§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, I now rise to call attention to a subject the importance of which no one will deny. I have received information with respect to the progress of the French Government in building armour-covered ships, to which I think it my duty to call the attention of the House and of Her Majesty's Government without any loss of time. I bring this subject before the House with the advantage, not only of stating my facts on what I may call high authority, but also of stating what that authority is. Every one conversant with the state of the navy is aware of the high professional reputation of Admiral Elliot. It is only justice to him to say that there are few, if any, more able or distinguished officers in Her Majesty's service. I have the advantage of private friendship with him, and I am able to state 413 that during the last three weeks he has visited all the French ports and arsenals with the exception of Toulon. He has given me permission to mention his name in connection with the statements which I am about to make to the House, but with a feeling which is honourable to himself, as he has lived on terms of friendship with many officers of the French navy, he is anxious that he should not be under the suspicion of having acted in any manner as a spy, or of having done anything unworthy of his high character as a British officer. I should, therefore, state that whatever information he has obtained was obtained in an open manner, and he visited the French dockyards with the advantage of having received the permission of the Minister of Marine. [Mr. LINDSAY: Hear, hear!] I understand the motive of that cheer, and it is only due to the French Government to state, on the part of the French Admiralty, that there has been nothing like any intention to conceal its preparations. But these preparations are of such a nature that after the communication I received from Admiral Elliot I could not delay calling the attention of the Government to them for a single day. During the last fortnight I have received two letters from the gallant Admiral, one of which was written from Brest, and the other from Rochefort. Yesterday morning he returned to this country, and in a long conversation with him I heard the facts that I am about to submit to the House. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) in his place in the early part of this Session, on a Motion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), the hon. Member for Sunderland spoke strongly on this subject. He stated to the House that he had had a communication with the French Minister of Marine; and he gave his impression with regard to the progress France was making in the completion of her navy; but what I particularly call attention of the House to is a letter the hon. Member told us he had received from M. Chevalier. That gentleman throughout the late negotiation with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) was in frequent communication with him. I believe no one has taken more pains than M. Chevalier to impress on this country, and on these Englishmen with whom he has had communication, that it is the desire of the French Government to maintain pacific relations with this coun- 414 try, and that it was making no unusual efforts to increase its naval force. M. Chevalier wrote thus to the hon. Member for Sunderland—
You have a full statement of our navy—you have it in a blue book—you are told officially by the Government and privately, in the most friendly and honest manner, by our Minister, that of iron-cased vessels France has only one fit for use, that in a short time we are to have a second, but that a full a year must elapse before we can get two more, and two years before we shall be in possession of six iron-cased vessels; and it is in the-face of such a fact that England feels herself so dangerously menaced that she spends millions without number to get rid of the peril of an invader.[Mr. LINDSAY: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman cheers; but before I sit down I think he will be obliged to acknowledge one of two things—either that M. Chevalier was throwing dust in his eyes, though I have no reason for saying he did so—I know nothing that could justify the imputation—or, that M. Chevalier himself knew nothing of the subject of which he was speaking. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty also spoke on that evening; and, with perfect frankness, he said he had no desire to disguise or conceal from the House the real state of affairs with regard to the relative states of the navies of England and of France. The noble Lord stated what at the time was strictly correct, according to all the information he then possessed. He said that the French Admiralty had at that time built, or was building, six iron-cased frigates; two were large vessels of 52 guns; there were four others, sister ships of La Gloire, And, he added that exclusive of: the old floating batteries of the Russian war, the French had built, or were building, five iron-cased gunboats, and four vessles of a formidable character, called floating batteries; altogether they had nine iron-covered gunboats or floating batteries, and six large iron-cased frigates, of which La Gloire is one. The noble Lord also gave the House what I think was a most important assurance, and to which I beg to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He told us—That if they found much more progress made over the water or among any other nation in building these ships, it would be the bounden duty of the Government to come down to the House and state frankly and fairly what was going on, with a views if necessary, to extend the number of our iron cased vessels."