The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-03 00:00:00

ARMING OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS.

On the motion for going into committee of supply on .
the Navy Estimates,
Mr. M. BAILLIE moved that a select committee be
appointed to inquire whether her Majesty's ships were
at present armed in a manner suited to the
necessities and requirements of modern warfare.
The hon. member having drawn attention to the importance
of this subject, said that from experiments which had been
made, it was evident that the present arming of the
ships of the royal navy was not in an efficient
state. In fact, her Majesty's ships were not
In a position even to contend with other countries on equal
terms, far less to do so with advantage. Inquiry had
been restricted to the relative merits of the Arm-
strong and Whitworth guns, and therefore it was not
a matter of surprise that they had been excelled by other
countries whose range of energy was not so limited, and
who were disposed to avail themselves of every
discovery of science in regard to the arming
of the navy. The Royal Sovereign was Only
In experimental ship, and was a failure. Having referred
odifferent calibres of the guns which had been ap-
proved by the Admiralty, he contended that there
had
a great failpre in that department of the
executive in reference to, that subject. He called attention
to the result of these experiments in ordnance, which had
been sanctioned by the Admiralty, and said that the blame
to Sir
did not attach William Armstrong, who was com-
pelled to supply his guns to Government order without
having been able to subject them to an efficient test. o
It was fortunate that our failure on this point had been
developed in contact
with the Japanese instead of some
great naval power, which latter
case the result might
have been most disastrous to
gentleman on our prestige and interests as
a maritime power. The h
then traced the
progress of gunnery improvementgen in
France, and Russia ; pointed out the shortcomingsngland, America,
own Government in conducting exPerimenteand of our
ing inventors, and remarked that this country,encourag-
being in the van, was following in the wake oohr instead of
maritime Powers. That was a position which wegreat
ought
not to occupy, and he warned the house, by the example
of Denmark, of the fate that might befall a gallant 'lllPle
people
through the neglect of a Government.
Sir J. HAY seconded the motion, and bore his testimony
that our ships were so badly armed that they could not be
regarded as competent to defend themselves against the
navies of Europe or Anterica. He argued that the broadside
principle must be discarded, and that if England would
contend successfully upon the seas with other Powers she
must do away with the rules by which guns were brought
into play that were of insufficient weight. He also called

attention to the recommendations of the Ordnance Com-
mittee, which he complained had not been carried into
effect.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON contended that the
inquiries so recently and fully made renderad it unneces-
sary to appoint a committee to reopen the subect. In fact
it could only be attended with putting otT the question for
another year, which was the worst thing that could be done.
The question was eminently a scientific and practical one,
not at all suited for a committee of that house, and if an
inquiry were entered upon the committee would find them-
selves at once involved in a multitude of questions with
inventors. Moreover, he denied that the statements of the
hon. member justified the appointment of a committee. The
labours of the Ordnance Committee were now approaching
a close, and although he did not imagine that it would be
able to decide every disputable point, it would be most
premature to embark largely in a system of construction or
rifling until it was known what the views of that committee
were. The adoption of any particular system for the navy
would involve the adoption of the same system for our
land defences, and of course entail an immense expenditure.
They could not, therefore, proceed too cautiously or cir-
cumspectly. With regard to the guns possessed by other
countries, he doubted if those employed in the American
navy were better than our own, whilst their rifled guns had
proved a complete failure. The French navy-were more
dissatisfied with their ordnance than we were with ours; for
they had not even made up their mind as to what was the
proper gun. And as to Russia, although she was not very
communicative, there was no reason to suppose that she
was ahead of us. He could not see, then, considering our
resources as a manufacturing country, and that we were
constructing guns as fast as they were required, that there
was any ground for serious alarm.
General PEEL admitted that the navy was not efficiently
armed, but objected to the appointment of a committee,
because he believed the members of the House of Commons
were utterly incompetent to decide which was the best gun
for the service.

