THE BRITISH NAVY IN 1871.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3200, 17 April 1871, Page 3

THE BRITISH NAVY IN 1871.

(From the Graphic.)

On this subject a good deal of misconception prevails, and an idea is •widely prevalent that the recent naval {reforms of the Government were conifined to certain paltry economies, injflicting great hardships on individuals, 'and at the same time conferring little {real benefit on the public service, i What has actually been accomplished, .the following, a summary of a pamphlet written by Mr Robert Main, entitled “ The British Navy in 1871,” will iihow:—

The use of steam-power, and the improvements in gunnery have effected such radical changes in the navy of late years that continuous active service is necessary to keep either officer or sailor up to the mark of efficiency. Yet, in 1869, when Mr Childers took command of the Agincourt, he found a number of petty officers who had spent years in harbour without going to sea. As the pamphleteer tersely puts it, “ The country has for years been paying large sums of money to beep useless men to look after rotten stores which were preserved for the repair of rotten ships.” Even in the Coastguard, which is regarded as a most important reserve of high-trained seamen, there were not less than six hundred men unfit for service at sea.

With regard to officers, for years past the supply has been in excess of the demand, and the result has been that numbers of deserving men have spent weary hours in the Admiralty waiting-rooms vainly seeking employment. So long as retirement was voluntary, the “ block ” was likely to continue, and it was aggravated by the wholesale condemnation of wooden ships caused by the introduction of ironclads, so that nearly half the officers on the active list were unemployed. It was really an act of kindness to render retirement compulsory. At certain ages, differing according to the rank attained, a man is now bound to: retire.

As for the supply of seamen, the! number now afloat is ' about 32,850, ! besides a reserve on shore and in harbours of about 28,000 men, consisting; chiefly of marines and coastguard.! This reserve, though sufficient for: peaceful times, would not be enough if war broke out, and a plan is being matured—in addition to the Seaman' Pension Reserve—for providing for an easier flow of men in and out of the service, and for effecting a more complete harmony between the Merchant Service and the Eoyal Navy. Shipbuilding, hitherto carried on fitfully, a plan which often resulted in enormous waste —vessels becoming obsolete before they were completed—is now organised on a regular system. Twenty thousand tons of shipping are to be built annually, four-fifths in dockyards, one-fifth by private contract. This amount represents three new ironclads, a frigate, a corvette, and six smaller vessels every year, and will cost about two millions and a half. We have now thirty-six broadsideironclads, and fifteen turret-ironclads. Ten of these are not quite complete. With regard to naval armaments, the war ships now being built are to Ve furnished with thirty-ton guns, and one still larger, of thirty-five tons, which was successfully tried the other day at the proof-butts in Woolwich Marshes, has already been constructed. Instead of being tested, as formerly, with old smooth-bore guns, the plate armour of the ironclads now building is submitted to the action of rifled guns with chilled shot. The extensive works at Portsmouth and Chatham dockyards are being rapidly pushed on, and will in a few years accommodate the largest vessels. With reference to the efficiency of the Admiralty staff, each of the junior Lords is provided with clearly-defined duties, but is subordinate to the First Lord, who is really a Minister of Marine, armed with full power, and subject only to Parliament. As for the clerks who carry on the business of the Admiralty, it is worth observing that the advantages derivable from the examination system had never been fairly tried, because all the responsible posts were filled by men who bad entered the service before the tests of efficiency applied by the Civil Service Commissioners were originated. Great improvements have recently been effected, the two cardinal principles |of reform being, economy of work (by the abolition of useless labour) and the imposition of individual responsibility. Under this system fewer hands do the work better than it was done under the old regime. Altogether, Mr Childers’ services deserve our grateful recognition. The task of an administrative reformer is at once onerous and thankless, for while be is sure to excite the wrath of the individuals who are unfavourably affected by his reforms, the actual benefit which he confers on the country is little appreciated by the community at large. Borrowing the idea of a recent cartoon in Punch, we • may safely say that Neptune has made all safe outside — our first line of defence is in a satisfactory condition and we hope that during the* coming session Mars and his coadjutors will do as much for the army.; An active controversy is being carried on at the present time among naval and military authorities on the important question of breech-loaders versus muzzle-loaders. Both systems have their advantages and their disadvantages. Muzzle-loaders are more troublesome to charge, the crew are more exposed to the enemy’s fire, and great precautions are needed to regulate the recoil. This last difficulty tends to restrict the length

of 'the muzzle-loading gun. The bore, moreover;-Of the breech-loader offers greater facility of examination, fcnd it is"‘frequently desirable to examine the state of ; the bore in heavy guns. The great objection to breechloaders appears to he in - their complicated ebaraoter. War is a very rough trade, and the tools employed in-it cannot be too simple. The breech of such guns, moreover, is liable to be injured by the violent action of the ordinary swift-burning powders, and a supply of the-' new-fashioned slowburning powder might not always be [available. . The advocates of muzzleloaders assert that for rapidity, accuracy, and range, muzzle-loaders are equal, if not superior, to breech-loaders, ’and they ask if the single advantage of less exposure to the gunners (which only applies to broadside ships) is worth purchasing at the expense of [strength, simplicity, rapidity, economy, and efficiency; Lastly we may observe ; that the seamen who hare the actual working of the" guns, say that the muzzle-loader is a very light gun to work, and very superior to the breechloader in its power of penetration.