Lords Sitting of 9 February 1864

HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN reported Her Majesty's Most Gracious Answer to the Address, as follows:—
My Lords,
YOUR loyal and affectionate Address gives Me the truest Gratification.
I THANK you sincerely for your Congratulations on the Birth of the Prince, My Grandson, and for the renewed Assurances
302
of Loyalty and Attachment to My Person and Family with which they are accompanied.
My constant Desire is to promote the Welfare and Happiness of My faithful People.

CASE OF CAPTAIN WHYTE MELVILLE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that last Session he had called the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the claims of Captain Whyte Melville on the Government of Peru. The noble Earl then informed him that they had been referred for arbitration to the Senate of Hamburg. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) wished to know what progress the arbitration was making.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid that the last he had heard on the subject was at the end of December. It was then stated that the papers had been laid before the Senate of Hamburg, and had been referred to some very learned persons, who had not yet made their report.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—INTEGRITY OF THE DANISH MONARCHY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I have given notice to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) by a private note, that I would put a Question to him this evening with respect to the state of affairs in Denmark. I think I need make no apology for this course. Under the circumstances, we are not obliged to wait for the papers, which, in due course, the noble Earl will, no doubt, lay on the table; for really events succeed each other so hurriedly, the future becomes the present and the present the past, with such rapidity, that it is impossible for us to follow all those forms which are usual in these matters in a deliberative assembly. I think, too, that your Lordships will think I am justified in addressing a few words to you on this subject, inasmuch as it is my name which stands at the foot of this much discussed treaty. I wish to state to the House what took place then, inasmuch as in some of the Ministerial journals, supposed to carry great weight with them, statements have been made which misrepresent the real facts. When my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) came into office at the end of Feb-

  303
  ruary, 1852, the Foreign Office had been held by my noble Friend—not now present—the President of the Council (Earl Granville), who succeeded to Lord Palmerston on his retirement from office at the end of December. The whole of the negotiations which led to this treaty had been carried on by the Government of which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) was the head, and Lord Palmerston Foreign Secretary. All the negotiations with respect to the sense and text of the treaty had been concluded by the end of 1851, and little remained to Lord Granville but to arrange some of the details. A great deal has been said with respect to the Diet not having been consulted with regard to the treaty in the same manner as other Powers. It is fair to Lord Granville to say, that he did express an opinion that it would be better to get the assent of the Diet; but he was told, and it was constantly repeated to me afterwards, that a reference to the Diet would make the business interminable. Those were the words used; in fact, I have found them in my notes, both by Minister Bismark and Minister Manteuffel. The consequence was, that the idea was completely abandoned, the English Government saying that though they put it forward as a suggestion, they did not require it to be done. It then remained for me only to settle the question of the renunciation by the Duke of Augustenburg. It was evidently very desirable that this renunciation should be obtained, because it was evident that if the Duke renounced his claims for himself and his family, it would not be of such consequence to obtain the assent of the German Diet. On the 4th of May, four days before the treaty was signed in London, the Duke of Augustenburg agreed to terms. Minister Bismark, now the Prime Minister of Prussia, and who is responsible for all that is going on now, as far as Prussia is concerned, was the person who negotiated the arrangement with the Duke of Augustenburg, proposed conditions to him, and made himself and the King of Prussia arbitrators, as it were, on the question. The Duke of Augustenburg was to receive a large sum of money, equal to a sum of £350,000 English money, and in the name of himself and his family he agreed never again to molest the succession in Denmark, as regulated by the treaty. My Lords, I cannot conceive any agreement more solemn than that. Not only was the agreement signed, as many others are, but the Duke thanked
  304
  the English Government for the part which they had taken in getting that sum of money, for without us he never would have got it, and besides that he promised privately, as well as publicly, that he would maintain the treaty. The first instalment of that sum of money was paid, and I believe the others have been paid regularly at specified times. At that time and during our whole tenure of office we never heard a word of a protest from himself or from his son, the present claimant. The son was more than twenty-four years of age, and he was fully cognizant of what was taking place. If he had protested, or if he had made any objections to the conditions which were proposed to his father, he knew that that sum of money would never have been obtained. Something has been said and written by the noble Earl opposite, with respect to the King of Denmark not having fulfilled the pledges he had given. I agree with the noble Earl that the King of Denmark was bound, as a point of honour, to keep the pledges he then made, and I believe there will be found at the Foreign Office a despatch of mine to that effect. But what shall we say on the point of honour to the Duke of Augustenburg's son, after this sum of money had been conceded, setting fire to this combustible matter, and being, in fact, the first cause of the present stale of things? My Lord, that was the whole part which I took in the treaty. I have always considered it a most useful one in an European sense, and I have not changed my opinion. In 1858 my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) came into office again, and we found the Germans in a great state of excitement on this same question. The Danes did not seem extraordinarily sincere in keeping their promises, and there was a great deal of correspondence and conversation going on in Germany on the subject. During the summer of that year it became my duty to be in attendance on Her Majesty at Berlin; and I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that in all the conversations I had with leading persons there—some of them Ministers of other German States—I never allowed those conversations to pass without insisting, most distinctly, that any interference in Schleswig on these matters must be a European, and not merely a German question. I wrote, too, from Berlin to Mr. Seymour FitzGerald, who remained at the Foreign Office, desiring him to see the Austrian and Prussian Ambassadors, and

