SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 7 March 1856)

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he must complain of the absence of particulars. There were fifty-five different establishments scattered over the world, and explanations were given in the Estimates only as to three of them, so that the House had no means of ascertaining whether any of those establishments were necessary or not. Now that the Commissariat and Ordnance Departments were placed under one head, he thought the duties of the officers of those departments connected with the civil establishments might safely be united.

§ MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS
said, he wished to obtain some information respecting the duties of the superintendents of the Royal gun factory and other departments at Woolwich; also, as to the functions of the captains instructors. He would also take that opportunity of asking what was the meaning of the new appointment of building engineer?

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he was equally anxious to hear what was meant by a building engineer. He would also ask whether some officers did not hold two offices—the inspector of machinery, for instance? He suggested that it would be more convenient in future to mention the names of the officers in the Estimates.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) that it was desirable to consolidate the different departments abroad, and that principle had been already acted upon. At present there were twenty-two storekeepers, performing the additional duties of barrackmasters, and during the last year seven or eight storekeepers and eight barrackmasters in the United Kingdom had been dispensed with. In reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. M. Chambers), he begged to say that the superintendents of the various departments had the supreme control of, and were responsible for, all the operations of their various departments. The captains 2055 instructors were second in command, and it was intended that they should give instruction to young artillery officers and to a certain number of artillery soldiers, whom it was proposed to send through the various manufacturing departments, in order that they might become acquainted with all the operations in those departments. The building engineer was a new appointment which had been made for economical reasons. The building operations of the Royal Arsenal were formerly under the direction of an officer of the Royal Engineers, and it was found that it would be cheaper to employ a civil engineer to conduct those operations. The experiment had been tried, and the result was a saving of about £1,100 a year. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne), he (Mr. Monsell) could only say that he was not aware of any case in which an officer held two appointments.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, it was difficult to reconcile the statements just made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the superintendence of certain buildings being committed to a civil engineer occasioned less expense than the employment of a military engineer, with the observation made the other night, that the pay of the Army Works and Land Transport Corps was at a comparatively high rate because they were civilians.

§ LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM
said, he noticed that in some districts the items for rent rates and taxes were higher in the present Estimates than in the last, and he wished to know whether that arose from any addition being made to the barrack accommodation?

§ MR. MONSELL
replied, that in the Woolwich district additional barrack accommodation had been secured; but in the London district the increase was occasioned by the necessity for having considerably more accommodation for a very largely augmented amount of stores. The Government had been obliged, for this purpose, to make use of storerooms in the London Docks and at some of the wharfs.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he wished to inquire what had become of the premises belonging to the Government in Tooley Street?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he regretted to say that their predecessors had given a lease, for ever, of those valuable premises, by which considerable difficulty had been caused to the Government.

§ COLONEL GILPIN
said, he wished to 2056 know what had been done for the accommodation of soldiers' wives?

§ MR. MONSELL
replied, that he believed, in two or three places, at least in one place certainly, there had been lately erected accommodation for a certain number of married soldiers, and another was provided for by the present Estimates. The whole of the recommendations of the Barrack Committee were under the consideration of the Government now; but he should he much deceiving the Committee if be did not inform them that the expense of carrying out those recommendations would be very considerable. It had been found that, according to the ordinary rate, to provide for six married soldiers in a hundred would cause an expense in building a barrack of about £8,000, or, at all events, £6,000. Now, multiplying that by the number of thousands to be provided for, it would be a very large sum.

MR. STAFFORD
said, he would, while the question of barrack accommodation was before the Committee, take that opportunity of paying his tribute of gratitude to that excellent lady, Lady Alicia Blackwood, for the services she had rendered at Scutari in providing accommodation for the soldiers' wives, who, before she did so, had been living in a state of the most abandoned profligacy and dissipation. With a small aid from Government, assisted by the subscriptions of private individuals, and zealously seconded by Miss Nightingale, she had established an hospital for the women themselves, and schools for their children, promoting among them habits of order and industry, so that now they did all the washing required for the military hospitals.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to know whether he was to understand that it would cost £6,000 or £8,000 to provide barrack accommodation for six men and their wives?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he must explain that when a number of plans for barracks were sent in to the Committee appointed by Lord Panmure, the first plan selected was for an infantry barrack for 1,000 men, and the cost of it as estimated by sworn surveyors was £147,000, and that share of the cost which would he caused by providing accommodation for such a proportion of married soldiers was £8,000.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that the permanent barracks now building at Aldershot were costing, he believed, only £40 or £45 for each man.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he thought 2057 the Committee ought not, without some further explanation, to pass the present Vote, which amounted to about £112,000 more than the Vote of last year, and a very small part of the Vote was required for the seat of war, the greater portion being for the West Indies and other colonial and home establishments. He saw no necessity for that vast increase.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that the hon. Member and others on the same side of the House had insisted on the Government pulling down a large number of usefu barracks; and now the people throughout the country were calling on the Government to put an end to the billeting system; where, then, were the soldiers to go? The Government were not to blame for providing additional barracks, for the soldiers must be accommodated somewhere.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he had not mentioned a word about barracks.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Williams) was hard to satisfy; for the sum required for the West Indies this year was £1,322 less than the sum voted last year.

§ SIR GEORGE TYLER
said, that there prevailed a great desire that the soldiers should not be billeted on public-houses. In a town in the county he represented there were barracks, but not sufficiently large to receive all the militia stationed there, and consequently a portion of the militia was billeted, greatly to the detriment of the discipline of the regiment. He believed that the Ordnance Department had sent down a surveyor with a view to enlarge the barracks, and he should like to know whether that was the fact?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he was afraid he could not hold out any expectation of an intention on the part of the Government to enlarge the barracks in question.

§ MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS
said, that the surgeon to Woolwich Arsenal received 13s. a day, and the assistant surgeons 7s. 6d. a day. Their attendance only commenced at ten o'clock in the morning, and, when an accident occurred before that hour, it could not be immediately attended to. He was told that the artificers in the arsenal contributed so much a week to the medical attendants. He wished to know how much the contributions of those men amounted to?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, the appointments referred to by the hon. Member were quite new, and had boon made in consequence of the number of accidents which had occurred in the arsenal. The only salaries 2058 received by those surgeons were those described in the Vote.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he wished to know what was the total sum included under the various heads of this Estimate, which it was proposed that the Committee should now vote for the establishment at Enfield in addition to the £30,000 voted in 1854, and the £40,000 voted in 1855? He and his hon. Colleague (Mr. Spooner) had opposed that Vote, on the ground that the supply from the trade in Birmingham and London would be sufficient. They said that if a factory were established it would not be available during the war. He wished to know what portion of the sum now to be voted was for the Enfield factory, which had already absorbed £70,000? The widest estimate given before the Small Arms Committee was £150,000, but he had every reason to believe that that estimate would be exceeded. The right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance had promised that a separate account should be given of the sums expended on this establishment, and of the number of muskets which it had turned out. He was told that not one single musket had been produced there, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information on the point, and would also tell them how many muskets had been produced by the trades of Birmingham and of London. The estimate given before the Small Arms Committee was, that Birmingham could not be relied on for more than 25,000 muskets annually, but he believed that Birmingham had supplied more than four times that number during the past year, and was now supplying at the rate of six times that number. The trade of London had also increased in a similar manner. So determined were the Government not to rely on the trade of England for the supply of arms for the defence of England, that they had sent orders to America, Liege, and France, for arms; and he should be glad to know how many had been supplied from those quarters? He believed the number which they had got from abroad was very insignificant. The result would show that the ancient national resources of England—its manufacture of arms—had been fully operative, while the costly experiment at Enfield and the foreign orders had been of no avail.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he wished to 2059 know whether the numbers had been reduced at Enfield? It was notorious that that establishment had as yet done no good. The right hon. Gentleman was obliged to get muskets from America. Now, American muskets were notoriously very bad; and the right hon. Gentleman paid America £3 10s. for muskets that were not really worth 50s. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had correctly predicted last year that not a musket would be made in the factory at Enfield during that year, and he might have added nor during this year either.

