The Express.
London, England, 1866-08-10 00:00:00

HIGH WM= AT LONDON BRIDAL

TH22 DaiLifaiising 111:91m-----Al2;;;;;;r: Ih. 58•2.
To-lloisoir—htertalag, th. Iltis Afternoon, 2h. 412 n.

LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 10.

Ow Tuesday a return respecting the shot and
shell supplied to H.M.S. Favorite was ordered by
the House of Commons, on the motion of Mr.
SEELY. When the return is presented facts will
be disclosed, if we are not greatly mistaken, calcu-
lated to excite pain and anxiety in the minds of
all who care for their country's interest and
honour. The Admiralty have been obliged to let
judgment go by default to the charge of gross
extravagance. Not only have they built ships rt
nearly double the cost for which they could have
been bought, spent hundreds of thousands in re-
pairing old wooden vessels that would be totally
useless were we involved in war, wasted the pub-
lic money by persevering in building wooden ships,
when all men of practical experience know that
iron vessels are alone suitable for war, persisted in
building high broadside ships, almost certain to be
knocked to pieces directly they are engaged by
turret-ships not only have they done all
this, but, as this return will show, the most
ordinary degree of care or forethought is entirely
wanting ; for it appears that they cannot even
provide suitable shell or shot for the guns on
board their best men of-war.

Our readers will scarcely credit the following
facts. Early in the spring her MAJESTY'S iron-
clad Favorite was under orders to sail for the
Pacific. On the termination of the Fishery Trea•.y
between ourselves and the United States, and
when the States had sent a ileet—partly of
iron-cleds--to the Fishery station, the order
for the Favorite to go to the Pacific was coun-
termanded, and she was sent at once to Notth
America. We believe, however, that she had not on
board a single steel or chilled shot or shell ; in
fact, nothing but a few cast-iron shot, which are
perfectly useless as against the sides of an iron-clad,
so that for all purposes of war this heavily plated
iron-clad was utterly useless. We are likewise in-
formed that up to this day not a singe steel or
chilled shot or shell has been sent to her.
It is not easy to conceive greater careless-
ness than this. It surely does not require any
wonderful amount of forethought to provide suit-
able shot for a few 7-inch guns. We wonder Mr.
SEELY did not inquire whether the Favorite had
any powder on board, and, if not, whether any
would be sent, and when?
We now call attention to the short dialogue on
Saturday last, in which the Admiralty sought to
discredit two cases of extravagance brought for-
ward by Mr. Ssmir by the trifling objection that
Mr. Sazar bad stated that 83 boats' repairs cost
a sum equal to 83 new boats—when he should
have stated that 79 boats' repairs cost a sum equal
to 79 new boats.

Such, after nine or ten days' laborious investi-
gation, is the only inaccuracy of Mr. SZELY'II that
the Admiralty appear to have discovered—for Mr.
Starr proved conclusively that he was quite cor-
rect in his original statement that it was one
25-feet cutter (No. 2,999) that cost in repairs
651., when a new one would cost only 301. ; and
that three cutters mentioned by Sq. JOHN Pa-
XINGTON as coating 651. in repairs were three dif-
ferent boats. Mr. SiILT also showed that the
cases of excessive cost in the repairs of two boats
—a cost which Sir Jons explained arose from the
repairs being done for members of the Royal
Family—were by no means exceptional cases ;
but that many more might be brought forward
of similar extravagant expenditure on boats
not used for such purposes as explained. It
is not a good omen for the future of the
Admiralty to find so much stress laid upon this
insignificant fact, not at all pertinent to the
question at issue. The simple question is, Did or
did not all the boats repaired in 1884-5 at
Portsmouth (whether 83 or 79) coat as much as
new boats t
This point, the point in issue—and the only