strength of the iron-ship. He says a wooden ship would have shown chips on the sea if she had been wrecked. Well, take the case of the "President," she sunk, and has anybody ever heard of her after she sunk?

Captain SULLIVAN.-She was burned.

Captain CLAXTON.-I believe she struck on St. George's Bank, because she was very near St. George's Bank. However, I think the best possible thing is to keep both wood and iron off rocks. That is my opinion; and that I think is one part of the business which belongs to captains, to see that the mates and men do their duty. That is one of the best points in the whole thing. My opinion is that iron is very much stronger than wood. Captain Sullivan has mentioned instances of transports having gone down, but what sort of transports were they? I should like to know by whom they were built, and of what sort of iron they were built; whether they were built of cheap iron, and whether they were built honestly and well, because there are a great many ships that are little better than tin kettles-something like the "Ruby;" she was so thin that she would not stand a shot. I have had a great deal of experience with iron vessels. There is the "Great Britain," which was built by my friend Mr. Brunel, and went ashore at Dundrum Bay. The other evening Captain Sullivan did allude to her, and stated that she was protected whilst she was there; but she was there all October, November, December, and January, unprotected.

The CHAIRMAN.-What was she on?

Captain CLAXTON.-On rocks.

Captain SULLIVAN.-I particularly alluded to the fact that she was not protected, but that she was borne on sand her whole length, except on one point, where there was a rock.

Captain CLAXTON.-In all the history you gave about the ships in the Baltic, you speak from your own experience. I speak from my own experience of the Great Britain. The Great Britain was on rocks; she was on sand when she struck; but when the sea came up and broke round her it washed away the sand, and it left her borne on rocks right in the middle, and she was thus suspended on a rock in the middle, with nearly 180 feet unsupported at each end. That ship never altered her form, so that you could not get the end of a pen-knife into the water-ways where they were joined; and that ship, after thumping there eleven months, came off,-and what is she doing now? Why, every year she is taking passengers at a remarkably great speed to Australia; she has carried 25,000 troops; she was employed to go to India; she took 5,000 troops to the Crimea in three trips; and she is going on still. There is one point which I wish to advert to. Captain Halsted dwelt very much on the first Board of Admiralty that employed the screw, and gave the credit to Sir George Cockburn. I am not going to disagree with him, but I am going to state that the first Board of Admiralty that ordered the screw was Lord Minto's Board, in the "Rattler," and it was Lord Haddington's Board that carried it out.

Admiral CARNAC.-I only wish to corroborate the statement which has just been made by Captain Sullivan with regard to the heating of iron ships. One of the ships belonging to the East India Company heated to such a degree that illness took place on board, and I believe some deaths, and they were actually obliged to heave that vessel broadside on to the north-east wind to cool her, and keep her there twentyfour hours.

Mr. SCOTT RUSSELL.-I wish to ask Captain Sullivan a question, if you will allow me-as he has quoted the "Birkenhead" very often, why did he not quote the "Avenger?" I would just ask that question.

Captain SULLIVAN.-I have not the slightest objection. The cases are totally different. A ship in a heavy gale of wind, running before a sea with sail and steam on, struck on a sharp pinnacle of rock in an ocean seaway so heavily that the sea broke over her rapidly, drowned or washed the people off her decks, and one boat only escaped from her; a great part of the vessel was afterwards found sticking on the rock. That was a case of a gale of wind at sea. The case of the "Birkenhead" was nothing of the kind. The "Birkenhead" had no sea to wash anybody off her; the boats were lowered and the ladies put alongside; there was nothing but a little swell; it was beautiful weather, and she was not so hard up but what her engines took her astern, but in going astern the very rocks ripped out the plates; she filled, and sunk clear of the rock. The two cases are not parallel. One was a heavy gale of wind which would have broken up the biggest ship in the world.

Mr. ScoTT RUSSELL.-I only would submit this: Capt. Sullivan has said that he

would only quote facts. Now, I would only observe that, whenever Capt. Sullivan quotes a fact, he also quotes along with it, under the title of fact, such a quantity of personal opinion that it is extremely embarrassing to know where the opinions begin and where the facts end. Gentlemen, it is a very old dodge in argument to call your opinions facts, and to call your opponent's facts opinions. Now, I put it to you whether the description Captain Sullivan has given of the calm, beautiful sea, and of everything made right, and smooth, and comfortable for the "Birkenhead," so that she could not have gone down, and then this dreadful state of things, in which the poor "Avenger" could do nothing but go down, although he has been telling us all this evening that, if a good, honest, well-built ship, all built of wood, had gone on a rock under such and such circumstances as an iron ship went on, she could have stood every bumping for hours, and have been rather the better for it than worse-I put it to you whether he has not described these ships in the most glowing colours whenever it. was necessary to do credit to a wooden ship, and whenever it was necessary to do discredit to an iron ship whether he has not taken the trouble to give the circumstances with such a colour as, I can say, carries no conviction to my mind. I have built (I will not say as many, but I have built) nearly as many wooden ships as iron ships. I began with wooden ships, and it so happens that the last four ships I have built have been wooden ships; therefore, perhaps, Captain Sullivan will allow me to take myself out of the category of mere iron-ship builders, and will allow me to give a plain, simple judgment, as he has given a plain, simple judgment. And I can say this: I have known of my own knowledge (it is too late to give you instances, but I should be happy to do so) a greater number of my own iron ships go on shore, bump on rocks, get into collisions, and come off safely, than I have known of my wooden ships under the same circumstances. I am of opinion that, if Captain Sullivan had taken half the pains he has done to quote instances of wooden ships getting upon rocks and going down, and of wooden ships not getting upon rocks at all, but getting into heavy seas and going down, and never being heard of again, he could have brought ten instances of wooden ships for one that he has brought of iron ships. I beg to say one point further. The "Birkenhead" is always quoted-always coming up. We all know about the "Birkenhead." Why did not Captain Sullivan quote the "Sarah Sands," a vessel half burnt out at sea, and the other half of her brings every soul on board to port? The CHAIRMAN.-In order to shorten the discussion, I think Captain Sullivan's point is "rocks." The "Sarah Sands" is a case of "fire." That is the distinction.

