Lords Sitting of 30 April 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Seal Fishery (Greenland) * (80); Pollution of Rivers (81).
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (64).
Select Committee—Report—Church Patronage (Scotland) (78).
Report—Church Patronage * (12–79).
Third Reading—Indian Legislation * (59); Justices of the Peace Qualification * (72), and passed.

NAVAL ORDNANCE—BREECH-LOADERS AND MUZZLE-LOADERS.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving for a Return relative to the different classes of guns and projectiles in use in the Navy, said, that the question of our naval artillery was one of the most important that could be considered—it in-

  1865
  volved the efficiency of our ships for the purposes of naval war; for whatever use might be made in the future of rams or torpedoes the main strength of a ship of war must rest in her guns. We had now in use in the Navy guns of various sizes—some of enormous weight and great size. We had no longer ships of 80, 100, and 120 guns with armament of comparatively small calibre: our ships now carried but few guns; and this being the case, those ought to be the best possible weapons that mechanical science could produce. To carry such weapons our ships had to be of a very large tonnage. Thus the Hercules was a ship of 8,000 tons, though she carried only 16 guns, but eight of them were of 18 tons weight and were 15 feet in length. It was not very long since guns of 8 and 12 tons were regarded as very heavy naval artillery; but we had now 18-ton guns, 25-ton guns, 35-ton guns, and he believed that a gun of 80 tons was now in course of construction. In proportion to the weight of those guns was their length, so that we should have guns 28 feet in length. This was an element which could not be lost sight of in the consideration of this question, because the size of the gun governed the size of the ship; and when any ship was about to be constructed, the Constructor must know the description of gun she was intended to carry. Whether she was to be a turret or a broadside ship she must be adapted to the size of her guns. The advantage of a long gun appeared to be that it burnt a greater quantity of powder. Now, when a gun was a muzzle-loader it had to be carefully sponged out to prevent accident, and in the case of a gun of even 18 or 20 feet that must be a very difficult operation. It was one of the great difficulties to be contended with in the use of muzzle-loaders. Again, the enormous length of the gun involved great weight on the upper part of the ship, and to compensate for this a great weight of ballast must be placed in the bottom part. Those were difficulties which had arisen with the improvements in naval artillery. But to come to a point on which he wished to direct the earnest attention of their Lordships—the advantages of breech-loading guns. The House would remember that in 1860 the Admiralty of that day made a trial of breech-loading guns on the Armstrong principle. Owing to the failure
  1866
  of that experiment, the breech-loading system in our heavy guns was abandoned, and the guns with which our ships were furnished were muzzle-loaders. Sir William Armstrong was a very clever man, and he produced a very clever gun; but it was found on experiment that the vents of his breech-loaders were apt to fly out, and the consequence was that breech-loaders had been entirely discarded in the Navy. There could be no doubt that the Armstrong breechloader had the defect which he had just mentioned; but because we had discarded this gun it ought not to be supposed that the breech-loading system had been discredited. On the contrary, if we could get a good breech-loading gun, which would not be more liable to accident than the muzzle-loader, undoubtedly it would be the gun for our Navy. It possessed various advantages over the muzzle-loader. As the breechloader had a powder chamber larger than the rest of the bore, you could put in more powder. In the muzzle-loading gun you had to limit the size of your cartridge to that of the bore. In the breech-loader you could put in a cartridge larger than the bore. You put in your shot first, and your powder after. In the next place, the men working breech-loaders were much less exposed than those working muzzle-loaders. Next, the breech-loader need not be drawn in for loading; but the muzzle-loader must be drawn in: and when they were drawn in, the ports must be shut: otherwise, men and ship might be exposed to a very dangerous fire from the enemy, because there could not be a better bull's-eye than an open port. Then, while the men were loading they were in comparative darkness owing to the port being closed. It was difficult for the gunners to make a good shot immediately the port was opened and the gun was turned out after they bad been in such bad light just before. When men were exposed to a close fire there was the danger of their getting into confusion and not serving the guns properly. Such an occurrence was experienced in the engagement on the Adriatic between the Italians and the Austrians. The musketry fire so disorganized the sailors that the officers had to come forward and load the guns. There was a further danger in muzzle-loaders of the premature explosion of the car-

  1867
  tridge, as was pointed out by the Manual of Artillery, which could only be obviated by the embarrassing process in action of careful sponging after firing: while this inconvenience was altogether obviated by the use of the breechloader. The "Manual" further stated that the breech-loader had the further advantage of saving the men from the noxious effects of the gas felt in the case of muzzle-loaders. Another and decided advantage in the breech-loader was that you could see any small crevice or other defect in the inside of the gun. Their Lordships knew that to be so in the case of breech-loading fowling-pieces, and it was the same with breech-loading large guns. He need scarcely point out the advantages possessed by the breech-loaders over the muzzle-loaders for gunboats and steam launches, such as were sent up the rivers in Africa, keeping the men under shelter, whereas they would be fully exposed to fire with the muzzle-loader. What, then, was the objection to breech-loaders? As he had already stated, they had been objected to on the score of strength; but he believed that they could be made as strong as they were required to be; and this seemed to be the opinion of Continental nations. It was now shown that we were no longer confined to the old description of steel. Steel could now be made of any strength and of various degrees of hardness and ductility. What he said, therefore, was that the Government should make experiments with breechloaders. It was better to try any necessary experiments in time of peace than to be found behind other nations in a time of war. His advice to the Government was to have a certain number of guns made of Whitworth's steel—let them try some of these guns to destruction, in order to test whether they burst explosively. Then as to the projectiles, the projectiles now in use, they were of composite materials, and the studs were found to tear away in the rifling, and to be scattered at the muzzle of the gun to the great danger of the troops. After a sufficient number of trials in firing, the best metal for guns would easily be ascertained. Another important point in favour of the breech-loader was, that you need not place any limit on the length of the gun, whereas with the muzzle-loader the contrary was the case. It was asserted in favour of the muzzle-loader that the pro-
  1868
  jectiles had the greater velocity; but in naval guns and projectiles great power of penetration was required as well as velocity. Accuracy of fire was another requirement, and so also was facility of loading. Then you wanted a low trajectory. Shot and shell which flew with a low trajectory were much superior for chasing purposes at sea, where distances were not known; and, as had been stated by engineers of authority, if you made a projectile of iron and then bored holes in it, obviously it would be a much weaker projectile than one made of steel. Perhaps he might be asked why it was that, holding as he did such views, he had not himself ordered the construction of some breech-loader guns when he was in office. His answer to that was that he did order some Whitworth guns; but the Administration which followed him had not carried out his idea. He was not satisfied with the metal of which guns were now made. Why were they not wholly, instead of partially, made of the best steel? What they ought to aim at was a gun which would carry a larger charge of powder, which would give greater accuracy of fire, which would allow of greater speed in loading, and which would finally afford a low trajectory. These being his views, he was extremely anxious that some experiments should be made with breech-loaders. He remembered when military men said that we could not have a small-bore rifle for the service; but Sir Joseph Whitworth had proved that a very efficient weapon of that description could be made, and it had been adopted by France, Russia, Prussia, and, indeed, generally throughout Europe. He was not to be understood as pledging himself to any particular make of large gun; but he did venture to predict that breechloaders would become essential to the Navy, and therefore he felt no doubt that we ought to try them without delay. As he had said in the beginning, the reputation and the efficiency of our Navy depended on the guns with which our ships were furnished, and therefore he thought the Government should not rest content with an old system which some of the greatest and most warlike nations had abandoned in favour of what he believed to be a much better one.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—