MR. MILES
said, he thought it was desirable that the public should know what was being done at Enfield. He had been told that the Enfield musket was a very good one, but ho supposed that referred merely to the finish.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he wished, before the right hon. Gentleman replied, that he should know what the Committee were talking about. He asserted that the Enfield rifle, under that name, was almost entirely made at Birmingham. A Committee investigated the subject of arms some time back, and came to the conclusion that there ought to be a manufactory at Enfield to operate as a check upon the trade. It was said that men could not be got at Birmingham to turn out more than 25,000 muskets a year. But the fact was, the trade had turned out 100,000 the year before, and 150,000 last year. Make but the contracts, so that they could be understood by master and man, and there would be no limit to the supply of serviceable arms. The manufacturers could always supply Government 50 per cent cheaper than any Government establishment. If every circumstance and expense were taken into account, it would be found that Government establishments invariably produced a loss.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he would most willingly admit that nothing could have been better than the conduct of the gun manufacturers of Birmingham during the past year. They had worked admirably. They had supplied to the Government, he believed, not less than 100,000 muskets, and he was sure that in the course of the present year they would produce a still greater number. This did not, however, alter his opinion as to the importance of the factory now being erected at Enfield. When finished it would produce rifles at a cost much smaller than that at which they could be procured at Birmingham, and would provide the Government with a 2060 very salutary check upon the gun trade in times of pressure. It was quite true that the factory was not yet completed, but it must be remembered that, owing to the necessity for altering and reducing the plan as originally presented to the House, the building was not commenced until January, 1855. Nearly the whole of the machinery had now been received, and it might be confidently expected that the factory would commence operations in the month of July or August next. He did not think that eighteen months was such a very long period to be required for the erection of a factory which would contain between 700 and 800 machines, some of them of an entirely new construction. The amount of the Estimate for this factory was £34,470, namely, £15,378 for stores and machinery, and £19,092 for works and building. The cost of erecting the factory at Enfield would be £9,000 or £10,000 more than it would have been had it been built, as was proposed by the Government, at Woolwich.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that the existing accumulation of buildings and combustible stores at Woolwich was a good reason why the factory should not be erected at that place. He considered that it would have been a very imprudent proceeding if it had been persevered in.

§ COLONEL BOLDERO
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance asserted that Government could get machinery cheaper from America suitable to the manufacture of arms. That was demurred to at the time, and a Committee was pressed on the Government, the result of which was, that it was agreed a sum of money should be voted for the establishment at Enfield. That establishment had not realised expectation up to the present time. He wished to know what amount of arms had been received from America, from Liege, and from France; what price had been paid for them, and whether they equalled the muskets of Birmingham and Enfield? When a large Vote was taken for Enfield, he had felt a conviction that, by improving the manufactory at that place, it might turn out 1,000 muskets a week.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, his answer to the last question was, that the factory was not finished. They had received no muskets from America, except twenty as patterns. They had received 12,000 from Liege, which were quite equal to those made in this country. The price was a little less than ours.

§ MR. SPOONER
wished for an explanation of the expenditure which had already taken place, as well as of that which would take place when this Vote was agreed to.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, that that information would be given in the next Vote.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that £70,000 had been already voted for Enfield. Now, what he asked was this, that Government should state to the Committee what they had done with that amount, how much they now wanted, and how they intended to dispose of it. He had no objection to a Government factory to check trade, but he feared that if the trades were not encouraged during peace, whenever a war broke out there would be a deficient supply. He believed that in such a case there would be found the same deficiency as there unfortunately was when the late war—he hoped he might call it—broke out. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would tell the Committee how the money had been expended, and that the House of Commons would from time to time require to be informed what was being done at the Government factory.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he had the same objection to the present Vote as he had to the previous one. They had seventy-five establishments in the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and they had no particulars of any one of them, and they were required to vote £915,000 for wages without any particulars whatever. In the naval establishments they gave them the number of persons employed, as well as the amount of wages. He hoped that hereafter they should not have Estimates supplied in so useless a form.

§ MR. A. PELLATT
said, that last year the House was told that London and Birmingham were fully equal to the work of the supply of arms, provided the orders were given them at proper times, so that their works should not be disorganised. He thought this Vote should be expunged from the Estimates. He had no doubt that if the money granted had been laid out in stores from London and Birmingham, there would have been an adequate supply at the time they were wanted. As it was, he fancied the Government factory would get to work when the war was over. Like Kneller Hall, which was provided for the instruction of teachers, it was an utter failure.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he hoped that the Government would see the propriety of giving the Committee all the information 2062 in their power respecting an establishment which had cost the public so much money as the factory at Enfield.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, the whole amount, which would be expended upon the building up to the end of the financial year, was £51,124 11s. 9d.; the amount expended upon machinery was £49,561 9s. 11d.; the additional sum required for machinery this year, £15,000; and the additional amount required for the building, about £19,000. Some hon. Members appeared to consider that this expenditure was a proof that the Government manufactory did not answer; but it was difficult to understand how they could come to such a conclusion when it had not yet got into working order. Whether the manufactory answered or not could not be known until it produced muskets. He believed it would produce 50,000 muskets a year at a very much lower rate than they would he supplied at by the trade of the country; but, supposing it did not produce them at a lower rate, a Government manufactory of tills sort would be of great advantage in checking the exorbitant demands of parties, and in meeting those urgent demands for arms which might be anticipated always at the commencement of a war. Another great advantage of the manufactory would be, that it would diminish the necessity of keeping too large stores in hand, which, when they came to be used, might be found to consist of articles of obsolete pattern. He had every reason to believe the manufactory would succeed, because skilled persons, who had had opportunities of comparing it with similar establishments in America and elsewhere, had almost pledged their reputation upon that point. The manufactory would be at work in three or four months; and, next year, they would be in a better position to form a correct opinion as to its usefulness.

§ MR. SPOONER
asked, whether there would be any objection to furnish Parliament with a detailed account of all the money spent at Enfield, whether for machinery, building, or any other purpose?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he had no hesitation in giving such a promise.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he did not doubt that the manufactory would be successful when the war was over. Every one of the arguments put forth by the right hon. Gentleman in support of the Vote had been combated in the Committee, and had failed to convince them of the necessity for such an establishment. He was not convinced 2063 by them at the time, and he was not convinced by them now.

§ MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS
said, he thought such an establishment useful in checking the exorbitant demands of private traders when a large supply of arms was suddenly required by the Government. He wished to call the attention of the Government to a demand that had been made on the artificers of Woolwich Arsenal for the payment of £5 for income tax up to April last. Some of these artisans had been called upon to work beyond their ordinary hours, and when by so doing they had increased their earnings beyond £100 a year, Government bad called upon them to pay income tax on that amount, and not on the average of three years' earnings.

§ COLONEL BOLDERO
said, he thought the question alluded to by the hon. and learned Member utterly irrelevant to the present Vote. He wished to know at what price the American rifle was to be supplied.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, they proposed to make a charge which would pay themselves for the price of the machinery which they had erected for constructing the rifle. The price would be about £3 10s.

§ MR. HUTCHINS
said, that it had been stated that £150,000 would be required for the works at Enfield, and that they would be able to turn out 50,000 muskets a year. Now the interest on such an expenditure would be equivalent to about 7s. for each musket. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state what he supposed the cost of the Enfield musket would be, and what was the cost of the Birmingham musket?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, the Government were paying the Birmingham manufacturers £3 4s. The price at which they expected to produce the same article at Enfield was £3. This calculation was made by the captain at the head of the Enfield establishment, assisted by one of the most skilful gunmakers of America. He had said that the demand upon the Birmingham manufacturer was likely to continue for two or three years. The troops of the East India Company were not yet armed with the Miniérifle, but they were all to be supplied with that weapon. With regard to our own army, every British soldier had a Miniérifle in his hands, but it was absolutely necessary to have a large quantity in store ready at any moment to put into the hands of the militia and the regular army in case of need.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that lest it might be supposed that the Birmingham manufacturers were making excessive profits, he wished the House to remark that, while they were charging £3 4s., the Americans were asking £3 10s.

§ MR. WILSON
said, that with reference to the question of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. M. Chambers) as to charging the artisans with income tax, he begged to state that the House two years ago imposed the income tax on persons having £100 a year. Now, nothing could be more unfair or calculated to excite dissatisfaction, than exempting persons in Government employment. The hon. and learned Member said the artisans were not liable unless their income had averaged £100 a year for three years; that was quite true as regarded trades and professions. Those persons, however, were not charged under Schedule D, but Schedule E, for income from office, profit, or employment. The rule with regard to persons employed by Government was to deduct the income tax from the salary, but that could not be done, when it was not known till afterwards that the salary would amount to £100 a year.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he had himself known of a case in which artisans who had earned more than £100 a year through working overtime were assessed to the income tax.

§ MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS
said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury would submit the point to the law advisers of the Crown; for he did not hesitate to say that if the persons alluded to by the hon. Member for Lambeth had had the income tax stopped from their wages, it had been done contrary to the last Income Tax Act, which declared that the income should be calculated upon the average of the previous three years.

§ MR. WILSON
said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring the matter before the Treasury, on the part of his constituents, it should be submitted to the law officers; but the Government had themselves no doubt as to the meaning of the Act.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought it would be better to obtain the opinion of the Judges in the manner pointed out by the law.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that, now that the duty of providing clothing for the troops devolved upon the Government, the Committee had a right to know what securities were taken that the large sums expended for that object were judiciously and economically laid out. Already complaints were made as to the inferior quality of the article supplied. The advertisements issued for the contracts stated that the materials from which the clothing was made were to be taken to Weedon, to which place the persons undertaking to make them up must go to fetch them; and that the garments, after being completed, must be delivered into the stores of Messrs. Hayter and Howell, the Government packers. The cloth being purchased by contract, the Committee ought to be told—first, who was the officer responsible for its quality and its fitness for the uses for which it was intended; and next, whose duty it was to inspect the clothing, when made up and delivered into the hands of the Government packers. The Government should also explain the principle on which the charge for "packing" was regulated, and whether it included delivery, because, from the advertisements, it would appear that the clothing had only to be delivered into the stores at Birchin Lane, a place which, from its distance from the river, necessitated the process of recarting before the clothing could be despatched for distribution. At the close of the last war the subject of army clothing was thoroughly investigated, but the present Government did not seem to be aware of the information then collected. They talked of the great exertions in this respect which had been made by this country through the means of its present resources; but the fact was, that during the last war we provided a much larger amount of clothing, not only for our own troops, but also for those of our allies.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, that the advertisement to which the right hon. Gentleman had just referred was connected with a state of things which he might characterise as one of transition between the establishment of a clothing store at Weedon, and those arrangements by which it was proposed that the supply of clothes to the army should ultimately be carried into effect. He should, therefore, give the best reply in his power to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman, by informing him what the system was which would be followed out after the 1st of April next with 2066 respect to the subject under their notice. Up to the present moment not a single suit of clothing had been ordered, received, or issued by the clothing department, inasmuch as it was only within the last few days that the officers and inspectors of that department had been completely organised. After the 1st of April next, however, all cloth which was ordered for the purpose of making army clothing should be delivered at Weedon, and should be there examined by the inspectors appointed for the purpose. The gentleman at the head of the department at Weedon was Mr. Elliott, who lately held a position of considerable importance in Canada, and who would have placed under him five or six skilled inspectors. When the cloth had been received at Weedon and inspected by those gentlemen, it would, in the case of the Artillery, the Cavalry, the Guards, and the Sappers and Miners, be delivered up to the corps themselves, upon whom would rest the whole charge of making up their own clothing. That arrangement, he believed, would be productive of great economy, and it had been computed by an able officer, that the saving likely to be effected in the Artillery department alone, under the new system, would not be less than £14,000 annually. The money thus saved, he might inform the Committee, it was the intention of the Government to apply to the improvement of the quality of the cloth which was provided for the use of our troops. With regard to the rest of the army, the arrangements to be adopted were still under the consideration of his noble Friend (Lord Panmure). In the case of the infantry, no doubt great difficulties would present themselves in dealing with the question efficiently, inasmuch as the regiments in that department of the service were constantly changing from place to place, and were often employed on distant stations. Whether the depôts of those regiments could be made available for carrying out the new arrangements for making up the clothing he was not prepared to say; but in case they could not, it would be necessary to have their clothing made up by tender, and under those circumstances it was deemed advisable that the clothing of the Irish regiments should be made up in Dublin, and those of the English in Yorkshire, or some other locality in the north. The whole of the packing would be done in the Government establishment at Weedon, and therefore the expense of army packers, which amounted 2067 to £12,000 or £13,000 a year, would be entirely abolished. He had not yet turned his attention to the documents which showed the course pursued at the expiration of the last war, but he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) for bringing the subject under his notice.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had sketched was perfectly satisfactory, and he was glad his questions had elicited that statement, because he was convinced it was of vast consequence that both the cloth and the clothing for the army should be inspected by officers of the Government on Government premises, that in the event of the troops being supplied with bad articles the public might know whom to blame.

§ COLONEL GILPIN
said, he felt bound to complain of the clothing which had been served out to the militia. He was aware of one case in which clothes had bean served, and half the buttons had come off in less than fourteen days. With regard to the boots which had been furnished under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, he might observe that nothing could be worse. They cost 8s. 3d., but the upper leather was of a bad description, and the soles were made of leather shavings, and the consequence had of course been, that they wore out in a remarkably short time. He believed that in the case of trousers a contract had been entered into to furnish them to the troops at the rate of about 4s. 1d. per pair, but it was perfectly well known that no respectable dealer would undertake to furnish them at less than 5s. or 5s. 6d. a pair. If the soldier were not furnished with a good article, of course it would wear out in a comparatively short time, and he would then be put under a stoppage of pay in order to replace it. This was a subject, therefore, to which he thought the attention of the Government ought to be directed. There was a rumour afloat, that in the case of the clothing of the German cavalry the articles were so bad, that the men were to receive £2 each, in order to refit themselves in pantaloons and boots. That mode of proceeding, he could not help thinking, would be found to entail very heavy expenses upon the public. He regretted that the barracks at Weedon were to be turned into a gigantic clothing depôt. He did not think Government contracts generally answered, and he believed they were extremely detrimental to the interests of the service.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
said, he must caution the Committee against supposing that by the new arrangement the Government would obtain the clothing much cheaper. He was satisfied the country would be quite ready to pay a fair price for better articles than were at present supplied to our troops. He found that the cost of clothing for the cavalry now averaged from £9 to £10 per man, and for the infantry the cost was £5 per man; but was it likely that two suits of clothing, well made, and of good materials, could be obtained for £5?

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he had lately ordered uniforms for the regiment he had the honour to command from a clothier in Dublin, who stated that he would have to send the clothing to Weedon. Now, could any arrangement be more absurd? With regard to the system of inspection, he thought it should be conducted by the officers of the respective regiments, who were the best judges of the suitability of clothing and accoutrements. Inspectors of saddlery had been appointed, and among others a man named Brodie, who was formerly in the Dragoon Guards, but who, in his opinion, was not to be trusted in such a position. He hoped the Committee would be informed whether any compensation was to be given to the German Legion for the bad clothing issued to them, which had been condemned by a board of regimental officers. The Land Transport Corps had been supplied with trousers which were wholly unfitted for the service in which they were engaged, and he wished to know by whom those trousers were made, and whether they were to be issued to the troops. He also begged to ask, whether the saddlery supplied to the 2nd Regiment of German cavalry had been condemned by the officers, and whether the contractor had been required to pay for efficient equipments? He saw that there were to be inspectors of accoutrements, but he defied any one who had not seen the accoutrements worn by the men themselves to give a proper opinion of their efficiency. He felt certain that the system of the soldiers making up their own clothing would not answer, because the soldiers were for a great part of the time abroad on foreign service. The system had broken down in the French army when in service abroad.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, he was much gratified to hear that measures had been taken to improve the quality of the 2069 clothing issued to the soldiers of the British army. He doubted whether the contract system was the best that could be resorted to for the clothing of the army, because there was frequently great disinclination on the part of the higher class of manufacturers to tender for Government contracts. He hoped the Government would, in future, pay less regard to economy than to the quality and excellence of the articles which were required for the use of the troops.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he had received a letter from the Messrs. Isaac and Campbell, in which those gentlemen denied the justice of a charge brought against them in that House on a former evening, in reference to the mode in which they had fulfilled an army clothing contract. The firm in question had supplied in a very satisfactory manner the regiment which he commanded.

