It

them. They would be very happy to do collieries. The railways might bring down so; and he hoped the hon. Member would the coal from the collieries, and it might induce some of his wealthy constituents to be at once put on board the vessels-a plan come forward as purchasers. He could which, if adopted, would save 30 per cent assure the hon. and learned Member for of the coal now rendered useless for steam Devonport (Mr. M. Chambers) that there purposes by breakage. The expenditure was no understanding of the kind referred for this purpose he estimated would be to by the hon. and learned Gentleman be- only about £10,000 or £15,000, while the tween the Admiralty and any tradesmen yearly saving would be very large. or any professional persons. He was not would be of infinite advantage to us in sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer times of emergency if a continuous stream would concur with the hon. and learned of coal could be relied upon for coaling Member in thinking that the country would the ships, instead of their having to wait gain by having the discharged dockyard for a fortnight before they could complete men re-employed for the purpose of break- their coaling. He thought that the subing up old ships. Employment might, ject was one of sufficient importance to however, be afforded to those men by per- justify the noble Lord and his Colleagues sons who bought the ships to break up. turning their attention to it. The question of the manner in which old ships should be disposed of was now engaging the attention of a Committee, and he did not think it would be respectful to that Committee if, on the part of the Admiralty, he were to pronounce a positive opinion on the question at present.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK said, with reference to his previous remarks in regard to the sale of old ships, he knew, not of one, but twenty instances like that he had referred to, in which ships had been sold far beneath their apparent value. He regretted that the noble Lord should MR. CANDLISH said, that in reference have thought it consistent with his duty to an observation of the hon. Member for to tell him that he had better go to his Finsbury, to the effect that the East India constituents and ask them to buy those Company used to sell their old ships at old ships. His constituents knew how better prices than those now obtained by intelligently to do their own business, the Admiralty, he wished to remind the which was more than the Admiralty seemCommittee that the ships of that Company ingly did. He recollected having been had been built for commercial purposes. told on one occasion, when he had comShips bought from the Admiralty would plained of more anchors being asked for, have to undergo very considerable alter- when there were sufficient in store to ations to adapt them to commercial pur--supply the Navy for twenty-five years, poses, and it was well known that the sailing and managing the vessels as commercial ships which had not been built as such was more expensive than sailing and managing under ordinary circumstances. It was an undoubted fact that in one case, where the vessel was sold for £2,000, the Admiralty re-purchased the old copper for £4,000. He thought, however, that it would be as well to postpone any searching inquiry into this subject until the Report upon it was published.

MR. GRAVES said, he wished to draw attention to the cost of coaling vessels-ofwar. The cost of coals put on board Her Majesty's ships at Spithead was from 28s. to 38s. per ton, whereas coal was delivered by merchant ships at Gibraltar and Malta at 25s. per ton. He would recommend that Portland should be formed into a coaling station. They had there a magnificent harbour, and at an expenditure of £10,000 or £13,000 they might have a coaling station in direct communication with the

that they required seasoning. He hoped the present Admiralty were not, seeing they were expending large sums for Dantzic deals, going to lay up sufficient for twenty-five years.

MR. LIDDELL said, he thought the difficulties under which the Admiralty laboured in the sale of old ships and the criticisms they underwent for selling those ships too cheaply, and buying in the old copper, &c., in them at an unduly high rate, arose from the restrictions imposed by Parliament in the Naval Stores Act, and he should like to know whether the Government intended to seek a repeal of that Act?

LORD HENRY LENNOX said, he was anxious to assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Alderman Lusk) that nothing was further from his wish than to appear to answer the Questions which were put to him in a flippant manner, but the fact was that, finding the discussion rather dull, he had endeavoured to promote the hilarity of the evening. What he wished, however,

to say in earnest was that each of the old ships now cost £1,000 per annum in shipkeeping, and that it was desirable to get rid of them on the best terms that could be obtained, and he should be glad if the hon. Member would bring forward customers for them. If the ships were not sold for what they would-fetch, they would have to be broken up by the shipbuilders in the dockyard at Sheerness, which would cost a large sum of money. In answer to the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), he could not pledge himself to recommend the Admiralty to repeal the Naval Stores Act, which was re-enacted last year at their instance.

MR. M. CHAMBERS said, he must draw attention to the fact that the noble Lord had not answered the Question he had put to him concerning the sale of old ships by public tender, instead of by the present system of one or two firms only tendering for the vessels. If they could not get a proper price for the vessels they should break them up themselves.

LORD HENRY LENNOX said, that the latter proposal of the hon. Member would involve a large expense, as it would be necessary to engage men to break up the ships, and their labour would be just as expensive as if they were building ships instead of pulling them to pieces. In the only instance in which the plan of public tender had been tried the ships had been sold for far less then the price they usually realized.

MR. CHILDERS said, that what Mr. Cobden had said was perfectly true, that there should be buyers and sellers who would deal with these matters in the ordinary commercial way of business. It by no means followed that the system of public tender was the best. Generally it was, but not always.