  1869
  "Return of the different classes of guns now in use in the Navy; stating the various sizes of bore and the pitch of rifling whether of uniform or of increasing spiral; stating also in each class of gun the number of rifled grooves.
  "Return of the various projectiles, stating their weights and lengths, with the number of studs and the bursting charge of each hollow projectile."—(The Duke of Somerset)
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I shall begin by saying that there is no objection to the production of the Papers for which the noble Duke has just moved; but I would ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few minutes while I make some observations on what the noble Duke has said in reference to the important points on which he has addressed your Lordships. In doing so, I shall confine myself entirely to naval guns, and shall not touch upon the subject as it affects the Army, for I see present several officers of the Army—including the illustrious Duke—who are more competent to speak on the military aspect of the question. Before, however, I come to the main subject, I will explain one matter to which the noble Duke has alluded. As I understood the noble Duke, he rather complains that the Government of Lord Derby in 1866 did not follow up his example in respect of experiments with breech-loading guns for the Navy. Now, as to that I believe I am correct in saying that the Armstrong breechloaders had turned out such a complete failure and had proved to be so dangerous to those who served them, in consequence of the weakness of the breech and the flying out of the vent-pieces, that the breech-loading system was given up. No doubt that arose, in some degree, from a feeling of certainty that in point of strength the muzzle-loaders were good while the breechloaders had shown themselves to be bad. "We had not at that time the experience of which we have now the advantage. The whole question might now be re-considered again with the light of the experience we have had since 1866. I need not attempt to give your Lordships a lecture on gunnery. You know that small-bore rifles have been adopted for fowling-pieces and that they are now used in the Army. You know also that a muzzle-loader is strongest in the breech, and that a breech-loader is weakest in that part. In 1866 the
  1870
  difficulty appeared to be that Sir William Armstrong had not discovered a metal strong enough to make his breech-piece. He proposed to strengthen the breech by an additional quantity of metal; but that plan added so much to the weight that it was rejected. If I were asked what is the general opinion as to the comparative merits of the breech-loader and the muzzle-loader, I must confess that the majority of opinions are in favour of the breech-loader if you can make the breech strong enough. If this can be effected, the superiority of the breechloader over the muzzle-loader can hardly, I think, be disputed. The noble Duke has told us of the advantages of the breech-loader—they will commend themselves to every sportsman. Many of your Lordships who know something of deer stalking will be able to appreciate the advantage of being able to load without standing up and making yourself a very visible object. That advantage holds good aboard ship. Guns have now grown to such immense size and weight that if they are to be moved about a ship of war will have to be made as large as Noah's Ark. Hence there is a great objection to muzzle-loaders, for it is a difficult problem how they can best be loaded. Your Lordships are aware that there is an invention for loading guns on board ship by means of hydraulic machinery; but great doubt is entertained as to whether it will answer. It is accompanied by considerable danger, for when it is used the gun has to be depressed 30 or 40 degrees after it is turned in from the front. If any accident occurred to cause a gun to go off while at such an angle of depression, the charge would go through the bottom of the ship. Many trials with the hydraulic machinery must be made, and made very carefully, before the Admiralty can think of adopting it. As to the strength which can now be imparted to breech-loading guns, Sir Joseph Whitworth has discovered a description of compressed steel by which it is said he can so fortify the breeches of guns as that all fear of accidents will be effectually removed. If that is so, we shall no doubt do what other nations have done already, and adopt the breech-loader. At the same time, my Lords, it must be remembered that experiments with large guns are very costly. Already this country has laid out £4,000,000, and

