MR. DAMERsaid, he would also beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there has been any trial in this country of the French breech-loading cannon, firing 30 lbs. spherical shot (and 60 lbs. cylindrical shell), which have by French accounts so well answered, piercing four and a half inches of iron at 1,000 yards?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETSir, I will first answer the question which has just been put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Damer). We have not had in this country any trial of the French gun to which he alludes, but I think the report which has reached this country of that gun is open to doubt.
I will now notice the observations of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droit-wich (Sir John Pakington). Nothing can be said than what the right hon. Baronet has said with regard to the merits of Mr. Thomas. I believe him to be an excellent clerk, and to be deserving of an appointment if it can properly be given. The right hon. Gentleman stated the case very fairly, but I think he omitted one or two circumstances which are not unimportant. Mr. Thomas, as I understand, was a temporary clerk in the High Court of Admiralty, which, as the right hon. Baronet knows, has as little to do with the Board of Admiralty as with the War Office. He was a temporary clerk, not continuously employed. That is an important point to consider. He was next appointed a temporary clerk under the Admiralty, being then above twenty-five years of age. Now, there is a rule that no person shall be appointed to the establishment who is above twenty- 1775 five, unless they have been previously entered as temporary clerks before that age, and employed in the department continuously, in which case the age is extended to thirty. That is the rule by which our proceedings must be governed. The certificate which entitles an officer to superannuation, does not come from us, but from the Civil Service Commissioners. The Duke of Somerset, when he received Mr. Thomas's application, was anxious that that gentleman should be placed upon the establishment, and, therefore, although not strictly within the regulations, he allowed him to be examined competitively (as is the custom for the Admiralty appointments) by the Civil Service Commissioners for an established appointment. Mr. Thomas failed; but I do not think the Duke would have allowed that circumstance to injure a useful public officer; but, unfortunately, Mr. Thomas failed not in competition, but in the subjects which are required by the Civil Service Commissioners as a test of the qualifications of persons who are to be placed upon the establishment. Under these circumstances, the Duke of Somerset had no alternative but to reject him as a permanent clerk under the Admiralty; but he has done all he could for him. Mr. Thomas has been brought home from Malta, and the Duke would be glad if the regulations would permit him to place him upon the establishment. But if rules are made they must be observed. I admit that these rules may, and in this case do, press hardly upon an individual; but so with all general rules there will be cases of particular hardship. If this gentleman had simply failed in competition, the Duke of Somerset would probably have given him an appointment notwithstanding; but as he failed in the necessary qualifications, it was out of his power to do so. In the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet as having been dealt with by himself, in the case of a Mr. Parker, I believe there were some circumstances which differ from the case of Mr. Thomas. In the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet, the gentleman had been a temporary clerk in the Department of the Admiralty, while Mr. Thomas was a temporary clerk in the High Court of Admiralty, which is a different thing altogether.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONMr. Thomas went to Malta in 1856, having been only a few months in the High Court of Admi- 1776 ralty. He succeeded Mr. Parker in his position there.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETI wish to point out that the gentleman who was put upon the establishment by the right hon. Baronet had been a temporary clerk in the department, and was simply removed from the temporary to the permanent list.
