§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKE—I rise to mention to the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty a circumstance which 1058 has lately come to my knowledge, and which I think is worthy of the noble Duke's attention, inasmuch as it has an important bearing on a considerable branch of our manufactures. In his speech the other evening the other noble Duke stated that a shot from an Armstrong gun had penetrated iron eight inches thick. I have no doubt that in making that statement the noble Duke stated what is the exact truth; but the result of that statement is very grave; because, unless we know what was the quality of the iron that was penetrated, it may lead foreigners into the belief—it may lead the Spaniards, Italians, and other foreigners who might otherwise come to us for iron-plated ships—into the belief that the English manufacturers are not able to forge plates of iron that will resist the effects of artillery. I have been informed that the iron so penetrated consisted of bars of iron welded together endwise; and being so welded together, of course the welding would be more tender than the iron, and would render them liable to be pierced. But I have also been informed that wrought-iron plates of 4½ inches thick have never yet been penetrated by the Armstrong gun. If this be so it is quite necessary that it should be stated, because a misunderstanding on this point is calculated to be highly injurious to the iron manufacturers of this country. I have no doubt the noble Duke is aware of the difference in the iron used in the construction of steam vessels, and of the results of that difference; inasmuch that if two steamers were constructed of the same scantling, the same size, the same dimensions in every respect, yet if one were constructed of rolled-plate iron she would look beautiful, though on the application of force she would crumple up like a piece of paper; while the other, constructed of boiler-plate iron and not looking better to the eye, would be so strong and compact that it would resist anything. Your Lordships will easily infer from this, that if you use the word iron, when you say that shots have penetrated certain plates, you publish to the world a fallacy if you lead them to the belief that there is no difference between one kind and another, while the distinction between them may be as great as that between any two things possibly can be. I mention this matter because I am informed by the manufacturers of iron that it is of great importance to them, and I hope the subject will undergo full discussion.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETMy Lords, I am perfectly aware of the great difference there is between different qualities of iron. So impressed have I been with this matter that I communicated on the subject with my noble Friend the Secretary for War; and we appointed last summer—or rather earlier, about eighteen months ago—a Committee of scientific men and of military and naval officers, to examine into the question of the different qualities of iron, and to ascertain which was best fitted to resist artillery; and when I mention that on this Committee were Mr. Fairbairn, of Manchester, Dr. Percy, of the metallurgical department in the Museum of Practical Geology, together with several other eminent persons, it will be apparent to the House that we have not overlooked the importance of the question. We felt that it was one that demanded our most anxious care. Your Lordships will remember that last year a good deal was said about timber not being properly seasoned. There are, no doubt, great difficulties in ascertaining the proper seasoning of timber; but there are still greater difficulties in the way of men rot accustomed to scientific research determining the different qualities of iron. With regard to the iron of which I spoke the other night, it is quite true that it was composed of bars of iron—but not welded together; they were fastened together by means of bolts and wedges. That iron the shot broke and passed through; and I believe we should have had the same result with many plates of iron. But I am ready to admit that it has not yet been ascertained whether plates of six inches thick are stronger than those bars of eight, or whether they can be penetrated. We had a particular reason for trying experiments with iron in other forms than plates—namely, that if they could in other respects be made available you can twist bars of iron into any form you wish, while in plate iron it is difficult without interfering with their strength to shape and mould them in conformity with the various curves of the ship. All these experiments have been tried with the greatest care by scientific persons, who have carefully noted down the results of the different experiments. They have also tried experiments with respect to the sloping sides of the ships; they have tried experiments both as to the power of guns on them, and as to the quality of the metal. Yesterday I went down to see those experiments, and to confer with the persons who conducted them; and I must 1060 say it appeared to me from inspecting these plates that sloping sides, or iron placed at angle, did not afford any additional advantage against flat-headed bolts. I mention these things, my Lords, because I have been called upon by the noble Earl; but I feel that if you go into these questions at all, you ought to go into them thoroughly. One might ask many questions on these matters—whether a cast or wrought iron projectile was most efficacious—whether flat or round-headed shot ought to be used; but if these questions are to be brought before the House, they ought to be brought in detail, with all the particulars or each experiment, and, I believe, such a course would, in many respects, be inconvenient. I can only assure the noble Earl that I have this subject constantly before me, and that I feel all its importance.
