§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is or is not at the War Office a military official definitely charged with and paid for the duty (amongst other things) of providing proper swords for British troops; if so, under what rules of the War Office this official devolved his responsibility for recommending the pattern and tests of the 1885 swords upon a Committee, and did he also devolve any portion of his pay; what was the amount paid to the Committee which proposed the defective pattern and tests; who were the Members of the Committee; and will they or any of them be Members of the Committee for selecting the new pattern and tests; and did the Director of Artillery examine and endorse the proposals of the Committee of 1885; and, if not, upon the recommendation of which responsible official known to Parliament were the defective pattern and tests adopted into the Service?
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEThe Director of Artillery is primarily responsible that the Army is provided with proper weapons of all torts; but it is not to be 1149 supposed that any one official could be held personally responsible for the pattern to be adopted for every description of arm. The duty of selecting a pattern is frequently of necessity devolved on a Committee of experts, and the responsibility of the Director of Artillery would not go beyond reviewing the recommendations of such a Committee, and submitting them for approval if he is satisfied with them. The Special Committee on Cavalry Swords of 1885 comprised Sir Drury Lowe, Sir Frederick Abei, the hon. Member for the Hallamshire Division, Colonel Arbuthnot, Colonel Wood, Major Call, and Mr. Latham—which may be described as about the strongest Committee which could have been selected. It was a paid Committee to the extent that most of the members were Army officers receiving military pay. The civilian members were not paid. I am not aware of any intention to appoint a new Committee on Cavalry Swords, as the utmost alteration likely to be made is a slight addition of metal to the blade. The Secretary of State was responsible for the acceptance of the proposals of the Committee of 1885; and, from the evidence and scientific facts laid before him, I hold that he could have adopted no other course. I have no reason to doubt that the sword in the hands of the troops is a fairly good and efficient weapon.
§ SIR FREDERICK MAPPINI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, who is responsible for the proper testing of Cavalry swords, in accordance with the tests recommended by the Special Committee in 1885, and adopted by the War Office; whether the Chief Inspector of Small Arms saw personally any of the swords, referred to in the Report issued in February last, tested in accordance with it; what authority, or by whose instruction, did this official have the swords in the possession of the 5th Dragoon Guards, the 2nd Dragoons, the 12th Lancers, the 14th Hussars, and the 19th Hussars subjected to a less stringent test than it is stated they had previously passed, and which had not yet been decided upon by the War Office; and, what is the object of testing Cavalry swords less severely than they had been previously subjected to, as stated in the Report signed by the Director of Artillery?
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEUp to the 31st of March, 1888, the Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield was responsible, under the Director of Artillery, for testing swords. Since that date the Chief Inspector of Small Arms, likewise under the Director of Artillery, has been the responsible officer. I cannot say whether the latter officer personally saw the swords referred to tested when passed into the service. Experience had proved that the tests under which swords of the 1885 pattern had been passed into the service were too severe for that pattern of arm; and it was considered that their repetition would only lead to injury to the swords. On the recommendation, therefore, of the Chief Inspector of Small Arms a test which was considered sufficient to determine whether the swords were serviceable was decided on.