§ COLONEL BOLDERO
said, he was glad to find that the Government did not propose concentrating the whole of their stores at Woolwich. For his own part, he thought it would be very advisable to make Weedon the great rendezvous for the stores.

§ LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM
said, he wished to know what provision was made for the repayment of the Sardinian loan, and also whether payment had been made for the forage which had been supplied to the Sardinian army?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he was not aware that any repayment had been made. Last year the Estimates had contained an item for provisions to be supplied to the Sardinian forces; but there was no such item this year. The noble Lord had also inquired about forage for the Sardinian army: the calculation was for a supply for 60,000 animals, with an addition of 25 per cent for contingencies.

MR. MILES
said, he could only find 46,000 animals included in the Estimates.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, there were at this moment 30,000 animals in the East; there were others at home; and the Estimate was framed on the assumption that it might be necessary to keep 60,000 at the seat of war.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, the 60,000 of course included the artillery, the cavalry of different forces, and all the Commissariat forces.

MR. STAFFORD
said, he wished to inquire what proportion of soldiers in the Crimea was supplied with huts?

§ MR. MONSELL
replied, that nearly the whole of the army was under huts at the present moment.

MR. STAFFORD
said, that it was announced in an authoritative manner some time ago that the entire army was hutted. He regretted now to learn that some of the men were still without huts.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, that abundance of huts had been sent out to accommodate all the soldiers in the Crimea.

§ COLONEL BOLDERO
said, he must complain that the Estimate was not sufficiently clear as to the amount required for huts. In another page he found an item of £250,000 for huts, which ought to have been placed under the same head as it appeared under last year.

COLONEL KNOX
said, that great complaints were made in the Crimea with reference to the supply of huts. It appeared that they had not been furnished in sufficient number to afford shelter to half the army; and he had further to observe that he could prove that the greater portion of the huts had not been sent from this country until the period which elapsed between the 25th of November and the 1st of January. That was, he asserted, an indisputable fact. He wished to know whether any supervision had been exercised over the contractors who had furnished the huts. The articles supplied had in many instances been so bad that the boards would not hold nails; and in fact the wretched way in which the contracts for huts had been fulfilled was perfectly notorious in the army. He believed the present heads of the War Office prided themselves greatly on the efficiency of the provision made for the comfort of the troops; but he undertook to say that, if Sebastopol had not been taken, the army in the Crimea would have been in a worse position this winter than that from which it had suffered so much during the preceding winter. Some of the troops were not hutted even at the present moment. He would give an instance of the very imperfect and unsatisfactory arrangements made under that head. In one division the huts for the officers would only accommodate eight of their number. The commanding officer had, in a very generous spirit, determined on applying the huts to the use of younger and less seasoned officers than himself, and 2071 had therefore been compelled for his own part to live in a tent. He knew the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) would tell him that the officers were now actually hutted. But how had that taken place? Why, the officers, and the sergeants too, had hutted themselves out of the débris of Sebastopol, and if Sebastopol had not been taken they must have remained unhutted throughout the winter. At the end of November two-thirds of the army had been under canvas, and many of the men had been frost-bitten in their tents. With regard to the huts at home, he confessed it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was spending too much money in those temporary buildings. In his opinion the present unsatisfactory state of the barrack accommodation in London deserved the serious consideration of the Government. There were no means of accommodating troops in the heart of the empire in case of any sudden emergency? He much regretted to find that a Vote on account of the Portman Street Barracks still continued in the Estimates, for he believed that such a building in such a spot was a disgrace to the metropolis. He was afraid that it was in contemplation to build barracks at Battersea Park, but he did not believe that they could secure proper exercise grounds in that district. He was given to understand that a better site could be obtained in the north of London towards Bayswater, which was one of the great avenues of London. If the Government considered it necessary to keep troops in the vicinity of London at all, he hoped that they would apply themselves to building efficient barracks, and not year after year coop up the troops in what was little better than a stable-yard, for which, too, they paid a most inordinate price. Above all, it was absolutely necessary to provide them with sufficient exercise ground, without which they would be paralysed.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he wished for some explanation with respect to the sum mentioned in the Votes for gun factories.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that as it appeared on the face of the Estimates, he really could not make out what the Vote was for. For small arms the sum of £1,800,000 was put down. Why, if each stand cost no more than was alleged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, £4, provision was made for something like 500,000 stand of arms. Another item was for the supply of iron ordnance shot 2072 and shell. He wanted to know how that shot and shell was to be procured—whether by the old way of contract or by the new method of constructing a foundry for that purpose? If the latter method was to be adopted, he should certainly make the Motion of which he had given notice at once, without waiting till the question of Woolwich foundry came under discussion. He also wished to know whether the saltpetre required would be obtained as usual from the East India Company in exchange for powder? One of the most extraordinary items in the Votes was that for miscellaneous stores. It was not fair to put such enormous sums under such a head without giving some explanation, by way of appendix or otherwise, of the details. Among the charges was one for machinery at Waltham. He believed that better powder-mills were required at Waltham Abbey, and he should be happy to hear that the machinery alluded to was for the purpose of erecting additional mills there, which would be a judicious expenditure. He also wanted to know whether any of the rights of the Ordnance Department with regard to the water of the river Lea in that neighbourhood, or of any tributary streams, had been abandoned, as he feared, from the appearance of one of the items. When he was Clerk to the Ordnance, a water company had applied to take water from the Lea, but the application had been strenuously resisted, and consequently failed. He very much feared, however, that another one had been more successful.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
said, that an hon. Gentleman had alluded to the large number of huts which were constructed last year. In his opinion the Government had exercised a wise discretion in adopting the course they. had. It was impossible to build barracks sufficient to accommodate the very large number of soldiers that required housing at an emergency, therefore huts were substituted; and if they were now roofed with slate instead of with felt, he believed that they would last from twenty-five to thirty years. He should be very glad to know what the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire meant by an observation which he had made, that the officers of the Army Works Corps were far better accommodated than any other portion of the army?

MR. STAFFORD
said, that what he meant to say was simply this:—When he 2073 was in the Crimea more attention seemed to be paid to their officers than to the accommodation of anybody else, and he wrote home to that effect.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
said, he thought that if the hon. Gentleman had adopted the course he did the year before, when he made himself so useful to all classes of the service, it would have been much better than to have raised a prejudice against officers who went out to render essential service to the army.

MR. STAFFORD
I did no such thing. All that I did was to write a letter on the subject, and if I saw the same things I saw when I was out there last, I would do so again. The fact was, that when I was going round with some of the officers, my attention was called to a number of comfortably built houses, which, I was told, belonged to the chiefs of the Army Works Corps. I saw that a great deal of labour was occasioned by the selection of the site, which rendered an arrangement of terraces necessary, while the soldiers were lying in tents worse than any gipsy tents we see at Ascot or Epsom. I did think, and I expressed my opinion that I thought, it would have been better if those gentlemen had contented themselves with humbler lodgings, and expended a little of the superfluous labour upon the soldiers' quarters. At the same time I had no correspondence with the newspapers on the subject. I wrote to the Horse Guards, and if the hon. Gentleman chooses to call for that letter, I have not the slightest objection to its production. I said that there was some reluctance on the part of the officers to mention it, but that a general feeling existed that too much labour had been expended upon those buildings, while horses were unstabled and men unhutted, and I ask the hon. Gentleman whether at that time that was not the case?

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
If the hon. Gentleman had called upon Mr. Doyne and had stated to him what he has told the Committee, Mr. Doyne would have informed him that the buildings in question were not the huts for the Army Works Corps, but offices necessary for carrying on the works. Considering that 3,000 men were employed, those offices were absolutely required, and so far from Mr. Doyne occupying them, he was at the very time the complaint was made actually living in a tent with the officers.

