The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-25 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE.

The weekly meeting of the Dock Committee was held yes-
terday, at the office, in Revenue-buildines. The following
members were present :—Messrs. Sands, Horsfall, Barclay,
Holmes, Middleton, Molyneux, Nicol, Holt, Bulky, 'robin,
Ripley, Martin, Evans, Smith, Bold, and Aikin. Mr.
SANDS, chairman of the committee, presided.

ADDITIONAL LIFE BOAT.
The sub-committee for the department of the Marine Sur-
veyor recommended that an additional life-boat, of larger
dimensions than those now in use, should be built, as a re-
serve, in case of accident, to any of the other boats.
Mr. HOLT, chairman of the sub-committee, said there was
no duplicate of any of the life-boats at present; and the sub-
committee thought it most desirable to have one in reserve
in the event of accident.

Mr. EVANS.—Where will you keep it?
Mr. HotT.—There is convenience for it at Hoylake,
which is the most central of all the stations.

Mr. EVAN S.—Will it be kept undercover?
Mr. H OLT.—Yes.
The recommendation of the sub-committee was then
adopted.

COMPARATIVE MERITS OF IRON AND WOOD FOR A
NEW LIGHTSHIP.

The sub-committee for the department of the Marine Sur-
veyor presented the following report from Lieut. Lord :
Marine Surveyor's Office, March 19, 1842.
The Marine Surveyor states that in compliance with the
instructions of the sub-committee for his department, " that
he should further report on the relative merits and cost of
wooden and iron light-vessels," he has instituted the most
searching inquiry in his power; he has also personally ex-
amined the iron frigate now in course of construction for the
Board of Admiralty, by Mr. John Laird, of Birkenhead,
the Woodside Iron Ferry-Boats, &c., and has further perused
copies of sundry letters and memoranda, as to the compara-
tive advantages of iron and timber-built vessels, from the
following individuals, viz. :
A. F. B. Crewze, Esq., of Portsmouth Dock Yard.
J. L. Peacock, Esq., chief examiner to the East India
Company.

Capt. H. B. Lynch, Indian Navy, Commander of the
Euphrates expedition.
Colonel Chesney, Royal Artillery, Commander of the First
Euphrates expedition.
J. S. Jackson, Esq., Chairman of the Directors of the
Woodside and Liverpool Ferry Company.
R. Hinde, Esq., Chairman of the Lancaster and Liver-
pool Steam Navigation Company.
James Brebner, Esq., Agent for the Glasgow and Liver-
pool Royal Steam Packet Company.
John Malcolmson, Esq., Chairman of the Waterford
Steam Packet Company.
R. K. Oldfield, Esq., late Superintendent, Fernando Po.
Captain Charlewood, R.N., Euphrates Expedition.
Colonel Nicholls, Royal Marines, Governor, Fernando Po.
Captain Cleaveland, R.N., Commanding the Phlegethon,
iro.i war steamer.
Capt. Hall, Commanding the Nemesis, iron war steamer.
G. E. Longford, Commanding the iron schooner Cayman.
The concurrent testimony of these gentlemen confirms the
opinion the Marine Surveyor had previously formed from
personal inspection, viz., that iron vessels possess the advan-
tage of strength, stowage, safety, buoyance, and lightness of
repairs in an eminent degree. It further appears to be clearly
established, that iron vessels have sustained shocks and
strains which no wooden vessel could have withstood. With
regard to durability, it appears that the Woodside iron ferry-
boats are at the present time in good condition after a service
of six years without any repairs ; also, that the Alburkah,
one of the iron steam-vessels employed on the Niger Expe-
dition, was found perfectly good atter a service of six years in
Africa, whilst the Quorra, a wooden vessel of great strength,
built expressly for the same service, had become totally rot-
ten and unfit for service, from the effects of the climate, in
the same period.
It only remains to notice two objections that may be urged
against iron light-vessels, viz., the fouling of their bottoms,
and the attraction of their compasses, by the metal of which
the vessel is composed. The former objection does not, in
the Marine Surveyor's opinion, apply very forcibly to light-
ships where speed is not required, and where the vessel's
bottom can be frequently cleaned, either by bringing the
vessel into dock, or by what is technically called " hogging"
her.

