The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-12 00:00:00

great naval engagement in the Mediterranean. to that case
unless our arms were crowned with one of those overwhelm-
ing victories of which there were a few instances in our
history, both fleets must obviously put back to their respec-
tive ports for repairs. The French fleet could go to Toulon,
and would perhaps be again afloat in three weeks. The Ita-
lians could refit at Genoa, Spezzia, or some other harbour on
their own coast ; while the Spaniards could conveniently do
the same at Carthagena or elsewhere. But what would be
the case with our own fleet? With the works at Malta in
the ruinous state which he had described, we might not
have a dock in the Mediterranean ready to receive it, and we
should have to send every ship across the Bay of Biscay to be
repaired at home. Observe the danger that must thus ensue
to ships disabled and in a half sinking condition, the risk of
their being intercepted on the way, and the certainty of the
enemy obtaining the command of the Mediterranean in our
absence. These were matters which must suggest them-
selves to every reasonable mind that reflected at all on this
subject. He did not wish to impute any special blame to
her Majesty's Government or to the noble duke at the head
of the Admiralty, but he ascribed the evils to which he hod
called attention rather to the vicious system of incessant
change and weak vacillation which characterised so much
of the naval administration of this country. (Hear, hear.)
The Duke of SOMERSET (who was indistinctly heard)
said—The noble earl first called your lordships' attention to
the question of iron-cased ships, and referred to a speech
lately made in the other house, founded on information fur-
nished to a right hon. baronet by Admiral Elliot. Admiral
Elliot went to France, and applied, through the English
Minister there, for leave to visit the dockyards of that
country, in the same way as French officers have often ap-
plied for leave to visit our dockyards. His request was ac-
ceded to with the civilitywhich the French authorities would
naturally desire to show in such a case. Admiral Elliot
went, and saw all that was going on in those establishments;
but I must confess that, under the circumstances, I sincerely
regret the course which he took on his return to England.
If I myself had given a French officer permission to view
our dockyards, and I afterwards found that he took the first
opportunity of publishing the results of his inspection in
the manner adopted by the gallant admiral, I certainly should
not think he had done a very friendly act. (Hear, hear.) At
the same time all the information brought by Admiral El-
liot was only what we knew before. We were well aware of
the progress
t ships hat had been made in regard to the building
of in
in France; and we had taken some
resesa
measures, since our accession to office, for the construction
of iron ships ourselves. The house is aware that the French
had a, considerable start of us in this l'bspect. The late Go-
vernment was in power in 1858, when it was perfectly well
known whet France was doing in the way of building iron-
cased vessels, but they took no step in the matter till May,
1859. Certainly some time was lost in these operations,
which was all the more important because the opportunity
of making actual trial of this class of ships was de-
layed. We have not yet been able to make trial of
the first iron-cased frigate, although in a few weeks one
will be in commission, and we shall then have more
practical results than any we have yet obtained. When
the present Government came into office, we found
only one of those vessels laid down, and a sum taken in the
Estimates for another. We immediately ordered a third,
and, not satisfied with that, although Parliament was not
then sitting, I brought before the Admiralty the necessity
of at once ordering two more. I did net wish to go on build-
ing these ships until their effect had been tested, but, seeing
the progress made by other countries, I thought we ought
not to be unprovided with this class of vessels. Although
we were necessarily ignorant on many points of detail, I
did propose again to build three, which accordingly were
commenced. We have therefore now amen of these ships
in the course of completion. We are now preparing some
of our wooden ships for plating with iron. Ido not think
they w 11 be very efficient ; but these ships will be at least
as good as the French. My opinion is, that we ought really
to construct our ships of iron ; but the whole subject is one
of great difficulty. Every day brings out new points and
new difficulties. When I came into office two things came
upon us at once—novelty in shipbuilding and novelty in
the construction of our guns. I came into office in 1859.
The late Government had ordered the Warrior to be built,
but had calculated that it would carry the old style of ar-
mour. It was not calculated for the new style of rifled guns,
but for the old style of armour. When I came into offic3 I
naturally called the attention of the Board to these subjects.
With regard to iron ships, I saw various persons, naval
men having a knowledge of engagements at sea and men of
great experience in shipbuilding, with the view of acquir-
ing all the knowledge Ithat could be had on the subject.
They said their opinion was that we should build ships of
thin iron, so as if it were impossible to keep out shot to keep
out shell. I said before doing so I should like to have some
experiments tried. We had some experiments at Ports-
mouth, and one of the first was upon an iron target of less
than an inch thick. The result was that round shot, in
striking the iron, broke into pieces, but passed on into the
vessel, and 700 pieces of iron were picked up inside the ship.
That showed that round shot produced as bad an effect as
any shell. It seemed, therefore, that merely to case with
thin iron would be to expose men-of-war to as great de-
struction as possible, while they were loading the ship with
unnecessary weight. We had no end of suggestions and
recommendations. Some people recommended indiarubber,
others a thick matting of hemp, others chain armour. The
answer I sent to these gentlemen was that, if they would
send their experiments to Portsmouth, we would try them.
I myself saw chain armour tried, and the very first shot de-
stroyed it. Indiarubbcr and hemp were equally inefterive.
Last year it was said we should slope the sides of vessels,
and shot striking at an angle would glide off; but when we
I came to try Sir William Armstrong's bolts, the slope made
no difference at all, That was the last answer I received
from Sir William Armstrong. Then it was said that the
iron should be 4i inches thick. I was rather doubtful
whether that would be sufficient. I ordered the vessel to
be laid down at Chatham to have such flotation that she
might carry at least 6 inches of iron. I thought 6 inches
tolerably safe. I now find that Sir Wm. Armstrong's guns
have fired through 8-inch iron with the greatest facility.
(Hear.) In building these iron vessels it is a great problem
where we are to stop. Thin iron won't do; thick iron is
very little better. It is therefore very difficult to say how
we are to make our vessels safe. One fact is clear, and to
that we have chiefly addressed ourselves—namely, if we
cannot make ourselves so secure as we could wish, at least
we should arm them with as good weapons of offence as
possible, and by ordering that our ships should be armed
with Armstrong guns we felt that we were taking a course
which would produce the greatest effect, while, at least, it
would be a safe mode of proceeding. With regard to these
different experiments, the noble lord says the Admiralty
have always been changing their policy. Why, my lords,
the reason is obvious. The world is changing ; alterations
are going on everywhere. So far from the Admiralty vacil-
lating, from the time we came into office we have gone on in
the course which I believe your lordships will say was the
right and proper course for us to adopt under the circum-
stances. My noble friend the other day said 'we were going
on building three-deckers and laying down ships of war;
but what is the fact ? The last three-decker ordered to be
built was in January, 1855. It is quite true that two three-
deckers were launched in the course of 1859, but these
three-deckers had been nearly finished for a long time ;
their engines and everything had been ordered ; it was,
therefore, thought better that they should be launched, and
thus make room for other work to be gone on with. Well,
then, it was said why do you go on with two-deckers ? Now
we have not been going on with two-deckers. The last
two decker ordered was by the late Government in 1859.
The present Board have ordered none. But it is said the

