THE EARLIEST KNOWN SPECIMENS OF RIFLED ORDNANCE.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 75, 23 June 1864, Page 4

THE EARLIEST KNOWN SPECIMENS OF RIFLED ORDNANCE.

Visitors to Peel will not fail to hare observed that several of the posts on the quay used for the mooring of vessels in the harbour, were old iron guns partially embedded in the quay. Attention has, on many occasions, been directed by strangers to these guns, and various questions have been, from time to time, asked as to their date and whence they came. No more definite answer has hitherto been given to these inquiries than the fact, that they had at one time formed a portion of the guns formerly mounted on Peel Castle. We have been given to understand that, in consequence of reports recently made by some visitors to Peel, inquiries were some short time ago set on foot, at the instance of the authorities at the War Office, relative to these guns, the result of which was, that they were inspected by competent persons and reported as being the earliest specimens of rifled cannon known to exist. A correspondence between the War Office, the Secretary of State, and his Excellency the Lieu-tenant-Governor ensued, which resulted in the determination of her Majesty's Government to have the guns taken up from their position on Peel quay, and to be forwarded to, and placed in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, as amongst the rare and early specimens of rifled ordnance known. This determination on the part of the Government has just been carried out — the schooner Cestrian, of Chester, having arrived on Tuesday night last, direct from London (from which port she sailed on the 12th ultimo), having ou board eight eight-pound guns (unserviceable, but otherwise in good order), to be placed as mooring posts on the quay, instead of the eight old rifled ones — which were on the following day taken up, in order to be forwarded to that great national repository of curiosities connected with naval and military ordnance, at Woolwich. We are given to understand that the Secretary of State has consented that two of the old guns shall be retained in the Island, to be placed in such insular museum as may exist. Our Peel friends had little idea, until within the last week or two, that such interesting and valuable relics had been for very many years standing upon their pier ; and many of our readers will doubtless now regret that they had not an opportunity of inspecting such curiosities before they had been sent oif the Island. That the guns in question were rifled is beyond all question, and we shall hope soon to hear a full and particular account of them after their arrival at then 1 future home. Impoetant Decision tjndeb the New Savings Bank Act. — An important decision has just been made by Mr. Tidd Pratt, in reference to the working of the new Savings-bank Act, which makes it necessary that the Act should be speedily amended. On the 22nd of November last, Henry Lead, who was engaged as odd man at the Albion-hotel, Leamington, died after a few hours' illness. On his bedroom being searched, it was found that he had saved upwards of £1,000, of which sum £194 was deposited in the Banbury Savings-bank, in the name of Henry Lead ; £200 in the Warwick Savings-bank, in the name of Henry Harrel ; and £154 18s. in the Coventry Savings-bank, in the name of Henry Cooke. There was no difficulty in the deceased's brother, who administered to the estate, getting the £194 at Banbury, as that was the first deposit made by Lead, and it was made in his proper name ; but the trustees of the Warwick and Coventry banks declined to pay the money deposited in the respective banks, on the ground that the deceased had forfeited all claim upon them, in consequence of having made a false declaration. Mr. Tidd Pratt was communicated with, and he attended at Warwick and Coventry to arbitrate upon the case. Satisfactory evidence was tendered showing that Henry Lead, Henry Harrell, and Henry Cooke, were one and the same person, upon which Mr. Gardner, of Leamington, who attended on behalf of the claimants, contended that, j inasmuch as the 26th and 27th of Victoria had, un- ' der section 1, repealed all Acts in existence at the i passing of the Act, without reserving the usual saving or penal clause, the false declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased depositor — namely, that he had not deposited money in any other savings-bank, was not punishable under the Act by the forfeiture of the money so deposited ; and that, as regards all such offences committed before the 20th November last, the new Act was totally inoperative. Mr. Tidd Pratt reserved his opinion upon this point of law. Yesterday he made his award, in which he has decided thut the trustees of the respective banks must pay the full amount deposited by the deceased to the <jlftim»nt».—Munohester Guardian, March 25,