  1871
  therefore we must not rush too hastily to give up one system and adopt another. I quite agree with the noble Duke that the proper time to make experiments is during peace and not to wait until war has been declared. My noble Friend admits that all that can be expected of us in such a case is to proceed by experiment. Of course, it is a strong fact that other leading nations—and among them those nations which are absorbed in warlike preparations—have adopted the breech-loader. It is not likely that they should be mistaken in such an important matter. I know it has been said that Krupp's guns failed very often during the Franco-German War: but I was told by two French officers that such was not the case. They said that those guns did not fail till they got into French hands. The French took certain Krupp guns from the Bavarians, and did not know how to manage them, and accordingly those guns failed in French hands. That was the account given me by those French officers, though what they said told rather against their own artillerymen. In Prussia and France breech-loaders have been adopted, they have found their way even to Brazil. All that is very strong in favour of breech-loaders, and, therefore, with respect to this controversy, I hope that neither the noble Duke nor any other noble Lord will suppose that the Government regard the matter as settled. The Government will continue to watch the trials that are being made with the view of adopting, without prejudice, whatever might prove to be the best artillery for the country.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, that when Sir William Armstrong's breech-loader was tried we thought that the strongest powder we could procure was the best: but that was quite wrong in the case of breech-loaders—the strong powder blew the breech-piece out and burst the gun, against which, accordingly, there was a condemnatory report. Foreign nations, knowing the reason why we had given up the breech-loading gun, did not hesitate to adopt it. Since then there had been actual experience of its working in time of war, and those nations found that with them the breech-piece never blew out or burst the gun. Great strength of powder was not required for the breech-loader. What you wanted was that the breech should
  1872
  be strong enough for the little powder required to move the shot. After that the charge of powder should gradually burn itself out. The fact was we had not taken time to properly consider the subject. He believed it would be found that Krupp's guns and other guns made of steel had burst, but that the breech-pieces were perfectly secure. Such a thing as the breech-piece being blown out of one of them was unknown. The breech-loader was now almost a perfect weapon. He was very glad to hear from his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) that the Government did not regard the matter as settled and that they intended to make further experiments. If we were going to have guns of 26 and 30 feet long aboard our ships, it would be impossible to handle them as broadside guns if they were muzzle-loaders.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I agree with my noble Friends who have spoken on the subject that it is one of great importance. It is a delicate subject also, and, undoubtedly, it is one that very much concerns our Navy. Now, in the first place, I may remind your Lordships that it was the naval authorities who especially objected to the Armstrong breech-loader. I must say that when the matter was first brought under my notice the leaning of my mind was in favour of the breech-loader—because there must be greater difficulties in loading a muzzle-loading gun at sea than exist on shore—and I thought that if ever it was brought into use it certainly would be the gun for the Navy. I was therefore surprised to find such a strong feeling against it in the minds of naval men. At the same time, I am quite aware of the cause which gave rise to that feeling—namely, that in the Armstrong gun which was tried, the vent-piece became detached from the gun, and, if great care were not used, would blow out—which might be a very serious occurrence on board ship. Indeed, we know there was an instance in which the flying away of the vent caused such results that a ship's deck was almost blown away. That was the ground on which the breech-loading gun was rejected. But the misfortune was that we ran from one extreme to the other. Because the Armstrong breech-loader was not found to be the best gun, the muzzle-loader was adopted. I have not

  1873
  a word to say against the present muzzle-loading guns as muzzle-loaders. I believe that as muzzle-loading guns they are as good as can be had. The experiments made show that we have no reason to be dissatisfied with them; but that is no reason why we should not try whether a breech-loading gun of a better construction than the one condemned cannot be produced. There is no reason why we should not make experiments in that direction. I do not, therefore, wonder to find that though at one time there was in the Navy a great dislike to the breech-loader, there is now a considerable body of officers who think that its adoption would be a great advantage. There is, however, one consideration which must not be omitted, and that is the question of expense. I am the last person to say that expense should not be incurred for such an important object as the one here in view. If it is essential that experiments should be made for the purpose of testing the breech-loading gun, there is no good reason why those experiments should be left untried because of the expense they would entail; but, at the same time, there is no reason why we should rush headlong to the adoption of the breech-loading guns, or to the adoption of every description of weapon or projectile which may for the time seem to meet with general favour. This would entail expense which would not meet with public approval, and therefore I say we ought to proceed with the greatest possible caution. What I understand my noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury), on the part of the Government, to say is, that there is no objection to experiments being made. And here I may remark that we are very generous with our experiments. We make them known to all the world—though our action in that respect does not always meet with reciprocity. We make trials at great expense, and we make known to the world at large what we have done, with all its results. Our friends and neighbours take advantage of all that we do; but sometimes, certainly, without the reciprocity which might be expected. Under these circumstances, we ought to be careful how we spend our money in large and costly experiments. That somewhat alarms me; but, with that reservation, I think it would be a great misfortune if the present Government, or any Government,
  1874
  were to say that it would not try a system, of the advantages of which so much is said as we have heard in favour of the breech-loading gun. I repeat, that I was not one of those who had so strong an aversion against the Armstrong gun as to set myself against breech-loaders—I was surprised at those who took so strong a view in opposition to the breech-loading guns—but I am not an artillerist, and I may have been wrong and they right. I think, my Lords, that when we find that Continental nations are adhering to the breech-loading guns, after having made a trial of them in the field, we must feel that to a certain extent we have retrograded in going back to muzzle-loaders. At all events, we should not be startled with the idea of having to adopt breech-loaders. My noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Lauderdale), as I understood him, said there had been no accidents to breech-loading guns in actual service. That may be correct as regards naval guns; but it is not so as regards guns brought into the field. It is difficult to get correct statistics on such points; but I believe that a large number of breech-loading guns—not fewer than some 200—became disabled during the Franco-German War. I have thought it right, my Lords, to make these few remarks, the more especially because it is well known that in my individual capacity I never was an advocate for giving up breech-loaders, but have shown myself to be in favour of breech-loading rather than of muzzle-loading guns.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEwished to explain that he had not said there were no instances in which breech-loading guns had burst while in use in the field. What he had said was that there was no instance in which the breech-piece had been blown out.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I think there is one point, my Lords, upon which noble Lords on whatever side they may sit will concur, and that is, that it is the duty of every Government, no matter of whom it may be composed, to see that this country is furnished with the best arms and equipments that can possibly be discovered. And I can assure the noble Duke who brought forward this Motion (the Duke of Somerset) that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War not to lose sight of the necessity of this country

