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 countriei
had
on equal
terms, far less to do so with advantage. Inquiry
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
an experimental ship, and was a failure. Having referred
to different calibres of the guns which had been ap-
proved by the Admiralty, he contended that there
bad been a great failure in that department of the
executivet in reference to that subject. He called attention
to he
been result
did not attach sanctionedto by the Admiralty, and said that the blame
Sir William Armstrong, who was com-
pelled to supply his guns to Government order without
having been, able t
It was fortunate that to
subject them to an efficient test.
developed in contact our failure on this point had been
with the Japanese instead of some
great naval power, in wli.lch
latter case the result might
have been most disastrousto
our prestige and interests as
a marithne power. The
improvement hon gentleman then traced the
progress of gunnery
England, America,
France, and Russia ; pointed theantin En
own Government in conductiil shortcomings of our
g experirnents
ofiih other great
ought
ing inventors, and remarked that this contend,a encourag-
we
being in the van, was following in the wake instead of
maritime Powers. That was a position which
not to occupy, and he warned the house, by the
of Denmark, gall ,of the fate that might befall a example
ant 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
regarded as competent to defend themselves against the
navies of Europe or America. 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 appoint a committee to reopen the sub;ect. In fact
it could only be attended with putting o 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
proyed 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. PEACOCXE, 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 61-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 121-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 9-ton,
and 61-ton guns were being manufactured, but it would
not 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 into 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

22
-35

Majority
The amendinent was therefore negatived.

NAVY PROMOTION.

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 dutiss, he would prefer a chaplain-general. (Hear.)
The subject then dropped.