The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-05 00:00:00

TRIAL OF GUNS,

The two guns which have become k aown to naval
men and artillerists by the distinctive names of the
" Somerset" and the " Frederick" have undergone at
rortsmouth a very interesting competitive trial of
their armour plate piercing powers, in the presence
of several members of the Board of Admiralty and a
number of naval officers, including Vice-Admiral Sir
F. W. Grey, K.C.8., Rear-Admiral Charles Fre-
derick, and Rear-Admiral R. S. Robinson, Con-
troller of the Navy, from the Admiralty ; Captain
J. C. Caffin, C. 8., Director of Ordnance, Vice-
Admiral Sir M. Seymour, G.C.8., and Rear-
Admiral Superintendent G. Elliot. The firing was
conducted, as usual, under the superintendence of
Captain Astley C. Key, C. 8., commanding the
gunneryship Excellent.
The two guns are simply Armstrong guns, and
the fact of their being generally known by the
names of the First and Third Lords of the Admi-
ralty is owing to the great interest which has been
taken by the Dake of Somerset and Rear-Admiral
.Frederick in the development of the powers of these
two weapons, which are undoubtedly the most per-
fect of their kind the country possesses for general
service on board ship. The " Somerset" gun is a
coil-built, smoothstore, has a diameter of bore of
9.22 in., and weighs six tons. The "Frederick"
gun is also coilabuilt, but is rifled on Sir William
Armstrong's shunt principle, has a diameter of bore
of 7 inches, and weighs 6 tons 13cwt. 3 qrs. The
smooth-bore presents no external difference from
others of Sir W. Armstrong's muzzle-loading guns,
`ant the shunt gun, from the greater weight and
disposition of metal at its breech, assimilates some-
what in form at that part to the American Dahl-
gren gun.
Both guns were mounted on board the Stork
gunboat, tender to the Excellent, and the plates to
be fired at were bolted on the port side of the
Amerf.ca target-ship, the gunboat and target-
ship being moored in positions at 200 yards distance
in the upper part of Portsmouth harbour. The
plates, or rather pieces of plates, that were fired
at had been specially selected for this trial, on ac-
count of their known superior qualities, and from
their methods of manufacture—one being the sound
end of a plate that had been previously tested in
the ordinary way, and which, now that it was cut
off from the main body for tha present trial, mea-
sured 9ft. 1 lin. in length by 3ft. Bin. in width, and
was 51in. in thickness. It was of rolled manufac-
ture, from the firm of John Brown and Co., of the
Atlas Works, Sheffield. The second plate was also
the sound end cut off from a plate previously tested.
It measured Bft. 10in. in length by 31t. Sin. in
width, and was also 51in. in thickness. It was of
hammered manufacture, from the works of the
Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company.

