The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-16 00:00:00

THE ARMSTRONG GUNS•

Mr, BERKELEY—As the Armstrong. breech loading
guns, 'constructed by Sir William Armstrong, and now
under trial at Shoeburynese, are made chiefly of solid
blocks of mild steel (tempered in oil), and consequently
totally different from the service guns which they are con-
sidered to represent, asked the Ueda. Secretary, of State for
War whether it was the intention of the War cfflle to in-

stitute any and what trial of the Armstrong guns as at pre-
sent employed in her Majesty's service, it being evident,
from Admiral Kuper's report, that some trial urgently
needed.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON said tie, when he
proceeded with the army estimates he wo tid be in a position
to make a full explanation on the subject. 1-1 might, how-
ever, then state that there was very little difference between
the guns on trial at Shoeburyness and those which have
been in use in the service, but they were undergoing a
practical trial.
LABOURERS AND PUBLIC DOCKYARDS.

Sir A. BULLER asked the Secretary to the Admiralty
whether the Government intend doing anything towards
the relief of the labourers in the several public dockyards,
who are at present paid at a rate considerably below the
ordinary market value of labour.

Lord C. PAGET said that it was not proposed to make
any alterations in reference to this subject. By the prac-
tice in operation in the public dockyards shipwrights em-
ployed there could earn very good wages, and the labourers
could participate in their benefits.
SECRETARIES OF STATE, &c.

Mr DISRAELI drew the attention of the house to the
fact that the offices of Principal Secretaries of State and
Under Secretaries of State had been given to no less
than five sitting members of the house, in contravention
of the provisions of the existing statute which limited the
number to four. This was a constitutional question in re-
spect to which he wished for some information.
Lord PALMERSON said that the distribution of the
officers referred to was at present the same as it had been
for some time, and the question was too important to be
discussed off-hand. (Hear,,hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI wished to be informed by the Speaker,
whether this question was not one of privilege, and
whether as such, it could not be brought on at any time.
The question of the right hon. member elicited no
reply, and the subject dropped.
TRADE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Mr W. FORSTER called the attention of the house to
the arrangement between the Foreign Office and the Board
of Trade in reference to trade with foreign nations, and
moved for a select committee thereon. In the course of
his speech, he adverted to the success of the French treaty,
which he said was wonderful, and taught a lesson to the
nations of Europe.
_ _

Mr. LAYARD observed that there had been a misap-
prehension as to the relations between the Foreign-office
and the Board of Trade, both of which departments co-
operated in promoting the policy of free trade in foreign
States, where that policy encountered obstacles arising from
jealousy and suspicion. Commercial questions were some-
times so intimately connected with political questions that,
they could not be separated. He showed the impediments
which the Foreign office met with in negotiating commer-
cial arrangements. With reference to the motion, he in-
sisted that the complaints made against the present system,
which he explained, were not well founded. The duty of
the Foreign-office was to carry out the commercial views
and policy of the Board of Trade, and there was no divided
responsibility, as there would be under the system suggested
by Mr. Forster. The machinery of the Board of Trade
could not be imported into the Foreign-office, already over-
worked. He did not, however, oppose the motion.
Lord STANLEY said, if the motion was pressed to a
division he should vote for it. The motion only called for
an inquiry; a prima facie caee had been made out for an
inquiry, and he could testify that a strong feeling on the
subject existed among the mercantile community, He
wished Mr. Forster had enlarged his motion so as to com-
prehend the whole machinery of the Board of Trade.
After some remarks by Mr. BAINES and Mr. Thus,
Mr. HENLEY said it was very desirable that the sub-
ject should be inquired into; the question, difficult as it
was, should be locked into, and he was not without hope
that the system might be amended, and some arrangement
made more satisfactory to the mercantile community.
Mr. NEWDEGATE dwelt upon the sufferings inflicted
upon our silk s.l,anufacturers by the French treaty.
Mr. M. GIBSON, observing that there was no objection
on the part of the Government to the appointment of a
committee, noticed a remark of Mr. Henley upon what he
had supposed to be a divided responsibility between the
Foreign-effice and the Board of Trade, which seemed, he
said, to imply that there ought to be but one department
for all the functions of the Government. There was in
ree:tity no divided responsibility. He also vindicated the
o,ourse pursued by the Government of this country in the
commercial negotiations with foreign Powers.
Mr. COBDEN corrected the misapprehension which, he
said, existed as to the objects of our commercial policy, the
reward of which was to be found in its suc 'ess, as shown
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question was
whether, irrespective of commercial treaties, it could not
be possible for the Government to diffuse Free Trade prin-
ciples among other countries, which would be a legitimate
course of action. But we had two departments connected
with this operation, and the objlct of the motion was to de-
vise means whereby the Foreign-office could be inspired
with the spirit which actuated the Board of Trade and an
appreciation of true commercial principles.
After a few observations by Mr. BAILEY, the motion
of Mr. Forster was agreed to.