  305
  to impress that upon them. I never found any German statesman during the whole of Her Majesty's stay, pretending for a moment that Germany had any right to interfere in Schleswig on account of the matter in dispute. I am afraid Her Majesty's Government have allowed this to slide from a European question into a German question. It would appear from the latest accounts that the Danes have been defeated; and Schleswig is, I believe, occupied by the Austrians and the Prussians. Under these circumstances I wish to ask the noble Earl, opposite these questions, whether Her Majesty's Government have obtained any guarantee from Austria and Prussia that they will evacuate Schleswig as soon as the Constitution of November is withdrawn? I also wish to know from the noble Earl, whether, in the event of those Powers thinking their treaty obligations abrogated with regard to Denmark, they hold those obligations to be still valid with regard to the other parties to the treaty? I ask this question in consequence of some statements which have appeared in German newspapers, and which are supposed to have been made on something like official authority. Lastly, I wish to know, whether Her Majesty's Government hold Austria and Prussia still bound by their treaty with Great Britain to maintain the integrity of the Danish monarchy?
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think nobody can find fault with the noble Earl for explaining the part he took with reference to the Treaty of 1852; and I have never heard that any one ever blamed the noble Earl for his conduct with regard to this question while holding the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It seems to me that finding this great business of the treaty nearly completed, and finding, which I believe was the case, that almost every Power, if not every Power concerned, thought the treaty ought not to be referred to the German Diet, no one could blame the noble Earl for his part in the conduct of the negotiations. And it appears to me now, as it did at the time when the treaty was made, that it was one which, if duly observed, would be very useful in assisting to maintain the balance of power in Europe. The noble Earl has asked me two or three questions; but before I reply to them I must observe that he has taken an erroneous view when he says, Her Majesty's Government have allowed this affair of Schleswig-Holstein, from a European, to become a German question. On the
  306
  contrary, we always maintained, and I think it has hardly been denied by the most hot-headed partisan of the German Diet, that the question of Schleswig-Holstein must be considered an international question. Schleswig being no part of the German Confederation, any question of the obligations of Denmark towards Schleswig, must be considered as an international question, in which the other Powers of Europe have a right to take part. That being the case, the noble Earl asks me whether we have any guarantee that when the Constitution which was enacted in November last is repealed, Austria and Prussia, who have undertaken the invasion of Schleswig, will then leave that Duchy? In answer to that question, I have to say that we have received no guarantee from Austria and Prussia. With regard to the other question—whether the treaty is considered abrogated as regards the other Powers?—I must, in the first place, say I cannot consider that the treaty would be in any way abrogated by the state of war so far as regards the other Powers who signed it. It is quite impossible that a treaty which was made with France, Great Britain, Russia, and Sweden, would be abrogated as regards those Powers by war between Austria and Prussia on the one side, and Denmark on the other. No such argument has been put forward, but every analogy and every principle militate against the supposition. There is an analogous case—that of the treaty which was signed with the great Powers of Europe and the Ottoman Porte, in 1841, with respect to the opening of the Dardanelles. That treaty was signed by the different Powers who made it with Turkey alone, and with Turkey alone the ratifications were exchanged, as in this case of the Treaty of 1852 the ratifications were exchanged with Denmark alone; but the different Powers have held each other bound, towards one another as well as towards the Porte, to respect the treaty; and when in 1849 it was a question with respect to Her Majesty's fleet, which was alleged to have entered the Dardanelles and violated the treaty, the representative of Austria made a protest to the effect that such a proceeding was a violation of the engagement of 1841, that being an engagement made with several Powers. So much as to the general principle of the law of nations with regard to this case. But as I understand the answer which has been given to us by the representatives of Prussia and Austria,