Mr. SCOTT RUSSELL.-She was also loaded with gunpowder. Perhaps I was taking too large a view of the subject. We will go to rocks if you like, because those are the rocks on which it is quite plain Captain Sullivan would like to put all the iron ships. It so happens that I built two iron ships which were used in the late war. It so happened that one of them did get on rocks in the Bosphorus; that one of them did rip her bottom up; that one of them, having ripped her bottom open, took herself into the docks at Constantinople, repaired herself, went out, and did an immense deal of service afterwards in the Sea of Azoff. It so happened that another iron ship built by me went through a great deal of service, equal to perhaps twenty or thirty times her own cost; she went on rocks, and so bumped her bottom that, when she came Home here, I was sent for in a great hurry to see her bottom. What do you think I found? I found forty-two large indentations made by the rocks in her bottom, and out of forty-two indentations there was only one that had a crack to admit the water. That is the case of two iron ships. Now, these are cases which Captain Sullivan had access to as much as I had.

Captain SULLIVAN.-I beg your pardon. I had no means but what I have taken from the " Navy List." I have had no means of going to any public office. I have no means beyond that of any private individual. I took the cases from the "Navy List." The CHAIRMAN.-If you give us the names, we shall be able to balance the one against the other.

Mr. SCOTT RUSSELL.-No; you will not be able to balance one against the other, because Captain Sullivan has taken infinite pains to get the instances on his side, and I have not taken any pains to get instances-I have only given those which I happened to know. I will give you other instances. I have built four steamers of wood for a large company-the West India Company-and out of the four steam vessels of wood which I built for them it does so happen that two of them went on shore; the two of them never came off shore, and the two other of them were utterly shipwrecked. Now, what sort of argument would it be to present to this meeting if I were now to

"

say to you: Gentlemen, there are my two iron ships; you see they both got on shore; they both bumped on rocks; they both got on shore in circumstances when any wooden vessel would certainly have gone down?" If I were to say that, it would be only saying what Captain Sullivan has said about the wooden ships: "There are my two wooden ships; no sooner did they get on a reef but they went to pieces." If you will put a thoroughly good iron ship and a thoroughly good wooden ship, and set them both on the same shore and in the same circumstances together, and show us that one goes down and the other survives-that is reasoning, and that is argument. I say that all these things that Captain Sullivan has told us to-night as reasons, comparisons, and facts, are reasons, comparisons, and facts from which no conclusion can be drawn but that one vessel in one set of circumstances goes down, and some other vessel in another set of circumstances survives. That is the only conclusion I can deduce from .all these facts. I will not take up your time any longer.

Captain SULLIVAN.-I would say one word in explanation-that in bringing forward these instances I had not the slightest bias. I brought them forward fairly, as facts; and as to their not being fair comparisons, I took the case of the officer's letter that I read, of a ship running quietly on shore in smooth water in harbour, and the other case, of the "Transit," running on shore in smooth water in harbour with little speed and no sea, and I think those two cases will not bear the construction which Mr. Scott Russell has put upon them.

