HL Deb 01 March 1867 vol 185 cc1211-3
EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War a Question, of which he had given him private notice. There had recently appeared in the newspapers some statements which, if they were correct, tended to show that the Enfield rifles converted on the Snider principle had proved, since they were issued to the troops, by no means so efficient and so calculated to make good shooting as was anticipated when the system was first adopted. The Reports which came in just before he left the War Office gave good reason to believe that this system of conversion afforded a satisfactory mode of tiding over the time that must necessarily elapse before it was possible to determine what was the best breech-loading rifle to place in the hands of the troops. His noble Friend the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) determined that a considerable number of Enfield rifles should be converted on that principle at once, with a view to their being placed in the hands of the troops in case any emergency should arise. The present Secretary of State for War was so satisfied with the Reports, that shortly after he took office he presented a Supplementary Estimate to the other House of Parliament, and ordered a very large and extensive conversion. The statements, however, which had recently appeared in the public papers had caused fears to be entertained that the system of conversion was not so satisfactory as was at first supposed. But the main defect appeared to be not so much in the rifles as in the ammunition which was made by machinery, and which had not made as good shooting as ammunition prepared by hand. Taking into consideration the importance of this subject on account of the large sum of money which had been spent in this system of conversion, and the necessity of arming the troops with the best possible arms, he hoped the noble Lord would state what information the Government had received on the subject.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, that reports had been current much to the disadvantage of the Snider system of converting Enfield rifles, the fact being that, although they had been tested and experimented upon in every possible way, previous to their adoption into the service, some small defects had developed them- selves in the cartridges and in the mechanism of the arm. The first cartridge adopted in the course of practice did not prove satisfactory. A second was then tried, and was not found satisfactory; but although these cartridges failed in accuracy at target practice, they were not unserviceable. A third had now been adopted which there was every reason to believe would be perfectly satisfactory. The small defects which had developed themselves in the mechanism of the arm were such as could easily be remedied without making any change in the original plan of the arm. He held in his hand a letter from Sir James Yorke Scarlett, who is commanding at Aldershot, and whose attention had been directed to the exaggerated reports which the noble Earl had referred to. It was as follows:— Aldershot, Feb. 26, 1867……. I for ward a letter from Captain Thompson, District Instructor of Musketry, under whom the practice so erroneously described took place….Though I believe a still simpler plan will be produced, I consider the present pattern Snider rifle an admirable weapon, and perfectly efficient when well made and well handled. The enclosure from Captain Thompson was dated February 25, 1867, and was in the following terms:— Having noticed an article respecting the recent trial of Snider rifles and ammunition at Aldershot which is likely to lead the public to form erroneous opinions as to their general efficiency, I think it right to inform you that the trial which took place here, instead of proving not very favourable to the new arm and ammunition, may be considered the reverse. Out of 8,000 rounds fired, only twenty cartridges burst, none of which in any way injured the breech arrangement, and only three missed fire. In very few cases were the old cartridge cases found difficult to withdraw, and those frequently from the awkwardness of the men who were firing for the first time with an entirely new weapon. As regards accuracy at 500 and 700 yards, notwithstanding an apparent inferiority of the Snider to the Enfield at the longer ranges, I think that the very little practice which was made with the Snider rifle at the longer range should not be received as a test of accuracy, as the sighting of the rifle is altered in consequence of the reduction of the weight of the bullet; and the accuracy of the Snider may probably not be found inferior to that of the Enfield rifle when the soldiers become accustomed to its use, which, up to the present time, they have had no opportunity of becoming. Sir James Scarlett added— My only regret is that the correspondents who furnish information on military matters to the press do not first make themselves acquainted with the subjects on which they write. He trusted that this explanation would be satisfactory to the noble Earl: and he might add, that although it would be a great disappointment to be obliged to confess a failure, the War Office would not have proceeded with the conversion, as they were now doing, if they had lost confidence in the arm.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he was not satisfied either by the answer of the noble Earl, or by what he had read of the Snider rifle in the newspapers. Considering the vast sums of money to be laid out in putting a proper weapon into the hands of our soldiers, he thought that proper means had not been taken with regard to the selection of that weapon. Last Session, when this question was mooted in that House, he strongly recommended the noble Lord at the head of the Government to appoint a Committee other than the Ordnance Committee, in which he had no confidence, to consider the question of a selection of small aims. He recommended that the Committee should consist of some of the lieutenant-colonels commanding the regiments which had the highest number in musketry, and to add to them some of those gentlemen who took a deep interest in, and were thoroughly conversant with, the long range shooting of our Volunteers. If such a Committee were appointed to consider the best weapon, there would be a good chance of obtaining a good, a simple, and an effective arm. Before the country was put to very great expense in obtaining improved arms, it was but right and just that all engaged in the manufacture of arms, and all interested in putting a good and simple rifle in the hands of our soldiers, should have an opportunity of competing before a competent Committee, which should recommend such weapon as it might think best adapted for military use, and above all adapted to receive the rough usage which was given to any rifle put in the hands of the common soldier.