HC Deb 27 February 1854 vol 130 cc1393-430

(15.) 19,266l., Ordnance Military Corps.

MR. MONSELL

said that, in submitting the Ordnance Estimates, he should endeavour, as shortly as he could, to explain the reasons for the increase in the different votes; and he thought he should be able to satisfy the House that some, at least, of that increase would leave for future years a permanent annual saving. Upon the first vote, the increase of the Royal Artillery was 53,023l.; the engineers, 29,461l. and the increased recruiting necessary for the addition to the forces, 20,167l. It would be hardly necessary for him at present, after the statements made by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary at War who had preceded him, to give any reason for this increase; but he thought the Committee would be gratified by his giving very shortly a statement of the condition in which the artillery force now was. He was happy to say that the schools connected with the force which for several years had been progressively increasing, were admirably conducted. The Royal Military Repository had now in it a class of twenty-four non-commissioned officers, who, besides acquiring a knowledge of the use and transport of military machines, were taught geometry, mensuration, and all those other studies which were necessary to the discharge of their duties. The Royal Artillery Institution, which was an institution of more recent foundation, had this year been opened, and already it had conferred very great advantages indeed in the way of a thorough system of education upon the officers of the artillery force. So great was the interest taken in this establishment that the annual subscriptions on the part of the officers themselves, which were last year 153l., had risen this year to 420l. A course of lectures was about to commence on those subjects which were the most useful for the officers of the artillery to be acquainted with—military carriages, fortification, &c.; and in addition to this, Lord Raglan, the Master-General of the Ordnance, last year, for the first time, established a class of young men who had just received their commissions, and sent them to the Continent with experienced officers to visit the best fortifications upon the Continent, so that they might become acquainted with those improvements in the sciences connected with the artillery which were likely to render them most efficient in the discharge of their duties. He did not know if it had ever occurred to any hon. Gentleman to compare the state of the artillery force now about to leave these shores for the East, and the condition of that force which, under the late Duke of Wellington, and amounting to about the same number, quitted these shores for the Tagus in 1808. He thought nothing could be more remarkable or more satisfactory than such a comparison. In every single par- ticular the greatest possible improvement was manifest. In the first place, instead of the small howitzers of 4 2–5ths or 5½ inches bore, the howitzers now sent out are all of 12 inches diameter, consequently heavier, more effective, and of the best possible description. In the ordnance in 1808, in each of the batteries there were three kinds or different sorts of guns used, which caused great confusion in the supply and distribution of ammunition. At present there are only two kinds of guns, and the distribution of the ammunition is on a very simple and uniform plan. In 1808 civil artificers accompanied the field batteries, and were found most unserviceable and troublesome; but now, instead of civil artificers, military artificers form a component part of every troop. At the former period there were no instructions for exercise, and every captain used his own discretion; at the present time the most clear and precise instructions are laid down, and are in the hands of every artillery officer, the effect of which has been to secure a perfect uniformity in the execution of all duties committed to them. The code of finance regulations was not settled in 1808, from which many hardships arose; but now the finance regulations are in the hands of every commanding officer. Perhaps one of the most striking contrasts between the two forces was in the sort of horses sent out. Any Gentleman who would refer to the despatches of the Duke of Wellington would find that the horses which accompanied the artillery in 1808 were very inefficient, and were described by Colonel Hardinge as a set of broken-down Irish horses, taken from the Irish commissariat. They were utterly useless when they came into action, and their inefficiency frequently necessitated the leaving behind of guns at a time when their services were most required. The artillery force about to leave our shores would have 1,000 horses in the highest possible condition and order. Then, with regard to pontooning, any Gentleman who had at all studied the history of the Peninsular War would be aware that the difficulties occasioned by a deficiency of pontoons were remarkable. He believed it was only the year before the expedition he was now referring to, and in South America, our forces were stopped for several days by a trench eight or nine feet wide, on account of the absence of pontoons. A sufficient number of pontoons would start with our forces now, and they would be altogether in the highest possible efficiency. He might mention many more particulars to the Committee, but he would not weary it by going any further into the details of the subject. He had, however, thought it of importance to point out the greatly increased state of efficiency of the artillery force, which everybody knew was the most important