—[3 Hansard, clxi. 1155.]This was an important statement on the 415 part of the noble Lord, and the fact that it proceeded from his lips makes me regret that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in the House of Commons. Though I accept any such statement from the noble Lord, and believe it was made in the utmost good faith, and with the intention of fulfilling it, yet the noble Lord is not a Member of the Cabinet, and it is not unjust or disrespectful to him to say, that we cannot receive promises on his part as of the same weight and importance as if they proceeded from the First Lord of the Amiralty himself. Since this promise was made the state of things contemplated by the noble Lord has arisen; the position of the French navy with regard to iron cased frigates is wholly different now from what it was when that promise was made; but the Government has not come down to Parliament and made the statement thus promised, or asked for the means of extending the number of our iron-cased ships. I must, however, make some exception to this assertion. On Thursday week there was another discussion on the state of our navy; and my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty took that opportunity of informing the House that the French Government had been making very serious efforts to add to the number of its iron-cased ships since he had brought forward the Estimates in February last. I think he told us there was reason to believe that since that month the French Government had laid down no less than nine more of these iron-covered ships, and so far as the number is concerned this statement exactly tallies with the information I have received from Admiral Elliot. But that information does not exactly tally with other parts of the statement of the noble Lord. When I allude to these differences the House will bear in mind that what Admiral Elliot told me yesterday is what he has himself seen in the last fortnight, while my noble Friend could only speak from the information he had received from others. Admiral Elliot did not visit Toulon: he says nothing of the two or three ships building there; but at other ports he saw the following ships in various states of preparation; some were only lately laid down, others were in a forward state. Besides the La Gloire, to which as every one is aware that it is already finished, the gallant Admiral saw the Magenta and the Solferino, two large ships of 52 guns, to be launched in June the Normandie, Flan- 416 dres, Magnanime, Gauloise, Valeureuse, Couronne, Surveillante, Revanche, Heroine, and Quillaine. Here are 12 armour-plated ships in different states of preparation. Of the two at Toulon Admiral Elliot does not profess to speak, but of the other 10 every one is a larger ship than La Gloire, and is intended to be an improvement upon La Gloire, and all, excepting two which are of iron, are wooden ships covered with armour. There are thus, including La Gloire, 13 frigates, besides which there are the two frigates referred to in M. Chevalier's letter, where it was said, "twelve months must elapse before we can get two more," and referred to also by my noble Friend last February, and then described by him as being ships of large size, and carrying 52 guns. Now, instead of being frigates of large size and carrying 52 guns, they are line-of-battle ships, two-deckers, carrying two tiers of guns oh each side. In tonnage they are very little short of our Warrior. The Warrior is a little more than 6,000 tons; these two ships are of 5,000 some hundred tons, and instead of being 52-gun ships, they are pierced for 100 guns each. In short, they are two ships such as the world has never heard of before, because while nearly equal in tonnage to the Warrior they will have 100 guns, out of which 52–26 on each side—are entirely covered with armour of full thickness, it being intended to cover all the rest of their guns with armour of a lighter character. I have now mentioned two line-of-battle ships of 100 guns each, and 13 of which 12 are heavier than La Gloire, making 15 armour-plated ships. The two line-of-battle ships, named the Solferino and the Magenta, which M. Chevalier said would be completed in a year hence, are both to be launched in the approaching month of June, on the anniversary of the battles the names of which they bear. These two powerful ships will, therefore, be added immediately to the strength of the French navy, and the 15 ships which I have enumerated will be in addition also to the nine of which I have no information beyond that furnished by my noble Friend—namely, the four formidable batteries and the five gunboats. The practical point we arrive at is that the French are rapidly preparing 15 powerful armour-plated ships to be added to nine of a different description, also covered with armour, giving them in the whole a force of 24 armour-covered ships, exclusive of the old batteries which 417 were used during the Russian war. Now, what is the state of preparation in England? My noble Friend will correct me if I am wrong; but I am not aware of more than sis ships of this description in England which are built or being built. We have the Warrior and the Black Prince, two ships superior in tonnage, and superior, I hope, in speed to any of the French ships, but very inferior in armament. The Warrior and Black Prince will not, I believe, carry 50 guns—[Lord CLARENCE PAGET: Forty guns]—while the two great French' line-of-battle ships will carry 100 guns each. We have also the Defence and Resistance, one of which has lately been launched. I am afraid that these two ships must be considered as inferior to any one of the fifteen vessels I have mentioned—[Lord CLARENCE PAGET dissented]—though I hope my noble Friend is right in expressing an opposite opinion. Then we have two more ships in the course of building; these are of intermediate size between the Defence and the Warrior, and I know of nothing else except the iron-plated ship of the same size as the Warrior, which, as we have heard, the Admiralty intend to build at Chatham. I have thus laid before the House the comparative state of the two navies in this most important respect at the