I now come to the Questions of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), who found fault with the Admiralty in regard to their proceedings in sending the Prince Consort to sea, and also in sending out the Lively gunboat. I must say it required great ingenuity on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to attribute political motives to the Admiralty for what they had done on these occasions; he thought he would find it more difficult to establish any such motives. The case of the Lively was this. There were, as we all know, fearful gales in the North Sea, and a great number of trawlers were caught in them. Great alarm was excited among the families of the fishermen, and among the population of the various ports, and very urgent application was made to the Admiralty to send out vessels to search for and rescue, if possible, the boats that had been blown out to sea. It happened that the only vessels we had available at the time were the Medusa, a fair-sized paddle-steamer, and two gunboats. A deputation from the Mayor and Corporation of Hull appealed to the Admiralty. What political influence was there in that?—a mere municipal deputation, without the interference, I believe, of any Member of Parliament. I think that will get rid of the political aspect of the matter. I ask the House what would have been said if the Admiralty, in those awful circumstances, had not sent all the vessels they had at their command to rescue, if possible, the missing crews? We should have been condemned from one end of the country to the other; and my hon. Friend knows that the order of the Admiralty was, that the officer in command of the coast-guard ships should despatch their tenders without loss of time to search for those vessels, and we sent the Medusa, a larger vessel. A recurrence of the gale occurred, and caught the Lively gunboat when off the coast of Holland, not far from the mouth of the Weser, and she carried away her foremast. Vessels of that class have been all over the world, and why should it be supposed that they are not fit to be sent into the North Sea? The 1777 Lively would probably not have been lost had she not had the misfortune to carry away her foremast, and thus become unmanageable.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEWas not her foremast stepped on deck?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETVessels masted as she was have gone all over the world. What ground is there for the declamation against the Admiralty?—that there was a want of proper administration, and that if the Admiralty had had a responsible head these things would not have happened? I will tell the House that the responsible officer who sent these vessels to sea was the Duke of Somerset, who is quite willing to take the responsibility for doing so. Now as to the Prince Consort, I need hardly repeat to the House the reasons which induced the Admiralty to require the services of the Prince Consort in the Mersey. There were reports that certain vessels in the Mersey would probably put to sea, and it was necessary that these ships should not be allowed to go. The Prince Consort was not unfitted. She was ready; and, moreover, the Controller of the Navy had expressed a wish that she should have a trial at sea under steam. The crew was put on board—for under our present arrangements we can put a crew on board in twenty-four hours—and within forty-eight hours after the order was issued she went to sea. It is true that the men, having been only so short a time on board, did not know all the various arrangements of the vessel with respect to stores, and hatches, and matters of that sort: and, unfortunately, the moment she left Devonport there came on a very heavy gale of wind, and when she rounded the Land's End she experienced one of the heaviest westerly gales that have been known for a great number of years. She rolled—I need not tell you that our armour ships do roll; it is a peculiarity of our armour ships that they do roll. Had she been in a long sea—had she been on the Atlantic—probably she would not have shipped any water, because we know that a long sea is better than those short seas which prevail in the Channel for a large vessel like the Prince Consort. Well, she got into the Race of Holyhead, where, as every one knows, the sea boils. She took in water; the water was over her engine-room, and matters began to look serious. She came up to the South Stack; but the captain, finding that he could not bear into Holyhead with safety hauled his 1778 wind and made for Dublin. It so happened that for some time the vessel lay to; and while she lay to she did not take in water, but when her head was forced against the sea she took in water over her bows and over her sides; in fact, she shipped a great deal of water; and when they reached Dublin all on board were very glad to get her anchors down and her pumps rigged. It was found that the vessel had not leaked, but it was reported that there had been some straining. I will state what was the cause of this fine vessel having such difficulty in clearing herself of the water she shipped. We did not like to make holes in the armour-plates of these ships, and therefore the scuppers were carried below, coming out under the armour-plates in the Prince Consort; but the result proved to be, I believe, that there was no free escape for the water. Having found by experience that this plan of placing the scuppers is not a secure one, we have made a change, with the view of avoiding a recurrence of what took place in this instance. When the Prince Consort came back, she was thoroughly examined, and wishing to see her with my own eyes, I went and saw her in dock. Nautical men know that if a vessel is strained you can tell that by the streaks which appear on the copper of her bottom; but there was nothing like an appearance of straining about this vessel. I had better inform the House that I shall not be understating the matter when I say that the cost of repairing the accident to the Prince Consort will be under £1,000. It is quite true that, while she has been in dock, we have laid out a great deal of money on her; but that has nothing to do with the gale, but is for work done to prevent galvanic action from taking place between the copper bottom and the iron plates. I do not suppose my lion. Friend means that we should condemn one of the finest vessels in the English fleet. We have proved the Royal Oak, which is her sister ship, in every respect. The Royal Oak is out in the Channel squadron, and the captain reports that she is a first-rate seaboat. I think that is an answer to my hon. Friend, with regard to the misfortune which happened to the Prince Consort.