  1875
  being armed in the most perfect manner. I beg to state, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that he is by no means wedded to any one system over another, and that whatever system may be shown to be most perfect, he holds that that should be adopted by this country. And here I should like to offer a few remarks in consequence of what fell from the noble Duke opposite and my noble and gallant Friend on the cross-benches (the Earl of Lauderdale). In the first place, as to what my noble Friend stated about the breech-piece being now so strengthened that it does not blow off, I do not know where he has got his information. But the information received from foreign countries by the Secretary of State for War is to the effect that accidents, and very severe accidents, are constantly occurring. Of course, as they have occurred in foreign countries, it is impossible, as the illustrious Duke stated, to give the details in a Parliamentary Return. But the authorities of the War Office are by no means asleep. Indeed, they are now quite alive to everything in connection with this subject that occurs in foreign countries. And when I say "now," I do not mean the present authorities as distinguished from those of former years; for I believe it has for many years been the practice to obtain by means of distinguished officers every information possible from abroad with a view to the production of a better arm than we have at this moment. With regard to the Woolwich system, that was introduced in consequence of the great objection entertained by the officers of the Navy to the guns before in use. And when the noble Duke talks of those guns being now safe, I believe that on one occasion the breech-piece blew off and was found on the mizentop of the ship—a place where one would not be likely to look for it. And then it is to be remembered that in 25-ton guns the breech-piece alone weighs a ton, and the projectile cannot be put into the gun except by machinery; whereas you can load a big muzzle-loader in a shorter time than a breechloader of the same calibre. Therefore, if speed of firing is necessary, that, at all events, is a great advantage in the muzzle-loading as compared with the breech-loading gun. And here I wish to state on behalf of a very distinguished officer, the Director General of Artillery,
  1876
  Sir John Adye, that the system which now prevails is not his system. He found it in operation when he came from India, and he thought it his duty to carry out the system in operation at Woolwich, and to bring it to the greatest state of perfection in his power. The question of cost, too, is not to be lost sight of, the muzzle-loading gun being much cheaper. Of course, where the defence of the country is concerned we ought to disregard cost; but until persons of authority are agreed that the breech-loading is better than the muzzle-loading gun, the question of expense ought not to be put out of sight. Then as to the opinion of the Navy on this subject—that opinion has been thoroughly considered by the War Department, because of those Committees which sit from time to time to consider the question of guns distinguished naval officers invariably form a part, and the result of the deliberations has been come to with their entire sanction and approval. The noble Duke said that with a breechloader you had nothing to do but to look down into it; but that with our present guns you could not see whether they were likely to burst or not. But I can tell the noble Duke there never has been an explosion with any of our guns, and if there were a tendency in the gun to burst, from the way in which it is constructed you would be able to detect it. It would not be right, my Lords, for me to detain you any longer; but I beg to repeat on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that he is perfectly alive to all that is doing in foreign countries. I do not take any credit to my right hon. Friend, for the system adopted at Woolwich is the same as that which was adopted by the noble Lord opposite (viscount Card-well), who is as patriotic in his desire to keep up the Artillery of this country at the highest point possible to attain as anyone can be. We have now spent about £4,000,000 on guns for the Navy, and a very small number only is required to furnish the service completely. That is a large sum; but still my right hon. Friend has not lost sight of the fact that with the increased knowledge we have of the manufacture of guns it may be advisable to make breech-loading guns. But whatever he does he will do with a view to the benefit and the safety of the country.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that these discussions had this great advantage—that they gave an opportunity for contact between two classes of opinions—the opinions of persons who were content to criticize our artillery from outside, and the opinions of those who had been connected in one capacity or another with the Administration, and who necessarily approached the subject with somewhat different feelings as regarded responsibility. He did not intend to include the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) among the critics to whom he had referred, because no one had a greater knowledge of the subject from an administrative point of view. But he would venture to remind their Lordships that if there was one conclusion more than another which had forced itself upon those who had had official connection with these matters, it was the extreme danger of perpetually introducing change in the armaments of this country. Change meant transition from one state of things to another, and a period of transition was a period of weakness. The conclusion which led the late Government to adopt what was known as the Woolwich system had been arrived at after great deliberation and with good reason. Prom 1864 to 1870 scarcely a year passed in which some Committee did not sit to inquire into the relative merits of breech-loading and muzzle-loading guns; and he was not overstating the case when he told their Lordships that, without almost a single exception, those inquiries resulted in an unanimous opinion in favour of the muzzle-loading system. He wished to ask whether anything had occurred since the muzzle-loading system had been adopted for field guns and heavy guns which ought to shake our confidence in them, and whether there was anything in the armaments of foreign countries which should lead us to distrust our own? There were two or three propositions which he thought might be advanced even by anyone unacquainted with the technical details of this subject. The first was that no change should be made from the existing state of things to one which did not exist merely for the sake of a very trifling advantage. The loss of power which would take place while the change was being effected in nine cases out of ten outweighed the ultimate ad-
  1878
  vantage to be gained. Another general proposition which might be laid down was that a few years' experience in service was of great deal more value than the experience which resulted from any series of experiments at Shoeburyness or elsewhere. In the case of the guns in the Army and Navy, they had the experience of a considerable number of years—an experience which he ventured to think was, on the whole, favourable. A third proposition which he should venture to offer was that of two guns equal in all other respects, in power of penetration and in accuracy and rapidity of fire—one of them a muzzle-loading gun and the other a breech-loading gun—the presumption was in favour of the muzzle-loading one. What did the noble Duke behind him (the Duke of Somerset) tell them when dealing with projectiles? He said that composite projectiles were inferior to solid ones; and this was not less true of the gun from which the projectile was fired. A muzzle-loading gun was solid, the breech-loader was composite; and the difference was between solidity and mechanical union. This was especially true with regard to the colossal pieces now constructed for the defence of the country. In the case of these, the complication of the mechanism of a breech-loader seemed to him to offer an almost conclusive argument in favour of the opposed system. They had got guns with which the War Department was not dissatisfied. The field gun, in point of simplicity, gave the greatest possible satisfaction. They had heard rumours of a new field gun tried by Prussia, but Prussia had been endeavouring to obtain as good a gun as this country had already got. As to heavy guns, they had arrived at an 81-ton gun, and he had yet to learn that any other country had, or was likely to have, anything approaching to this. Now that the Navy was completely armed and the field batteries were also complete, he hoped the Government would not attempt any unsettling change without great consideration. The Lord Privy Seal had reminded the House that a number of accidents befell the French gunners who worked the Krupp guns taken from the Bavarians, and that these accidents might fairly be attributed to the inexperience of the French gunners. What would happen in the event of this