MR. DU CANE said, he would beg to state in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), that the present system of coaling vesselsof-war by means of pontoons was only temporary. They were in hopes that an arrangement might be made with the railway companies for the transit of coal between Portland and the Welsh coast. But as it would involve a considerable outlay to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member, they thought it better to wait until another year before asking for the sum necessary to carry out any improvement upon the present system. Vote agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £742,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of Steam Machinery for Her Majesty's Ships and Vessels, and for Payments to be made for Ships and Vessels building or to be built by Contract, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869."

MR. SAMUDA said, he rose to draw attention to the circumstances under which the sanction of the Committee to the building of two vessels of the Audacious class, the Triumph and the Swiftsure, was asked for. Those vessels were of 3,800 tons and 800-horse power each, and of which the House had already sanctioned the building of four vessels of that class. He proposed that instead of the building of these two being proceeded with two turret-vessels should be substituted for them. A great deal of valuable information might be gained from two such vessels as he proposed, although, of course, their relative fighting powers, as compared with those and the broadside-vessels, could only be ascertained after several severe engagements had been fought. We should be in the region of experiment for many years to come; and for the Government to refuse experiment was to refuse all progress. The Admiral of the Channel Fleet had expressed his opinion of our broad. side iron-clads in no measured terms. He stated that they rolled to the lower part of their ports in fine weather, and to the upper part of their ports in bad weather. Consequently, in moderately bad weather they could not fight a single gun. This arose from the fact that broadside-ships were always obliged to be placed in the trough of the sea. Turret-vessels could be fought head to the wind, and rolling was thus prevented. Much had been made of alleged objections by Admirals and captains to building turret-ships, but he must remind the Committee that the opinions quoted were not really against turret-ships. The commanders whose opinions were asked had a case put to them in a particular way, and they answered it as all prudent men would have done. The Admiralty said, "We are building two turret-vessels for sea; we shall be able to try them very soon: do you think it will be advisable to build others now or wait till we try those which we are building?" Of course the answer was, "We would prefer to wait till we saw those that are building com

pleted." That would be a safe enough prin- | but, seeing that so much more could be ciple to go upon if waiting involved only said in favour of the turret-ships than delay; but when it involved the building could be said of the broadside-ships it was of another and defective class of ship, he surely wiser to try experiments with the said "No; if you must build, build turret- former than the latter. The noble Lord vessels." Everyone knew of the advan- the Secretary of the Admiralty had told tages of turret-ships, and it was equally well the Committee that there was no such known that their possible disadvantages thing as a sea-going turret-ship; but that would be few; therefore, the balance was was a mistake. He (Mr. Samuda) hoped decidedly in their favour. To keep the that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. ports of a broadside-ship out of the water Laird) would address the House, and it was necessary to build them high above would read an extract from a communithe water-line; they presented a good cation he had received from one most comtarget to the enemy, and unless loaded petent to judge on this matter. That exwith armour would be in the utmost dan- tract stated, on the word of one of the ger from every shot. The alternative best known naval commanders in the plan was to plate the vessel heavily in world, that a turret-ship had been tried the centres and leave the ends compara- at sea in the most unfavourable weather, tively unprotected. This he condemned and had proved equal to everything that utterly. The French Navy had been often was desired or expected of her. Much pointed to as a model, and he could tell was said upon the point that the turretthe Committee that whatever armour it vessels were but an experiment; but it was decided to put on a vessel in the was to be remembered that the same French Navy was with very few excep- remark applied to the Audacious class. tions distributed in equal thickness all The noble Lord said the Admiralty had over. That was a much better plan than not recommended the building of a turthe one we had tried of merely plating ret-ship, because they had not one on the centre of a ship heavily and leaving which they could rely as a sea-going ship. the fore part and the stern part unpro- But that was not always the opinion of the tected. The plan could more easily be Admiralty, for in the first copy of the Escarried out in the case of turret-ships, timates provision was made for the buildbecause from not having any ports their ing of a turret-ship instead of one of those armour did not require to cover nearly so ships which he now asked the Committee large a surface and yet afforded complete to give up. The House was then asked to instead of only partial protection. The tur- build an additional turret-ship at Chatret-vessel had thus two advantages. First, ham, to be called the New Monarch. What being much lower in the water it presented he asked was that that ship should be rea less prominent mark to the enemy's fire; stored. He said at the beginning of the and secondly, what mark in the shape of evening that he did not wish to embarrass hull did exist was entirely covered with the Admiralty, and he would now show armour, and was consequently stronger. that he was sincere in that expression, for The turret ships, moreover, were im- he proposed to omit from his Motion all mensely superior as regarded their offen- suggestion of the class of ship they were sive power. The whole horizon could be to build, and leave it to them to suggest swept by the guns of the former, whereas whatever form of turret-ship they might the range of the latter was limited to some approve of, confining his proposal to the 60 out of the 180 degrees. The Govern- substitution of two turret-ships in place of ment might say the complete range could two broadside-vessels. He would beg, be gained by the sponsons; but that plan therefore, to move to reduce the Vote by was decidedly inconvenient. He thought, £500. therefore, he had given very considerable reasons why, in the present instance, the Admiralty should accept the view he had put before the House, and why they should allow the experiment he advocated to be tried. The advantages of the turret system were so great that some allowances might easily be made for deficiencies. So far as as iron-clads were concerned everything partook of the character of an experiment;

