admiralty than was ever
given before—(hear)--and we intend always to pursue the
same frank and open course. It is also the anxious desire
of the Admiralty to exercise the greatest economy which is
compatible with the maintenance of our navy in a state of
efficiency. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will not
press his motion, or that if he does the bouse will not agree
to it. (Hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK said it appeared to him that his hon.
friend (Mr. Lindsay) took a somewhat singular course, and
that he relied upon grounds which did not bear out the con-
clusions at which he had arrived. His hon. friend said that
too large a navy was a menace, but he (Mr. Bentinck) was
prepared to contend that his hon, friend had transposed the
whole condition of the question. It was not the navy of
England which was a menace to France, but the nary of
France that was a menace to England. The requirements
of England in time of peace were sevenfold more than those
of all other countries in the world. His hon, friend said
that France would never attempt the invasion of this coun-
try, because we were so superior in line-of-battle ships ; but
he ignored the fact that amongst the great naval prepara-
tions of France for some years past was a class of vessels
most adapted for the purposes of invasion, and which could
only be required as against a country beyond the sea. His
hon. friend placed the most implicit reliance on the state-
ments he received of the amount of money expended in the
French dockyards, and said the system of finance over the
water was one of control and guarantee. He (Mr. Bentinck)
admitted that a system of control did exist in that country;
but he did not believe that his hon. friend or any other man
had the means of ascertaining how the money was spent.
(Hear.) It was true that our own estimates were more than
double what they were a few years ago; but from what did
that arise ? From the menacing attitude of the French Go-
vernment, and the improvements of science in the con-
struction of our own navy. The hon, member for Finsbury
(Sir S. M. Peto) said that nothing but iron ships should be
built for the future ; but if the third resolution proposed
by his hon. friend—that no more money ought to be voted
for the purpose of the dockyards constructing iron vessels
—was agreed to, what would be our position in the case of
the breaking out of a war ? (Hear.) With regard to the
Board of Admiralty ho (Mr. Bentinck) believed that if it
was defective it was the duty of the House of Commons to
effect its reconstruction, so that it might perform its func-
tions efficiently for the benefit of the country; but any
attempt on the part of the house, such as that proposed by
these resolutions, to deal with details which ought to be left
entirely with the executive, would involve a principle
which he could never sanction.
The Earl of GIFFORD agreed with the hon. member for
Sunderland in the first resolution, because he thought they
might at least rest for a year from building any more ships,
and he trusted that the ships now undergoing conversion in
the dockyards would be the last that would be so treated.
'With regard to iron ships of war, he was of opinion that
until the Government had had more experience as to those
already constructed they should not give further orders. He
did not agree with the hon. member for Sunderland in the
second part of the second resolution, but in the last clause
of the resolution he entirely concurred. He thought it was
not expedient that they should convert Chatham into a place
for the construction of iron ships. To do so would involve
the necessity of erecting expensive machinery, engaging ex-
perienced artisans, and the building of a long slip for other
purposes, and the Government would thus improperly oc-
cupy one of the largest dockyards in the kingdom, and
which ought to be reserved fer more legitimate objects.
(Hear, hear.) He entirely agreed with that part of the evi-
dence of the late Comptroller of the Navy (Sir B. Walker)
which stated that it was desirable, and indeed essential,
that the Government should have at their dockyards all the
means of repairing both iron and wooden ships of the navy ;
but he would ask whether they did not in their vast esta-
blishments at Portsmouth, Sheerness, and Woolwich, al-
ready possess those means and which would be sufficient
for all purposes during the next 10 or 12 years. In reply
to the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, ho
desired to observe that the commissioners did not take
credit to themselves for having discovered the errors
pointed out by Commodore Drummond ; but the commis-
sioners simply stated the result of those discoveries in the
appendix to their report. Then, again, as to the commis-
sioners having created a feeling in the country that mal-
versations had taken place in the dockyards, he did not
remember the slightest reference in their report which could
lead to such an idea. With regard to their re-
port on building ships at Pembroke, he would remind the
house that under the terms of their instructions the com-
missioners were required to state the cost per ton of build-
ing ships, and they naturally expected that some accounts
would be laid before them for the purpose. (Hear.) But
they found the accounts in such a state of confusion that the
commissioners soon discovered they could not hope to give
a reasonable answer. There were in fact no means of form-
ing accurate calculations, and their only alternative was
simply to make that statement in their report. (Hear.)
(The noble earl spoke in so low a tone as to be almost inau-
dible in the gallery.)
Mr. CORRY said the first of the resolutions appeared to
him to imply that line-of-battle ships and frigates built of
wood were destined to be superseded by iron. He could not
concur in that resolution. If the only object in building
wooden ships were for the purpose of the defence of their
own shores, he should not feel indisposed to go along with
the hon, member for Sunderland ; but it should be remem-
bered that a small portion only were employed around the
shores of this country; that the vessel of the largest class
were employed for the defence of British interests all over
the world, and of their colonial empire, which extended to
the remotest regions of the earth, and that any interruption
to the commerce with their dependencies would be a national
calamity. As regarded the question of the defence of our
own shores, it was idle to oppose wooden ships to iron
ships, and we must depend not so much on our weoden as
on our iron walls. The last Board of Admiralty, when they
determined on building the Warrior, were much alarmed at
the dimensions of these ships, and there was some discus-
sion on the subject, and the result was that one of the es •
sential elements of these vessels was great and commanding
speed, and that the required speed could not be attained
with a vessel of less dimensions. He was glad to find that
the vessel of this class which was recently laid down at
Chatham was to be as powerful, ,if not more powerful,
than the Warrior itself. If he did not agree with his hon.
friend the member for Sunderland in he propriety of not
building more wooden ships, he entirely agreed with him
in the necessity of this country being superior to France
in iron ships. He believed that. the French government
intended to build tea more of these ships. Well, it was
a disagreeable thing, inasmuch as one of these ships cost
some £400,000, but if the French went on building them,
we must do the same. Two years ago he was a member of
what was called the Treasury committee, which was ap •
pointed to inquire into the naval expenditure of England
and France ; and he remembered stating in this house that
they found that from 1852 to 1856 inclusive, the French
estimates were £19,804,000, whereas the expenditure was
£31,600,000. He mentioned that to show that French esti-
mates were not very much to be depended upon.
Sir J. PAXTON said he was a strong advocate for iron
vessels. One of the greatest objections which had been
urged to them was that the vessels became so foul at the
bottom that they could not sail in the manner that they
ought. But there was a plan for raising these vessels at no
very great expense, which could be seen in operation any day
in the Victoria Docks. The largest vessels could be raised
in half an hour, placed on pontoons, and floated about with
with the greatest ease, The apparatus would cost from
£40,000 to £50,000, which was no groat matter as com•
pared with the amount of these estimates. The Secretary
to the Admiralty stated that there were ten of these large
iron ships being built in France which could be finished
this year, and yet the house was asked to expend £2,500,000
in building wooden vessels, and only £700,000 in building
iron vessels. The Government of Sir Robert Peel com-
menced building iron ships, but they were soon stopped,
and at the same time an attempt, which nearly succeeded,
was also made to stop the screw propeller. If it, had not
been for the Emperor of the French, iron ship-building
would have stoppedaltogether in this country. At the time
of the Crimean war we had floating batteries, but they
were not designed by us ; the designs were sent from
France. The French had very little to do with iron, and