  1879
  country going to war? The Artillery-Reserve would be called upon, he presumed, to fill up the gaps, and as they would have to handle guns of a complicated nature, accidents might be expected, as in the case of the French gunners called upon suddenly to handle the Krupp guns. He hoped the Government would proceed with great care in this matter, and that while fully informed with regard to the proceedings of foreign artillerists, they would hesitate to derange the national armaments by any new changes merely because those changes were being adopted by others.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEobserved, that it must be borne in mind that it was only after a long series of careful and costly experiments that they had arrived at the conclusion that for heavy ordnance muzzle-loading was superior to breech-loading. There were, it was true, objections to muzzle-loading that did not exist in breech-loading guns; the shot could not fit so tight, and not being fairly centred it wobbled as it left the bore, and the accuracy was impaired. Again, the rush of gas above the shot was so great that after only 150 rounds had been fired the gun had to be turned over and revented. That objection, however, had been overcome by the use of a gas check, which was a disc of copper screwed to the base of the shot, which effectually prevented the rush of gas, and the consequent scoring of the gun; while at the same time the shot was fairly centred, the accuracy, range, and the initial velocity was increased, and the stress upon the chamber was not increased at all; while, at the same time, the rear or bearing stud, which before the use of the gas check was very much worn by friction during the passage of the shot through the bore of the gun, was found now to be scarcely rubbed. An objection urged against muzzle-loading guns, as compared with those loading at the breech, was that while the latter might be increased to any length, the former could not, on account of the difficulty of loading; and, also, that the crew of a gun loaded at the muzzle must always be much exposed, especially when loading. That objection had been met by a very clever and simple contrivance, invented by Sir William Armstrong, by which the gun was loaded by hydraulic power. The turret was turned round
  1880
  until opposite an hydraulic rammer, the gun was depressed to an angle of three degrees, and the sponge forced home; when it reached the bottom of the bore it ejected a certain quantity of water, sluicing the chamber, and effectually extinguishing any fire that might be left. The shot was then raised by mechanical means outside the turret, rammed home, and the turret revolved into its fighting position; and it was obvious that in the handling of projectiles of the enormous weight now in use it was much safer to do so—especially in a sea way—outside the turret than inside, and among the gun's crew; while, at the same time, the crew were not exposed, owing to the protection afforded by the armour-plated shield of the hydraulic rammer covering the port while loading. It was said that the muzzle-loader had not the rapidity that was desirable. They had no means of comparing the rapidity of fire of heavy ordnance with that of the guns of foreign Powers; but he thought it would be interesting to their Lordships if he told them what he knew of the rapidity of firing of muzzle-loading guns. The 18-ton guns of the Sultan fired eight rounds in 9½ minutes, and the 12-ton guns of the Iron Duke fired eight rounds in 5 minutes. He thought that result was most satisfactory. Moreover, every one of these shots would have hit a ship at 1,200 yards. He believed that some of the guns on the German ships had burst, and, he believed that not long ago one gun had burst, killing two officers and the whole gun's crew. Some of the French guns also burst; but in this country they had not had a single accident by which a gun or a man was in the slightest degree hurt. The Americans, Denmark, and Italy, all preferred the muzzle-loading guns; indeed, the latter-named country was building two frigates in Italy, to be protected with 22 inches of iron, and to be armed with guns of 100 tons each, and these guns were to load at the muzzle, and would be the heaviest guns in the world. He thought that the Whitworth, or other breech-loading guns, might in many cases be of greater use than the guns loaded at the muzzle, and that especially so in boats. He was glad that further experiments were to be made with that description of gun, as he did not wish it to be inferred that he was a blind advocate of muzzle-loading. But

  1881
  what he did contend was, that so far as experience had taught them, they were fully justified in adhering to the muzzle-loading system for heavy ordnance, in preference to the breech-loading system.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELL: My Lords, the discussion has been very interesting, and so full, that I do not feel called upon to say more than a few words. I think the decision, at which Her Majesty's Government has arrived is extremely wise. I understand it to be this: they admit the principle that in invention there is no finality, and that however well satisfied they may be for the time with the system which has been adopted, they will not shut their eyes or ears to anything that offers a prospect of making an advance. There is another principle which may be laid down, and that is expressed in the familiar French proverb that "Better is always the enemy of good." If you always wait until you get something better, you will never have anything settled at all. Now, we were exactly in that position in 1869. It so happened, then, that the course of invention had unsettled everything in the way of armaments. Rifles, howitzers, field guns, siege guns, great guns—almost everything was in a state of confusion in the scientific world—the consequence was, that a large part of the Store Vote remained unexpended, and was repaid to the Exchequer; and, early in 1870, Sir John Adye, the Director of Artillery, came to me and said that any rumour of war would find us in a very awkward position. This was at the time when the Minister of France said, in the Chamber, that the horizon was without a cloud. My noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has told you of the repeated Committees which have inquired into the subject. I believe they have uniformly reported in favour of a muzzle-loader, and with hardly an exception they have reported unanimously. First of all, there was the Ordnance Select Committee, the question before which arose in this way. The Navy had demanded a breech-loading gun, and by the year 1864, more than £2,000,000 had been expended on breech-loading guns, chiefly for the Navy. However, after further experience the Navy returned them into store, and there are acres of them at Woolwich. Then there was a Committee of superior Officers appointed in 1866, which reported unani-
  1882
  mously in favour of a muzzle-loader. Next, in 1869, there was the Dartmoor Committee, which was also in favour of a muzzle-loader; and the Committee appointed to consider the question of new guns for India also unanimously recommended a muzzle-loader, which the Indian Government adopted. When my gallant Friend (Sir John Adye) brought the subject before me another Committee was expressly appointed to consider the question of muzzle-loaders and breech-loaders for field guns. It consisted of 11 officers, 10 of whom reported in favour of a muzzle-loading gun, and only one in favour of a breechloader. Then we obtained a pattern of the Prussian breech-loading gun; and when we tried it against our muzzle-loading gun of the same size, our gun was unanimously reported to be superior. Under these circumstances, we determined upon making the field guns which we have now. I am informed and believe that we have the most powerful gun, and I am sure we have the simplest, the safest, and the most economical gun, that now exists. It is true that Prussia has re-armed her artillery with another breech-loading gun, and no one will doubt the very great weight of the authority of Prussia; but I am not aware of any proof that I the new Prussian breech-loader is equal or superior to our muzzle-loader. The noble Duke behind me spoke very much in favour of the breech-loading system. I think we can all admit without dispute every word which the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) said in its favour, and certainly a civilian coming into office would naturally have a sympathy in favour of going forward with the breech-loading system. I certainly had such a sympathy; but I must say that when you come to arm your soldiers and sailors it will not do merely to have a sympathy with a system and to have general ideas, but you must know exactly what gun you mean to have and whether it is preferable to the gun which you possess already. The authority of foreign nations has been quoted. Now, I believe France and Austria are in favour of a breech-loading system in the abstract; but, unless I am greatly misinformed, neither France nor Austria has yet adopted any particular system of breech-loaders, and their authority cannot fairly be cited until they have done

