ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF IRON SHIPS. 699 
We built a target 9 feet square, on a plan which we thought might be 
advantageously adopted for large vessels of war, and on the cellular principle. 
The cells we filled with compressed cotton, which we had found by experiment 
to be very effectual in stopping shot. On this target was a thin teak backing ; 
on the teak were bolted one hammered and two rolled plates. The target 
was bolted on to the side of an old wooden frigate at Portsmouth, under the 
direction of Captain Hewlett. The first shot fired at it missed the target, 
went through both sides of the frigate, and, to my great astonishment, 
skimmed over the surface of the water for nearly a mile. The firing showed 
that whilst the hammered plate split and cracked to pieces, the rolled plates 
were not broken, only indented, and were superior to the hammered plate in 
every respect. Unfortunately the target was not firmly bolted to the vessel, 
and it sprung at each shot, so that the bolts which held the armour-plates 
were broken, and they fell into the sea. 
A shot was then tried to test the resisting power of the compressed cotton, 
and it appeared to answer so well that Captain Hewlett advised a series of 
experiments to be made. The Admiralty were willing, but required us to 
provide the targets at our own expense. Having already spent upwards of 
£1000 on experiments for the good of the country, we declined this proposal ; 
nevertheless we had proved to the Admiralty this important fact, that the 
rolled plates were superior to the forged, and they have since been universally 
adopted. We claim, therefore, for this district the honour of being the first 
to prove the strength and utility of rolled armour-plates, since known and 
spoken of in Parliament as ‘“ Palmer’s Rolled Plates.” 
While on this subject of armour plates, I may perhaps be allowed, as the 
builder of the iron-plated frigate ‘ Defence,’ to make a slight digression, in 
order to express an opinion upon the class of marine architecture to which 
that vessel belongs. The ‘ Defence,’ although in every respect a strong ship, 
does not combine all the strength which, with the same weight of material, 
might have been obtained ; and with respect to her model, it is my opinion 
- that if she had had less rise and more floor, and so had drawn less water, 
she would have steamed faster, answered the helm quicker, and have proved 
in all respects more manageable and convenient. The Admiralty authorities, 
I know, do not agree in this view, and they are at the present moment 
spending a large amount of money in the national dockyards for the express 
purpose of building a class of vessels similar in construction to the ‘ Defence.’ 
Tn my opinion it is, to say the least, very questionable policy for the Admiralty 
to speculate in this kind of shipbuilding. Private builders exerted themselves 
greatly in the production of armour-plated frigates for the Government; these 
vessels were produced in much less time than would have been consumed in 
the naval dockyards, and in the matter of cost the difference must be greatly 
in favour of vessels built by contract. It is surprising to see the tenacity 
with which the Admiralty cling to wooden ships, notwithstanding the most 
overwhelming proofs that it is time to adopt iron exclusively. 
It was my desire to furnish the Association with accurate statistical details 
of the iron shipbuilding trade of these northern rivers, showing the quantity 
of iron consumed, the number of men directly employed, and the amount of 
tonnage launched per annum. But unfortunately my neighbours here, and 
on the Wear and Tees, with a few exceptions, were too much engaged to 
supply me with the statistics of their respective establishments. I have 
therefore estimated the several totals from such materials, aided by personal 
knowledge and experience, as I was able to obtain, and the followmg state- 
ment will, I think, be a pretty close approximation to accuracy :— 
