§ MAJOR ANSONsaid, that the question of the conversion of smooth-bored guns into rifled guns was as important as that of ships or fortifications, because the efficiency of our ships and fortifications depended entirely upon the efficiency of the guns with which they were armed. This question was of greater moment to this country than to any other country in the world, because we had not our fortified places connected by lines of railway as other countries had. We had our fortified places scattered all over the world, and in case 1499 of emergency they were thrown on their own resources. What would hon. Members say if, waking up from a long sleep, they were to find our infantry armed now with "Brown Bess?" It was just as important at present that our ships and fortifications should be armed with rifled guns, as that our infantry should be armed with rifled muskets. All our great fortified places — Gibraltar, Malta, Bermuda, Mauritius, Aden—were, so to speak, unarmed. It was quite true that they had a great number of guns mounted on their fortifications, but in case of attack these guns would be at the mercy of any ironclad ship that might attack them. He believed there were two or three rifled cannon mounted at Malta and Halifax, but with these exceptions all our other fortified places were at the mercy of any iron-clad. We ought to look at this as a question also of justice to our troops. We scattered our army all over the world, and it was a matter of justice to give to our soldiers, who were necessarily comparatively few in number at each point, the means of repelling any attack that might be made upon them. Take the case of our navy, which, after all, was our first line of defence. People in this country generally judged of its efficiency by the number of iron-clads afloat or in commission. But that was a fallacious way of judging. It would be far wiser to judge of its efficiency by the manner in which our ships, both iron-clad and wooden, were armed. Some years ago we took to iron-clad instead of wooden ships, and we did that to prevent our ships being penetrated by the old smooth-bore guns. We devoted almost all our attention to putting iron plates on the sides of the ships, but paid little or no attention to keeping our wooden ships properly armed, so that they might compete with the iron-clads of foreign countries. If we armed our wooden ships with plate guns, that is, with guns which would pierce armour, we should place our wooden ships on a footing with the iron - clad. They would again become perfectly effective for all warlike purposes, and our ancient maritime supremacy would thus at once be restored. Of cast-iron guns, which were entirety useless, we had at present the great number of 15,000 mounted and 20,000 in store. This was a very large question, because the number of guns required both at sea and in forts was enormous. What we wanted was a large number of guns rifled and fit for modern 1500 warfare. We were at the present moment in a transition state. A short time ago we set to work upon breech-loading guns. We did away with our field artillery and substituted Armstrong guns. At the present moment we were discarding the latter and were endeavouring at Woolwich to make new guns on an entirely different principle. It should be remembered that in a transition period like this we should not be able in a year or two to manufacture a sufficient number of articles to replace those that would be superseded. It was a matter of time and of great expense. We did not know at present what our ships of the future would be. We were still in uncertainty, as might be seen from the debate which took place the other night about the fortifications of the future. Anybody that went down to Woolwich and talked to artillerists would see that all was uncertain as to the guns of the future. What ought to be done was to avail ourselves of our present stock, whether of ships, guns, or stores. The only way we could utilize our wooden ships was by arming them with guns capable of penetrating the sides of iron-clads, and by taking advantage of the number of guns which the ships would be able to carry. The weight of the guns also must be taken into account, and we should proceed to convert them. It might be asked, was it possible to convert our old stock of guns? A great number of experiments with old cast-iron guns had been tried, and many of these old guns burst. They tried to strengthen them with wrought-iron hoops on the outside, but that was of no use. But of late years a series of experiments had been carried out by Major Palliser, to whom this country was already so much indebted. Years ago Major Palliser invented the system known as that of the compound ordnance. Since then he had been employed in other experiments; he tested everything and took nothing for granted. In 1862 a 68-pounder gun was handed over to him to work into a rifled gun. He put a barrel of wrought-iron into it, and this gun before it was rifled, went through what was called "the test of destruction." There had, in the first place, been fired a 68 lb. shot, and the weight of the shot had afterwards been increased by 10 lbs. at a time until it at length amounted to 680 lb. The gun had perfectly withstood that test. He then tried another 68-pounder, of