  1883
  so. I think the Government have done right in not shutting the door against further investigation and experiment for this additional reason—that a remarkable invention has been made by Sir Joseph Whitworth of a kind of steel prepared by hydraulic pressure, which it is supposed will exclude all particles of air, and the steel will therefore become perfectly safe against explosion. Before we make guns, especially those which are to be used in ships, we had better know for certain whether this process is successful—and successful to such a degree that we can safely trust it in the making of guns; for although the noble Duke has said that we can have steel of any kind, it should be borne in mind that no steel has been yet used in gunnery which is not liable to explode. But if we have 99 guns which do not explode, and one which does explode, such a feeling of consternation will be produced among our soldiers and sailors that the one gun would do more harm than the 99 others did good. What we want to know is not whether 100 guns can be made 99 of which will not explode, but whether this invention will prevent the risk of explosion altogether. It must not be supposed that there is some official prejudice which retards improvement. The men who under the control of the illustrious Duke manage the Artillery of this country are not behind anybody in their zeal for new inventions, and among the inventions of the last few years none are more marvellous than those which have been introduced into the system of destroying human life. There have been two very distinguished men during the last few years at the head of the Naval Ordnance—Sir Cooper Key and Captain Hood—who have been of the same opinion on this subject as the authorities at the War Office. Therefore, you have the Navy and the Army, and the Government of India, acting according to their present lights, in entire concurrence. I was very glad, indeed, to hear the statements which were made by the noble Earl and the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) that we ought to retain our present system until we are sure of a better one, and that as there is no finality of invention we ought not to shut the door against further investigation and experiment.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in reply, said, that the projectiles at present used for breech-loading guns were more expensive than those which were made for muzzle-loaders. That was a point worthy of consideration from an economical point of view, as the men must practise, even though the projectiles were very expensive. With regard to the suggestion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) that we ought to ascertain the opinion of the officers of the Army, he would remind him that some years ago the officers were in favour of retaining "Brown Bess."
  Motion agreed to.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in rising to call attention to the state of the law on the Pollution of Rivers, said, the subject was one in which a large portion of the country took a deep interest, and which had occupied the attention of the country for a considerable time. It had been considered by more than one Royal Commission. One Commission was appointed in 1865, and another, of which the late Sir William Denison was the Chairman, and Professor Frankland was a member, was appointed in 1868. These Commissions went all over the country and examined very carefully into the subject which was intrusted to them, and the result of their labours had been embodied in four elaborate Reports before Parliament. It seemed to the Government that the time had now arrived when some legislation ought to follow so much inquiry. In 1848 an Act of Parliament was passed in the interest of the public health, enacting that all localities should carry out an efficient system of drainage. Drainage must be put somewhere. You could not put it in the air; you could not always put it on the land; and when you could not put it on the land, you necessarily put it into a river. Concurrently with this process there had been an enormous growth of manufactories of all kinds—of dye works, of paper works, and, above all, of distilleries—and the consequence of turning the refuse of these works into the rivers had been to produce in many of our most useful