Mr. GRANTHAM.-May I add one word with respect to this bugbear the "Birkenhead," always dragged forward by every opponent to iron ships. As I know something of the history of that case, I think it should not go forth without some word of explanation. She was built at a time when but little attention was paid to making the bulkheads. Captain Sullivan knows the fact, for it is to be found in a Blue-Book lately given in evidence in the House of Commons. He is there describing a great defect in iron bulkheads; I believe he gave the evidence very recently. This "Birkenhead" was built about fifteen or sixteen years ago. Captain Sullivan describes very correctly and very happily the mode then common of securing bulkheads. It is quite appropriate to our subject, because he has alluded to compartments. He says, "Ships are nearly cut asunder by the introduction of bulkheads in the same way as postage-stamps are stamped out ready for tearing." This Captain Sullivan has given in evidence as the system adopted for bulkheads; it was perhaps the system adopted in the "Birkenhead." I did the same once in a ship that I built many years ago, and to my great horror I saw the ship was nearly cut asunder. I did it inadvertently, and did not perceive it till too late. The "Birkenhead" may have been treated in the same way. A few ships were built incautiously in that way, but no ship-builder of any common sense or judgment would do such a thing at this time; therefore, to say that that system is inseparable from bulkheads, is simply to put the matter in a wrong light. If a man built a ship in such a manner in these days, I should say nobody ought to give him an order to build another; it is a mode so reprobated by all shipbuilders. With regard to ships not being saved by compartments, I have three cases in my memory of vessels designed by me, in which I have the very comfortable reflection of thinking that no less than about 500 lives were saved by these very identical intermediate bulkheads, where the ships have been full to the level outside, in the one case in the after-hold, in the other case in the engine-room. I believe every shipbuilder could tell you stories of a similar kind, where ships have been saved by the intermediate bulkheads in the centre of the ship. I took great pains to make these bulkheads safe, and, unless they had been thoroughly trustworthy, those ships must have gone down, and all the lives have been lost. I may instance the "Sarah Sands," where I took great pains to put one of the aft bulkheads in. She was burned, as you all know; she had an explosion of gunpowder that blew out her stern; she then, with 400 people on board, had a gale of wind for ten days, the water inside of the ship frequently level with that on the outside, and yet she saved all these people.

The CHAIRMAN.-She was not a man-of-war.

Mr. GRANTHAM.-She was a transport. It simply goes to show that the intermediate bulkheads are of very great value. I believe, if judiciously done, they will counteract that tendency which iron ships have of being easily penetrated by rocks.

Captain HALSTED.-As reference has been made to the routine case of the " Birkenhead," I may state there was a very similar case which took place recently, the case of the "Thunderbolt." The rock which struck the "Thunderbolt" so thoroughly pierced her side, that it pierced her tank.

The CHAIRMAN.—But I think, in the case of the "Thunderbolt," she had time to put steam on and get on the beach.

Captain STOPFORD.-In the case of the "Avenger," I believe it was blowing so hard that the funnel fell over the mast before she broke up. Her bottom was so completely broken up, that a part of her was found on the coast of Sicily. She did not go down; she went to pieces.

Captain SULLIVAN.-There is one point which I entirely forgot. Not long since in the dockyard at Woolwich, they were scraping one of the iron store-ship's bottoms, a comparatively new ship; and as they scraped the dirt off her, 600 rivets dropped out, only kept in by the dirt and the external pressure of the water.

Mr. SCOTT RUSSELL.-Captain Sullivan has simply proved what I hoped I was going to prove, that the vessels, of which he has quoted a list, were probably the worst vessels the world has ever heard of, and that these very transports which he is now talking of were unworthy the name of good ships. If all these rivets really were in that state, there is no doubt whatever that those transports that were lost were well lost, and the question must hereafter be, what sort of iron transports will be selected.

The CHAIRMAN.-Mr. Grantham, you have alluded to the iron ships sailing from Liverpool to the East. Have you ever heard of an iron ship bringing home a cargo of tea?

Mr. GRANTHAM.-I fancy they are very much employed in that trade.

Friday, May 31, 1861.

CAPTAIN M. S. NOLLOTH, R.N., in the Chair.

DE BATHE'S AND LYNALL THOMAS' ARMOUR-PLATES.

BY LYNALL THOMAS, ESQ.

HAVING attended the discussion at the Institution of Naval Architects without having had an opportunity of taking part in it, I avail myself of this opportunity of exhibiting and explaining a method of affording resistance to the penetration of shot and shell into the sides. of a ship, which may perhaps be worthy of your consideration, as I believe, from long and earnest consideration, added to considerable experience, of the effect produced by shot generally, that the solid iron plate on a coating of timber, as adopted in the general service, is one of the worst which could be conceived. My chief reason for this opinion is, that the whole force of the blow coming at once upon the plate, its effect is felt instantaneously through the whole thickness of the plate in the direction in which the shot is moving. An immense thickness of metal is therefore required, and consequently an enormous weight upon the sides of, and strain upon the vessel generally; the joint efforts of which make the remedy almost as bad as the disease. With respect to the strength afforded by the wooden back, I have to observe, that in all my experiments I have found the wooden foundation to favour rather than prevent the penetration of the shot through the iron plate. There are several methods for preventing the penetration of shot or shell into the sides of a ship. 1st. By constructing these sides entirely of iron, thus opposing plates of solid metal to the impact of the projectile. 2nd. By sloping the sides in such a manner as to deflect the projectile. 3rd. By covering the sides with some substance which shall receive the first impact of the projectile, dispersing the force before complete penetration can take place.

The objection to the first of these methods is, that with the continual improvements in the means of attack, so great a thickness of metal would be required, that no ship could carry it without great detriment to her seagoing qualities.

With regard to the second method, namely, the sloping sides, the same objection holds good; for, although a less thickness of metal might be found sufficient to divert the blow of a shot when fired at ships thus constructed, unless under certain circumstances, yet such vessels must, of necessity, lie so low in the water, that in engaging land batteries or vessels much higher out of the water than themselves, the sides would be liable to penetration, unless the metal plates were of a thickness identical with those required for a vessel of an ordinary form, so that a still greater weight of metal would