§ COLONEL BOLDERO
said, he considered 2074 that the Committee had a perfect right to demand explanations upon the points which had been raised. Last year they had voted the money with unlimited confidence, because at that time the war was raging; but now there was a prospect of peace, and the state of affairs was entirely changed. The Committee of course would notice the large increase in the sum required for the Land Transport Service. Last year it was £154,776; this year it amounted to £211,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee how the sum voted last year for that purpose had been expended, and also how much of the present Vote was to be expended for waggon transport and how much for harness?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, that, in replying to the various questions which had been put to him, he must observe that the form of the Estimates was totally unchanged this year, being neither more nor less detailed than usual. It was true that some of the Estimates were larger this year, but not the slightest difference of arrangement had been made. The new Votes had been arranged with great care, and by competent persons, notwithstanding which he had no doubt that they might be still further amended, and he should be much obliged to hon. Gentlemen for any suggestion which would have that effect. The hon. and gallant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox) had put a question to him respecting the sending of huts to the Crimea. He was perfectly willing to produce any returns which might be called for on that subject; but the Committee would recollect that 60,000 men had been sent out to the Crimea; a demand for huts was made on the 2nd or 3rd of August; and almost all the huts were sent out during September and October, and a large number were sent out within a fortnight of the time they were ordered. He thought the exertions which were made to meet the order were highly creditable to the contractors, who executed their work very well. There were two classes of huts—the Gloucester hut, and one erected under the inspection of Sir John Burgoyne, which had been set up for exhibition, but was not considered by the officers and men more suitable than the Gloucester huts; with respect to the quality of the hut no complaints had been made. They must also recollect that at about the same time an order was received to send put 200 mortars and 200,000 shells to the Crimea, 2075 and it was obviously the duty of the Government to supply those stores first, as they were of vital importance with respect to the siege of Sebastopol, and, in his opinion, they were perfectly right in doing so. The tonnage of the huts alone amounted to 30,000 tons, and the difficulties of transport at the time were almost insuperable. With regard to the huts at home, no doubt stone or brick barracks would be better; but it would be recollected that the huts were erected to meet an exigency, and in no other way could accommodation have been supplied so rapidly. An outcry had, with reason, been raised throughout the country against the billeting system, and if the Government had delayed any provision for lodging the militia until they could erect stone and brick buildings they would have had to wait a long time indeed. The real evil was, that Parliament had been pleased, since the year 1815, to get rid of a large amount of accommodation for the reception of troops, which rendered necessary great exertions to supply the want felt at the commencement of this war; but he certainly thought the Government had adopted the wisest course in providing for that want by hutting the troops. With respect to the barracks in London, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Knox) would find in this year's Estimate that the Government had taken a sum of £33,000 for the purchase of a site for barracks for the Guards. The necessity of removing the Guards from Portman Street Barracks was much felt by Lord Hardinge, but, though during the last eighteen months they had been looking for a suitable site, they had not been able to find one which was entirely satisfactory to the military authorities. In answer to the question of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington (Co-lonel Dunne), it would be found that a sum of £572,000 was taken for the supply of iron ordnance, shot, shells, &c. The sum of £8,650 for machinery at Waltham Abbey was for the extension of the powder-mills there, the cost of which extension was mainly defrayed by a sum paid by the River Lea Company under an Act procured by them last Session. With respect to the amount of £211,000, set down for the supply of waggons and harness to the Land Transport Corps, the whole of that Vote, excepting £77,000 for harness, was for the purchase of carts and waggons for that corps. The £30,000 for machinery was required principally for 2076 that used in the construction of a gun foundry alluded to by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), now building, and for which an item was included in the next Vote, under the head of Royal Gun Factories.

CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON
said, he wished to call attention to the subject of Lancaster guns, for as there was an item in the Votes for £572,482 for the supply of iron ordnance, shot, shells, &c., he imagined that under the head Ordnance was included the Lancaster guns. He had moved for returns of the number of those guns which had become disabled in the siege of Sebastopol, &c. At the request of the Ordnance he had withdrawn his Motion; but it was reported that the guns had all become disabled except two; much to the satisfaction of those who had to work them, as they were so erratic in their conduct. It was said by those who understood them that the cause was a fault in construction. The Ordnance Department had stated that certain experiments were to take place. He should like to know the result, and whether those guns would be continued in the service. He would also ask if the experiments had taken place under the auspices of the committee at Woolwich, which, he believed, did not stand very well with the public or the service.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, the hon. and gallant Member was entirely mistaken in saying that the committee at Woolwich had not given satisfaction. That committee was appointed by the Duke of Newcastle, and was composed of men of the highest scientific knowledge; and he believed they had given the greatest possible satisfaction to the public. As regarded the experiment of the Lancaster gun, the inventor had not had the advantage of having it placed under that committee, the experiment being made under the supervision of a separate committee—Mr. Lancaster wishing the matter to be kept secret. There had been the most various results from the experiments with the Lancaster gun, even in one day. At one time it was pronounced to be eminently successful, while at another time, and at another place, it was declared to be a failure. At ail events, it was impossible, at the present moment, to allow the Lancaster gun to be introduced into the service. It was a gun fit only for special service, and on particular occasions, and not one to be adopted as a part of the regular armament of war. Whether it 2077 would ever become so was a question on which officers of high scientific attainments very much differed in opinion.

COLONEL LINDSAY
said, he was glad to hear that it was proposed to do away with Portman Street Barracks. He observed a Vote was taken for ground for the new barracks at Chelsea, but no sum was asked for building them. He must express his anxiety that the site at present occupied by the National Gallery and by the barracks adjacent thereto should be secured by the Government. There was a Bill now pending for the formation of a company to be called "The Imperial Hotel Company," the promoters of which contemplated erecting a large hotel on the site of the National Gallery, in Trafalgar Square. That position was once described by the late Sir Robert Peel to be the finest site that was to be found in any city in Europe, and ho hoped the Government would never let it pass out of their hands.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he saw £9,000 down for machinery for the gun factory. They had no gun factory, and there was a Motion to oppose its erection. If the Vote were passed, they would have the machinery and no factory.

§ MR. MONSELL
The Vote is merely a Vote on account.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that as there were such large sums for machinery, there must consequently be a great consumption of coals; he, therefore, wished to call the attention of the Government to the fact that an efficient system of smoke consumption had been discovered, which, if adopted, would be a source of great economy.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he thought the Vote for machinery should be postponed, because if the factory were done away with, the machinery would be useless. He wished to raise the question whether it would be worth while for the Government to manufacture their own ordnance; he would also remind the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance that he had not answered his inquiry with respect to the large item of £1,250,000 for miscellaneous stores. He was sorry also to learn that the Government had allowed the Waltham Water Bill to pass. The Government of Lord Derby had opposed it successfully, on the score of injury to the public service.

COLONEL SOMERSET
said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had not given any explanation on the subject of the huts in the Crimea. He could 2078 speak from experience that the huts there were of the very worst description. He did not believe that any one plank of those originally sent out was sound. He was not speaking of the huts that had been recently supplied, but of the two sorts that were at first furnished, and which were called the Portsmouth huts and Gloucester huts. He believed that there was not a single plank of those huts which had not been split by the sun. He should like to know what was the amount of the contract?

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he could not state the amount of the contract, but he knew that the Gloucester huts were considerably cheaper than the huts that had since been supplied.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he had given notice of a Motion to postpone the Vote of £40,000 for the erection of a foundry for iron cannon at Woolwich, in order to allow the subject to be inquired into by a Select Committee. Without giving any opinion as to the propriety of the Government setting up as manufacturers, he thought that, as it had been considered proper last year to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of the supply of small arms, it would be equally proper to take the same course with regard to iron ordnance. He believed that no iron ordnance in the world was comparable to that of Great Britain. At the siege of St. Sebastian some of the cannon were fired, it was said, 3,000 times, while from 1,200 to 1,500 rounds were considered enough to wear out iron guns in general; but at Sebastopol there were guns which had been fired 6,000 times, and yet were not then completely unserviceable. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had no doubt heard that iron smelted with charcoal was better than iron smelted with coal, and was desirous of introducing artillery manufactured from charcoal iron mixed with coal-smelted iron. When he (Colonel Dunne) first entered Parliament there was a great outcry against any attempt of the Government to set up as manufacturers, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had declared that a Government manufacture always cost 50 per cent more than a private manufacture. If that were so, the House surely ought to pause before sanctioning the erection of a cannon foundry, as was proposed by the Vote now before 2079 the Committee. The Government could not get charcoal iron in England, but he was told it was to be got from Nova Scotia. That province, however, did not produce sufficient charcoal for such a purpose; the wood there was fir, and not oak or hard wood fitted for conversion into charcoal. He thought it would be cheaper to give a higher price to the manufacturers at home, and then appoint an efficient person to see that the guns were properly made. It had been the custom, many years ago, to send artillery officers to the Carron and other gun foundries, and he believed a similar practice would be useful in the present day. Manufacturers would, no doubt, gladly receive any suggestion for the improvement of iron artillery, while officers would derive very great advantage from a practical acquaintance with the process of manufacture. Unhappily our artillery officers had not generally been instructed in the casting of cannon, so that they could not be competent to superintend factories. Such a duty required the skill which could only be acquired by long experience. Foreign nations obtained cannon from us, which showed that ours was the best. Even America could not smelt iron so cheaply as we could; and we exported iron to every country in the world. We should seek to improve the composition of guns made by the manufacturers. All theory required to be supported by a certain amount of practical knowledge. His right hon. Friend had talked about the scientific department at Woolwich—a body comprising many gentlemen of great scientific attainments, but still only theorists, and whose decisions were not so speedy as could be desired. He had heard of a committee last year to inquire into rifle arms, which did not meet for nine months. Then, again, experiments were not carried out so completely as they should be. He thought he had stated sufficient grounds to justify his request that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the Vote until a committee had decided upon the propriety of adopting the unusual mode now suggested for procuring a supply of iron ordnance.