the same size as others that were now being 1501 made at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich. The gun they selected had been condemned as unfit for service. It had fired 383 rounds, and had been condemned on account of fissures round the vent. This gun was rifled on Major Palliser's principle, and fired 750 rounds with various charges. At the end of the 750th round the inner tube split, and they then fired fifty more rounds. The Ordnance Committee remarked upon that circumstance that the trial was more favourable to the system than if it had burst the barrel without warning. This gun had afterwards its breech bored out in order to take out the inner tube that had been split, and to examine the remaining tube. After that they put in another tube, and screwed up the breech again, and then fired 105 rounds, making, in all, 1,250 or 1,260 rounds. The gun then failed by blowing its breech out. The tube inside was taken out and put into a 10-inch shell gun, which was now at Shoeburyness passing through other experiments. The testing this gun had gone through was never dreamt of by any artillerists in the world. The Ordnance Committee were satisfied that the gun was as strong a gun as you could wish to introduce into the service, was capable of standing any charge which could be put into it, and of firing as many times as could possibly be required. It might be said that at Woolwich we were already making a great many 64-pounders and 7-inch wrought-iron guns. These guns were first-rate in their way, as everything turned out in the Royal Arsenal was; but, in order to utilize our wooden vessels, they must be supplied with guns of very much the same weight as those with which they were now armed. The new 7-inch wrought-iron guns which were being constructed at Woolwich, and which were to take the place of the old 68-pounder, weighed three tons heavier than the old, and the new 64-pounder increased in proportion; so that they would have to alter the armament of these wooden ships very considerably, and for every two guns they carried now they would only in future carry one; but the Palliser guns only weighed seven or eight cwt. more than the old ones, instead of three tons. Besides the vast stock of cast-iron guns in our dockyards and elsewhere, there was the question of carriage, which was almost as important as the question of guns. For every 7-inch wrought-iron and 64-pounder rifled gun made at Woolwich, they had to 1502 make a new iron carriage; whereas, if they utilized the old iron guns, they would be able to utilize the old carriages. It had been doubted whether the old wooden carriages would stand the heavy charges of the new guns; but Major Palliser found by actual trial that the old carriages stood the recoil, and Colonel Clarke, at the head of the Carriage Department at Woolwich, had not the slightest doubt that he could, at a merely nominal cost, strengthen the existing wooden carriages sufficiently to stand the recoil of the converted 68-pounder. With regard to the expense of the guns, a short time ago the new 7-inch wrought-iron guns at Woolwich cost as much as £700 each. What was called a cheap-construction gun was now produced at something like £425; but it had not been proved to be as satisfactory as the more expensive gun; nor could they really say whether it cost only £425, for it was doubted whether the increased wear and tear of machinery and furnaces caused by the cheap-construction gun would not counterbalance the saving in actual labour. Besides the £425, a new carriage, new slide, and new platform would cost £370 or £380, making altogether nearly £800; but the expense of converting the 68-pounder on Major Palliser's principle was under £200 a gun, and the cost of converting the existing carriages and platforms was merely nominal. Very nearly the same proportion applied to the 32-pounder, and the 32-pounder converted gun was capable of penetrating the Warrior target at anything like a fair range. They might thus turn all their wooden ships to account, and render them able to compete with almost any iron-clad afloat. Hon. Members might be astonished that if the Palliser system possessed the great advantages, and would result in the considerable saving he had described, it had not been adopted before; but though the experiments had been going on for two or three years, it was only fair to the Ordnance Department to say that these experiments had only just been carried to a satisfactory conclusion. The time had now come, however, to set about this conversion in good earnest. In case of war we must have thousands of rifled guns for forts and ships, and the difficulty must be faced. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would do what he could to convert these guns as rapidly as possible, and he would now move the Resolution which stood in his name.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the experiments that have been made with Cast-iron Guns lined with coiled wrought-iron, justify the belief that these Guns may be thus made available for the purpose of modern warfare; that a great saving of public money would thus be effected, and that this system of conversion is deserving of the serious and immediate attention of the War Department."—(Major Anson.)