  307
  these Powers admit that the Treaty of London is binding on them. I ought, perhaps, to refer to the occasion on which the question was asked of Prussia and Austria. It is reasonable, when any Power goes to war, that other Powers who may suppose themselves concerned in the result should ask the object of the war, for the purpose of seeing to what points the operations are to be limited, and whether any treaty may be affected by them. In that sense it was that the question of Her Majesty's Government was directed to be asked at Berlin with respect to the menaced invasion of Schleswig; and in the despatch written by M. de Bismark to Count Bernstorff on the 31st of January in answer to my question, and communicated to me on the 4th of February, it is stated—
  "The Government of the King, by basing on the stipulations of 1851–52 the rights which in concert with Austria it is proceeding to enforce upon Denmark, has by this very act recognized the principle of the integrity of the Danish monarchy as established by the transactions of 1851–52. The Government of the King, in proceeding to the occupation of Schleswig, do not intend to depart from this principle."
  The same statement is made by Count Rechberg on behalf of the Austrian Government in a despatch of the same date. Your Lordships will observe that those words were used at a time when it was intended by Prussia and Austria to invade the territory of Denmark. It was known that there was to be an invasion, and it was also perfectly well known that the Danish Government and the Danish army meant to resist the invasion; so that to say this was an assurance given in time of peace, and that it is rendered null and void by an act of war which took place the next day or so, would be simply ridiculous. An anonymous writer may put forward such statements, but to think that any Government could do so appears to me quite impossible. I may remark that in the despatches to which I have just referred the Prussian and Austrian Governments intimate, that in the event of certain contingencies named therein—namely, the persistence of the Danish Government in its refusal to accomplish its promises of 1852, or the armed intervention of other Powers in the Dano-German conflict—other demands might be made by Prussia and Austria; but at the present time we need not discuss what these demands might be, because those contingencies have not arisen. No doubt Austria and Prussia are deeply bound by the engagements of the Treaty of London;
  308
  and I should hold that, even in the event of those contingencies occurring, they would be bound towards the Powers who were parties with them in that treaty—to Great Britain, to France, to Russia, and to Sweden—to maintain and respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy. That I consider to be the effect of the declaration of Austria and Prussia, and certainly that is the opinion of the British Government. The noble Earl was understood to say, that with regard to the papers they would be produced, but he feared it would be some time before he could place them on the table.
  The EARL of DERBY: The answers given by the noble Earl to the questions of my noble friend have been clear and distinct, and on the whole satisfactory; but there was one point in the speech of my noble Friend near me which my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary omitted to go into as fully as I could have wished. I was sorry to hear the answer of the noble Earl, that Her Majesty's Government have not obtained any guarantee from Austria and Prussia that, on compliance with their demands on the Danish monarchy, they would withdraw from Schleswig. I repeat, I am sorry that Her Majesty's Government have not obtained such a guarantee; but I hope that their not having obtained it has not arisen from their not having asked it. I hope they have not only asked, but pressed for such a guarantee.
  EARL RUSSELL: Her Majesty's Government have not specially asked for a guarantee; but they have always assumed, that when the Constitution is repealed the Austrian and Prussian troops will evacuate Schleswig.
  Afterwards—
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Before this discussion closes I am anxious to ask a question of the noble Earl (Earl Russell) with reference to an expression in the course of his statement which was not, I think, wholly satisfactory. The noble Earl said that the correspondence with regard to the Danish Question could not be laid before Parliament for some time to come. I quite agree with my noble Friend who introduced this discussion, that one event succeeds another with such rapidity that very often these despatches are of little effect; but there is in the present case this reason why these papers should be produced with as little delay as possible, that the whole position of affairs is really determined by the statements made and the pledges given by the Government in these despatches.