MR. PIGOTT
said, he did think this a proper period for voting any large sums for temporary buildings, and he should like to have some explanation as to the manner in which the Vote was to be expended.

COLONEL LINDSAY
said, that though the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of 2080 the Ordnance, on opening the War Estimates, had stated that they would be referred to the Inspector General of Fortifications to report as to the cost of the improvement of certain existing barracks, he had not explained what were the intentions of the Government in reference to the erection of such new barracks as were needed. For a long period of years the accommodation for the soldiers had been most inferior. They had been kept in crowded rooms, almost without ventilation; and within the barracks there had been no places of recreation for them except the canteens, the letting of which was disgraceful to the Government. Generally, the buildings were almost unfit for the soldiers to go into. He was aware that the system of the army had of late been considerably altered. In former days the soldiers were taught by compulsion; but at present it was endeavoured, as much as possible, to encourage the men to behave properly, and with this view, good-conduct pay, libraries, and schools had been established. Still an improvement in the accommodation of the soldier in barracks remained to be effected. If the soldier was not made comfortable in his barracks, it was not to be expected that he would behave in that meritorious manner which would sustain the character of the army. The Government Committee of last year pointed out that, notwithstanding the improvements in barracks built in late years, the accommodation was generally inadequate for the comfort and convenience of the soldiers, and contrasted badly with the accommodation afforded in gaols to persons convicted of crime. With respect to married soldiers, civilians as well as military men had expressed their abhorrence at the practice of the married soldiers living in common with the single in barracks, and the Government Committee recommended that that practice should be for ever abolished, and that separate accommodation should be afforded to the married soldiers in barracks to such an extent as the Government might approve of. He believed the canteen system had been altered, but he should be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain in what way it had been changed. The introduction of spirits into barracks had been put a stop to with very good results as respected the conduct of the soldiers, and he trusted that spirits would not be again allowed to be brought into barracks.

§ CAPTAIN STUART
said, he wished to call attention to the imperfect manner in which the huts at Aldershot were ventilated, and to express a hope that steps would be taken to effect an improvement in that respect. The supply of water, too, was very bad, and in one or two instances it had been discovered that drainage pipes had been conducted into the wells which had been sunk for the use of the camp. A great want of harmony between the different departments had been displayed in several instances. On one occasion some wheelbarrows were wanted, and, as none could he found on the spot, application was made to the proper department in London. The answer returned was, that there were some wheelbarrows in camp, and sure enough, on further search being made, they were discovered, but the barrows were in one part of the camp and the wheels in another. On another occasion, being desirous of obtaining a stove to place in an empty mess-room, which was used as a school, he had applied to various departments, but from all had received the answer that there was not such a thing to be got, though a short time afterwards he accidentally discovered a whole hut full of them, lying idle and unused.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he wished to ask whether it was intended to give the plan of Mr. Fergusson, with regard to fortifications, a fair consideration? Mr. Fergusson had devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject, and he (Mr. Layard) thought that gentleman had been unfairly treated. The subject was one worthy the consideration of that House, and he rejoiced that it had been referred to by a noble Earl in the other House. He should like to have an assurance that the plans of Mr. Fergusson would receive their due meed of consideration from the Government.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, he desired to call attention to the wretched state of the barrack accommodation in this country. In some of the healthiest districts of England the total mortality, including that of infants and aged persons, did not exceed 1½ per cent of the population; while from some statistics which were published about ten years ago, it appeared that in the brigade of the Guards, consisting principally of men in the prime of life, the rate of mortality was 2 per cent, and another 3 per cent were invalided. This high rate of mortality was attributable principally to defective barrack ac- 2082 commodation. He left it to hon. and gallant Members who were familiar with the accommodation of barracks to say how far the space per man in such buildings fell short of the allowance recommended in similar cases by the Poor Law Board. The arrangements for drainage and cleanliness were also, in most cases, shamefully defective. He was willing to allow that much had been done within the last ten years to improve the barracks, but there was yet great need of amendment; and he was glad that the subject still occupied the attention of the Government. At some future day he should himself bring it before the House by a specific Motion.

§ SIR GEORGE TYLER
said, he begged to urge upon the attention of the Committee the importance of the erection of defences upon the coast of the Bristol Channel, and would inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance what was being done with respect to such defences.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
said, he thought that a time of war, when the attention of the heads of departments must be fully occupied, was not a favourable moment for carrying on large and important works unconnected with military operations. In the Portsmouth district it was by this Vote proposed to expend £200,000 upon fortifications. Considering that Mr. Fergusson stated that the fortifications which were being erected would be utterly useless, it was desirable that the Government should consider and decide upon that gentleman's plan before continuing this large outlay. A sum of £150,000 was also asked for, for the erection at Southampton of a hospital which would accommodate 1,000 patients. After what we had recently heard of the good sanitary condition of our army, he hoped that there would, when it returned home, be no occasion for such an hospital. At Woolwich £220,000 was likewise required for works. If the Government were to have foundries for shells and ordnance, no doubt this sum would be needed; but he was entirely opposed to the Government becoming manufacturers of anything except such small things as ball cartridges and rockets, which they could make better than any one else. The work would be performed both better and cheaper under a proper system of contracts, carried out by well-qualified officers. He would instance railways and other works that had been constructed 2083 under contracts. All they had to do was to get their articles well specified in the contracts, and afterwards see that they were properly manufactured or constructed. Another reason he had against the Government becoming manufacturers was, that the great and advancing improvements in the construction of machinery prevented them keeping pace with private manufacturers in producing a superior article.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, he thought that the discussion winch had taken place had shown that, as this was the first occasion on which the Vote had been presented in this form, so it ought to be the last. It contained so many items that it was impossible for a Minister to explain or for the House to understand it. The provision of barrack accommodation was itself of sufficient importance to form the subject of a distinct Vote. He wished particularly to call the attention of the Committee to our barrack system, which, he thought, was a perfect disgrace to the country. It was useless to build barracks where there was no space to drill the men, and to quarter infantry in garrison towns where they could not even train their recruits. The accommodation for the Guards had lately been much improved, but they still had very little means of recreation. There was one small spot near the Wellington Barracks, and that was the only spot in the metropolis for the recreation of the troops, for the battalion at the Tower had no ground. In France it was very different; there the Chasseurs de Vincennes had a regular training-ground, and so with respect to the other troops of the Empire.