present moment. The French have fifteen frigates and line-of-battle ships, together with nine powerful ships of a different description: in England, so far as I know, we have six, or at the most, seven. Admiral Eliott assures me that not only are the French in advance of us to the extent I have now stated, but that in every one of the yards which he visited the utmost efforts are being made to press all these ships forward to completion. I have no wish to excite alarm by making this statement. I make it because I think it my duty to communicate to the Government and the House in this public manner information of so startling a character. Why are these preparations being made in France? I will not enter into the motives by which the French Government may be influenced in making such efforts. Every one is able to judge for himself for what ultimate end these preparations are intended. The point to which I invite attention is that whatever may be the motive of France, the practical result is that we are rapidly becoming the second maritime Power of Europe. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this statement. Is it true or is it 418 not true? If it be true, what are the intentions of the Government? Such questions ought to be quite above any party considerations, and I will not, therefore, enter into any party matters; but I cannot help feeling that I am bringing this subject under the serious consideration of the House and of the country, at a moment when the Government are, as I think, needlessly throwing away a large amount of revenue. [Ironical cries of "Hear!"] That observation may not be acceptable to lion. Gentlemen opposite after the recent Parliamentary struggle in which we have been engaged, but I hope my tone will convince the House that I am not alluding to this matter with any party object. Let me add that no one believes more sincerely than I do that the noble Lord at the head of the Government is as anxious as any man to preserve the supremacy of England. There was recently paid to him one of the highest compliments that any public man could receive, coming as it did from a Member of this House who is himself of high position and character. The noble Lord was told that, in the opinion of that Gentleman, he has the heart of an Englishman and the head of a statesman. I beg to tell the noble Lord that no party differences shall prevent my saying that I subscribe to this eulogium. For myself, I hope I may lay claim to possessing the heart of an Englishman, and it is because I am full of anxiety as, an Englishman at the information received by me from unexceptional authority that I now appeal to the noble Lord, both as an Englishman and as a statesman, and ask him whether he is content to allow this state of things to continue, and whether he is prepared to tell us what efforts he will make to prevent its continuance? He will not, I am sure, deny the gravity of the subject. He can hardly say that I am speaking on erroneous information. I cannot see the possibility of error in statements made as the result of personal inquiry by one of the most distinguished men in our navy. That officer gives mo the account of what he has himself seen within a fortnight from this day, and he allows me to use his name. Looking at the nature of this information, I must say I am disappointed that the pledge given on the part of the Government in February has not been redeemed. The state of things then contemplated has arisen. Fresh efforts are being made across the water; no proportionate efforts are being made in England. I hope my 419 object in making this statement will not be misunderstood, and I will merely add that with great anxiety I await the answer of the noble Lord. I hope he is not insensible to the gravity of this information, and that if, as I have reason to believe, he has received the same information, I trust he will be prepared to say that no financial considerations will prevent the Government from using every possible effort to maintain the naval supremacy of this country.
§ ADMIRAL WALCOTTI have received the same information which the right lion. Baronet the Member for Droitwich has communicated to the House. As it is derived from an officer possessed of high professional qualifications and unquestionable judgment, it deserves and demands the most careful consideration at our hands. I feel quite convinced that a neighbouring country at this moment is in command of a most formidable number of armed-cased ships; within a short while they will increase it to a fleet of iron-sheathed vessels which will in the case of hostilities, prove perfectly irresistible, unless we take steps, pari passu, to place ourselves at least upon an equality of position and strength. I feel bound to say, as an act of justice towards Admiral Eliott, that he had previously had an interview with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and laid before him the important facts which have been now submitted to the House by the right hon. Baronet, leaving him, I presume, with full power to deal with them at his own discretion. It is the sacred duty of this House to provide that England shall equal every Foreign Power at sea, for if we are deprived of the supremacy of the ocean, her sun will have set for ever. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government has been lately taunted by an hon. Member below the gangway with making a "Rule Britannia" speech, but high as England may stand now, her safety does not consist in a vain-glorious security, but in a progressive maintenance of her strength, which it is a treason against her to weaken, for we owe it to our children no less than all we have received from our fathers, and the debt is the unsullied honour and undiminished welfare of this land.