The means of averting and remedying the local attraction
of the compasses in iron vessels is a subject which has at-
tracted the attention and skill of the most scientific men of
the day, amongst whom Professor Airey appears to have
been the most successful in his researches. His principle
consists in the application of magnets placed in certain posi-
tions about the ship's compasses, which neutralise the effect
of the local attraction ; and, as many vessels with com-
passes fitted on this principle have been safely navigated to va-
rious parts of the globe, and iron steam vessels are daily per-
forming their voyages from this place to Glasgow and other
ports, it may reasonably be inferred that there exists no very
insurmountable difficulty on this account.
With reference to the relative cost of a wooden or iron
lightship it appears that the first cost of the hull of an iron
vessel of the requisite tonnage would be about the same as
that of a wooden vessel, say from £l5 to £l7 a ton register
measurement. With the iron vessel the expense of copper
sheathing would be saved, and a portion of the annual charge
for caulking, which averages from £4O to £5O per annum.
WM. LORD, Marine Surveyor.
To the Dock Committee.

Mr. HORSFALL said tills was a most interesting report.
Mr. tioLmEs said he was much pleased with it.
Mr. RIPLEY said it related to a subject which deserved
the most serious attention of the committee.

Mr. TOBIN said it was unpleasant for him to say anything
to the disadvantage of an ingenious man like the Marine Sur-
veyor ; but, at the same time, he felt bound to state that he
bad, in his report, spoken as if he was prejudiced against
wooden, and in favour of iron vessels. Being so prejudiced"
the whole of his argument went in favour of iron. He con-
tended that an iron vessel would not last more than ten
years, whilst the present light-ship had been out for five and
twenty years, and would last five and twenty more. It was
therefore no use for this committee to spend so much money
as would be required in making experiments. On the whole
he was satisfied that wooden vessels, with proper care, would
last three times as long as vessels of iron ; and as to strength,
about which so much was said, why, he could produce some
wooden vessels three times as strong as the iron ones.
The CHAIRMAN.—You should have been at the Royal
Institution the other night, and you would have heard a very
interesting and learned lecture from Mr. Grantham upon
iron vessels. You would have heard that- _

Mr. TOBIN.—I have seen the lecture in one of the papers,
—[The STANDARD)—and I am convinced that that gentle.
man spoke as a prejudiced man.
The CHAlRMAN.—Generally speaking I am in favour of
letting well alone, but in this instance I think we ought to
try iron.

Mr. AIKIN said the report of the Marine Surveyor spoke
to every point except the important one of durability. He
had spoken of buoyancy ; and we all knew that the Nemesis,
iron war steamer, with the light draught that she required,
presented many advantages, but then the question was, would
she last? That was the point. He was satisfied iron vessels
would not last : and he quite agreed with Mr. 'Tobin, that
having now a wood vessel which had lasted 26 years, and
which would last 26 years more, the Dock Committee
would be doing wrong to have one of iron.
Mr. nem, observed that Mr. Tobin had stated that an
iron vessel could not possibly last ten years. He wished to
know what grounds Mr. Tobin had for such an opinion?
Mr. TOBIN said his opinion had been formed in this way.
The iron at the bottom of these vessels would corrode in the
same way as chains or anchors. If a chain or anchor lay at
the bottom for ten years, he would be bound that half of it
would be found eaten away with rust. He thought if there
were to be metal vessels at all, a composition of copper and
iron would be the best.
Mr. RIPLEY said it appeared to him that if means could
be found to coat the iron well, all over, it would last for ever.
As a proof of this he would mention, that the cables of the
light-ships were some 60 or 70 fathoms long; they remained
buried in the sand for six, seven, or 12 months, and the part
which was in the sand was not at all the worse. This
was because it had been coated ; and what was the coat-
ing ? Why, the sand ; and if the iron bottom was
coated, as it might easily be, it would be preserved
for more than twice ten years. Look at the Menai Bridge
for instance ; there was not the slightest symptom of rust
there, and why? Because it was kept coated with paint.
He had heard it mentioned that the John Garrow, iron vessel
in the East India trade, was in many places injured by rust.
He could account for that—it was because the vessel had not
been kept coated ; and as regarded the inside of those ships,
if any gentleman would view those built by Mr. Laird, he would
see that they could keep them as well coated as the Menai
Bridge. He (Mr. Ripley) firmly believed that if they were
kept properly coated iron vessels would last for fifty years.
' In the present case, therefore, it would be merely a matter of
good management.
Mr. AIKIN mentioned that an iron vessel (the name of
which could not be heard), after having made only one voyage,
presented a great deal of corrosion, so much so that the
corroded pieces had to be taken out and destroyed. No doubt
they might be preserved for a long period by coating, but
still the question was that of durability.
Mr. RIPLEY observed that Mr. Laird had assured him
that lie paid £25 per ton for the iron which he used : the
John Garrow he (Mr. Ripley) understood, was built of iron
which cost only £l2. The builders, indeed, could not afford
to do more.