§ COLONEL BOLDERO
said, he thought that the discussion had become much confused, in consequence of the circumstances of so many different things having been mixed up with the Vote. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance would reply to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) before be entered into any other points urged during the discusion.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he could not see any valid reason for acceding to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington. He did not think that a Committee of that House would be more competent to decide the question than the artillery officers in Woolwich, who had investigated it thoroughly, and 2084 had reported in the strongest manner in favour of those manufactories. It would be shown that the guns made at the foundry at Woolwich were considerably cheaper than those purchased within the last few years. What were the facts in regard to the armaments of mortars obtained at a time of great pressure for the siege of Sebastopol? It was found absolutely necessary, on account of the great demands for mortars, to apply to other houses than the two great establishments with which the Government were in the habit of dealing. They selected the other houses in the country, with the best and highest reputation, and ordered from them a considerable number of mortars. Well, the result had been most unsatisfactory, as the failures had been very great, particularly as regarded one of those houses, which he did not think it necessary to name. The Government lost all confidence in those mortars; and in respect to the armament in process of preparation for the Baltic fleet, they were determined to use none but those which had come from the two great houses with which they had been in the habit of dealing. What was the result with even the best of those mortars? Why, everybody knew that at Sweaborg the mortars burst after a very small number of rounds. In all European countries the practice was for the respective Governments to establish their own foundries for the manufacture of their own cannon. By such an establishment they could always have the power of testing their own metal, and of proving its strength. Several experiments had been tried at Woolwich in regard to the qualities of foreign and home metal. In the case of the American iron the test proved that it stood a pressure of from 35,000 to 45,000 lbs.; whereas the best iron we had been able to produce could only bear a pressure up to 27,500 lbs., but the average amount of pressure was only 22,000 lbs. Certain manufacturers in Nova Scotia had offered to contract with the British Government for iron, the whole of which was engaged to stand the test of a pressure of 36,000 lbs. The proper charge for the largest gun in use in our service was 15 lbs., but there was an order issued to use only 13 lbs. to the charge, because our guns could not be relied upon to stand a greater charge. Was it wise, he asked, to rely upon the trade of the country for the supply of an article which the trade of the country did not require? 2085 Those guns could only be required for this special and exclusive purpose. He was perfectly convinced that he could show to the House that the course suggested was an economical one. Last year he recommended the establishment of a shell foundry, prophesying that by so doing they would reduce the price of shells one-half. Any Member who wished to visit Woolwich would see that prophecy verified. The same result he had no doubt would follow in regard to guns, but he did not rest his case on that so much as on the fact that it was of the greatest importance that they should have the best possible guns for either attack or defence.

§ COLONEL BOLDERO
said, he hoped that the firm to which allusion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, had been mulcted in the largest fine in the power of the Government to inflict. Since we had been a military power, the Government had never cast a single iron gun. And if they adopted the suggestions of the Government, they would be in the same position in which he told them two years ago they would be in with respect to gunpowder and muskets. It was then proposed to take the whole manufacture of powder into the hands of the Government. But he deprecated doing this, because in time of war the resources of these private establishments would be available. The same remark was applicable to the case of cannons. If they ceased to take guns from the private houses which now supplied them, they would in a future war find themselves without other resources than in their own establishments.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
Sir, I entirely concur in the opinion expressed by various Members in the course of the debate, that, as regards articles required in large quantities, and matters of ordinary industry, it may be desirable that Government should obtain their supplies by contract. Nothing could be more absurd than that Government should make clothes, shoes, belts, and things of that kind, the common produce of the industry of the country; but cannon are matters of a totally different description. If clothes are ordered on contract, the cloth can be examined, and if it should be found of an inferior description, it can be returned on the hands of the contractor. The same is equally true of boots, shoes, and belts, where the remedy is equally obvious; but the defects of cannon are things only to be ascertained by the employment of the gun; and consider 2086 what danger you incur by going into action with cannon not perfect in the manner of their construction, or made of materials incapable of withstanding the shock of explosion. This occurred at Sweaborg. I have seen on the quay of Woolwich the mortars that burst at Sweaborg. They were split in two as if cut with a knife. Yet there was no want of thickness in these mortars. The defect was in the metal of which they were constructed, or in the casting of it. Your implements of war should be the very best that science can devise and money procure. It will not do to take your soldiers into action with muskets that will not carry, with guns that burst, and with mortars that split. Therefore I say that, from the very necessity of the case, implements of war form a proper exception to the general rule of obtaining your supplies by contract. It has been said that, in periods of singular emergency, when the imminence of the occasion renders it necessary that there should be a rapid increase of the implements of war, the Government can scarcely avoid having recourse to the trade; but, conceding this, and granting that your permanent system contemplates that a large proportion of your implements should be procured by contract, still, yon should have a basis of operation in a great establishment of your own, where you may make experiments in the different modes of manufacturing these weapons, test new inventions, and practise new improvements in the material or in the manner of fashioning that material. In point of economy, I have not the slightest doubt that the country will gain by such a system, and in illustration of this opinion I may be allowed to refer to the works at Woolwich, where a small quantity of Lancaster shells has been manufactured at a much smaller cost than, they could have been procured from the trade. With such facts before them, I trust that the Committee will not assent to the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne)—if he will permit me so to call him—for nothing could be more injurious to the public service than to prevent the establishment, at least to a limited degree, of factories for the manufacture of iron guns as well as brass ones. What, I would ask, is the difference in this respect between brass and iron? Why, if it is proper to make brass guns at Woolwich, should it not be equally expedient to make iron ones? If it is right that the Government should have the power to 2087 make one class of guns, why should it be wrong for them to make another? The distinction appears to me unintelligible. With regard to barracks, it were vain to deny that their construction, distribution, and interior economy have not been such as it is desirable that they should be. I have a confident expectation that the Committee, sensible of this fact, will not refuse to assist the Government in an attempt to improve the plan of structure and the general arrangements of these edifices in such a manner as to make them more conducive to the health of the troops, and more consistent with their social and moral habits and their mode of existence. There can be no doubt that the barracks in this country are far inferior to those of any other country in Europe. Wherever you travel on the Continent you find that buildings of this character are more airy and spacious, more judicious in the plan of their construction, and in all respects better adapted for the accommodation of troops than in England. Every day we are reminded of the necessity of providing suitable habitations for the civil population, and I cannot suppose that the House will not deem these considerations to be of equal importance in the case of our soldiers. I confidently rely, therefore, on the liberality of Parliament in enabling the Government to take the necessary steps for the improvement of the barracks throughout the country. With regard to fortifications, an hon. Member has adverted to a system which has attracted much attention—that proposed by Mr. Fergusson. Everybody who has read, with the attention it merits, the pamphlet published by that gentleman on the defences of Portsmouth, must be aware that it contains a great deal of matter well deservingof careful consideration; but it would be a mistake to draw a conclusion in favour of his system from what passed at the siege of Sebastopol. The operations at Sebastopol were very different from those of ordinary sieges. At Sebastopol there were two great armies confronting one another. One of those armies was lodged behind trenches and earthworks, from which it was the object of the other to dislodge them. But the first army had resources, both of men and ammunition, almost unparalleled in the history of war. As fast as their guns were dismounted others were substituted, and as fast as men were slain others were forthcoming to supply their places. We have been authoritatively assured that at the 2088 last bombardment the Russians lost, in killed and wounded, something like 1,800 or 1,900 men a day. Fresh reinforcements, however, were always forthcoming from the other side of the harbour, and new supplies of men were continually brought up from the army in the rear. Operations such as these furnish no parallel for a limited fortification, where reinforcement and replenishment cannot take place. It is, therefore, a mistake to suppose that the earthworks system is invariably applicable to limited fortifications. I will not go into those details which those who are familiar with the subject must have attended to, but it is well known that earthwork will not stand perpendicularly like stone. It must have a slope of forty-five degrees, and these slopes can be ascended by an attacking force much more easily than perpendicular walls terminating in a ditch. However the merits and advantages of this system are being very much considered, and no doubt the addition of earth in front of stone walls has been found to be a mode of considerably strengthening the stone revetment of a fortification.

§ MR. HUTCHINS
said, that the Government could not be surprised at the jealousy with which the Committee viewed the present Vote. The Small Arms Committee had considered £25,000 to be sufficient for this purpose, but now it was considered that £150,000 was not sufficient. If they went on at the same ratio, £250,000 would be found to be necessary. The noble Lord said the only way to test a gun was in battle, but he (Mr. Hutchins) begged to doubt the fact. The Government had said that they had been defrauded by certain contractors, and he must agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that nothing could be more disgraceful than the conduct of those persons. But if the Government undertook all the different departments, they must expect to meet with deceptions, and they might as well think of becoming farmers, and grow their own hay, because last year they were provided with supplies of damaged hay.