Mr. BENTINCX, Sir F. SMITH, and Mr. PEACOCKS,
sup-
ported the motion.
Lord C. PAGET said —lf he thought a committee
of that house would assist in getting the very best
gun for the navy, he would certainly go into the
lobby with the hon. gentleman ; but he had seen enough
of committees to know that, with the very best intentions,
they would rather retard than assist in so important a
matter. A misunderstanding existed as to what the First
Lord of the Admiralty had stated with respect to his re-
sponsibility in arming the navy. What he had adverted to
before the committee was that the War Office were then
carrying out certain experiments, which could only have
been carried out under the authority of the War Office,
and therefore he depended upon the War Office for car-
rying out those experiments ; but when once they had got
a gun the Secretary for War was prepared to supply any
gun which the navy asks for. He would not go into de-
tails as to the range of the 110-pounder, but it would be
perhaps interesting to the house to state what our posi-
tion was now. He demurred to the position of the Iron
Plate Committee that nothing less than a 12-ton gun
would be available against armour-plated ships. Experi-
ments which were constantly going on proved conclu-
sively that the 6i-ton rifle guns, of which upwards of
200 were now being made for the navy, would pierce the
Warrior through and through at 200 yards. That was a
gun which could be carried in our broadsides. The time
might come when they could carry 12-ton guns all round
a ship, but we had not arrived at that point, so that to
order a large number would be a piece of folly. They
had made a requisition to the War Office to supply
the navy with as many 12k-ton guns as they could
carry at the present time. They were preparing
12-ton guns for the Royal Sovereign, which has two
already, for the Prince Albert, the Minotaur, the Agin-
court, the Northumberland, the Bellerophon, the Scor-
pion, the Wyvern, and also for the Warrior. If they
asked him whether they were now in a satisfactory state
with regard to the armament of their ships, he had no
hesitation in saying that they were not. But there was a
committee going carefully into the question of rifling.
He admitted that the French system of rifling possessed
great advantages, but he knew of no report which justi-
fied the conclusion that the French system was better
than the shunt system. He thought it very probable that
such would not be the fact. 12-ton, very useful 0-ton,
and 6-i-ton guns were being manufactured, but it would
net be wise to rifle them until the best system was decided
on, more especially as rifling could be performed very
rapidly. As an evening would be devoted to naval con-
struction, he would not then go to the comparative merits
of the turret and the broadside system. In conclusion, he
would appeal to the hon. member for Inverness, as a friend
to the navy, not to press his motion for a committee, be-
cause, instead of accelerating what he desired, it would
only retard it.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes
Noes

Majority ' ...
The amendment was therefore negatived.
NAVY PROMOTION.

22
-35

Sir 11. VERNEY directed attention to the evidence given
before the committee on navy promotion and retirement in
the session of 1863, on the subject of reappointing to the
office of chaplain-general of the navy ; and in support of
which appointment the hon. baronet quoted the opinion of
the Bishop of London.
Sir J. D. HAY remarked that they had already a naval

bishop in the person of the hon. member for Pomfret (Mr.
Childers); but, with all respect for the hon. gentleman's epis-
copal duti:s, he would prefer a chaplain-general. (Hear.)
The subject then dropped.
THE REFITTING OF SHIPS.

Mr. SEELY rose to call attention to the apparently
excessive cost of fitting out, refitting, and repairing certain
of her Majesty's ship; and to other items in the dockyard
accounts that appeared to require explanation. He did so
because it appeared to him those ships had cost more than
other similar ships, and because he thought the Secretary
for"the Admiralty should have the opportunity of contra-
dicting or explaining the statements he was about to make.
It appeared from the returns that the Falcon, a ship carry-
ing 17 guns, 751 tons, and of 100-horse power, cost in re-
pairing in the year 1864 the sum of £26,642. (Hear.) The
cost of building that ship by contract would not have been
more than £2l per ton, but, giving the Government £2B per
ton, and calculating the engines at £55 per horse, which
was he thought rather more than the Government would
pay, he found that if they had bought a new vessel of the
the same tonnage as the Falcon they would only have paid
£26,528. The next vessel to which he would refer was the
Lion, a vessel of 488 tons, and 60-horse power. She cost
in repairing £17,653. She would have cost, if new, accord-
ing to the same rate of £2B per ton and £55 per horse,
£16,964. Her hull cost in repairing £15,000; if new, it
would have cost £13,664. (Hear.) The next vessel was
the Wasp, of 974 tons, and 100-horse power. She cost in
repairing £32,000. She would have cost if new £33,772 ;
-but he would also draw his hon. friend's attention to this,
that in the years 1860-1 that vessel cost £8,442, so that
with the cost of 1863-4 that vessel cost £38,919. If built
new, she would have cost £32,772. The Sharpshooter,
which cost £18,249 in repairs, would have cost if new
£19,694. Here, too, was a statement he could hardly un-
derstand. The engines of the Sharpshooter cost in repair-
ing £9,249. They might have obtained new engines of
the highest class for £5,616. (Hear, hear.) The next
vessel was the Salamander.