  309
  What was the understanding in the House on the first night of the Session? The impression among your Lordships and in the country certainly was, that the Government, by interfering in these delicate negotiations, had brought such an amount of pressure to bear upon Denmark, that she had consented to make sacrifices and surrender points, both in a political and a military sense, which were of vital consequence to her; and that we were thus in honour and good faith bound to support Denmark against Germany. The noble Earl denied that such was the case. We were bound, of course, to accept the assurances which the noble Earl gave, and to wait for the production of the papers; but until those papers are produced, the House is placed in a very embarrassing position. Everything—the policy of the Government in the past and the position of the country in the future—depends upon the statements which the Government have made to Denmark, and the assurances they have given; and the contradictory and perplexing statements which go forth abroad—some official and some semi-official, sometimes affirming, sometimes denying the accuracy of what is said here—render no explanation satisfactory until we can see the papers. I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty in laying them before the House. It is not necessary that the correspondence should be entirely complete; but the House ought to be aware of what has taken place up to the present time. I understand that in another place a delay of three weeks is represented as necessary before the papers can be produced. Now, I really see no reason why there should be a delay so considerable. Our present position with regard to Germany must be determined by that which the Government have said and done; and until the papers are laid before Parliament we must remain ignorant of the position in which we stand.
  EARL RUSSELL: The difficulty in producing the papers is a very simple and a very ordinary one, and lies with the printer. Until it became clear that these negotiations would not end in peace, it was not judged advisable to prepare the papers for presentation. We have now, however, put the papers in the hands of the printer, and upon inquiring from him to-day what time they would take to print, he said that they could not be ready in less than three weeks.

UNITED STATES.—CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: There is another Question which I should like to put to the noble Earl, but, as I have given him no notice, I will either take his answer now, or repeat my Question on Thursday. The noble Earl, by the command of Her Majesty, has laid various papers on the table of the House, and, among others, the Correspondence with the Government of the Federal States of America on the subject of the Alabama. I have seen elsewhere that a considerable amount of correspondence has taken place upon an analogous subject—namely, the remonstrances made as to injuries apprehended or sustained by American commerce from vessels sailing from British ports. I wish to know, whether the Government are prepared to lay upon the table that correspondence as well as the despatches relating to the Alabama; and, further, whether they are prepared to produce any correspondence containing representations on the part of the Government of the apparent violation of the law by American cruisers in enforcing their rights, and also with respect to some very curious decisions which have been given by the Prize Courts of the United States?
  EARL RUSSELL: l can answer that Question better on Thursday; but if the noble Earl refers to any discussions with the American Government about the ironclads at Birkenhead, I can only say that as that matter is about to be brought before a court of law, I shall object to produce that correspondence. As the noble Earl has raised that question, I may mention that on the first night of the Session he referred to a despatch of the American Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, and expressed a hope that I had answered that despatch in becoming terms. Now, at the moment I did not remember having seen any such despatch: I find since that it was a despatch written by Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, but Mr. Adams never thought proper to lay that despatch before me; and therefore I was spared the difficulty and the pain of giving an appropriate answer to it.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I presume that it has now been laid before the noble Earl—because I see that a reference is made by Mr. Adams to the noble Earl as having received towards the latter end of August an answer to several despatches, among which he includes the despatch of

  311
  July 11, to which I referred. He could hardly have received such an answer if the despatch had not been presented.
  EARL RUSSELL: I certainly do not find among the papers the despatch of July 11, and Mr. Adams informed me expressly that he had received that despatch and did not hand it to me. That being so, I should not do so useless a thing as endeavour to get up a wrangle with Mr. Adams on a despatch which was never presented.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My reason for asking the question is, that the whole correspondence appears to have been laid before Congress.

RAILWAY SCHEMES (METROPOLIS).

  MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
  To acquaint this House, That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Members to join with a Committee of the Lords "to consider the best Method of" dealing with the Railway Schemes "proposed to be sanctioned within the Limits of" the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in "the present Session, and to report their" Opinion whether any, and, if any, what "Schemes should not be proceeded with "during the present Session;" and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to appoint an equal Number of Lords to be joined with the Members of the House of Commons.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) was unable, through indisposition, to be present this evening, but it was his noble Friend's intention on Thursday to move the appointment of a Committee to consider this subject.
  Ordered, "That the said Message do lie on the Table."