The practice commenced soon after noon, with a
steel spherical shot from the 9.22 in gun, fired with
a 30-pounder charge of powder at Messrs. Brown's
plate, the weight of the shot being 1151 b, The
shot struck the plate full on its right centre, and
partially turned round in the plate and broke up,
its broken outer surface being flush with the plate's
outer surface. The shut had thus failed to do its
e,, it had destroyed itself in cutting its
way into the plate, and it had not made its way
into the ship. Inside the ship the only visible da-
mage was a piece of the inner planking at the back
of the plate, about 9 feet in length, started from
the ship, and standing out at an angle of 20 de-
grees. The shunt gun was next charged with an
elongated steel shot weighing 98 pounds, and 251 b.
of powder, and laid at the same plate. Uafortus
nately, this shot took effect on a peat of the plate
which allowed of no correct comparative results
being arrived at between the two shots, this one
striking not quite with its whole diameter on the
plate's left edge and about 15 inches below the
left upper corner. It was a weak spot,
and, althoegn the shat destroyed itself, com-
mensurate effects were produced. The shot was
broken up about seven inches in the ship's side from
the plate's outer surface, while the diameter of the
hole by which the shot entered the plate was nine
inches. In board two of the strakes of inner plank-
ing at the back of the plate eight feet in length
and two feet in width were started and bulged in-
ward some inches. Oa the deck, 20 feet distant
from the ship's side at the back of the plate, where
they had been fixed and formed part of the ship's
structure, lay a massive iron and a wooden knee
which had had their nuts broken from off the ends
of their bolt fastenings, and then ben hurled to the
(Est :nee named by the force of the blow. The iron
knee was broken in two pieces, and the deck was
covered with splinters of iron and wood within a
radius of 20 feet sufficient to have killed or seriously
wounded every man who might have stoe,d within
that area in time of action, This shot having,
however, been so unfortunately planted, it
was determined to send another from the
same gun and against the same plate, in
order to arrive at definite results ; for, as there
are no unsupported edges of armour plates on an
ironclad's sides, except on the outer lines, the re-
salts of the last shot could not be looked upon as
definite in any valuable sense. The second shot, by
a singular coincidence, struck in the immediate
vicinity of the last, their edges overlapping, and
consequently the result, so far as related to the
object of the trial, was nil. The backing of the
plate at this end had been destroyed by the previous
shot, and the present one striking in the same place
passtd simply through the shattered side into the
ship, and out again through the opposite side. The
next shot was a spherical steel, and fired from the
smooth-bore with a 301 b. charge, and was directed
against the Thames Company's plate. Unfortunate
circumstances also attended this shot, it striking
close upon the lower edge of the plate and within two
inches of a bolt. It drove the broken pieces of plate
14in. into the ship's side from the plate's outer sur-
face, extending the fracture through the bolt hole and
lower edge of the plate, and destroyed itself in the
broken debris of the plate. Inboard the inner plaajza
ing at the back of the plate was started sft in ',ength
by 3ft flin in width, and bulging inwaras at its
greatest part 15io. An elongated steel ariot was next
sent against the same plate from thrashunt gun with
a 251 b charge, and the same un.aatisfactory kind of
result followed, for the shot again struck on the
plate's edge, only this time on the upper edge. It
broke the plate into the ship's side 18in. beyond the
plate's outer surface, and afterwards passed through
into the ship, where it was picked up lying on the
deck, and but little altered in form, its diameter at
the end where it struck the plate having been in-
creased bat one inch and eight tenths, the openings
in the metal radiating from the centre of the point
of impact being at the same time but very slight.
This wan certainly a shot that had done its
work properly, in having expended its force
in cutting its way into the ship and in
not destroying itself. This plate had as yet re-
ceived but two shots, and both of them were edge
blows, and as it was requisite to plant a shot fully
on it and clear of the edge's weakness of parts,
another steel boat was sent at it with a 251 b charge
from the shunt gun. On examining the plate after
the shot had been fired the base of the latter was
found to be standing outwards sin, from the plate's
outer surface, it being thus embedded half its own
length in the plate. It was not easy to explain how
this bolt came to be sticking only
half way in the
plate when all others had gone through that is
through the plate's thickness of metal, if they had
not gone through all and into the ship. The mys-
tery was, however, solved on inspecting the inside
of the ship, for here it was found the shot had
struck immediately upon a knee the fastenings of
which had stood firm under the shock of the blow,
and hence the non penetration of the shot. This
shows the value of a good backing. The firing at
the two selected plates concluded with a 981 b. steel
elongated shell,a new pattern Armstrong,containing
a bursting charge of 11b. 140 z., fired at Brown's
plate, from the shunt gun. It struck the plate close
to the upper edge, and, bursting by the force of its
o vn blow on the plate, sent up en immense column
of smoke in the air, while its broken parts came
flying back towards the gunboat. As had been
anticipated, however, with all this noise and smoke
but very little damage was done. The indent on
the plate at the deepestpart was only 4in., and
although the shell must have exploded at the mo-
ment of reaching the deepest part of its indentation