yet we saw them striving ahead of us in respect to ship-
building while we were lagging behind. He contended that
vessels should be built entirely of iron, and that every part
of a ship should have the same strength. It was
quite clear that no vessel could live before the Warrior for
ten minutes. (Hear.) We ought to have iron ships, and
better iron ships than any other country in the world. With
regard to our wooden vessels, he believed they might still
be used to ga to the colonies and to distant parts, but we
should find, after a little time, that the construction of iron
ships would very much lessen in expense. Wb en, in
process of time, the navy was entirely reconstructed, not
above half the number of sailors would be required to do
three or four times the work at present accomplished. lie
did not wish, however, to lay any blame upon the Govern-
ment with regard to this question. It had grown upon
them within the last few years. Science was making such
wonderful strides in every departMent that from day to day
new plans and new discoveries were constantly presenting
themselves. As the greatest commercial and manufactur-
ing people on the face of the earth we must keep pace with
our neighbours, and if France or any other country con-
structed impregnable ships, we must construct ships of the
same, or better material. He admitted the Government
_ _

had done all in their power to decide this question, but no
Government was competent to deal with it. They ought to
take the advice of the greatest practical men in the kingdom
with regard to the construction of the navy. (Hear.)

•
Capt. JERVIS said the manfacture of shells had been
brought to such perfection that they acted as mines, and ex-
ploded within the timbers of a ship in the act of passing.
He, therefore, agreed with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lind-
say) that we ought to give no more money for the construc-
tion of wooden line-of-battle ships. But it would take many
years before we could construct an iron fleet, and yet we
must still maintain our supremacy on the seas. He ques-
tioned whether we had yet got the iron which would be
necessary to construct an iron navy. In 1861 the power of
offence in naval warfare was greater than that of defence,
and it remained for modern science to aee whethe the balance

could be restored. The hon. member talked of ships with
7-inch plates, but had he considered what that would in-
volve ? Last year it was considered a great feat to launch
_ .

la, ship of 4,000 tons with plates of only 4 inches, At pre-