NAVY.—MARINE ARTILLERY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKErose to put a Question to the noble Lord the Secretary for War on the subject of our artillery. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's ships were supplied with any guns or projectiles capable of penetrating the sides of a ship armed with plates 4½ inches thick. He believed that was a question which had a most important bearing on the warlike resources of this country. Not many years ago it had been supposed that the substitution of the modern rifle for the old "Brown Bess" had
  312
  given to musketry so much power over artillery, as to present a most formidable obstacle to the working of guns in the field; and attention was earnestly directed to the question of increasing the range of cannon. A corresponding improvement was immediately afterwards made in artillery itself; and one gentleman in particular, the present Sir William Armstrong, produced a gun which seemed perfectly wonderful in the extent of its range and the precision of its aim. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) remembered the astonishment with which the first intelligence of Sir William Armstrong's invention had been received by the Government of which he (the Earl of Hardwicke) was a member. They immediately entered into negotiations with that gentleman for the purpose of obtaining the services of the inventor in the production and perfecting of the weapon. Those negotiations terminated in a manner which was considered most honourable to Sir William Armstrong, who entered the public service as the head of the department which presided over the manufacture of our artillery. His noble Friend, who was then at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby), and his noble Friend who was Secretary for War (General Peel), acted with great care and deliberation in conducting their negotiations with Sir William Armstrong, and in providing for the mode in which their views were to be carried into effect. They arranged that the manufacture of the new arm was to be confined to field pieces; and he believed that Sir William Armstrong's field piece was a very valuable weapon. His plan was so to confine the projectile as to give it a much greater range and much greater precision. His guns and his shells were constructed on a new principle, and he had undoubtedly produced a most beautiful weapon. But there started up almost at the same time an opponent to his guns, in the shape of iron-plated ships; and it appeared from experiment, that his artillery was ineffective against such vessels, and it was also found that the old 68-pounder was the best weapon that could be employed with any chance of smashing in their plates. Then appeared before the public another inventor, who produced a gun and projectile upon a principle totally different from the invention of Sir William Armstrong. He did not think the Government had done justice either to themselves or this inventor (Mr. Whitworth) in the course they had pursued towards that gentleman;

  313
  and it was not unnatural that it should be so, while they had at the head of their establishment the inventor of the Armstrong gun, and when a sum of, he believed, £2,500,000 had been expended upon the construction of artillery upon his principle. These guns, too, which were useless against iron-plated ships, had, he believed, been supplied to the navy as well as to the army. Mr. Whitworth, who had been well known since 1855 as an inventor of artillery, and who since 1857 had been under the necessity of protecting his inventions by patents, had found it impossible to get his experiments carried out as he desired; but he had been permitted to make certain experiments, and he had in no instance failed to show that he could penetrate iron-plated ships not only with shot but with shell; and thus by his invention the iron-plated ships became as vulnerable as the old wooden vessels had been. That fact alone ought to have earned for Mr. Whitworth a full inquiry on the part of the Government; and we might thus have been relieved from an enormous item in our recent expenditure. Experiments had been made with Mr. Whitworth's gun against the Trusty, which was one of the fleet of iron-plated vessels constructed for the defence of our harbours, and by those experiments the power of the gun to penetrate such a ship had been fully established. Sir William Armstrong's gun could not penetrate her sides, whereas Mr. Whitworth s shot went right through the hull, making a clean hole as though it had been punched. Since then experiments had been made at Shoeburyness, when Mr. Whitworth took down a gun, the results of which were marvellous, for every discharge sent the shot—the 70-pound shot as well as the 12-pound—through the target. Up to this time, he (the Earl of Hardwicke) had been speaking of solid projectiles; but he would now turn to what was still more astounding—he meant the shells. Sir William Armstrong, in 1862, at Sheffield, stated that shells had failed against iron-plated ships, and that neither 68-pounders nor 100-pounders, with solid round or conical shots, could be effective against them. The experiments against the Trusty were made in May, 1860, and therefore he (the Earl of Hardwicke) assumed that in those experiments no shells were fired. Subsequently, however, Mr. Whitworth's shells passed through the iron target as though they had been so much paper, and exploded, blowing the whole of the internal lining
  314
  into fragments. Having stated these facts, he asked why they were not investigated? They had here a distinguished inventor who had performed everything he had promised, or if he had failed in any instance, it was because he had to work with one of the old cast iron guns rifled for the purpose of the experiment by himself. And when he saw the condition of our ships, that they were not armed with guns that could effect anything against iron-plates, he was justified in asking for information on the subject. He believed that the Armstrong gun was inapplicable to sea service, and to the sort of firing that was required in action, for the machinery was too delicate—the vent-piece was so perfectly fitted for the purpose of preventing the escape of the gases—that the guns had almost invariably been useless for rapid firing after two or three discharges. Under these circumstances he had to put the question to his noble Friend opposite (Earl de Grey), because he thought it was time that the talents of inventors like Mr. Whitworth should be taken up seriously by the country, and the sooner such a gun-as that gentleman had shown he could make was brought into use the better. The question he (the Earl of Hardwicke) had to ask was, Whether Her Majesty's ships were supplied with any guns or projectiles that could at once penetrate a ship's side armed with plates 4½ inches thick of iron?
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that as his noble Friend's question immediately related to the navy, it might be more convenient that he should reply to it, having from the first been acquainted with and taken part in these experiments. When the present Government came into office, in 1859, they found a record in the department strongly approving and praising the gun of Sir William Armstrong, and several of his 40-pounders and 70-pounders had been ordered to be made. He was very anxious, and the same anxiety had been expressed in both Houses of Parliament, that the navy should be supplied with a rifled gun; he therefore communicated with the late Lord 'Herbert on the subject. A 70-pounder gun was sent to them in November, 1859. It was sent to sea under charge of Sir William Wiseman, who was to report upon its efficiency. It was put on board a vessel called the Wrangler, and the persons sent to watch its performance reported on their return from a week's cruise, that, in point of power, accuracy,