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, that his hon. and gallant Relative had done good service in bringing this subject before the House; because if the facts he had stated were correct, the system would result in a great economy of public money, and useless iron ordnance might be converted into efficient guns at comparatively small cost. While forts were built by means of a loan, guns were manufactured by an annual Vote of the House. The process in the latter case was therefore necessarily slow, and if for about the same money they could get two guns almost as efficient in place of one, such a system, promising as it did to put the country into a proper state of preparation much more rapidly than would otherwise be possible, deserved favourable consideration. He hoped that before the present Government went out of office the country would have better armaments than it had ever had before. He admitted the great improvements which had been made by the late Secretary for War in the supply of breech-loading rifles; but the same progress was not observable in the equally important matter of rifled guns. There had been a large order of breech-loading rifles for the army; the late Secretary for War had ordered a rifle gun to be tried on the Lancaster system; and an experiment had been tried with an American gun recently brought to this country. It might be thought from the reports of this experiment that the gun was of no value against iron-plated ships. But the plate used in the experiment was an 8-inch plate, and the thickest plate on any of our ships was 6-inch. If the 60-pounder charge of powder had been used against a 6-inch plate the ball would have gone through; and in all probability in the case of the 4½-inch Warrior plates, it would have penetrated both sides. This was satisfactory as regarded the penetrating power of the shot. A most important point was that the metal of which the shot was composed should be of the best possible kind. He would place in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman specimens of three different shots fired from this American gun at the plate in question. 1504 One was a cast-iron shot, which came from America; the second was the Pontypool shot, which was cast in sand; and the third was the Palliser shot. Whoever had any doubt of the importance of the invention of Major Palliser had only to look at these specimens of shot. The American shot was a beautiful specimen of iron; the Pontypool shot iron was comparatively worthless—like pie-crust. Anybody could see that it must break against an iron plate; but the iron of Major Palliser's shot was more dense, and looked in every way superior in the character of the metal to both the other specimens. It was universally admitted that Major Palliser had conferred great benefit on the country by introducing his mode of chilling shot, not only as regarded the penetrating power of the Palliser projectile, but also in the eventual saving of hundreds of thousands of pounds that would have been incurred in expensive steel in order to attain the same result. He was glad, therefore, that the question of Major Palliser's invention had been brought before the House. He did not wish to detract from, but rather to enforce the estimate of its importance, by bringing forward another method of lining guns, and urging the desirability of our turning our attention seriously to the question. He did not wish to go into the question of the priority of patents; but his attention was some years ago drawn to the gun of Mr. Parson's, which was lined with steel tubes, not made like Major Palliser's, but of solid steel, bored out and inserted at the breech of the gun. This he thought equally deserving of the attention of the Admiralty. The two systems were different in this respect, that Major Palliser's was a coil of wrought-iron, and a tube was inserted at the muzzle. The other system was that of a steel tube bored, inserted at the breech, and reinforced at the breech by a sort of shoulder. The question had arisen whether guns bored at the breech and lined from the breech were as strong as guns made on the Palliser principle. Many persons spoke of the former as the best way of securing strength in cast-iron guns. Unable to get a trial in this country, gentlemen interested had obtained one in France. A report of it by the French officer in charge stated that the cannon so made showed greater resisting power than cast-iron guns of the same bore. Mr. Parsons' gun had been tried at Vincennes, and that officer spoke of it in the highest terms, regretting that it could not 1505 be adopted from their not being able to get the steel tubes required for it made in France. A Prussian officer who had been sent over to this country to ascertain the best system of iron ordnance, had also recommended its use in the Prussian service. He would not go into details to show that this system of lining guns was as cheap as the other; but it was as strong, and some said stronger. On the part of the inventor, Mr. Parsons, he would make an offer to the Government, the terms of which he himself proposed to Mr. Parsons, who accepted them. It was that, at the Arsenal, under the direction of Mr. Palliser, a 68-pounder should be converted on his principle, and a 150 lb. shot fired from it with 30 lb. of powder, 1,000 rounds to be fired; if the experiment were a success the Government should bear the expense; if it failed, the expense should be borne by Mr. Parsons. An undertaking to that effect, signed by Mr. Parsons, he held in his hand. His object was not to detract from the value of Major Palliser's invention, but it had been tried, and that of Mr. Parsons had not. He hoped that the Government while not delaying conversion on the Palliser system, would accept the proposal of Mr. Parsons in the interests of the service.