arm at the disposal of any country in a time of war. He would proceed next to the increase in the Vote for the commissariat supplies, the greater part of which increase was occasioned by the extraordinary rise in the price of forage and other articles required for the keep of horses. The increase of price in that Vote alone amounted to 158,000l. In the barrack supplies which were necessary this year he took an increased quantity on account of a miscalculation last year; 35,298l. was the increase occasioned by the increase of price; and the increase of 32,000l. was for the increase necessary to be made to the number of stores. Upon the Vote for the Ordnance Office, there was a decrease of 600l. a year in the pay of the clerks, on account of some of the senior clerks having died, and others retired from the service, but there was no decrease in the rate of payment. On the contrary, the Treasury Committee which sat upon the Ordnance Department, and investigated most minutely all its affairs, were convinced that several of the clerks were most inadequately paid, and instead of a reduction, he was happy to state that they recommended that several of their salaries should be raised. Upon the Votes for the salaries, allowances, and contingencies in establishments in the United Kingdom and Colonies, there was a decrease of the expenditure of 14,741l. This, the Committee would observe, was likely to be a permanent decrease, inasmuch as an increase of the establishments for the West Indies, Canada, and other British possessions, would not probably be again required. The Committee might, therefore, regard this decrease as an annual permanent decrease of about 14,000l. a year. Upon the Vote for the wages of artificers, there was an increase of upwards of 20,000l., altogether occasioned by the increase of wages rendered necessary in the Royal carriage and other departments, through the anxiety to provide an additional number of gun carriages for the ships now fitting out for the Baltic fleet and a change in the batteries of from six to nine pounders of the Royal Artillery. The next Vote was for stores, and there was an increase upon it amounting in the whole to 267,855l. Of this sum the increase occasioned by the new machinery which it was proposed to erect at Woolwich and in its neighbourhood, including the gun factory, upon which he should have to say a few words hereafter, amounted to 138,000l. Deducting that 138,000l. from 267,000l., 129,000l. remained, of which 79,000l. was for increase in price, leaving 50,000l. only to be accounted for. 25,600l. of that sum was on account of small arms, 6,827l. for gunpowder cases for the equipments of frigates of the navy; and there was another item for the carriages of the artillery, which bad already been referred to. The next Vote, for works, buildings, and repairs at home and abroad, was 902,821l.; and of that sum 336,756l. was required for fortifications and other works already sanctioned by Parliament; and 262,687l. was for ordinary and current expenses. Now, that 262,687l. for ordinary and current expenses was an increase upon the same item in last year's estimates of somewhere about 40,000l., and he thought it right to mention to the Committee that that increase was mainly occasioned by the incidental items having been in no instance this year reduced. It had been considered expedient to pursue that course, though the system had been usually adopted of reducing every year the incidental items sent in to the different stations throughout the country, amounting to some 25,000l. At the end of the year it was found impossible, without suffering serious injury, to dispense with the expenditure which bad been contemplated by the superior officer, and afterwards reduced; and applications had then to be made to the Treasury to allow the money to be given from some unexhausted surplus, so that the apparent reduction on the vote was no real reduction of expenditure. Of the remaining increase in this vote there was an item of 100,000l. for the purchase of land at Aldershott, near Bagshot, for a camp. The Committee might be aware that Chobham was to be immediately inclosed, and all the land about it was inclosed, so that it would soon have been impossible to get any ground near London for the purpose of a camp if they had not secured this place. The ground had been purchased at a very moderate rate, at sums varying from 10l. to 12l. an acre, and at any future time it would be quite possible to realise the expenditure. The next item he had to allude to was one of 85,000l. for a practice range at Woolwich, and he had shortly stated the other day, in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster, the reasons for that vote. There had been for many years a practice range at Woolwich, which, he believed, had answered every purpose perfectly well until some twelve or fourteen years ago. At that period, when the use of steam upon the Thames had become so largely increased, the range was found unsafe in consequence of the number of vessels continually passing. As it was perfectly essential, however, that the artillery force should have constant practice, it was of the last importance that that arm of the service should be preserved in every way possible. He thought the House would agree with him that no vote he had to propose was really of greater importance to the service than this, and he believed none would be more cheerfully acquiesced in. Abroad a sum of 2,300l. was required for the erection of a garrison hospital at Cephalonia, which would be the means of effecting an annual saving of 190l., now paid. The increased accommodation required at Malta