  315
  and, in short, every quality of a gun, the piece appeared to them to be excellent. This gun, though called a 70-pounder, had been provided by Sir William Armstrong with projectiles weighing 100 lbs., which had been fired with perfect safety. Accordingly, a certain number of very similar guns, which were to be 110-pounders, were ordered. In the meantime it was true, as the noble Earl had stated, that the question of armour-plate arose; and it was found when tried at Shoeburyness, that the gun of which the accuracy and power against wooden ships was tremendous had not sufficient power against iron plates. Neither the 68-pounder nor the 110-pounder could penetrate the iron plates. If anything, the 68-pounder struck the heavier blow. He then saw Mr. Whitworth, who said to him that he could produce a gun and projectile that should penetrate the iron plates. The projectile, he said, must be of a very peculiar manufacture, but it could be done. He accordingly communicated with Lord Herbert, who said he was most anxious to try the experiment. They went down the river to the Nore, and had the Trusty anchored 200 yards off. Mr. Whitworth was present. The gun was fired, and undoubtedly Mr. Whitworth's bolts went right into the vessel, two shots going clean through the armour plate and the side of the vessel, and had they gone on with two or three shots more they would have sunk the vessel. He proposed to Lord Herbert that they should buy that gun in order that further experiments might be tried. They paid Mr. Whitworth a large sum for it, and they continued to try various other experiments. The misfortune was that in some of their trials the gun was found to have a flaw, and eventually it burst. Still he was in hopes that they should have some more guns supplied. They frequently tried to obtain other guns from Mr. Whitworth. He could assure the noble Earl, so far from favouring any one manufacturer—Sir William Armstrong or any one else—they were only anxious to get a gun that would answer for the navy. Rather more than a year ago he had further communication with Mr. Whitworth, who said that he could produce a gun, but the difficulty was as to the material, to get homogeneous metal; for the gun used at Shoeburyness was not made by Mr. Whitworth but at the Royal factory at Woolwich, on the Armstrong plan of using coiled metal, it being found impossible to make it of homogeneous metal, as was required by
  316
  Mr. Whitworth. That gentleman's proposition was, that if he could get the homogeneous metal he could make the gun. He (the Duke of Somerset) was most anxious to have a fair trial of Mr. Whitworth's gun, and accordingly more than a year ago a Committee was appointed, and Mr. Whitworth expressed himself satisfied with the members of that Committee. They were to report on the comparative merits of the Whitworth and of the Armstrong guns. Although Mr. Whitworth expressed himself particularly satisfied with the Committee that was chosen, he had never produced the gun, and the Committee appointed to report on the experiments had not been able to meet because they had no gun to report on. He admitted that Mr. Whitworth's invention was very clever, and he had no favour for one inventor over another. All he wanted was a good gun, and if Mr. Whitworth offered one it should be tried. In the various trials of guns and of projectiles it has been proved that the power of penetrating iron-plates depends in great measure on the hardness of the projectile, for no sooner had the got a hardened projectile than not only Mr. Whitworth's but Sir William Armstrong's guns sent both shot and shell through the iron plates. Flat-headed answered no better than pointed projectiles, and the Iron-plate Committee had not reported that the flat-head to the shot was of the slightest importance to the projectile. They were still left in a great difficulty as regarded the navy, for although they had experimental 300-pounder and 150-poundcr guns, which would send projectiles through iron plates, they had no good broadside guns for the navy. He was anxious, therefore, to go further, and about a year ago he communicated with his noble Friend at the head of the War Department, and with his concurrence sent for Sir William Armstrong, and told him that while they were going on with their experiments and trying various schemes for rifling, which might occupy their attention for months, and it might be for years, the Admiralty would never get a gun; that they really wanted a plain gun in the meantime for the use of the navy, which they might charge with from 25lb. to 30lb. of powder—a gun of about six tons weight. Sir William Armstrong said that that could easily be furnished. Accordingly that gun was produced in September or October last, and the results were very satisfactory. The

