SUPPLY. (Hansard, 25 April 1865)

§ MR. LAIRD
said, he wished to ask for information respecting certain Votes for shipbuilding in the Royal Yards and by contract. It was just now a question of great interest whether vessels should be built of the same size as formerly, or of a smaller class; and he should like to know whether it was proposed to have small armourclad vessels combining great speed with the carriage of heavy guns. He was prepared to say that vessels of that kind could be built, and foreign Governments were providing themselves with vessels of 1,100 or 1,200 tons to carry the largest class of guns and steam at the rate of eleven or twelve knots. Other Governments were also preparing to provide vessels of 2,000 tons to carry two 600-pounders or four 300-pounders, steaming at the rate of twelve or thirteen knots. Vessels of that class, propelled by double screws and drawing a moderate draught of water—seventeen or eighteen feet—would run where our ships could not, and would be more formidable than anything we had. This was a subject which had excited a great deal of attention, and it was his distinct opinion that the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) could really be carried out—namely, that a vessel of about 1,600 tons could be built to carry a 600-pounder gun or two 300-pounders. 1036 Four vessels of that kind, with a speed of fourteen knots per hour, might be had for the cost of one Warrior. They could be worked with fewer hands in proportion and at less cost to the country, and would be fit to go to any part of the world as seagoing ships. He wished to know whether anything was being done in the construction of such armour-clad vessels. It had been stated that five or six vessels were being built of wood, of the Amazon class, and something like the Alabama, and he should be glad to know the size and the speed of these vessels. The great advantage of the Alabama was her sailing qualities, and her capability of going for weeks at a time without the aid of steam. He hoped that the noble Lord would be able to state that these vessels would be able to carry heavy guns and keep out of the range of armour-clad vessels, or a large shell would destroy them in the same way as the Alabama.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he wished to refer to the employment of pensioners in the War Office. Many of them were men of high character and some of literary attainments. A little addition to their pensions would keep them in their status, from which they would otherwise fall, and therefore he expressed his hearty concurrence in the proposition for their employment as emanating from the War Office. It was equally politic and philanthropic.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, that the noble Secretary to the Admiralty had informed the House at an early stage of the discussion of the Navy Estimates that by the end of the year the country would have thirty-nine iron-clad vessels, and he wanted to know of what, in the opinion of the Government, the future British navy was to consist, because it was generally admitted that a wooden vessel could not compete in action with an iron-clad vessel. There was a large number of vessels belonging to the navy in various parts of the world, but those ships were, by the admission of all conversant with the subject, condemned as useless, and he therefore wished to know what class of vessels the country was in future to depend on for the defence of its commerce. Did the Government contemplate any further construction of iron-sheathed vessels than that which had been already announced, so as to place the British fleet in a position to entitle it to the name of a navy? There was another point on which 1037 he desired information. Supposing that the country possessed those vessels which were necessary, in his opinion, to make the navy such as it ought to be, where could the guns be found with which they should be armed? He was given to understand that even if a sufficient iron-clad navy existed at present the guns requisite for arming them did not exist.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that it was unfortunate the hon. Member (Mr. Laird) did not appear to have heard his statement when he brought in the Navy Estimates, as he then endeavoured to state the description of ships both built and building. He understood the hon. Member to express an opinion that it was desirable to combine small tonnage, armour-plating, heavy guns, and great speed. That was the very point which, as had been stated over and over again, the Admiralty considered to be fraught with great difficulty. A vessel of small tonnage might be made of great speed by giving her fine lines; but if made of great speed her buoyancy was, of course, by so much reduced, and therefore her power to carry heavy armour-plates. It was his duty to repeat this, notwithstanding that the hon. Member stated that some foreign nations were going to build vessels of 1.OOO tons, with full armour-plates, heavy guns, and with a speed of fourteen knots. [Mr. LAIRD: Vessels of 2,000 tons or, upwards.] Well, on the first night of the discussion on the Navy Estimates he stated that the Government hoped to build a vessel of about that tonnage on the twin-screw principle. He then said— We propose to build at Pembroke an armour-plated corvette. She will be a vessel of about 3,000 tons, with a very light draught, or 16ft., and with twin screws, and we propose to make her at the water-line of a thickness of 6in. of iron and 10in. of wood, besides a ¾-inch inner skin of iron. We hope that she will be able to carry eight of these 12-ton guns."—[3 Hansard, clxxvii. 1158.] If that succeeded, he asked whether anything which any foreign nation was going to build would he likely to offer a better prospect of efficiency. [Mr. LAIRD: What is the speed of the vessel to be?] His impression was that he had stated it would be thirteen knots. With regard to the vessels of the Amazon class, which the House was aware was an improvement on the Alabama, he understood the hon. Member to object to their being built of wood, and to say that the Alabama was built for a particular purpose, and that 1038 being a good sailer, with great stowage, speed was not of so much importance.