With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), I should have wished that my noble Friend the Under Secretary for War had had an opportunity of answering the remarks of the hon. Member, because we are not in 1779 charge of the manufacture of guns. All we do is to make requisitions on the War Office, and to grumble if we are not well served; and I do not disguise from the House that, on several occasions, we have been disposed to find fault with the Armstrong guns we have had to carry. The hon. Member seems to think that, for tome time past, the Americans have had guns more efficient than ours, and carrying shells, while we have had only the old round shot and a few shell guns. The hon. Member is quite mistaken. For a great number of years we have had shells for every gun in our ships; for our 32-pounders, our 68-pounders—in fact, for all our guns; and, therefore, we are not behind the Americans in that respect. I do not mean to deny that the Americans have attached more importance than we have to guns for shells only; but this raises a very important point of dispute between the Americans and ourselves. The Americans attach great importance to what they call "smashing effects of heavy projectiles with low velocities" but they do not estimate, as we do, that high rate of velocity and range which we strive to obtain in our guns. They think that a heavy projectile with a low velocity will have a greater effect than a lighter projectile with a high velocity. There is much to be said on both sides of this question, and I do not mean to enter on it; we have attached more importance to guns of great range. Their guns have not the same range as ours. The hon. Member said that we had nothing but the old "Brown Bess." He could not have attended to what I said in moving the Navy Estimates, or he would not have arrived at such a conclusion. I said on that occasion that the Admiralty was not satisfied with the 110-pounder Armstrong; but while I said that, I do not mean to convey that we condemn altogether the Armstrong guns. These guns were used during the action at Kagosima. From the flagship, the report of performance was this—that some of the vent pieces broke or blew out, and in one ship the vent piece did what was a great deal worse than blowing out—it jammed. The consequence was, that the gun was hors de combat for some time—for about half-an-hour. But it is stated that the precision and range of these guns were extraordinary, and likewise that the precision in the bursting of their shells was something marvellous. It is true that on board other ships they did not give a good report. 1780 They said that the guns did not show very great precision. In fact, they condemned the 110-pounder Armstrong. On reading these reports, I am disposed to admit that there are great defects in these guns; but, at the same time, I think that they have considerable advantages in respect of range. Still, we have not been satisfied, and consequently the Duke of Somerset within the last two years communicated to the War Office—and he did so before the death of Lord Herbert—his earnest desire that there should be a good, wholesome, simple smooth-bore gun for the navy. He said, "I shall be very glad to use Mr. Whitworth's guns and Captain Blakeley's guns if they succeed; but meantime, while all these difficulties exist, let us at least have for the navy something simple which will pierce these armour-plates." Accordingly the War Office prepared drawings for a gun of this description. They were limited to 6¼ tons, because we considered that that was the limit of the weight which seagoing ships should carry in their broadsides. The War Office said that for that weight they could give us a 9-inch gun, a smooth-bore; to carry a spherical shot weighing 100lb. Experiments were made, and we are satisfied with the gun—for the time at all events. We have had very successful trials of it; that is to say, it has pierced 5½ inch plates; and accordingly we have made our requisition upon the War Office for a certain number of these guns for the armament of our ships. But we have not rested satisfied with this, and our very heavy ships, the Minotaur and the Bellerophon, will be armed, experimentally, with 300-pounder Armstrong guns—that is to say, with 12 ton guns, carrying spherical shot of 150lb. weight. The hon. Member would say that Mr. Parrott's or Mr. Brooke's guns were better than these. I am not prepared to say upon the whole whether they are or are not in advance of ours. As regards America, I give my opinion to this House that we are not in a position to say which country has the best of it. With regard to the French, my honest belief is that we are more advanced than they are. That is the state of the case, and if you ask any intelligent French officer I believe he will tell you the same. The French navy depend upon the 36-pounder gun bored and rifled and carrying a rifle projectile of 60 lbs. weight. I know the French navy have tried breech-loading guns on board the Magenta and Solferino, but I likewise know that their 1781 officers do not like them and do not think those guns successful. By the courtesy of the American Government we have been able to send an intelligent officer of the navy over to that country. He is looking at their gun manufactories, and I hope we shall have full information as to what guns the Americans prefer and what progress they have made. I can assure the House, however, that in this matter of guns, notwithstanding what is said out of doors, it is very doubtful yet whether any country is more advanced than we are.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he did not admit the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord, that the War Office was responsible for the ordnance of the navy. On the contrary, if there was one thing distinctly shown before the Ordnance Committee, it was that the Admiralty was responsible for what guns they put on board their vessels. The Admiralty decide what guns they will have, and then send their requisition to the War Office for smooth or rifled guns, as they thought best. The Government, with which he was connected, decided on the Armstrong gun, because the Committee confined their Report entirely to guns for service in the field. The only guns ordered were 12-pounders and 40-pounders, and he believed it was admitted that the 12-poun-der was the best field-piece in any service, and he had the satisfaction of hearing the noble Lord say the other night that the 40-pounder was equally satisfactory. The only gun ordered by Lord Derby's Government larger than the 40-pounder was a 70-poun-der, on the requisition of the Admiralty, for the purposes of experiment only. It was for the Admiralty to decide if they approved of a gun or not; and, having been a member of the Ordnance Committee, which sat two years ago, he did not blame the Admiralty for ordering a particular gun, but he did blame them for ordering 500 110-pounders without first making sufficient inquiry. Lord Derby wrote an official letter to the War Office, in which he stated, the Ordnance Committee having approved of 12 and 40-pounder guns, he strongly recommended that guns of a larger calibre should not be introduced into the service without much further trial. He did not, however, blame the Admiralty for having ordered these heavy guns, because there was a great pressure upon them at that time, and they took what was believed at that time to be the best rifled gun that could be had. All he said was that the War Office was not responsible, but that 1782 it was on the requisition of the Admiralty that these large guns were ordered.
