MR. ASPINALL TURNER
said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Is not the principle upon which the "Chalmers Target" is constructed the same as the plan furnished by Mr. John Clare, junior, per Admiralty Order dated 22nd June 1855, on the 25th. June 1855; and is not the principle upon which the Erebus, Terror, Thunderbolt, Warrior, Black Prime, Resistance, Defence, Achilles, Hector, Valiant, Minotaur, Northumberland, &c., are constructed, the same as the Plans furnished by Mr. John Clare, junior, the 9th and 16th July 1855, as published in Parliamentary Returns moved for by Mr. Maguire, 3rd March 1863, developing the mode of placing Timber between Metal as a non-conductor of vibration?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, in reply, that the other day he had answered a very similar Question. The history of Mr. Chalmers' Target was this:—That gentleman proposed, at his own expense, to construct a target, and allow the Admiralty to test it at Shoeburyness. The target was tested upon these conditions, but the Government had purchased no vessel and had built no vessel in the form of that target. They had merely given the target a trial at Mr. Chalmers' request, and therefore it was not the province of the Government to decide whether this construction was or was not an infringement of any existing patent. With regard 1769 to the second part of the Question, he had to say that that cause had been already tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, and it had been decided that Mr. Clare's patent had not been infringed.