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

itut

-_....--------------7—_
cordingly Captain BLAKELY, rejected by his own 1
country, made an offer to the Russian Government,
who at once accepted it, ordered some guns on trial,
with which they were so much pleased that they
had a large number constructed for their ironclad
fleet. The consequence is, that Mr. BAILLIE de-
dares that English ships, with their present arma-
ment, would be unequal to meet Russian shipa
armed by our own rejected inventor. Other na-
tions have been equally ready to appreciate his abi-
lity. The Blakely Ordnance Company, said Mr.
BAILLIE, have supplied 300 and 600-pounders to
the Federal and Confederate States, and are still
supplying them to the Federals. "They are exe-
cuting orders for the Russian Government-11-inch
guns for the defence of Cronstadt, and 8-inch guns
• for the fleet. They had orders for the Governments
of Sweden, for Spain, and for Portugal ; in fact,

for most of the Governments of Europe, and it was
only by their own Government that they were not
appreciated." This is a fair sample of the manner
in which our native inventors are disgusted by the
rigid exclusiveness of official routine and the pre-
vailing spirit of red-tapism. When one man is
received into favour he alone is right, and no one
else may have a hearing. Our authorities seem to
forget that, however great or admirable an inven-
tion, it may still be capable of improvement. What
one man has founded another may build upon or
enlarge, and the inventions of one mind may pre-
pare the ground and suggest the way for another.
But our Admiralty system allows of no such chances,
and the complaints made of all officials, more or less,
apply with double force to the authorities, great and
small, of the Admiralty.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON, in defending the
existing state of things, assured the hon. member
that our armaments were not so defective as he
thought ; that the 6-ton 7 inch calibre gun, rifled
on the shunt principle, has been found most efficient
against iron plates, and that a few weeks ago it fired
completely through the Warrior target. We have
not, he said, many vessels in the navy which were
capable of carrying, in numbers, the 12-ton guns,
although such vessels were in course of construction.
Lord HARTINGTON defended his department from
the charge of neglect, and pointed out the propriety
of not rashly committing the country to one parti-
cular gun, before it was fully ascertained which was
the most effective. They were, he said, having
guns constructed in large numbers, which could be
quickly rifled, when it was determined which man-
ner of rifling was best. So far this reasoning is
sound, but our authorities must take care that the
navy is supplied with a sufficient number for de-
fence in the meantime. The navy, moreover, should
not be dependent on the War Office for its guns,
since they are not properly qualified judges. There
should have been more naval men on the committee,
for military men, however able, are not the best
judges for the requirements of naval warfare. The
navy should be able to provide its own guns ; and
where is the use of the First Lord being responsible,
when, as a landsman, he knows nothing of the sub-
ject. Lord HARTINGTON complained that it was
hard the Government should first be blamed for
undue haste, and then for unnecessary delay, but
the fact is that the public have had too much reason
for censure on both grounds.
When the debate went on to the question of the
dockyard accounts, the official defence was more
difficult. Mr. SEELY'S speech on the excessive cost
of fitting out, refitting, and repairing ships in the
Navy, touched upon what may be truly termed a
popular grievance. The examples cited by Mr.
SEELY of the cost of Admiralty repairs were almost
amusing. A vessel cost £17,653, which would, at
the same rate of calculation, have cost £1.6,964.
Another vessel, which in three years had twice
undergone - repairs, had cost the country over
£40,000, while, if bought new, she would have cost
less than £33,000. The engines of the Sharpshooter
had cost £9,000, while new engines might have
been bought for £5,000. The list is too long
to quote, but as Mr. CHILDERS assured the House
that a better method of keeping the dockyard ac-
counts had been decided upon, we must hope for
some more light on the subject.
One other topic is likely to give the Admiralty
some trouble this session. We allude to the Royal
Sovereign, about which Mr. LAIRD could elicit no
information except the unwillingness of the Secre-
tary of the Navy to tell too much about it. He is
most anxious to give the House the fullest possible
information on every point—only the particular in-
formation asked for is most objectionable, and
therefore cannot be forthcoming ! We hope our
naval reformers will not be put off with any such
ingenious platitudes, but will insist on a full ac-
count of the management of the Royal Sovereign
in and out of commission.

We have of late years had several startling inci-
dents connected with criminal cases brought before
us, but it is long indeed since so remarkable an
occurrence took place as that which has made the
Saffron-hill affray for ever memorable in the annals
of justice. It forms, indeed, a subject for speculation,
and will naturally suggest the expediency of making
such alterations in the law as will prevent the re-
currence of such a circumstance. It is certainly a
proof that the workings of the law were very defec-
tive , and it is a fearful thing to reflect upon, that,
but for the energetic efforts of the Italians mixed up
in the affair, an innocent man would have met with
a fearful end. The' crime of murder seems not to
have been committed at all, according to the last
evidence taken, and thus the horror with which the
case was before invested is in a great degree re-
moved. There seems no blame to be attached tothose
who convicted PELlzzioNr, for the evidence against
him was very conclusive, and no doubt could have
cye
sosfartyh et
ocr icimmre,
dwell upon
d thisto
existed in the minds of those who heard it that he
wmasoregiffinet himpoi.nt,ltbeiscatushee
eli
doubtless, in the excitement of
the affair, many
may hastily affirm such to be the case, and virtually
attach that reproach to the
administrators of the
law which really belongs to the absurd
restrictions
which hedge it round, and often defeat the very
objects that they pretend to serve. It is to be
hoped that the striking events of this trial may
furnish a sufficient reason with many to induce
them to forgo their objections to altering the forms
of the law as they at present exist. Doubtless, the
full truth of this extraordinary affair will never be
cleared up, and must remain among those matters
which are shrouded in impenetrable mystery; but so far
as one can feel assured by evidence and attendant cir-
cumstances we may feel pretty certain that the ends
of justice have been answered, and above all we
may rejoice that a grave error has been prevented,
and the awful occurrence of an innocent man suffer-
ing the extreme penalty of the law been avoided.
The rules of evidence which have operated so un-
successfully for the purposes of justice in this case
should be altered forthwith. We go on clinging to
traditional notions of law and preconceived ideas
of propriety, until some serious event occurs, which
proves their inefficiency and imperfection. A more
glaring instance of failure can never be expected to
occur than this Saffron-hill affair, and no longer
delays should be permitted to intervene before the
necessary steps are taken. Had the precluded
statements been made at the first trial, the result
might have been very different to
what it was, and