would entail an expenditure of about 7,000l., and a sum of 10,000l. would be required for the improvement and repair of the defences of St. Helena. It was thought proper, however, merely to ask for 2,500l this year 3,000l. would be required for additions and alterations at the cadets' barracks at Woolwich, and he thought no alterations were more imperatively required than this; for, absolutely, the cadets at Woolwich were obliged to sleep two or three in a room, and they had no place whatever to study in. By the proposed alterations, every one of the forty cadets would be provided with a separate room. A sum of 7,000l. or 8,000l. would also be required for increased hospital accommodation, drainage at various stations, gas, &c. Upon the Vote for the Ordnance surveys of the kingdom, 25,000l. additional was taken for the ordinary survey, and he might now mention the precise position of this matter with regard to the scale of the survey as it now stood. The Committee would, perhaps, be aware that, acting on the authority of the Duke of Wellington, the Irish scale of the survey was adopted for Great Britain. About a year ago, a great feeling arose in Scotland that that scale was either too large or too small, and last year the question was submitted by the Treasury to some of the most scientific men in this country, and by far the largest number of them reported that it would be of the greatest possible benefit to have the survey taken on a larger scale, though they differed among themselves as to what that precise scale should be. It was now proposed by the Treasury again to submit the question to them, and to require them to state, admitting that the scale should be raised, what in their opinion was the precise extent to which it should be raised, whether twenty-six and a half inches, or twenty-four, or twenty. He might state that the operations now going on in Scotland were so conducted that they could be adapted either to the one scale or the other. He had already mentioned that there was a sum of 138,000l. for machinery, and that he should return to the subject, as it was possible that, with regard to some portion of the Vote, there might be some difference of opinion. In the first instance, he asked the Committee to consider the two items he proposed to take for the improvement of the machinery of the Royal carriage department and of the Royal laboratory at Woolwich, amounting together to 138,000l. Those Gentlemen who had looked into the estimates of this year would be aware of the enormous sums paid in wages in these establishments, amounting, he thought, to somewhere about 75,000l. He was sorry to say that the Royal laboratory, considering it in the light of a manufactory, was in an extremely primitive state. The rooms in it were so small that it was impossible to have any effective superintendence over the workmen in order to see that they attended to and conducted their work properly. It was of the utmost importance that in any manufactory the order of manufacture should be consecutive—that, no article should have to travel in the course of its manufacture twice over the same ground. At present that simple rule was not attended to, and, on account of the insufficient arrangements, there were very considerable difficulties, particularly at the present moment, in making this department keep pace with the demands of the service. He would ask the Committee to consider what the necessary effect of this was. The consequence was that great numbers of articles were manufactured in time of peace to be ready against an emergency; they were kept in store till some got quite obsolete, and others were entirely rotten. At the present time there were carriages in the Royal carriage department which were utterly useless, which only took up room, and which, after having cost the country an enormous sum of money, were good for nothing but fire-wood. At the present moment these two departments—the Royal carriage department, which produced all the gun carriages, and the Royal laboratory, which produced all our projectiles of war—expended in wages at least 75,000l.; at least, that was the sum put down in this estimate, though he should deceive the Committee if he were not to tell them that he should not probably have to call on them for a further vote. The new buildings it was proposed to erect for these departments would cost from 85,000l. to 90,000l. Taking the cost at 90,000l., that sum, at 3 per cent, would represent about 3,000l. a year; but the improvements that would be introduced would, in the opinion of the most practical men, reduce the amount of wages by one-half; in other words, the 75,000l. now paid every year would be reduced to about 37,500l. a year—an obvious benefit, which would be secured to the country by the expenditure of a sum the annual interest on which would not be more than 3,000l. He thought he could show that this was not an imaginary calculation, by mentioning some of the effects already produced by machinery in the Royal carriage department, which was in a more advanced state than the Royal laboratory, chiefly owing to the exertions, the skill, and the knowledge of a gallant officer whose loss the service had had this year to deplore. He referred to Colonel Colquhoun. In a report prepared by that gallant officer's successor, he mentioned that, although machinery was only partially introduced into the department, the saving by it in the expense of labour, comparing the years 1844 and 1854, was no less than one-sixth. At the present time only 895 men were employed, where 1,094 were required before to perform the same amount of work; but when all the contemplated improvements