§ MR. LAIRD
I said that she combined sailing and steaming qualities, so as to enable her to hold her position with other sailing vessels.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
That was precisely what the Admiralty deemed to be necessary for their cruising vessels. Those vessels remained a considerable time absent from our ports at foreign stations; they performed a great part of their duties under sail, and it was of great importance that they should possess good sailing and stowage qualities. They proposed to arm the Amazon class with the 100-pounder 6¼-inch rifle guns. It had not been ascertained that they could have a better gun than that for the navy; for, although the 12-ton guns would be very powerful, it was yet a question how far they would answer for seagoing cruisers. That was a matter of experiment still; and the Admiralty would be greatly to blame if they sent small ships of the Amazon class to sea, and put on board of them guns which they could not probably carry, and which might strain and damage them. What they were doing was done for the purposes of trial. They were giving to all the ships they built heavier guns and fewer of them; that is to say, they were reducing the number of guns in a ship and increasing their range and calibre. The vessels of which he was speaking would carry four guns on the broadside, whereas the ships built a few years ago carried nine. Nevertheless, the weight of iron thrown from the vessels with four guns would be 328lb., whereas their sister ships threw only 296lb. So, again, with respect to armour-ships. They were limiting the area of the armour-plating of their ships, but making it thicker. They might hereafter be able to place these armour-plates on a smaller class of ships; but as to what the hon. Member said about ships for foreign nations, they were always going to be beaten out of the field by some foreign nation. He had heard that story over and over again; but he was not aware that any foreign nation was much ahead of us in the construction of their ships, nor did he think they were likely to be so. He believed that this country would do as well as foreign countries in that respect.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he believed the noble Lord had expressed one or two opinions which he might venture to cal 1039 heretical, and that were not in accordance with the knowledge which he himself would possess if he were outside of the Admiralty. It appeared to him that those who were in the Admiralty shut their eyes to facts which all the rest of the world knew. The vessel of 2,300 tons being built in this country for another nation, with two cupolas, each of which was made to carry a 600-pounder gun, was a vessel against which any ship in the English navy would be unfairly matched, because those 600-pounder guns on a turntable would be a more formidable armament than any we possessed. He was given to understand that the Admiralty had sent to Lisbon a very fine squadron including the Royal Sovereign, which had been sent to Lisbon without masts, and that she had been sent to make an experiment which would probably result in an unfavourable Report, because she would not be steadied in a sea-way by the amount of masting necessary for a vessel of that description. The noble Lord said it was intended to build vessels of the Amazon class with the 200-pounder broadside guns, but what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and other Members of that House had urged upon the Government was that these vessels should not be armed with broadside guns at all. They had no knowledge that the 12-ton gun could be used on the broadside principle, nor did he believe it could be used without having machinery adapted for the purpose, and that machinery would be much more easily worked on the turn-table principle. It was of the highest importance that the Admiralty should cease to rely on a principle which ought to be regarded as obsolete, and should avail itself of the mechanical ingenuity which could give them the means of carrying heavy guns at sea. He could confirm what the hon. Member for Birkenhead had said as to vessels of such a description being built in this country for foreign Powers. He wished to ask from the hon. Member for Pontefract an explanation of an item under Vote 10.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that the items in question were sums paid for armour-plates for the Royal Alfred, which had been altered. In a Parliamentary paper giving the details of those sums, it was stated that the cost of 460 tons of 6-in. armour for the Royal Alfred, at £26 17s. 6d. per ton, was £12,362 10s., whereas the charge for 470 tons of 4½ in. armour, sup- 1040 plied in 1862–3, at £35 per ton, was £16,480. The price of iron had increased.