My Lords, I regret that I was not here yesterday, as I observe that the noble Earl made certain remarks on what I said on a former occasion in reference to the statements of Admiral Elliot. Now, my Lords, I have only to say that to my former opinions I fully adhere. I have nothing to retract. I stated that it would prove inconvenient if an officer of rank in our navy, having obtained permission to inspect the French dockyards and arsenals, were to come back to this country, and to take means of having a statement of what he saw there published in the House of Commons. Such a course would stimulate an excitement which it is not desirable should be raised. Your Lordships are aware that on both sides of the water there is a great deal of sensitiveness on this subject. For my own part I have always been careful not to stimulate it, but rather to assuage angry feelings; and I put it to the noble Earl if Admiral Elliot, when he had seen things which he thought required the notice and attention of the country, and thought that I or the Government made light of his information—if he then had written to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) and told him what he had seen—what course does lie think the Earl of Derby would have taken under such circumstances? I am confident that if he had received such a notice he would immediately have communicated with Lord Palmerston; but he would not have come down to this House and made it public. I can assure the House that the proceeding of Admiral Elliot will create for us considerable inconvenience. We are often- 1061 applied to by officers from abroad for permission to visit our dockyards and arsenals; but if a few days afterwards we are to see all this published in the French Chambers, and attention Called to the dangers with which our preparations menace France, we shall be obliged in our own defence to be more reserved for the future. I think I may appeal to the noble Earl himself on this subject, and ask him whether he thinks that the conduct of Admiral Elliot was either wise or prudent? If he does, we differ entirely on the subject. I will not go further into the question, but I may state that I shall be prepared in a few days to lay on the table the proposed Regulations for the entry of officers of the Naval Reserve, and I shall then make a short statement which will explain to the House the means which the Admiralty propose to take as to the establishment of this Reserve force.
§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKEI quite agree with the noble Duke that it is inconvenient to discuss scientific questions in this House; but when the noble Duke states that iron eight inches thick was pierced with shot from an Armstrong gun—
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETI did not say it was an Armstrong gun.
§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKEI do not care—if it was a projectile of any kind, I say the thing is impossible: and if a shot penetrated such a plate at all it must have been at some accidentally weak part. On the other subject to which the noble Duke has referred I am sorry it has been again brought under notice. I have only to say that I was most unwilling to take any part in the discussion beyond vindicating the character of a brother officer, whose character was assailed—and has been assailed again to-night—by the noble Duke in a peculiar manner, as if he had done something that was contrary to good manners or good taste. Now, it appears to me that Admiral Elliot's act was perfectly innocent and natural. He had only on his return to England told his friends what he had seen; and yet for so innocent and natural an act an officer of such rank and reputation as Admiral Elliot was visited with grave censure and reprobation by the head of the naval service. If a Member of Parliament chooses to raise this question in the House of Commons that is entirely his own affair. I can well understand that the noble Duke may think it unwise to do so. What I understand the noble Duke to be sensitive on is the point that 1062 his conduct has been impugned by a political adversary, who has shown the condition of the navy over which he presides as compared with that over which the Emperor of the French presides. I understand that what has raised the noble Duke's anger, and called down this reprobation on Admiral Elliot, is not the course which the Admiral took, but the course taken by a political adversary in the House of Commons—raising the whole question of the comparative state of the two navies. The question that vexes the noble Duke is the publication of the statement that the French will have twenty iron-plated ships of various sizes ready for sea by the end of the present year, while England will only have six or seven. It is, no doubt, a source of serious anxiety that our—adversary I will not call him—but that our rival should be so far ahead of us in this important respect. But whatever may be the annoyance to the noble Duke, that is the act of a political adversary, it is not the act of Admiral Elliot. The question was raised in this House by a noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) who gave his opinion the other night on the state of the French navy. He stated that it was of no use our building any more line-of-battle ships. But what was elicited in the course of the debate? That two French ships, the Solferino and the Magenta, now building, were two-deckers and pierced for 100 guns each. We must, then, be prepared to meet the adversary; and in dealing with this question we must go a little faster. The speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) the other night, was the speech of a statesman, but the speech of a slow statesman. The Government must be more energetic in their operations if they would compete with our neighbour, who will this year be able, it is said, to put to sea with twenty-six iron ships, and take command of the British Channel. The question he was convinced could not safely be blinked, for it was beyond question that iron-plated ships would beat wooden ships under any circumstances. Our ships must now be built of iron; and the best mode of building and fitting such ships was now the only question to be solved.