Admiralty is going on ordering new large wooden ships.
Nothing of the kind. It is quite true we have ordered small
vessels, corvettes, sloops, and some frigates and gun vessels;
but if you mean to keep up the maritime power of this
country we have not yet arrived at that forward state in
which we can leave off building. We have been building
what we thought would be most useful, and we have ordered
them all to be armed with the new guns, and, instead of
carrying the large number of guns they formerly used to do,
our vessels will carry few guns, but guns of great power.
(Hear, hear.) The noble earl referred to our gunboats,
which he said were rotting in harbour, but if these were
armed with a 100-pounder they would be most formidable
vessels—(hear, hear)—and would serve most materially to
defend our coasts in case of hostile aggression—(hear, hear)
regard
slight
gvvahr id 1e b
object
t o e
what
being
hoa
ft themselves m
attackoseulgfvoher
ought to
the
tosmalldo i theyn
enemy.tit ew(wHo presentuael;dro,f
there are two or three courses that h e
ar.) a
Withv e r
Preparation,y
might be adopted. If
there was any immediate necessity for alarm, we could
and
the
readily cut down some of the three-deekers and case them
in iron. I have had calculations made, nd
case I
vessel i f you
were to cuttsight down,igt
bearsay 4
-inch n ; b
.lh e Royaliro Albert,u t an
a veryi niron, i
it would not then be
effective ship—the ports would be too near the water,
and it would not be so good a sea-going ship as I should wish the
a o t
framesh e r course
cut
Admiralty to build, unless there was any pressure ; for next
t o buildbe
adopted. a fara a
ed. we have
Another
emyueitga rfhetwr
certain et
0
g
o hsuomet extent
line-of-battle ships. We can easily add to

the length of vessels and make effective wooden ships, which

.
we can use hereafter as wooden frigates or as iron-cased

ships. Another course would be to order frames of iron
ships to be prepaied with a view to ease them with thick
iron. Then comes the question of what iron they ought to

be constructed, and tho best mode of fastening the iron
plates. Every day new questions arise. lam unwilling
to advance too fast, because I feel that we can advance much

more efficiently by waiting a little kinger. (Hear.) It is
only a few days since the last of these experiments took
place with 8-inch plates. I am very anxious-
to do
',aye greatll in my
a
power, and I have ordered 6-inch plates. IL.
doubt whether the mode of fastening the plates is sa.ftsfac-
tory. On that account, therefore, I thought a trial should
be made before we laid down the scale; and that done, we
felt we might rely on the power we have in building iron
vessels if the country at once takes it in hand. We know
what the private yards in this country can do. (Hear,
hear.) We shall socn produce a fleet of iron ships far
greater than all the other Powers of Europe besides. (Hear.)
It is true, as the noble earl has stated, that France is not
the only country which is building wooden ships to be
covered with iron. There are some being built for Russia.
I do not know where the contracts were taken, but contracts
are in course of execution for Russia and also for Spain.
One wooden ship covered with iron bas likewise been
built for Sardinia. The French ships are for the most part