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought forward the subject on that occasion, when so much more favourable an opportunity would be presented when the House next week went into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates. He was 420 equally surprised that the right hon. Baronet, if he meant to challenge statements made by him at a former period should not have given him notice; for he could not be expected to carry a whole array of figures in his head. It was only at eight o'clock that he had heard from the right hon. Baronet that he intended to call these statements into question. Neither could he see what good was to be done by the right hon. Baronet's statement. If the information which he had received was so important, his proper course would have been to wait upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government and lay it before him privately. The only result of the course he had adopted would he to create unnecessary alarm. The right hon. Baronet had challenged the veracity of one of the most eminent statesmen in France, M. Chevalier.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONOn the contrary, I stated distinctly that I had no right to make any imputation on the veracity of M. Chevalier.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, the statement of Admiral Eliott was entirely at variance with M. Chevalier's, and if that was not imputing his veracity he did not know what was. In his letter, written in the early part of February, M. Chevalier stated that France had then only one iron-cased ship ready, La Gloire, and that in a short time they were to have a second, but that a full year was necessary to get two more ready, and another year for two more. The right hon. Baronet would probably admit that on the 1st of February there was but one ship ready, and he had not stated that the second one was ready yet, so that M. Chevalier's statement was quite correct. As for M. Chevalier attempting to throw dust in his eyes, he certainly had had some experience of the world, and was not so easily deceived, but M. Chevalier did nothing of the sort, he simply referred him to the Minister of Marine. He saw the Minister of Marine, who handed him his own report of every ship in the navy—of the stages in which they were and where they were to be found, and he offered, if he would visit the dockyards for himself, and judge of the accuracy of the return, he would send a gentleman with him from his own office. These statements were entirely at variance with the information of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty on whichhewas basing his Estimates, and he wrote to his noble Friend from Paris suggesting that he should come over and 421 see for himself, being sure that the Minister of Marine would grant the noble Lord the same facilities as he had so frankly offered to him. No doubt, pressing engagements had prevented the noble Lord from doing that, as they had prevented him from accepting the offer of the Minister of Marino; but so anxious was he to arrive at the truth that he consulted with his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), and they sent over a competent engineer who visited the dockyards of France. That gentleman held opinions in regard to the intentions of the Emperor of the French very similar to these of the right hon. Baronet. He had the same idea which the right hon. Baronet appeared to have, that the French Emperor was getting together a vast navy with some remote view of invading England; but when he came back he confirmed, word for word, the statements made by M. Chevalier and the Minister of Marine. He mentioned the subject, too, to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) and the noble Lord the Member for Totness (the Earl of Gifford), who had been members of the recent Commission, and they had visited the principal dockyards, and would be able to say whether the information he had received was correct. Besides that he had analyzed the expenditure of the French navy, and he had shown to the House—as clearly as figures could show—that so far from overrunning the Votes—as it was said that money was voted for one purpose and applied to another—for a series of ten years the expenditure had not exceeded the Votes more than our own expenditure exceeded our Votes. The vote for the French navy last year was £4,900,000, and he had no doubt that the expenditure this year would only slightly exceed that sum. But we were spending upwards of £12,000,000 on our navy. If France was only spending £5,000,000, and if we were spending £12,000,000, what reason was there to fear the power of France? Either we must be managing our business very badly, or France must be managing her business exceedingly well, if France could produce for £5,000,000 that which cost us £12,000,000. He wanted to know why the right hon. Baronet who had held the Office of First Lord of the Admiralty should ask the Government to spend more money on the navy? What would be the effect of the discussion in France? The stop would go about that, on the recommendation of one who had held high office at 422 the Admiralty, England was about to vote ore money for the building of ships. There were many people in France who seriously entertained the idea that we intended to invade France. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh, but he laughed at these who thought that France intended to invade England, and he had far better reason to laugh at them than hon. Gentlemen had to laugh at these Gentlemen in France who thought that England intended to invade France. If they looked at history, they would find hat France had never invaded England; but the flag of England had waved over he palaces of France, and the armies of England had marched into its capital. France had never invaded England, but we had invaded France. Therefore, when a vast English fleet was cruising in the Channel it was not so ludicrous to assume that England intended to invade her again as it seemed to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would go forth that, not content with spending £12,000,000 on our navy, we were about to spend more money. The people in France would bring pressure to bear on their representatives in the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies would bring pressure to bear on the Throne. More money would be spent on the navy of France, and we should have to spend more money on the navy of England. There was some rumour of nine or ten iron-cased ships being about to be built in France. The gentleman who was sent across was told to inquire particularly into the matter, and he did not see the smallest preparation. He did not mean to say that in time France would not build more iron ships, because five years ago the Emperor had determined on building nothing but iron ships; and the Emperor would, no doubt, steadily carry out his intentions, but the gentleman who was sent to France could find no trace of them, and dust was not thrown in his eyes, for he was allowed to visit the dockyards. Now Admiral Eliott's statement was that he had seen nine or ten in course of building, at which he must say he was very much surprised, for iron vessels could not be built with great rapidity without England knowing all about it.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONFifteen in different states of progress, and excepting the ships at Toulon.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he thought it very remarkable that Admiral Elliot should see so many ships in preparation, when only a fortnight before the gentleman who was 423 sent over could find no trace of the nine iron-cased ships. He believed that what Admiral Eliott saw were not the nine large ships which it was rumoured were in course of construction. He was as anxious as any man that England should maintain her maritime supremacy. Not one word had ever fallen from his lips in that House to lead any one to suppose that he desired to see any power superior to England on the ocean. On the contrary, he had said over and over again that, on account of our vast possessions and our enormous wealth always afloat, England ought to be equal to France and any other naval Power in Europe combined. But he had shown to the House that in efficient ships of war—steamships—England possessed more than all the nations in Europe. He said that we possessed 20 line-of-battle ships, and his noble Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, admitted that we possessed 17 line-of-battle ships more than all the other nations put together. Setting aside the vessels which Admiral Eliott said he had seen within the last fortnight, and of which no trace was to be found a month ago, Franco had built and building six iron-cased vessels, mounting from 36 to 52 guns each. The two terrible vessels with which the right hon. Baronet had frightened the House were, no doubt, the Magenta and the Solferino. They were line-of-battle ships cut down and cased with iron. [Admiral WALCOTT: Not cut down,] Well, then, not cut down. The right hon. Baronet said they mounted 26 guns on each side.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONWhat I said was that they were pierced to carry 100 guns each. But they had 26 guns on each side under armour of the full thickness.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that was no new information, and the right hon. Baronet must know that these two vessels were not at all to be compared with the Warrior and Black Prince. Altogether France had built and building six iron-cased vessels, two of a large size, three mounting 36 guns, and one mounting 40 guns. We had seven iron-cased vessels built and building. If they took either the La Gloire, or the Invincible, or La Normandie, and compared them with the Black Prince and Warrior, why the Warrior was double the size of La Gloire, and would carry double the weight of metal. It was the same with the Black Prince. These vessels were double the size, so that, in fact, in iron-cased vessels we had more of su- 424 perior size and power than France now possessed. France, again, had four batteries, but they were merely for the protection of the harbours. She also had five gunboats, mounting two guns each; but, surely, there was nothing in that force to create alarm, or to justify the right hon. Baronet in asking the House to spend more money. The right hon. Baronet, however, came down and made a statement which must excite unnecessary alarm in the minds of the people, and was likely to lead us into trouble with the Emperor of the French, which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was as anxious as any man to avoid. The right hon. Baronet should bear in mind that, while it was necessary to have a sufficient naval force, which we now had, to maintain our position as the first maritime nation in the world, if we built more ships than were necessary, France would go on building more, and then we must go on building more ships, thus entailing on the people of both countries unnecessary alarm and an unnecessary amount of taxation.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the statements of the right hon. Baronet were more alarming when they reflected that the Government, in the face of information to the same effect, had been voting away money which, before the end of the Session, they would be obliged, in one way or other, to replace. The House must bear in mind that they were dealing, not with mere suppositions, but with fact. A British Admiral of the highest standing in the service had visited some of the French dockyards, and had made a report which ought justly to alarm the Government and the people of this country. Evidence had been given that day before a Select Committee of which he was a member—["Order!"] On the 4th of May, 1858, the keel of the first iron ship was laid in Franco, and Admiral Eliott told them that there were now 13 frigates and 2 line of-battle ships in a forward state of construction. His hon. Friend who had spoken last seemed to hold them line-of-battle ships cheap, but the two-deck