§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is the fact that the cutlass-bayonets recently complained of by the Admiralty were of foreign make, and were not, as was stated by the War Office, of English manufacture; whether he can explain how such an error was possible, and whether the system or a responsible official, and, if so, who is to blame for its having occurred; whether the weapons themselves bear no stamp 480 or mark which would indicate the places and the dates of manufacture and of issue; whether the discovery of the true history of the defective weapons is due, as stated by the Under Secretary of State for War, to an "effort of memory only;" whether no written records exist, or were ever made, on the subject; whether any other, and what, classes or descriptions of arms are without any such record, both stamped on the arms themselves and entered in the Record Book of the Department; and, what steps the Government intend to take to guard against the danger that would arise if the official information as to the number and history of weapons supplied to Her Majesty's Forces any longer depended upon the recollection of individual officials in the absence of proper official records?
§ THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE) (Exeter)It is true that the cutlass-bayonets recently complained of by the Admiralty were of foreign make. The mistake, I understand, arose from the system of book-keeping which existed in the War Office in 1859, but which has long since been entirely altered. Under that system rifles were non interchangeable; they had bayonets attached, but were only entered as rifles. The bayonets attached to them were regarded as part of the arm, and were not separately entered. This omission led to a larger proportion of sea-service sword-bayonets being assigned to home manufacturers than was correct. The weapons themselves originally bore view-marks indicating place and date of manufacture; these were erased in conversion. The discovery was due to the fact that when preparing information for the Cutlass Committee it appeared that more bayonets had been converted than were traceable as having been bought. The War Department books having been kept on improved principles since 1864, there was a difficulty in accounting for the matter; but a gentleman of long service in the Department was able to remember what the system was in 1859. The entry followed the custom of the day, which was well understood at the time. No written record regarding that custom is forthcoming. There is no reason to think that any other arms now in use or reserve for Her Majesty's Forces are in the same category as these cutlass-bayonets. The records are now well kept, and it is hardly possible to see 481 how a similar mistake can arise in future.