§ LORD LOVAINE,in reference to the case of Mr. Thomas, said, that it appeared extremely hard that a man who had served nine years in a continuous service should be informed that he could not be permanently employed, because he had served for five months in another department. He had been deprived, in consequence, of the advantage of over eight years' service, whilst Mr. Parker, a more fortunate person, and who "had not committed the irretrievable fault of being in another department for a few months, was placed on the permanent establishment after five years' service only. He thought it a very poor excuse, and that it was not dealing out even-handed justice.
§ SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he understood from the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the Duke of Somerset was prepared to overlook the small objections in Mr. Thomas's case, but the latter was unable to pass the qualification examination, and that, consequently, he had no alternative but to withhold the appointment. He called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hardship of this case, and asked him to consider whether an alteration could not be made beneficially for the public service. There were several similar instances which had caused considerable dissatisfaction. It had often occurred that a temporary clerk had for many years discharged his duties with the greatest satisfaction to the heads of the department, and had obtained the highest character in the office, but when he went up for the qualification examination he was unable to pass, and the Examiners, as they were bound to do, rejected him. The qualification examination was used as a test whether or not the person was able to perform the duties; but what better proof had they that he was able to do so than that he had efficiently and satisfactorily discharged them for a number of years? He was unable to see how the Duke of Somerset could have done otherwise than he had done under the existing rules; and he (Sir Francis Baring) mentioned the circumstance in order to bring it under the consideration of the Government with a view of their remedying the evil so justly complained of. He suggested that in future where the head of the department certified that a clerk had performed his duties satisfactorily for a certain number 1783 of years, that clerk might be relieved from examination.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) seemed under the impression that Mr. Whitworth had not had fair play; but, as one of the members of the Ordnance Committee, he was able to state that the whole of the case was most closely investigated. The Committee had before them Mr. Whitworth and Sir William Armstrong, and they were both examined. But the fact was that Mr. Whitworth seemed never to have his gun ready for the trials that were thought necessary. He was ordered to make a gun, but when the Committee assembled it was found he had not made the gun, and consequently he was not there to try it. He was, however, glad to find that Mr. Whitworth had received an order to make some guns, as Sir William Armstrong's guns had not answered to the extent that was expected. He thought there was no reliable inference to be drawn from a comparison of the American guns and our own, with our present amount of information, because there would always be a variation in the strength of the targets, however carefully they might be constructed; and, besides that, we had to consider the calibre of the gun and the charge used. It had been acknowledged by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Commander - in - Chief, in evidence before the Committee, that we had no gun of a large calibre that we could rely on, and the Captain of the Warrior and others thought that large breech-loading guns would be dangerous weapons to use at night quarters. No naval or military officer who had seen the 110-pounder guns could doubt that if they were to be used as breech-loading guns the charge of powder must be reduced, and then probably they could only be used for shells and not for shot. That was a matter that required great consideration and investigation, for if one of these guns should burst between decks when in action, there would be great difficulty in getting the men to fight the remainder of the guns, should the ship he armed with them. He hoped the Admiralty and the War Department would continue to give their attention to the improvement of this gun. He had not the least doubt that if they would offer a suitable reward to any one who would make this 110-pounder a safe breech-loader, some mechanical genius would be found to do it.