  317
  practice made at from 1,000 to 1,200 yards was most accurate. At 2,600 yards the practice was still good, although inferior to that made by the rifled 110-pounder. As compared with the 68-pounder the interval between the rounds was only 15 seconds greater; the concussion between the decks did not appear to be objectionable; they found no difficulty in training the gun, and when tried in a gunboat it was as easily controlled as the 68-pounder. The gun was considered superior for service against iron-plated ships to any gun they had. They had a report from the gunnery ship that the smooth-bore 100-pounder, with a charge of 25 lb. of powder, penetrated through and through a 5½ inch iron plate with round shot at 200 yards. That showed, that after all the talk about punch-headed shot, what they wanted was a good, hard, solid shot that would shatter iron to splinters and go through the planking inside. The result, as far as it went, was perfectly satisfactory in regard to the broadside gun. A number of these guns had been ordered, and some of them would be delivered in a very few weeks. As there was no complexity in their construction, no breach-loading or rifling, they could be made very fast. At the same time that was not all that they wanted. They required a rifled gun of about the same weight, and this gun is also now made and ready for trial. When they got that they would see whether they gained any advantage by the rifled gun. One advantage they must lose was, that they must have a lower calibre for the elongated shot, and, instead of having a 9-inch bore, they would have one of about 7 inches. They had now got two guns of about the same weight, one smooth bore and one rifled, and after a trial of these two guns it will be ascertained which is fitted for a broadside gun. The greater nicety in the projectiles used for the rifled gun caused some delay; but he hoped in a few weeks to be able to give the House more precise details as to these experiments. The noble Lord would see that although the guns with which the navy was provided were no more than the 68-pounder and the 110 pounder of Sir William Arm strong, yet that they were in the way of making a gun which would answer broadside purposes, and also of getting a gun with rifling. He thought he had now explained the reasons for the slow progress in obtaining guns. The truth was that the whole question of the manufacture of iron
  318
  was now in a state of transition. Everyday they would see new experiments with guns and projectiles. What they wanted was a projectile that would go through iron plates at a reasonable cost. There were many qualities of iron, but they found that only the very best steel would pierce a plate satisfactorily. There was little doubt that in a short time they would be able to send spherical projectiles through iron-plated ships. But when the noble Earl said that wooden ships would therefore be as good as iron ones, he could not agree with him. He was afraid, that whatever they might do, they must still keep to iron-plated vessels; because, although shots might pass through them, yet the inevitable destruction of wooden ships by shells would be such that warfare by such ships against ironclads properly armed would be out of the question. Therefore, while they were increasing the force of their guns, they must also increase the strength of their ship's sides. The last specimen of a ship's side which they had was very considerably stronger than those they had before; and he hoped that the vessels so constructed would be able to go to sea, and keep the sea in all weathers. He thought, then, that they had made all the progress in their power. He was sure that no pains had been spared to do so. The subject was naturally an interesting one, and no one could take it up without desiring to see the progress made in it. Many highly intelligent minds were engaged upon it, and were continually sending in new inventions; and although the Government were so overrun with new projects that if they attended to them all endless delay would ensue, they, nevertheless, desired not to overlook any valuable practical improvement.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE,in reply, said, he thought that what had fallen from the noble Duke had admitted all that he (the Earl of Hardwicke) had stated in his opening remarks. It really appeared that Mr. Whitworth had long since succeeded in doing all that the noble Duke was about to do with his gun. In Mr. Whitworth they had a man who could produce a weapon and a projectile to penetrate a 4½ in, iron plate, and though they saw the effect of his shot and shell, the Government declined to employ him. The noble Duke had himself turned inventor, and found a smooth-bore gun which sent a spherical shot through an iron-plate. But Mr. Whit-worth's projectile was one of a most wonderful description, and with a raking broad-