Mr. ToßlN.—But the corrosion would go on in both.
Mr. RlPLEY.—Certainly ; but not so quickly in one case
as in the other.

Mr. EVANs said it was stated in the report of the Marine
Surveyor that the Woodside iron ferry boats had been in use
six years without repair. He wished to know whether they
bad been relieved or not by other boats?
Mr. RIPLEY.—No.
Mr. Hour.—Nothing of the kind.
Mr. TOBIN said the durability depended upon the coating.
The Woodside boats were left dry four or five times a year ;
they could be coated whenever it was thought proper; but
you were not to bring the light-ship from her place into dock
every time she wanted coating. The light-ships were not to
be relieved for a very long period. He was sure that the
proposed iron vessel would not last ten years, and that it
would he the dearest boat the committee ever built.
Mr. RIPLEY remarked that the Lancaster steam-boat was
a proof to the contrary.
Mr. TOBIN said that if a wooden vessel went into graving-
dock it could not be seen whether she was rotten or not
without taking an examination of the inside; but in an iron
boat you could see nothing but the outside.
Mr. EVANS inquired what might be the saving of iron over
wood ?

Mr. HOLT replied that the cost would be about the same.
Mr. EVANS.—But there will be a saving in annual ex-
pense ?...

Mr. HOHSFALL.—Yes; about £5O a year.
Mr. EVANS.—What is the iron vessel to cost?
Mr. RIPLEY—From £l5 to £l7 a ton.
Mr. EVANS.—What will it come to ?
Mr. RIPLEY.—About £4,500 ; but as regarded the cost
of an iron ship, it should be recollected that an iron ship of
200 tons register would carry 300 tons, whilst one of wood
would carry only 250. This was a circumstance which should
be taken into account in considering the cost. It should
also be considered that an iron vessel required no coppering,
which woilld cost £3OO or 4100 every three or four years.
On these accounts iron vessels had many advantages.
Mr. As KIN mentioned that wooden vessels might be built
for much less than £l6 a ton.

Mr. RIPLEY said, however that might be, iron vessels had
many more recommendations than wooden vessels. It had
been proved that they were much stronger, and there were
many cases in which the lives of people would be saved in iron
vessels which, were they on board wooden vessels, would be
lost. Upon one of our banks, for instince, an iron vessel
might thump for a month without breaking a plate, whilst a
wooden vessel would go to pieces in three or four hours.
Mr. TOBIN.—Then one vessel would break the banks,
whilst the banks would break the other. (Laughter.)
Mr. HORSFALL had not much to say on this subject, but
he thought that, as they were not pressed for time, the con-
sideration of it had better be deferred for a week or two.
Mr. RIPLEY begged Mr.had n
Ho
t a
o rs fgaol lo'
duplicatepardon
light-ship v‘ e
pressed for time. They
at all ; spring was come in, and the proposed vessel could not
be finished before winter. The subject, then, was of pressing
necessity, and on that account he should move that the report
be adopted, and that an iron light-vessel be built.
Mr. BULLET seconded the motion.
Mr. TOBIN moved, as an amendment, that the committee
should build one of wood.
Mr. SMITH seconded the amendment.
Mr. EVANS inquired whether iron light-ships had been
adopted anywhere else?
Mr. RIPLEY was understood to say that the East India
Company bad ordered one, and that Mr. Laird was build-
ing an iron frigate for them.

Mr. Atstx,—Ass fairer or a steamer?
Mr. RIPLEY,—As a sailer.

The CHAIRMAN having stated that the amendment was
merely a negative to the original motion, it was withdrawn ;
and it was agreed that the question should be taken for
" iron" or for " wood."
For Iron.—Messrs. Ripley, Horsfall, Holt, Evans, Bold,
Holmes, Bulley. Molyneux, Nicol, and the Chairman.
For Wood.—Messrs. Aikin, Barclay, Tobin, Martin,
Smith, and Middleton.

Absent.—Messrs. Chilton, Mellor, Sandbach, Shand, and
Moon.

For Iron .
For Wood.

Majority for Iron..

It was next resolved that the consideration of the size of
the intended new light-ship should be deferred till Thursday
next, the sub-committee in the mean time to inquire and re-
port.