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he begged, in the first place, completely to acknowledge the great importance of the subject which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had brought forward. This question of trying the effect of lining old guns with other metals had been in course of trial and experiment for a considerable length of time. He understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to claim for Major Palliser the origination of this idea, but it was by no means new. The first proposal made to our Government for lining guns with a different description of metal was so long ago as 1808, and the guns we had taken from the Chinese in our late wars were found to be lined. The question now raised by his hon. and gallant Friend was mainly a question of expenses. It was—Are we able to obtain rifled guns cheaper by this method of lining old smooth-bore guns with wrought-iron than we can by constructing new guns with rifled barrels? The question was divided into two portions—that which related to large heavy guns, and that which related to guns of a lighter calibre and construction. The experiments were not yet completed; but, so far as they had gone, he was justified 1506 in expressing great doubts whether it would be profitable and successful to convert the larger class of guns. He alluded particularly to our well-known old gun which, up to a recent period, was the most formidable gun we possessed—namely, our 68-pounder, known as the 95-cwt. gun. It was an 8-inch gun. The proposal made by Major Palliser and also by Mr. Parsons was that this 8-inch gun should be converted into a 7-inch gun, contracting the calibre by one inch through inserting a rifled wrought-iron lining. The result of this change was that a gun weighing 95 cwt. was converted into one weighing 105 cwt, or 5¼ tons, whereas the weight of the new 7-inch gun made at the Woolwich factory, and rifled from the beginning, was 6½ tons, or 1¼ more than the other. Either he misunderstood his hon. and gallant Friend, or his hon. and gallant Friend made a mistake, for the difference in weight was stated by him at three tons.
§ MAJOR ANSONsaid, that included the carriage as well as the gun.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, there was another thing to be taken into consideration in that view of the matter. He was not prepared to say whether, including carriage as well as gun, his hon. and gallant Friend was not correct in stating that there was a difference of 3 tons, but as between the two guns the difference was 1¼ tons, or the difference between, 105 cwt. and 6½ tons. It would be necessary, however, to have new carriages, and therefore the question was in that respect one of expense. As respected the guns only, the actual difference in cost was the difference between £263 and £405. His hon. and gallant Friend was mistaken in saying that the old carriages could be used with the converted guns. He was informed that the old carriage would not do for these guns, and that it would be important in any case with heavy guns, whether weighing 5¼ or 6½ tons, to use the new carriages. A converted gun and carriage would cost £590, an entirely new gun and carriage would cost £734. The difference, therefore, was from £140 to £150. The result of the experiments, so far, had gone to show that the converted guns, in consequence of their lighter weight, would not bear the battering charges so well as the heavier guns. They were what professional men termed "too lively." Looking, therefore, at the difference in cost, he could not see that the country would gain so very much by the 1507 conversion of the 68-pounders into 7-inch guns. Our arsenal at Woolwich was capable of turning out twice the number of guns provided for in the annual Estimate, so that, looking at the small saving which would be effected, he very much doubted whether it would be either prudent or economical to engage very largely in the conversion of these guns. A paper war had been going on between Major Palliser and Mr. Parsons, but the real difference of construction between the plans of the two gentlemen was very slight. He had already stated that the plan of lining the guns with a different metal was by no means a new one, though the first experiments of late years were probably made by Mr. Parsons. The plan first suggested by that gentleman, by which the barrel of the old 68-pounder was heated so that an inner tube could be introduced, did not answer. Then Major Palliser proposed to bore the old barrels so as to increase the