  319
  side against an iron-cased ship it would be almost as effective as against a wooden one. The noble Duke concluded by stating that all these things had to be tried, and he would therefore earnestly caution the Government against putting into the broadside of a ship a gun weighing six tons, for if he did, those on board would never forget it when they came to work such a gun in a sea. Their Lordships would observe that his question had brought out an important fact—namely, that at the present moment, notwithstanding an enormous expenditure continued during ten years, the Royal Navy was not provided with a single gun capable of penetrating an iron-plated ship.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he thought the noble Earl had somewhat misrepresented the relations between the Government and Mr. Whitworth. The facts of the case were these:—At an early period, as their Lordships had been informed, the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty put himself in communication with Mr. Whitworth, and after the successful experiments with his gun against the Trusty, the gun was purchased by Government, and further experiments tried with it in 1862. Other experiments were subsequently made with other guns. The most remarkable of these took place at Shoeburyness in September, 1863, when Mr. Whitworth threw his shells through the Warrior target. Almost immediately after that experiment, the communication between the Government and Mr. Whitworth still continuing, it was proposed by the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty and the late Sir George Lewis, that a fresh Committee, composed of persons who had not dealt with the question previously, and against whom Mr. Whitworth could urge no objection on the score of prejudice, should be appointed to consider the relative merits of the Armstrong and Whitworth guns. Concurrent trials between the two guns had previously been proposed to Mr. Whitworth at different periods, but he had invariably objected either to the programme which had been proposed, or to the Committee to which the inquiry was to be intrusted. His real objection was that he did not like the Committee, because he thought some of its members were persons who had approved the Armstrong gun originally, and were committed either by that approval or by subsequent inquiries in favour of the Armstrong gun. In order to meet that objection it was determined, as he had already said, to appoint a fresh
  320
  Committee. A personal friend of Mr. Whitworth was added to the Committee; another person was appointed to represent Sir William Armstrong; the instructions to the Committee after careful consideration were shown both to Sir William Armstrong and to Mr. Whitworth; and at length the Committee was formally constituted on the 1st of January, 1863. It commenced by taking evidence. That employed it for about three months; but in the meantime it ordered a certain number of guns from each competitor. The guns so ordered were 12-pounders and 70-pounders. After a time the 12-pounders were delivered, but Mr. Whitworth's 70-pounders had not been sent in yet; and from the time when it closed its evidence the Committee had done nothing except repeatedly calling upon Mr. Whitworth to produce his 70-pounders. That was the reason why the inquiry had been stopped. He wished to speak most fairly upon this subject. The reason alleged by Mr. Whitworth for the non-delivery of the guns was the difficulty in obtaining the proper quality of steel which he required. The Committee was appointed by the Government, and instead of its being owing to any delay on the part of the Government that the invention of Mr. Whitworth had not been completely and fairly examined, the delay was with Mr. Whitworth in not bringing forward his 70-pounders. He could assure their Lordships that there was not the slightest disinclination on the part of the Government to inquire fairly into he inventions of Mr. Whitworth. The intventions of so eminent a man of science were mostly worthy of examination; but the Government could not proceed hastily or rashly in such a matter, and all they wished was that Mr. Whitworth would produce his gun in order that it might be fairly tried.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Standing Order Committee on, appointed,
  The Lords following, together with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—Ld. President, D. Somerset, M. Winchester, M. Bath, M. Ailesbury, L. Steward, E. Devon, E. Airlie, E. Hardwicke, E. Carnarvon, E. Romney, E. Chichester, E. Powis, E. Verulam, E. De Grey, E. Stradbroke, E. Amherst, L. Chamberlain, V. Eversley, L. Camoys, L. Saye and Sele, L. Colville of Culross, L. Ponsonby, L. Wycombe, L. Sondes, L. Foley, L. Dinevor, L. Wodehouse, L. Sheffield, L. Colchester, L. Sil-chester, L. De Tabley, L. Wynford, L. Portman, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Aveland, L. Belper, L. Ebury, L. Churston, L. Egerton.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.