Sir J. PAKINGTON—When were they built ?

Mr. SEELY—The Wasp was built in 1850, the Falcon in
1854. The Salamander cost £22,728 in repairing, and she had
cost £10,950 in 1862-3 ; but if new she could be bought for
£34,000. The Bulldog had a tonnage of 1,124 and a horse-
power of 500. Well, the repairs of the Bulldog for 1863-64
cost £33,700 ; for 1861-62, £2,092 ; and for 1860-61,
£10,518. At the same time, in these calculations a great
many items were omitted which ought to have been
charged. For example, the wages of the artificers were
charged, but the pensions which ought to be allowed to
them
were not. Again, the wages of the foreman and
other workmen in the dockyards were not included
in these accounts of the cost of building and repair-
Well, it was for the e country to press upon
itwnhgheaAethdimtPshirin. Admiralty trheeallnyecessit
did
Lentgivteihntugrna truefor account oi
it
cowonanlsyve4rssiaopetnearof
cbe3tnrimt.tbheio. In the
-rAb
onaodtk
excess
seetsos
wasthe
vAedmthierarltayte nthexet
ifeffected at
con-
versionsin-
stead of these conversions being effectedvalante. lsT
4-ipeewr
above the rate-book value, he found weretheyt
a leind
ne aa
15 per cent. above the rate-book value. Bu
of timber in the different dockyards had
at the cost of the lowest yard, no less a savingbe
£55,496 a year would be secured. Probably it might the
than
been made
be re-
plied to him that they had not the same appliances, the
same machinery, in all the yards. But why had not they ?
In two years £2,782,910 had been voted for repairs and
improvements in machinery ; and why was not a portion of
that large sum dedicated to enabling the country to save
the sum of £55,000 in each single year? He would next
refer to the stock accounts. According to the returns of
the Admiralty, he calculated that between the years 1848
and 1864 no less than £3,762,281 was added to the stock
accounts. Nell, they might naturally ask where those
stocks were. He believed the stock of materials now on
hand might be assessed at £5,000,000; but if that were so,
could any one accustomed to business suppose that in 1848
the stocks amounted to but £1,250,000 ? Really the state
of the accounts was most unsatisfactory. There was not
an Admiralty reformer that had spoken out more clearly
than the noble lord the present Secretary to the Admiralty,
and there was not a member of that house or a man of
business in the City who had a more complete conception
of what was needed in this matter than the noble lord ; and
yet there they were, five years after the noble lord's speak-
ing out, without having made any progyess. If the noble
lord
had used his power as Secretary to the Admiralty, and
had given orders to any professional accountant in the
City, ho
account
touolf the
would very y
moneysoon b
received havereceived
ythe
a department.debt o debtor and B
credi-
tor
ut
indeed, he need not have gone to a professional accoun-
, taut ; all that he had to do was to go to his own accountant,
Sir Richard Broacsy. Sirnichard Bromley had a clear con-
! ewe patlikoenno fTti
what
toot of wthaented'
b one. He thought that a and so also had Sir Baldwin
evilbo was that the system was a bad
counts, but a board would board might give them better ac-
be unable to give them things

at a fair cost. Not one of the Lords of the Admiralty
knew what a thing ought to cost—(hear, hear)—nor did
the superintendents of the different dockyards, of whom,
however, he wished to speak with the greatest respect.
What was wanted was fitness in the various offices ; but if
they looked simply to political patronage, and not to put-
ting into office the parties best able to discharge the duties
required of them, so long would these conversions of tim-
ber be executed at a much higher rate than was neces-

nary, and so long would there be accounts like those to

which he had drawn the attention of the house.

Mr. CHILDERS said that with regard to the appoint-
ment of a chaplain-general for the navy, he hoped the house
would pause before they created a new office of that kind.