MR. LLOYD DAVIES
said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) to complain that there were only two firms in England capable of supplying the Government with large guns of a satisfactory description; for that, in fact, a long experience was required to enable manufacturers to produce such guns. Surely, then, they were not going to establish a foundry when they must necessarily begin 2089 their work perfectly inexperienced. Would it not be better for them at once to avail themselves of the information and experience possessed by manufacturers, and endeavour to stimulate them to greater exertions, than run the risk of failure in an attempt to set up an infantine institution. At Aldershot they had had nothing but failure from beginning to end; and if the superintendence was so imperfect in that instance, how much more so would it be in the case of a foundry like that which it was proposed to create? Before he sat down he could not help stating that he thought the name of the firm which had produced such guns as those adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance ought to be mentioned, in order to be consigned to infamy. There was not an honest man in the country who heard its name that would not treat the members of it as felons of the lowest order.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he wished to remind the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) that Mr. Fergusson's system did not consist of earthworks, but of bringing a large number of guns to bear upon a particular point. Did the noble Lord intend to appoint a Committee to inquire into Mr. Fergusson's scheme?

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Mr. Fergusson's system essentially consists of earth works. He arms his earthworks with three tiers of guns, and the essence of his system is to bring an immense mass of direct fire upon the works of an attacking enemy. Usually the besiegers bring a larger fire to bear upon a particular point than the defenders; but Mr. Fergusson reverses the position, and by means of earthworks, containing three tiers of guns one above the other, he brings upon the besiegers a greater fire than they can direct against the place. His plan consists of mounds of earth instead of revetments.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, he thought that if those hon. Members who had confidence in the honesty of the manufacturers and others who executed contracts had attended, as he had, the sittings of the Committee on the Adulteration of Food, they would find that, not only were frauds committed upon the public of a comparatively harmless kind, but frauds most injurious to health and even dangerous to life. Those hon. Members might then have less confidence in the patriotic sentiments of traders and manufacturers 2090 than they now seemed to give them credit for.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, that if the principle of the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) were carried out to its fullest extent, the Government would manufacture everything. When he objected some time ago to the Government undertaking for itself the manufacture of small arms, he was told that he had only the interest of his constituents at heart, although he was certain that he was advocating the best interests of the country. His constituents had no interest in large guns, but he was just as much opposed to the Government commencing this manufacture. If the guns were not good, the fault was with the Government, whose officers neglected to test them. It was probable that, in the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), the fault was with the workmen, and that the master knew nothing about the flaws. If the Government wanted guns made of a particular iron, let them say so, and state the proof they wanted, and he felt confident that the manufacturers could and would execute the order. Much depended on the quantity of charge put into a gun, and, however good the quality of the weapon, it could not be expected to withstand the effects of an improper charge. The mortars which the noble Lord had seen broken up were, perhaps, fired with the Lancaster shot; in which case it was no wonder that they had exploded. In the make of the guns adapted for that projectile there was a peculiar twist; so that if the rotatory process did not operate, the shot acted on the gun exactly like an inclined plane; and the great chance was that the explosion would split it. The theory on which those guns were constructed had been proved beyond question to be a bad one; and it was found more dangerous to use them than it was to face their fire. In being their own manufacturers the Government were adopting a vicious principle. Instead of taking up the casting of iron guns, they ought to desist from themselves making any more brass ones. Of the two, however, sound brass guns could be easier cast than iron. At first the Government might save a little by their plan, but, in the long run, private enterprise must beat them to fits in cheapness. After the immediate pressure subsided, things would gradually find their level, and then cannon would be made at a reduction of 2091 one-third their present cost. The Government ought not to manufacture anything for themselves that could be well manufactured by others, and certainly there was nothing more capable of being tested than cannon.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
I think, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last has adduced the best possible argument against the very course that he advocates, because he tells us it is impossible for a contractor to know whether the article he furnishes is good or bad, inasmuch as he is entirely at the mercy of his workmen, who may any day fill up holes in a gun with pieces of bad metal without any fault attaching to their employer. It is vain, therefore, to talk of the guarantee afforded by the character of a great contractor, when we have so high an authority as the hon. Member avowing that such a person has no power of controlling his workmen, who may easily cheat him, and, through him, cheat the country also. The hon. Gentleman says the Government ought to manufacture nothing. Then let us abandon our dockyards and the building of ships, and likewise rescind the Vote in favour of a limited manufactory of small arms. In regard to cannon, we want what we now have in respect to small arms—namely, the nucleus of a factory under the superintendence of the Government, which shall act as a check upon the trade, and enable you to make weapons which you know to be good and efficient for their purpose. The mortars of which I spoke before did not split at the first discharge, but after a certain number of discharges; and unless you fire off a gun supplied by a contractor as many times as it would be fired in action, you cannot be assured of its proper solidity. And I need hardly say that to subject to such a repeated test every gun coming from a contractor would consume a quantity of powder that would soon make the article somewhat dearer than those made at our own arsenals. The hon. Gentleman mixed up things that are totally distinct when he said that the mortars to which I referred split from being charged with Lancaster shot. I did not allude to Lancaster guns at all. The mortars supplied by those contractors on whom we are recommended solely to rely, when sent to the Baltic, all burst on being fired off with shells a limited number of times; and the fleet was consequently unable to prosecute the 2092 operations of the war with the success which might otherwise have been attainable. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not be induced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Birmingham in favour of private contractors to deprive the Government of the means of providing the country with instruments of war of a quality that may be safely depended upon.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that if they sent fleets and armies into action, they ought to be supplied with proper arms. He did not think, however, it was quite fair to throw so much blame upon contractors. During the last war, which was a very long one, iron guns were supplied entirely by the trade, and it was a very rare thing indeed to hear of a gun bursting—so much so, that during the entire of his period of service he had never seen a gun burst, and he had seen guns fired three times in a minute. At the same time he would admit he had heard of their bursting. The bursting of those mortars had been ascribed to the quantity of powder—no less than 13 lbs.—with which they were charged. Now, that depended not so much upon the quantity of powder used as on the celerity with which the guns were fired. If they were the best mortars in the world, he would have defied them to have held together under the fire against Sweaborg. He was at the siege of Martinique, which was taken entirely by mortars, and he remembered they never thought of firing off a mortar more than once every quarter of an hour; whereas both at Sebastopol and Sweaborg they were fired as quickly as they could be. The fact was, he believed, that the mortars were fired a great deal too quickly, and that they would never be able to obtain mortars that would stand such rapid firing. The Birmingham muskets supplied to the fleet in the last war were perfect drugs, and hardly ever out of the armourer's hands; so that it was a common expression among the sailors with reference to anything faulty. "Oh, it's as bad as a ship's musket." Good muskets were never known in the service until the Government took the manufacture of them into their own hands, and he thought the noble Lord was perfectly right in establishing a gun factory.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he must defend the contractors from the blame that had been thrown upon them in the course of 2093 the discussion. With the greatest possible care on the part of the manufacturer, workmen would "patch up" work when it was cast imperfectly because it saved them trouble. He thought the danger of deception by workmen would be greater in a Government manufactory than in a private establishment. Ho feared the Vote now asked for was not intended merely for the purpose of making an experiment; but that it was an attempt to begin a large manufactory, and he was sure that that was the worst thing they could do.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, it was not the contractor, but the Government, who had discovered the bad workmanship. The cannon was delivered to the Government, and it was the officers of the Government who discovered that the workmen of the contractors had made a bad article. The contractor, if he had made the discovery, would not, for the sake of his own character, have sent it. It appeared, therefore, that the check of the Government was superior to that of the contractor.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he thought the fault was with the Government and not with the contractors, because the Government might have tried the mortars either by the hydraulic or the powder test. After the discussion which had taken place he should leave the responsibility of the Vote with the Government.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, the Government had already concluded the purchase of land for the erection of a fortress at Swansea; but he did not believe they contemplated doing more for the present.

§ MR. BONHAM-CARTER
said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) respecting the erection of a military hospital, which he understood was to be erected at Southampton at an expense of £150,000.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, the Government had taken a great deal of trouble in selecting the best position for a new hospital, and had fixed upon Southampton as having been recommended by the highest medical authorities in the country.

§ MR. BONHAM-CARTER
said, he wished to know who the medical authorities were?

§ MR. MONSELL
Sir James Clark and Dr. Middleton. He also begged to state that the Inspector General of Fortifications had been called to report upon barracks generally.