into the plate the metal was but iusignifieantly
affected by it ; in fact, this shell only proved to be
what shells in general have often proved before—
harmless against armour plating. In addition to the
shots fired from the two guns at the selected plates,
aceording to the programme of the day's trial, a
steel shot from each gun was fired at a 6 inch
plate manufactured at the Millwall Ironwork for
the Bellerophon iron frigate, the charge of
powder being in each instance of the same amount
as had been used in the previous firing. The spheri-
cal shot from the smooth bore gun made a hole in
the plate 104 in. in diameter and drove the broken
parts of the plate in Bin. from the plate's outer sur-
face, the shot striking full in a central position on
the plate and in front of a knee, and failing to get
through into the ship, as much from the resistance
offered by the knee as its own weakness, broke up
and fell overboard. The elongated shot from the
shunt gun also struck fully on the plate, and enter-
ing by a hole Bin. in diameter buried itself among
the debris of the broken plate in the ship's side,
with its base, 41in. in from the plate's outer sur-
face, Inboard, the ship's side was bulged in at the
back of the plate.

The broad results of the day's trial between
the two guns may be taken to be, that,
although at short range no great difference
may exist, the balance of destructive power,
if any, must be awarded in favour of the
smooth bore. Beyond 500 yards, however, the
shunt gun would take the lead, while the smooth
bore would become comparatively ineffective against
ironclads. With regard to steel shot, it will at once
be seen that they did not succeed in making their
way into the ship through her armour-plating, as
they have done on former occasions, both at Ports-
mouth and Shoeburyness, and this want of success
on the part of the shot can be only attributed to the
quality or temper—perhaps both combined—of the
steel of the shot, and not to the guns. The majority
of the elongated shot, and certainly all the spherical
ones, exhibited the radical weakness of destroying
themselves in the process of destroying the plates.
The spherical shot had been hardened in oil, but
they could have no cohesive power imparted to them
by the operation. With our present information on
the subject, it is almost, if not altogether, impossible
to say what are the best conditions of temper under
which steel shot can be supplied by the makers to
the Government authorities. This knowledge can
only be arrived at by experiments on a comprehen-
sive scale with shot produced under different condi-
tions of manufacture. At present the cutting powers
and cohesive strength of steel shot is very uncertain,
and they are also very expensive; but they are the
only projectiles that will penetrate ironclad ships or
forts,

The Court of Aldermen and the Stock
• Exchange.

On Tuesday, at a meeting of the Aldermen of
London, held at Guildhall, and presided over by the
Lord Mayor, an important question was brought
ender consideration, affecting as well the jurisdiction
exercised by them, as magistrates, over the whole
body of brokers in the city, as the interests of the
brokers themselves, and still more, it is said, the
interests of the public. From time immemorial
the Court of Aldermen has exercised a very
stringent control both as to the admission of per-
sons to exercise the calling of a broker, and, to use
an expression in its own regulations on the subjeet,
with regard to their " honest and good behaviour"
afterwards. The power to admit or exclude, in
fact, res!s solely with the Court of Aldermen, and
every person applying for admission must show
to their satisfaction his respectability and fitness
to act as a broker, by a certificate signed by re-
spectable merchants and others, not fewer than
six in number. No certificate or recommendation is
allowed to be signed by an alderman of the city,
and particularly no person is to be permitted to
buy or sell on his own account any article in the
sale of which he acts as a broker. Etch broker on
admission enters into a bond, himself in the penalty
£l,OOO, and two sureties in £260 each, for the due
and just execution by him of his cffice and employ- I
meat, and he takes a solemn oath before the whole
Court that he will truly and faithfully perform the
office " between party and party, and in all things
appertaining to it, without fraud or collusion, to
the best of his skill and knowledge." A bill is now
before Parliament, promoted in the interests of the
brokers, who are a very numerous and influential
body in the city of London, the object of which is
entirely to abolish the jurisdiction now exercised
over them by the Court of AAlerniec, and with it
certain annual fees exacted of them, and which, in
the aggregate, form a source of revenue to the
corporation.