LORD BROUGHAMHaving been present, which my noble Friend (the Earl of Hardwicke) was not, when my noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Somerset) referred to Admiral Elliot, I can take upon me to state distinctly that there was no charge whatever made against him beyond a want 1063 of discretion, and that the gallant Admiral's honour was in no respect whatever impeached. But both to-night and on many other occasions I lament to observe a constant reference to warlike preparations. Of this, whatever grief we may feel, we can on no account complain; while other countries are employed in arming themselves, it is our right, nay, it our duty, to be prepared also, and no one can grudge, however much he may lament, the necessary expense. But I cannot avoid expressing the sorrow which all must feel that a season of profound peace should be one of general warlike preparation, and in no quarter any step taken to lessen the amount of preparation. It is peace with the expenses and burdens of a costly war. Heavy is the responsibility of those who entail this suffering on us all. Deeply are they answerable to their own people, to their neighbours, to the world, for the general necessity of a universal arming, of a peace unattended with its natural blessings. All our pursuits are carried on, our agriculture, our commerce, oar manufactures; but we work in arms, and while we labour we are both paying heavily and toiling severely to defend ourselves. It reminds one, as I have once and again taken occasion to remark, of the condition of the peasants in the northern provinces of the Turkish empire, where there is nothing like police, and they go out to plough, and sow, and reap with their loaded muskets strung over their shoulders, to defend themselves in ease of an attack while at work. Those who make it necessary for all countries to be armed in the midst of peace are deeply answerable to their subjects, aid to the world, for this grievous and unprecedented state of things.
§ THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYsaid, that the noble Lord who had just spoken had stated that the noble Duke had made no imputation against Admiral Elliot. He was glad to see that the noble Duke assented to that, because he (the Ear] of Shrewsbury) was authorized to say that Admiral Elliot, so far from wishing to do anything that might be unpleasant to the French Government felt deeply grateful for the courtesy, attention and liberality with which he had been treated by the officers of the dockyard. Admiral Elliot did not make the visit in the capacity of Government agent, but as an officer on half-pay, who, travelling in that character, felt desirous of ascertaining the state of 1064 the ship-building in a neighbouring country. No one could blame any one for doing that. On the contrary, it was the gallant Admiral's duty to do so. But he went without any authority from the Admiralty; he went in a private capacity, and everything was shown him with the greatest freedom; and the gallant Admiral's opinion was that had French officers been treated in the same way in England, and on their return related to their friends all that they had seen, that we should not have complained. Admiral Elliot and his friends were, in like manner, firmly convinced that in what he had done the gallant officer had only done his duty. He (the Earl of Shrewsbury) regretted that the noble Duke should have called Admiral Elliot's proceeding "not a friendly act." He was sure that he spoke for the whole naval service when he stated that they were all most anxious to be on good terms with the officers of the French navy. He had himself received many courtesies from those gentlemen, and, therefore, should have been wanting in his duty if he did not state what he believed to be the prevalent feeling.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he had not thrown the slightest imputation on Admiral Elliot for looking, or for telling his friends what he had seen. But it was a very different thing when the Admiral authorized an ex-Lord of the Admiralty to make a statement in the House of Commons. The consequence of his conduct might be seen in the proceedings and discussions now going on in the French Chambers. With respect to what the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had last said, he begged to remind that noble Earl that, in 1859, when he (the Duke of Somerset) came into office, the noble Earl insisted on our line-of-battle being brought up to eighty ships, and there was not a word then about iron vessels. In the same year a joint Committee of the Admiralty and of the Treasury was appointed by the late Government, and that Committee recommended an increase of our wooden line-of-battle ships. It was hardly fair of the noble Earl, having so lately given such advice, now to turn round, cry down wooden ships, and insist upon nothing but iron. And yet the noble Earl now accused the Admiralty of vacillation.
§ House adjourned at Six o'Clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'Clock.