  1885
  streams a fearful condition of pollution. The grievance was a very real one, as was well known to noble Lords who lived on the banks of polluted streams; but for the sake of others, he might read one or two passages from the Report of the Commission on the Pollution of Rivers to show what was the evil and the necessity of applying a remedy. Dr. James Brunton, Sept. 6, 1869.—Report to Commissioners—
  "Dr. Macadam remarks with reference to water taken from the junction of the Gala and the Tweed, 'fish immersed in this liquid were deleteriously affected thereby, became sick and prostrate, and died within the day.' Of the deposit taken from the junction of the Gala and the Tweed, he remarks that, 'it was highly offensive, as it consisted in great part of organic matter in a state of putrefaction.'"
  Certificate of James Weir, M.R.C.V.S., dated September, 1870—
  "This is to certify that I have been called in very often by Mr. Thomas Shanks, farmer, Drumshanzie, Airdrie, to see his cattle. A great many of them have died through drinking the water of a stream which runs through his farm. This stream, in my opinion, is poisoned by liquid refuse from a paraffin oil refinery situated near to the farm. Mr. Shanks wishes very much the early attention of the Commissioners to be directed thereto."
  Statement by Bailie James Bain, Deputy Chairman of the Clyde Trustees, 25 July, 1870—
  "The polluted state of the river Clyde is so generally known that I deem it unnecessary to attempt to prove it; but I take leave to enclose copy of a petition from owners and masters of steamboats, (see page 69 on the subject,) in which they refer to the loss they are sustaining thereby and pray for a speedy remedy. Also to the report of Dr. Anderson (see pp. 69–76) on the waste products from public works entering the Clyde, by the action of which, in combination with the ordinary sewage, it will be observed he considers the copper sheathing of ships is damaged and the public health impaired. I am aware it has been stated that the death rate on the river bank is not in excess of that in other parts of the city, but I believe there is much ill health. I have seen people so overcome with sickness from the stench of the river, as to require to be led ashore from the steamers. Surely it is not necessary to kill a man right off before it will be allowed that he has suffered injury, I consider the Police Board, the 'local authority' here, have been remiss, and that the Clyde Trust are aggrieved by their inaction."
  The Rev. F. G. Hopwood, Sankey Brook, Winwick, near Warrington—
  "Not only does it beset us out of doors, but it penetrates into every room of the house, and the clothes in the laundry, with 'the window closed,' and also in the drying ground are discoloured and have frequently to be re-washed. On one
  1886
  occasion this winter (1869), in a few moments all the copper vessels in the kitchens were turned almost blue. It makes this place perfectly odious. The nuisance is constant, as the prevailing winds are from the west and northwest."
  James Nicholson, Esq., Warrington—
  "I am lord of the manor of Thelwell, which lies upon the Cheshire side of the Mersey, about throe miles from Warrington. Formerly, the river at that point abounded with fish, and was a clear stream; now, unfortunately, it is a fearful nuisance—black as ink at most times, and most offensive in smell."
  Mr. T. B. Laycock, a wool comber, on the Worth, said—
  "Opposite my works the bed of the river has silted up very considerably. 40 years ago the bed was five or six feet deeper than it is at present, and the silting up to this great depth has been caused by ashes and rubbish thrown in by manufacturers and others. Formerly, trout were very plentiful in the stream, but now no living thing can exist except rats, which feed on the dead carcases of animals thrown in. The river for more than half-a-mile above my works is very seriously polluted by town sewage and refuse from manufacturies and works, and in summer the stench is so bad that the smell is perceptible for more than half-a-mile off."
  Letter from Mr. Jepson, E. R. C. S., Durham, Sept. 1870—
  "The River Wear at Durham is simply a gigantic cesspool receiving the sewage of the whole town, and in summer emitting a stench vile enough to generate a pestilence, especially when it is disturbed by boats."
  Letter from Mr. H. Reynard Cookson, Nov. 1, 1870—
  "I am desirous of calling the attention of the Rivers Pollution Commissioners to the filthy state of the Bourne flowing from the Edmondsley Collieries through the town of Chester-le-Street, where it empties itself into the Wear. At times it is as yellow as ochre and as thick as glue, and a grave matter for the Commissioners report. It passes all through my grounds, and is an abominable nuisance."
  Extract from letter from E. Duncombe Shafto, Esq., Whitworth Park, Ferry Hill—
  "The sewage matter from houses containing on the Spennymoor side nearly 5,000 inhabitants, is all poured into it by the present system of drainage, and in a very short time double the number of houses will be relieved of their filth by the same outlet, as all the Mount Pleasant and the houses near the Iron Works will be drained into it. The water now is as black as ink and so offensive, that a mile and a-quarter below Spennymoor, where it enters the Wear, it is an annoyance to have to cross the brook. No one in Spennymoor will say a word. They prefer being poisoned to the chance of having a rate to pay for the improvement of the drainage of the district; and I fear the medical men, who

  1887
  are painfully aware of the fatal character of the effluvium arising from this Stygian stream would probably be afraid of giving offence in certain quarters by giving evidence."
  He believed that nothing had so fearful an influence in the pollution of rivers as the product of distilleries. If their Lordships could imagine the stench of the River Thames in the outbreak in which it indulged of 1858 and multiplied that stench by 36, they would have a fair idea of what the stench was which was produced by refuse from the distilleries of the favourite beverage of the people. As to the river at Manchester, he could testify from his visit to that city last winter that it was in a bad condition, and he was told by a high municipal authority that an unfortunate man tumbled into that river, and, before he could be rescued, swallowed a dose of the water, of which he died as soon as he had been drawn on to the bank. This was a state of things which called for some action on the part of Parliament. There was no doubt that those who interfered with their neighbours' rights below stream violated the law. It might therefore be asked why not be satisfied with the existing law for the abatement of the nuisance? His answer was that there was great difficulty in putting the law in force. It only recognized damage actually done. But it was usually difficult to ascertain by whom the damage was done; and, as was frequently the case, where the pollution was caused by the combined operation of two or more factories there was no power of ascertaining who was the responsible party. Another difficulty which was experienced with reference to the prevention of the pollution of rivers was the objection which some people had to being rated to pay for the expense of an improved drainage of a district—people sometimes preferred being almost poisoned to the chance of being called upon to pay for the remedy. The drainage of a district was not a matter which could be intrusted to local authorities; in many cases their decision could not be relied on, and it was always open to suspicion. It was therefore essential that in any legislation Parliament might undertake on this subject there should be some other machinery provided for carrying out its provisions than that of the local authorities. That was a point on which the Bill that he intended to lay
  1888
  on their Lordships' Table differed from others which had been brought forward hitherto. He proposed not to carry a case before any local tribunal—that was to say, any tribunal dependent on the local authorities. He was afraid that, in attaining that object, they must appeal to that officer who from small beginnings had acquired an important position—he meant the County Court Judge. It was obvious that cases of this kind which required immediate decision could not be tried at the Assizes, which in many cases only occurred twice in each year. For this reason it was proposed that offences under the Bill should be taken to the County Courts. The next question was as to the offences so to be dealt with, and in this respect the present Bill would differ in a vital point from the measure introduced by Lord Shaftesbury in 1872, and afterwards taken up by the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Northumberland). In the Bill of 1872, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, 10 standards were laid down in reference to the character of the ingredients of matter which might be thrown into streams, and it was made an offence to transgress any of these standards. The difficulty that was felt with regard to these tests was that they struck too far, and that on the one hand they would include water flowing from perfectly innocent sources, while on the other they were not sufficiently stringent to affect the very nuisances against which the legislation was directed. His view was that in dealing with nuisances it was better to trust to the common sense of the tribunal to which the cases were referred than to lay down a number of unwieldy chemical tests. The Bill, therefore, proposed to forbid the pouring of filthy, noxious, and polluting liquids into streams, and to leave it to the County Court Judges to decide upon evidence what liquids possessed the forbidden qualities. That was the most important change which this Bill proposed to make from the Bill recommended by the Government in 1872. He would next define the offences which were to be guarded against by the Bill. In the first place, it was absolutely forbidden to put solid matter into streams. With respect to sewage, it must either be freed from its polluting qualities or be