At present a naval chaplain was intended to be the friend
and adviser of every one on board his vessel, both officers
and men. There were reasons, which must be patent to
every one who considered the freedom of opinion in the
Church of England, why it would be inexpedient that all
chaplains should be selected by one clergyman. The ap-
pointment of a chaplain-general would be attended with
inconvenience and danger, and it would not be palatable to
the great body of naval chaplains. With respect to the
figures quoted by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely),
he would take the case of the Falcon. According to the
hon. member, the expenditure on the hull of that vessel
was out of all proportion to what it ought to have been.
Now, he found from the returns entitled " Navy ships,
1863-4," that the expenditure on the hull of the Falcon
during that year was £14,000, in addition to a certain pro-.
portion of general incidental expenses charged upon the
whole ship. Taking that proportion, he might say that
the total expenditure on the hull was £2l or £22 per ton,
whereas his hon. friend allowed that £2B or £29 would not
have been too much. Then, again, the amount expended
on the hull of tho Bulldog, a ship of 1,124 tons, was
£15,000, including a fair proportion of incidental expenses.
That, then, only came to £l3 or £l4 per ton. The
sum expended on the hull of the Salamander was
only about £ll per ton. His hon. friend had asked why
ships of that class were repaired. The answer was that if
new ones had been built we should have had to wait
nine months or a year longer; and besides at that time the
great force of the Government was applied to iron ships,
which made it more advisable to repair these wooden ships
than to construct new ones. As to the conversion of tim-
ber, it was impossible to have uniformity in the rate book,
for this reason—that in some dockyards the price of rough
timber was much higher than in others, and therefore a
considerable loss resulted from its conversion, though it
should be borne in mind that if this loss took place in a
dockyard it was counterbalanced by advantages which that
particular dockyard might possess with regard to the low
price of coal, &c. For ifistance, in 1863 the price of Eng-
lish oak was £8 19s. at Devonport, £7 12s. at Portsmouth,
and £6 15s. at Sheerness. It was obviously impossible,
therefore, to establish a uniform rate. With reference to
the rate book, he would only say that the rules as regarded
the conversion of timber had been found very arbitrary, and
it was intended to substitute one uniform rate instead of the
five or six different rates that now existed. The variation
with reference to the expense of materials would continue,
but the effect of the proposed arrangement would be to
place the accounts for the conversion of timber on a more
satisfactory footing than heretofore. The next subject re-
ferred to by the hon. gentleman was the discrepancy between
the financial account and the amount of labour, and he com-
plained that the two did not balance. It was quite impos-
sible that the cash account could balance with the stores in
the yard; but if they analysed the accounts closely, the dis-
crepany would not appear so great as stated by the hon. gen-
tleman. The finance accounts would show a considerable
excess over the expense accounts ; or in other words, they
had purchased vastly more stores than they applied to the
building and repairing of ships. It was impossible to bal-
ance these, for until the present year there had been no
valuation stock account taken; and it was therefore out of
his power to say the stock for 1860 or 1861 was so much,
and the difference would be the difference between the bal-
ance properly adjusted of the accounts of cash and expen-
diture. The stock valuation account would be taken and
continued in all former years, and by that means it would
be possible to produce a proper balance-sheet from year to
year. That system came into operation in the present
financial year, and when the house went into committee
on the estimates he would take the opportunity of stating
in what way the accounts of the dockyards would be kept,
so as to show at the end of each year a strict commercial
balance-sheet in addition to the ordinary manufacturing
accounts of the different ships based upon the principle of
cash. (Hear.) Under this system, the business done in
the dockyards would be conducted upon the same principle
as if it were done by a private establishment. (Hear.) He
did not regret the speech of the hon. gentleman, and he had
done his best to state what the result of the new arrange-
ments would be ; and, for his own part, he thought the
more discussions they had the better.
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN NEWGATE.