Yesterday, on the Court being constituted,
Alderman RosE, M.P., called their attention to
the subject, remarking, first of all, upon the absence
from the meeting of the Remembrancer and the City
Solicitor, whose departments it more particularly
concerned, and also of the Recorder and Common
Sergeant. He expressed his great surprise that
when the bill in question, which concerned an
ancient privilege of the Court, conferred with a
view to the public interest, was before a committee
of the House of Commons a few days ago, only
three of their brethren, the aldermen, and those
three being men who took a strong partisan t,i_
terest in the subject, and held views upon it r',,amee
trically opposed to the great majority of 4.:ne Court,
should have been summoned to give e'.idence before
the committee. (Hear, hear.) rem. hearing that
circumstance he immediate) -1 proceeded to the
c
House of Commons with he view of tendering
himself as a witness. He there learnt that the
time at which it ".as competent for him to give
evidence on the subject had passed, and he was
therefore pr ;eluded from doing so. He now pro-
tested arAnst the one-sided statements upon which
the n-ammittee had decided in favour of fee pre.
arreole of the bill. The control which the Court of
r Aldermen had for generations exercised over the
brokers of the city of London was one in which he
contended the public was very largely interested.
The Court was mostly composed of men variously
engaged in trading undertakings on a large scale,
and therefore peculiarly fitted to exercise that con•
trol, and to constitute an independent and intelli•
gent tribunal for adjudicating upon questions re-
lating to trade and commerce, and particularly
with reference to transactions between buyer and
seller which it was the legitimate business of a
broker to conduct under certain prescribed condi-
-1 tions. At all events, it was a far more reliable
and independent body, as regarded the protec-
tection of the 'public than the Committee of the
Stock-Exchange, who might be suppesed, with a
tendency common to men in general, to regard such
matters too much from their own point of view. He
might mention a case in point. The Committee of
the Stock Exchange had recently to adjudicate upon
questions relating to a large shipping company,and
it was broadly asserted that some of the Committee
were themselves largely interested in the questions
they were called together to consider. It was true
that those particular members did not vote, yet they
sat in judgment with those who did upon the mat-
ters in issue. (Hear,) L was of the utmost import-
ance to the public that where a man employed a
broker he should be satisfied that he had employed
an agent who, while entitled to remuneration, was
bound under some strict supervision, such as was
exercised by the Court of Aldermen, that he
should Lot himself be a dealer as well as a broker
at the same time. (Hear, hear.) The case of a
solicitor and client was one in point. A solicitor
was almitted to practise his profession on proof
of skill and knowledge ; he had to take out an
annual certificate and pay an annual fee, and he
was answerable to a superior authority for the man•.
ner in which he conducted himself in the exercise
of his profession. Trustees and various other per-
sons acting in the capacity of agents for others were
equally amenable to law. For reasons founded in
the public interest the Court had invariably held
that a broker who received a Corn nii3siol, and who
acted between buyer and seller, should be prohi-
bited from acting in any other capacity than that
of an agent, and he thought that arrangement
should not be disturbed.

Alderman COPEL.iND, M.P., felt much hidebted
to his hon. friend (Alderman Rose) for calling at-
tention to this subject, the importance of which, in
hie opi lion, could scarcely be overrated, Notwith-

standing the corporation had a Remembrancer and
a Solicitor whose business it was to keep a watch
over !egislation affecting its interests, he had also
been taken by surprise by the manner in which
the bill in question had passed through a select
committee. If he had known that it was in con-
templation to abolish the supervision of the Court
of Aldermen in this matter, he, as the senior mem-
ber of the Court, should have tendered himself as a
witness before the committee, and given evidence,
founded on records of the corporation, showing now
beneficial that supervision had been all along to the
public. If the City Solicitor had searched the re•
cords of that Court he would have found ample
proof of that, and been armed to repel that attack
upon its jurisdiction. He thought, too, that the
Remembrancer and the City Solicitor ought to have
informed every member of the Court who held a seat
in the House of Commons that such a thing was in
contemplation, and of every stage of the bill. (Hear,
hear.) He did not know why three of the alder-
men only, and those three adverse to the existing
supervision of the Court, should have been sum-
moned to give evidence. It was a sort of partiality
which to him was wholly incomprehensible that
they, the only tribunal to which the brokers were
amenable, should have been altogether ignored.
(Hear, hear.) If the bill went before a committee
of the House of Lords, he should divest himself of
the character of ar alderman of London for the time,
and offer to give evidence as a merchant, a manufac-
turer, and a tradesman, and he believed that they
would listen to him. At all events, whatever the
result might be in this case, he trusted that in
future whenever the interests of the corporation
were imperilled the Remembrancer would call the
attention of every alderman of London who had a
seat in the House of Commons to the matter, in
order that they might aid and assist him in the
maintenance of those interests, and that they should
not be surprised as they had been in this instance.
(Hear, hear.)