were made, the reduction would amount to one-half. The saving already in wages had been 11,981l. a year, which, at 3 per cent, would represent a capital of 399,000l. And how much had this machinery cost? He begged the Committee to mark this well. Why, the actual expenditure in machinery up to 1854 had been only 14,571l. Without going into the detail of the saving, he thought these few facts must satisfy hon. Gentlemen that it would be expedient to adopt the suggestions which he submitted to their consideration. The next sum he had to bring under the notice of the Committee was probably one on which there would be great apprehen- sions—it was the sum of 100,000l. for the establishment of a gun factory. He begged the committee to understand that it was not proposed to multiply Government factories—in fact, two Government establishments were to be discontinued. At present Government had an establishment at Birmingham, which this year cost 5,094l., and one at Enfield, which cost 14,783l. It was proposed to get rid of these two factories—each of them, from their position, could probably be disposed of very profitably—and in their place to erect a gun factory somewhere in the neighbourhood of Woolwich. The Board of Ordnance had but one thing to consider, and that was to get the best arm at the cheapest rate, and with the greatest possible expedition. These, of course, were the only consideration which could weigh with them, but at the same time he should be very sorry that it should be supposed that he was at all indifferent to the position of the gunmakers, who seemed to consider themselves aggrieved by what was about to be done. The question had been forced en the consideration of the Board at the time of the first introduction of the Minié rifle into our service. When the Board was called on to produce Minié rifles sufficient for the whole army, they would have been neglecting their duty if they had not taken into consideration the system which had prevailed up to that time, whether it had worked well, and whether, on the whole, it was calculated efficiently to supply the wants of the service. Colonel Tulloh and Mr. Anderson, two gentlemen of great experience and ability, proceeded to Birmingham and other places where guns and bayonets were manufactured. They reported the gun trade to be— Altogether in a very lamentable state, and far behind any other trade to which it can be compared. With the exception of the barrel of the musket, they found the greater portion produced by hand-labour alone. At the bayonet works which they visited hardly any machinery worthy of the name is employed, and, consequently, the expense of a bayonet is considerably more than double what it may be expected to be made by machinery. For the last ten years the Board of Ordnance had been engaged in a struggle with the gunmakers. He would not deny that there might be faults on both sides, but he believed he could show positively that on the side of the gunmakers there were very considerable faults. The system pursued by the Board of Ordnance was fully considered by a Committee of that House which sat in the year 1849, from whose Report the following was an extract:— Your Committee made some inquiries into the mode of contracting fir muskets, with a view of ascertaining whether any reduction could be made in their cost without endangering the efficiency of the weapon supplied. Upon this point conflicting opinions will be found in the evidence. The weight of the musket is in great measure regulated by the length and calibre of the barrel. These points have been decided by the highest military authority, and this decision your Committee suppose was made on sufficient reasons. Objections which have been urged against the present rigid system of inspection do not appear to rest on any valid grounds. It is the duty of the Board of Ordnance to take every security that the muskets supplied shall conform to the pattern approved, and your Committee have not heard that any favouritism has been imputed to the viewers or other officers employed in this service. In the year 1851 tenders were called for for what was then called the Minié musket, and on the 26th of June, 1852, the following petition was received from the military gun-lock makers:— Consequences to be deplored have resulted from this state of things, for the men have from time to film, embraced remunerative employment, as, for instance, great numbers are employed upon revolving pistols; and at this present juncture we could not rely upon more than twenty, or, at most, thirty efficient workmen to execute your order; and we are sorry to say that the difficulties that surround us absolutely deter us from undertaking to supply a specified quantity, and it would be impossible to supply the quantity required. The difficulties with regard to the production of this musket were so great that it was nearly two years after the order was given that the whole of it was supplied. During the last year there had been an order given for 2,000 carbines for the artillery, and, though the first steps were taken as far back as the beginning of March, the whole of that order had not been received at this moment. At the beginning of last year 20,000 new Minié rifles were ordered; tenders were called for—not called from London or Birmingham, or any one particular place, but from all England, Scotland, or Ireland; those received, being unsatisfactory, were declined, and new tenders advertised for in the papers. This failed to excite any more competition, and Sir Thomas Hastings, the Comptroller of the Stores, a gentleman of the highest intelligence and experience, and one who was