Mr. LOCKE called the attention of the house to the man-
ner in which prisoners were detained in Newgate whilst
under remand, and asked the Secretary for the Home De-
partment whether it was proposed to take any steps for
affording them better treatment. The hon. member said
the case which formed the subject of his motion arose out
of a charge of conspiracy and larceny brought against two
gentlemen by an insurance office; and what he had to com-
plain of was that those parties, before any charge of guilt

was established against them, were subjected to degrading
treatment. They were not criminals, but were con-
fined in prison for the purpose of being brought before
the magistrates to have the case tried, and yet they were
made to clean their own cells, were not allowed knives
and forks at their dinner, and could only see their friends
through a double grating, with a gaoler standing by.
Although in the eye of the law innocent, yet they were
treated in prison like felons. Mr. Sergeant Ballantine,
who appeared for the defendants, complained of the dis-
graceful treatment to which they had been subjected,
and the statements of the learned gentleman were not
denied by the counsel for the prosecution nor by the
sitting magistrate, Alderman Stone. In point of fact, the
alderman charged upon the Home Secretary all the evils
of Newgate, and put the right hon: baronet upon his de-
fence. The state of things which was admitted on all hands
was this. The right hon. baronet admitted everything in
his answer to him a week since. He said, if those persons
had been coerced illegally they had their remedy ; but it
appeared from Mr. Alderman Stone's statement that it was
not the fault of the City, but of the right hon. baronet the
Secretary of State. Was the right hon. gentleman aware
of the way these things were done throughout the country,
and did he intend in the bill he had introduced to provide
a remedy ?
Mr. TORRENS called attention to the treatment of per-
sons charged at police stations, giving an instance of two
persons named Hall, who were kept all night in wet clothes,
from the effects of which one had died within twelve hours
from bronchitis. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would

take some steps to remedy such cruelty in the future.
Sir G. GREY could not give any explanation on this
matter, because no notice had been given of its being in-
troduced. If such notice.had been given, he had no doubt
a sufficient answer would have been forthcoming. With
regard to the matter referred to by the hon. member for
Southwark, he knew nothing of the merits of the case. He
had had no complaints whatever, either from the persons
themselves, who were still, he believed, under remand, or
from any other persons in Newgate, of any illegal or even
harsh treatment to which they had been subjected. If he
bad, he should have addressed the only persons who were
competent to remedy the complaints, viz., the visiting jus-
tices of the prison, who were the aldermen of the city of
London, and have required them to make a report upon the
matter.
The house then went into committee of supplyproforma,
and immediately resumed.
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
COURT OF CHANCERY IRELAND (No. 2) BILL.
COURT OF CHANCERY IRELAND (No. 3) BILL.
These bills were read a second time.
COLONIES MARITIME DEFENCE.

Mr. CARDWELL moved for leave to bring in a bill to
enable the colonies to make better provision for their own
maritime defence. The main object of the bill he ex-
pinined to be to extend the principle on which the Royal
naval reserve was organised to all the maritime colonies of
the empire, and to enable those colonies to train, under the
same conditions as the Royal naval reserve, all their sea-
faring population. There is another purpose of this act.
The colony of Victoria desired to have, and in fact had at
present, a ship of war. At present, however, that vessel
was not entitled to the privileges of a ship of war, as it
was not under the control of the Imperial Government.
This bill would enable a colony in time of peace or war to
place a ship or ships under the control of the Lords of the
Admiralty, and thereby to acquire for such ship or ships
the rights and privileges of a public ship. The bill would
also enable the maritime inhabitants of several colonies, or
even of the whole of the English colonies and depen-
dencies, to be united into one body for the defence of the
British empire, or any of the colonies.
In answer to Mr. W. MILES,
Mr. CARDWELL said that the bill contemplated
nothing being done except at the expense of the colonies.
The bill was then brought in and read a first time.
The house adjourned at five minutes past eleven.

A NEW KIND OF CONSCIENCE MONEY.—STAF-
FORD-HOUSE, March I.—The Duke of Sutherland acknow-
ledges the receipt of a £5 note from ---, " returned per.
centage."—Times.
LADvErnsEmENT.37-liolloway's Ointment and Pills.—

Constant Success.—No diseases are more trying;;;l;
temper and more exhausting to the constitution than the
pains in the muscles, caused by exposure to wet or cold.
Wherever the seat of the suffe, ing, it win be only neces-
sary to foment the affected part with warm water, dry
thoroughly, and immediately rub in Holloway's inestim-
able ointment to obtain ease. Gout, rheumatism, neuralgia,
and tic-doloreux are soon relieved and ultimately cured by
the use of this unequalled unguent and by Holloway's
purifying and operative pills. Under this judicious treat-
ment the afflicted parts soon cease to ache, and shortly re-
gain their natural feeling and appearance. These remedies
are invaluable for curing spinal affections and nervous dis-

eases.