ships would prove most formidable antagonists for any frigate, more especially as they could carry ordnance of the same calibre, and had the advantage of being able to deliver a double broadside at once. The lower part was cased in 4½inch iron plates, and the upper in plates sufficiently thick to break a shell but not to resist a cannon ball. It behoved the Government to look 425 into this matter at once, as it was his belief that the Government, from private information, could corroborate every word of Admiral Eliott's report. A committee of scientific men should sit at once to determine the question of iron ships. At the present moment there was such a committee investigating the tensil power of iron, and its capability of resistance as applied to shipbuilding, andhewould suggest that certain other scientific men possessed of a competent knowledge of metallurgy and ordnance, should be associated with them to investigate the whole question, in order that we might be placed upon a par with France. It was always to be borne in mind that it was not we who had first commenced this plan of encasing vessels; on the contrary, it took its rise from the invention of the Emperor himself of certain iron-cased batteries. Now that was a very important matter, and he called on Her Majesty's Government not only to state if their information did not bear out what Admiral Eliott stated, but whether they were not prepared to turn their attention to the question, and to take steps to put the navy of the country in a satisfactory position as compared with the navy of France.
§ MR. DALGLISHsaid, that the dockyards of France were by no means in the state of activity which had been described that night when he visited them lately. He deprecated the continuance of such discussions as that they were engaged in, and he would suggest that the Government had better send a Committee over to inquire into the state of the French navy. He was sure the French Government would afford every facility for the investigation, and had no doubt that the Committee would make a report very different to that which had been conveyed to the House in the speech of the right hon. Baronet.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETSir, I cannot but agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, that these periodical discussions on the armaments of France are very un-advisable. It is perfectly true that the French are making considerable progress in regard to iron-cased ships. Within the last few months they have either laid down or have prepared to lay down nine iron ships. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend desires to create unnecessary alarm; but he spoke of these ships, as the hon Member for Sunderland observed, as if they were growing up like mushrooms. The French are not really making, as far 426 we are aware, any unusual exertions at present in their dockyards. They pay, undoubtedly, great attention to their navy; they have vast dockyards and a large establishment of artificers, and they are constantly building ships. Of late years they have bestowed undivided attention on this new class of very powerful vessels. But we have no reason to suppose that we are going to be suddenly overwhelmed with a great fleet of these iron ships, although I daresay that in two or three years they will have made great progress. I have no doubt that my Friend (Admiral Eliott) whose great merits as an officer I gladly acknowledge, has made a faithful report of what he saw across the Channel. I think, however, that my right hon. Friend has somewhat misunderstood Admiral Eliott's views in regard to these iron ships. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Not at all.] I also had a conversation with that officer on the subject. Now, it is perfectly true that the Magenta and Solferino are pierced with 100 ports; but it does not follow that either will mount 100 guns. Indeed, I cannot conceive it possible that either can do so.' They have not sufficient flotation for anything like that quantity of ordnance. The Warrior is termed a 40-gun ship, but if we were to put guns in all her ports fore and aft she would number nearly double as many. I doubt, however, whether it would be possible, and I am sure it would be very unwise, to arm these ships with more guns than they can carry with safety. The Magenta and Solferino carry 52 guns a piece, while the Warrior carries only 40; but then our ships are intended to mount 1001b. Armstrong guns. I do not believe that the French ships are calculated to carry these guns, for they are not so large or powerful as our own. I would rather avoid at this moment entering into too great details as to our shipbuilding operations. I purposed making a statement of the intentions of the Government on that head when I again brought forward the Navy Estimates. I may, however, say now that the Government have been watching with considerable interest the proceedings of other countries in this matter, and have determined to build five additional iron-cased wooden ships in our dockyards. We have not made any addition to the Estimates on that account. We have frames of timber cut out for line of-battle ships, and by giving them additional flotation and length we shall render them capable of carrying a 427 powerful armament. When cased with iron these vessels will be of a formidable character. With respect to what fell from the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) I have no doubt we may expect to derive from the labours of the Committee to whichhehas referred some very interesting results as to the best means of making iron-cased ships. I will not now further enter into the subject, but will simply say that very shortly we may expect some results from recent experiments which will be of great advantage to us in considering the mode of construction of iron-cased ships. I think the House will excuse me for entering further into detail upon the present occasion.