Note 125 — Chapter II

The author moved that the vote should be reduced by 300,000l. (see “Hansard’s Parliamentary Report” for May 23rd, 1861, page 30, where his reasons are given), but, after a long debate, he was defeated, only thirty members voting with him, and sixty-six against any reduction. The reader will find what became of this timber (a large portion lay rotting in the dock-yards) if he refers to the Report of the Committee, appointed on the motion of Mr. Seely, some years afterwards. But, beyond the reasons then given by the author, the Admiralty or their practical advisers must have known, long before 1861, that a screw-ship built of wood was vastly inferior to one constructed of iron; that the action of the shaft of the screw would prevent wooden vessels from lasting through a succession of long voyages without very considerable repairs from the vibration in the after body; and that the wood, by frequent concussion and constant working, would gradually lose its power of resistance, the fibres becoming bruised and compressed, which would not be the case with an iron ship, at least to anything like the same extent. Indeed, the naval constructors ought frankly to have told their Lordships that it would be unsafe to send a wooden ship to sea fitted with a very powerful propeller. No stern framework could be built to resist the vibration of the largest class of engines now in use in the navy. An iron ship, moreover, affords a much better and more solid foundation for the engines.