  1889
  kept out of the streams. With respect to liquids issuing from manufactories or mines, a distinction had been made between the various classes of offenders. Manufacturers or mine-owners who, at the passing of the Act, poured or permitted liquids to flow into streams, and who had not done so for more than 12 years—or had 12 years' prescription—would be bound to make it harmless within a space of two years, or be absolutely forbidden to pour or allow it to flow into streams. With regard to those who might be said to have a longer prescription, the Government had felt that they could not well do more than prescribe absolutely that the offending persons should use the best practicable and available means for making the liquids harmless. In the majority of cases he believed that this could be effectively done. The carrying of the Act into force would be intrusted to the rural sanitary authorities, with a power reserved to the Local Government Board to institute proceedings and enforce the law in ease the rural authorities failed in their duty. In addition to this the Bill proposed that the sanitary authorities in drainage districts should be grouped into Conservancy Boards, as a better means of carrying out the provisions of the law. These were the principal provisions of the Bill, and he hoped they would be sufficiently stringent to arrest the greater part of the existing mischief without at the same time being so stringent as to arouse an amount of resistance in the country which could not be overcome. At the same time, the Act would be administered by authorities not liable to be swayed by the passions or interests of their constituents, but anxious only to carry out the law, and to preserve to all persons the right—which was as sacred as usage and habit could make any right—of using the waters of our rivers for all ordinary purposes, domestic and otherwise, to which they could be legitimately applied.
  Then a Bill for amending the Law relating to the Pollution of River presented by the Marquess of SALISBURY.
  EARL FORTESCUEexpressed satisfaction with the course taken by the Government in proposing to deal with an important question. In his opinion, the most economical and desirable mode
  1890
  of purifying the sewage which now in so many cases polluted our rivers and streams was to filter it through land, which would be immensely fertilized by the process, thus turning what was otherwise a source of disease into one of largely increasing the production of food. This plan had been recently recommended in a remarkable Report from a scientific Commission—the Municipality of Paris—after being tried, on a small scale, with signal success. That sewage could thus not only be rendered innocuous, but made a source of fertility, had been proved; and he therefore impressed upon the Government the desirability of affording facilities for its application to agriculture. He thought compulsory powers should be granted for its conveyance through land to places where it might be required for irrigation; compensation, of course, being allowed under the usual conditions.
  Bill read 1a and to be printed. (No. 81.)

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE—ILL-TREATMENT IN TRANSIT.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the statements which have appeared in the public press relative to the ill-treatment of cattle imported into England from the Continent; whether such statements are correct; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to prevent a recurrence of the same?
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he disputed the accuracy of the statements referred to. The name of the vessel in connection with which the ill-treatment was alleged to have occurred had not been given: but, on seeing the letter in The Times of the 22nd of April, he directed the Inspector of the Privy Council at Deptford—a very experienced officer of 25 years' standing—to inquire into, and make a special report on, the case. The vessel referred to appeared to be one which brought from Antwerp about 200 head of cattle. These beasts were landed at Deptford as usual under the superintendence of the Custom House officers, and remained in charge of an officer of the Privy Council until they were taken away to be slaughtered. The Inspector had himself seen them, but had failed to observe any indications of their having suffered ill-treatment on

1891
board ship. They were described as having been packed "like herrings in a barrel;" but the plain truth of the matter was that they were ranged closely side by side with their heads tied up to the side of the vessel—an arrangement which was necessary both for their own safety and to prevent danger and inconvenience to the passengers and crew. With reference to the absence of water, he was informed that it was very difficult indeed to induce cattle to drink on board ship until they had been at sea for a much longer period than appeared to have been taken up on the present voyage—namely, 22 hours. He was informed that during that space of time the discomfort was not unusually so great that quadrupeds as well as bipeds were not much disposed to drink. The Custom House officer, too, stated that he was present during the whole of the landing, and that he saw no acts of cruelty on the part of the drovers, which he should have done had they occurred. Again, at the landing-stage at Deptford the officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were present, with whom would he the duty of the institution of a prosecution if they were aware that the animals had been cruelly treated. The Inspector of the Privy Council, he might add, concluded his report by stating that in the course of the frequent inspections which he had made of the carcases of animals at the slaughterhouses at Deptford, he found them to be generally free from marks and bruises resulting from blows, and that he had no cause to suppose they were subjected to ill-treatment. As to any cruelty on the part of the drovers, he could only say he had been informed that those men were respectable persons licensed by the Corporation, and he believed that so much care was taken to prevent anything like ill-treatment that the Corporation regulated the size of the goads. He came to the conclusion, as the result of the inquiry, that not only there was no cause of complaint on the particular occasion in question, but that animals were subjected to no more inconvenience in transit than was absolutely unavoidable. He would conclude by calling attention to a letter which had been addressed by the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. In it he stated that
1892
he had seen Captain Stanley early in the morning of the day in which his letter appeared in The Times, but that he could not identify the person in charge of the cattle or any of the actors in the scene which he had described; Captain Stanley added that he did not wish to appear as a witness in the case, and no prosecution, therefore, could well be instituted by the Society. That being so, he was not prepared to take any further steps in the matter, or to make any regulations beyond those which at present existed.
"House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.