MR. LAIRD said that, having been personally referred to in that discussion, he wished to make a very few remarks. It had been alleged that there were no sea-going turret-ships now afloat. That was not correct. He knew of one seagoing turret-ship of 3,716 tons which went to South America, and encountered very bad weather in rounding Cape Horn, in which she showed great sea-going qualities.

Another turret-ship, which had been afloat | instances to which he had adverted; and for twelve months, had also encountered all although he should not have been able to sorts of weather; and with the permission support the hon. Member for Tavistock's of the Committee he would read first a description of one of our broadside-ships in a gale of wind in the Atlantic, and then a description of that turret-vessel in a gale in the Bay of Biscay. That, he thought, would show the Committee that a turretship could encounter bad weather and get out of it as satisfactorily as a broadsideship. Admiral Warden, in his Report on the Channel Fleet in 1866, at Paragraph 21, said

"To have opened all the main deck ports, judging by the effect of opening only five, would have been to have washed the men away from the guns, and consequently they (the guns) would have taken charge of the deck by getting adrift, but with what consequences it would be utterly impossible to predict. The most of the cartridges, if not all of them, would have been destroyed in the guns, and the guns which could have been got off would have hurt nobody."

guns

That was the account given by a most experienced naval officer of a broadsideship in a gale in the Atlantic. He would now quote the description given of a turretship of 2,000 tons, with four 300-pounder and two turrets (the Prins Hendrik), in a very heavy gale, by her commander, Captain Jansen, a distinguished officer of the Dutch Navy, who was known to many Members of that House. Captain Jansen, in his letter bearing date 21st December, 1867, Cherbourg, wrote

(Mr. Samuda's) Motion, as originally framed, he was ready to support it in a modified form, because he believed that from the experience which the Admiralty had, or which they could get if they chose to seek it, they could give the country two turret-ships of the same tonnage as the other ships that they proposed to build, but which would be very superior to them in every respect, and which would do much more credit to the Admiralty themselves, while they would be much more useful to the nation.

LORD HENRY LENNOX said, he had no reason to complain of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda) in introducing his Amendment. Although misinformed on some of the points which he had mentioned, it was natural that the hon. Gentleman should

try to press upon the Committee the adoption of his favourite system of the turret. The hon. Member said that in the first copy of the Estimates laid on the table there was a turret ship to take the place of the Monarch. That would only prove, if anything, the extreme good-will of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) towards the turret system. [Mr. SAMUDA was understood to say that the vessel was not the Monarch but the Triumph.] No; the turret-ship "I went to sea at 11 a.m. on the 2nd of Decem- that appeared in the Estimates was to have ber, blowing hard from the N.W., with heavy been of the Monarch class, which some squalls of hail, which nearly prevented me going Gentlemen had so much decried; but, for through the passage Dufour out, from Brest. When outside I found myself on a lee shore, with reasons previously stated, his right hon. a furious storm from the N.W., and a tremendous Friend could not recommend the building sea, enough to frighten an old sailor. The Prins of that turret-ship this year. The hon. Hendrik behaved nobly as long as she was head Member for Tavistock had dilated in glowto sea. She went six knots through the sea, which went over her as high as the chimney, which is ing terms on the rolling propensities of now still entirely white with the crystals of salt. the broadside iron-clads; but rolling, like The day after, although blowing hard, with a everything else, was a matter of comrections without a heavier roll than 15 degrees. more regular sea, we were able to move in all di-parison. The old two and three-deckers The Prins Hendrik is an excellent ship, and could use her battery on Tuesday with great ease, when all the ships we met were close reefed, and several wrecks that we saw indicated uncommonly bad

weather."

He would put it to the Committee, after hearing that account of the behaviour of a turret-ship of 2,000 tons in a heavy gale from so good an authority, whether that was not a satisfactory answer to the statement made that night that no sea-going turret-ship had yet been built? That argument had been used before. It had been refuted twice to his knowledge in the

were not free from rolling propensities in bad weather. The hon. Member had probably read with interest the able Report of Admiral Dacres on the Channel Squadron in 1865. That gallant Admiral was afloat in an old two-decker, and he had two ironclads, the Prince Consort and the Warrior, among his ships; and he reported that both of those vessels rolled less heavily than he did in his comfortable old twodecker. Therefore a sweeping condemnation of the present class of ships on the score of their rolling propensities was not altogether fair. The hon. Member had