diameter, and to introduce a new tube, which was fixed by a mechanical process. He would not refuse to accept the offer made by his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) on behalf of Mr. Parsons. Although no expense would be spared if there were any prospect of success, yet so much had already been spent that it was but fit some precaution should be taken before even promising to enter into a new competition. Nothing, however, that he (Sir John Pakington had said upon this point referred to the smaller guns. His hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly justified in all he had said upon that point. We possessed, in all, some 30,000 guns of this character. But our available supply of the smaller rifled guns was by no means so large as it ought to be. The doubts which he had expressed, therefore, with regard to the advisability of converting our 68-pounders, in no way applied to our 32-pounders and 24-poundcrs. The 32-pounders converted on Major Palliser's plan became most valuable guns. The carriage for the old 32-pouuder would be equally good for the new one. He believed that the 32-ponnders converted on Major Palliser's plan would become most valuable batteries, equal in every respect in power to the new 64-pounder rifle gun. The cost of converting the 32-pounder would be £120, whilst that of the G-1-pounrler would be £190. The country would, therefore, derive from the conversion of our existing 32-pounders the whole advantage of the saving which would be 1508 effected by conversion as against the manufacture of an entirely new gun of that calibre. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would be content with this admission as to the value of converting the smaller guns. Until the experiments were finally completed he would not, of course, undertake to say that it was inexpedient to engage in the conversion of our old 68-pounders, but he confessed that, as far as we had yet gone, he believed it to be very doubtful. He had been reminded that within the last week the Admiralty had ordered a fresh supply of the smaller converted guns, and with the conversion of those guns, so far as the financial arrangements of the country permitted it, it was intended to proceed, a statement which he hoped would be regarded as satisfactry by his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Anson).
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the question of the saving of expense was not worthy of much consideration unless the result attained by the conversion was satisfactory. Taking the figures of the right hon. Gentleman himself, there were at least 10,000 of the smaller guns which might be converted.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had stated that we possessed 30,000 guns, but he had not stated that even 10,000 of them could be converted.
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, that with regard to what had been said about wooden ships being able to stand against good artillery, the latest instance in which wooden ships were engaged was at the battle of Sinope, and a Turkish officer had informed him that at the first broadside all the Turkish ships but three went to the bottom. Of those three, two succumbed to the second broadside, and there remained but one survivor from the third. From what had been said that evening he believed no hon. Member who had spoken was satisfied with the success which we had obtained with our artillery up to the present moment. It would be better if the House would not look at this matter in the light of a mere rivalry between two competitors. A sufficient inducement ought to be held out for a trial and proof of both plans. Comparing the French and English systems of conversion, he thought the system of tubing infinitely superior to that of hooping. He believed that these old guns might be utilized, and he was glad that the Secretary for War had so 1509 liberally met the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ MAJOR ANSONsaid, that as there seemed to be some doubt as to the capability of the 68-pounder to stand the recoil, he wished to know whether the Secretary for War would furnish Major Palliser with a serviceable platform and slide, so that that gentleman might be able satisfactorily to try whether the carriage would stand the recoil. If it did he could not understand what objection there could be to convert the guns. He should like to ask whether any private firm had been asked whether they could make the new 7-inch wrought-iron gun at anything like the price which it was supposed it would cost in the arsenal. He should be satisfied with the result of the debate if a fair trial were given of the 68-pounder carriage with the gun in question.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was not aware of the offer of any private firm that ever varied more than a few pounds from the price of the guns made in the arsenal. In reply to the other question, he begged to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had already told him that the experiments were not concluded. He had no objection to anything that would make those experiments as useful possible.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.