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

tilt

~~

LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1865.

-.---

When the House of Commons goes into a Com-
mittee of Supply, the occasion generally gives rise

to a long debate, though it does not always secure a

full house to listen to that debate, or a very practi-
cal result to it. At the same time, the proceedings
of the noble lords and honourable gentlemen cer-

tainly require a rigid supervision, and the facts that
are elicited in such discussions do not tend to re-

move the general feeling of satisfaction and suspi-
cion with which the public regard the proceedings
of the Admiralty. The name of that venerable
institution is a byeword for extravagance,
reckless outlay, and inefficient mismanage-
ment ; but no one or two persons can bear
the blame which belongs, in fact, to an effete and
unwieldy system. The debate on the Navy Esti-
mates usually excites more interest out of doom
than it does within the walls of Parliament, where
members find the details and examinations, the
charges and counter charges, tedious to listen to,
since they have no bearing upon present divisions
or future elections, whatever their importance to

the public
Fortunately there are some members who have
sufficient energy and knowledge of the subject
to take up arms on behalf of the taxpayers,
and to scrutinise pretty closely the application of
the public funds, as well as to criticise the way in
which the work is done, and to insist upon the
necessity of the English fleet retaining its pre-emi-
nence on the seas. With the object of Mr. BAILLIE'S
motion, however, we cannot altogether concur.
The Select Committee asked for would only create
further delay, when our armaments are already in an
unsatisfactory state. The experiment system has
certainly been carried far enough, if not too far, as
costly guns have frequently been, we may say, wan-
tonly destroyed. NAPOLEON said that if a gun fired
three rounds, it had saved its honour, and surely if
it has fired three hundred rounds it may be stared
further experiment, and retained for future use in
the service, instead of going on to a thousand
rounds and trying it till it bursts. There has
doubtedly been a system of favouritism and exclu-
siveness with regard to guns as well as to every
other department of the Admiralty, which has in-
terfered with its efficiency. Sir W. ARMSTRONG,
able as he undoubtedly is, was for a long while the
Only maker whose guns had a chance, and when
hon.members talked about the superiority of the
guns
foreign nations, it is, at the same time, gra-
tifying and mortifying to remember that they are to
a great extent the work of Englishmen, gratifying
because our countrymen have thus displayed their
old ingenuity and
officialpower of invention, and mortify-
ing because, frommismanagement, their own
country has not profited by their abilities. When
the superiority of the Russian armamentsis talked
of, we have the satisfaction of
tiiofk; thatwingthat the ser-
vices of the man who gave
superiority
were offered to our Admiralty-tuad
rejected. The
story of Captain BLAKELY'S unsuccessful applica-
tion is well known, but it was just as well that it
should be repeated last night. In 1862 Captain
BI,AKELY offered the War Secretary to furnish him
with an 8-inch gun which should pierce the side of
the Warrior. What was the reply of the Minister
who was bound to provide the country with the
best and most efficient means of attack and
defence that were possible? He replied
that he could not use such a gun if he had it, and ac-