Alderman BESLEY said if this bill passed into a
law there would be no such personage as a broker
in the city of London, pure and simple. Brokers
would cease to exist as such, and would be con•
verted into dealers. There could be no doubt
that they had been all along a very useful body of
men; they went between the merchant and the con-
sumer, and therefore the public had a manifest in-
terest in the preservation of the class, with their
present limited and well defined functions, and their
responsibility to an independent tribunal. For the
present, it was desirable that the Court should be
in possession of the evidence given by the three
selected members of their body, and he therefore
moved that a copy of the bill, witii the evidence
adduced before the select committee, be furnished
to each member.

Alderman GABRIEL thought the more serious
question for them to consider was how the mischief
had been done—how a bill sacrificing revenue of
the corporation to the amount of .£5,000 a year,
and, what was of greater importance, affecting the
prerogatives of that court, should have been allowed
to pass through its principal stages, with evidence
of three picked members of their body admitted on
the one aide, aad none on the other. He confessed
he should not have thought such a thing possible,
and it was certainly one calling for explanation.
(Hear.)

Alderman WILSON reminded thecoart that every
broker in the city of London, under the existing
supervision, was pledged by oath, while acting in
that capacity, never to buy or sell on his own ac-
count. Once that wholesome restraint was removed,
a broker, he said, would cease to stand in the posi-
tion of mutual protector as between buyer and
seller, and might be palming off his own merchan-
dise for reasons of his own upon the client who
employed him in the belief that he was acting as an
agent in his interest in the ordinary way. The
alderman also complained of the manner in which a
bill vitally affecting the interests of the merchants
of the city of London had been so far smuggled
through the House of Commons.
Alderman Sir ROBERT CARDEN said he received
Speaker's warrant the day before he gave evidence,
and he went most unwillingly before the committee.
He was bound, however, to obey, but he told the
chairman that he;attended reluctantly. The committee
wished him to volunteer evidence, which he declined
to do, but stated at the same time that he would an-
swer any questions that might be asked him, and he
gave his evidence in that way. With regard to the
brokers of the city of London, taking them as a body,
he believed them to be as honourable a class of men as
vas to be found in any other profession or business.
(fLar.) If a broker acted fraudulently, the person
wronged could appeal to the law of the land, which
was preferable to coming to the Court of Aldermen
for redress, or, if he chose to act in the double cap-.,_
city of broker and merchant, his clients woul:: soon
find him out, and his business would Buff
er in conse-
quence. With regard to the ste.ement that the
corporation had been surpris-,a- in this matter, it
was right to say that b0..1t the Recorder and the
Common Sergeant w are retained to defend their
interests.

Alderman LUSK said he had also been summoned
to give e..iidence, and could not help himself. He had,
hcivr..,ver, tried to bring about a compromise between
t.ne promoters and the opponents of the bill, but in
vain. It was useless to talk of the public advantage
of the supervision exercised by that Court over
brokers, seeing that half the men who acted as brokers
in the city were not licensed at all. Nor could
the Court have been so ignorant with respect to
the bill and its stages as some of them professed,
inasmuch as one of its own committees, presided
over by Sir Francis Moon, was charged with the
duty of reporting upon it.

The REMEMIRINCER (Mr. COrrie), who had en-
tered the court during the discussion, volunteered
to make a statement on the subject, but before be
did so, asked that strangers should withdraw.

Alderman ROSE indignantly protested against
the exclusion of strangers after the discussion had
gone so far, at,d in that he was supported by the
Court.

Eventually, on the suggestion of Alderman Sir
S. MITEGROVE, it was arranged that the Remem-
brancer should state what he had to say before the
committee of the Court charged with reporting
upon the matter ; the motion of Alderman Besley
was unanimously adopted, and the subject dropped.