considered by all the gun-makers as one of the most just and fair officers, went down to Birmingham, and, having succeeded in making better terms, ordered 20,000 Minié muskets there. This was on the 26th of October, 1853, and since then they had received from the gunmakers numbers of letters alleging various reasons for the non-completion of this order. With some it was a general strike of the workmen—others had been unable to get rod-makers, others had made miscalculations of other descriptions; but with almost all, for one reason or another, there was a total impossibility of completing the work. This was one part of the present system which the Board had to consider; and they had also to consider the price for which the musket could be made. The task they had before them was to provide a new musket for the whole of the army—including artillery, marines, and coastguard, the price of which, at present, would be something under 3l. a-piece. They were strongly warned by many of the ablest officers in the army that it was not safe for the country to rely upon the existing system, and they therefore turned their attention in the first place to the system which prevailed in the United States. There they found that the Government had in its hands two gun-factories capable of turning out 500 rifle muskets a-week at 37s. a-piece. They found also an ample amount of muskets in store, and the latest improvements of machinery, by means of which the different parts of the musket were made with such accuracy that the parts of one musket fitted into the parts of any other indiscriminately. He had been told that bags of the different materials of which muskets were composed were sent to Mexico, and that, being opened on their arrival there, the parts were taken out promiscuously, and fitted into each other with as much nicety as if each had been made specially for the other. That he believed was what could not be said of two of Purday's rifles if taken out of the same case. But there was also another consideration which he wished to point out to the Committee. In 1841 the percussion arm was introduced into our service, and, all the old flint muskets being thus rendered useless—for the attempt to alter them was never successful—the expense, of course, was enormous. But did they think that in this age of rapid progress the musket which they were now about to introduce, would retain for many years the pre-eminence which it now enjoyed? And was it not advisable on that account to devise a plan, by means of which a large number of muskets might be readily manufactured, which would render it unnecessary to retain such an inordinate number of muskets in store, and avoid the risk of the country being put to a similar expense as that which was incurred when the percussion musket came into use? When the late Duke of Wellington was Master-General of the Ordnance, and Lord Hardinge Clerk of the Ordnance, they decided that the number of muskets to be kept in store should be 457,000; but without going to that enormous number, it was quite clear that with the present amount of production at our disposal, 300,000 was a sufficient store to keep up, putting the requirements of the Colonies on one side. With a gun-factory however, capable of producing 500 muskets a-day, we should manifestly be in a better position with 100,000 muskets in store than we had been before with 300,000, avoiding the risk of great loss in future, besides saving the capital represented by the difference in the two numbers. Let the Committee for a moment consider the pecuniary result of the proposed change. Instead of keeping 300,000 muskets in store, which would have cost 900,000l., we should only have 100,000, representing a cost of 300,000l. Here would at once be a saving of the annual interest upon 600,000l., by the expenditure, whatever it might be, necessary for the new factory, which it was believed, upon the most careful calculations, might be erected for 150,000l. The factory, too, would produce not only muskets, but bayonets. He had said that he would ask the Committee to consider the financial effects of the measure he proposed. For the line there would be required 110,000 Minié muskets; for the artillery, 10,000; for the marines, 15,000; and for the militia, 50,000; the number for store being 300,000; or, altogether, 485,000, exclusive of the Colonies: 485,000 muskets, at 3l. each, would cost 1,455,000l.; but the highest authorities believed that the musket might be produced for 1l. 10s. He had stated that the price for which the musket was produced in the United States was 37s. each; but, considering the improvements which it was believed by those best competent to form an opinion on the subject—by those who were engaged in designs for the factory—could be made on the American machinery, he was prepared to express the belief that the musket could be produced at the proposed factory for 30s. each. Taking this estimate, the saving that would be effected upon the previous estimate he had stated, of 3l. each, would be 727,500l. But, further, he had men- tioned that, by means of the proposed system, the store, in time of peace, could be diminished by 200,000, the difference resulting from which would represent a capital of 600,000l. in favour of the public, the interest upon which would be a considerable and permanent saving. All this advantage would be realised by the outlay of 150,000l., from which, moreover, was to be deducted whatever the present establishments at Birmingham and Enfield might produce when sold. All these Minié rifles must have new bayonets; 485,000 bayonets, at 7s. 6d., the ordinary price, would cost 181,875l.; but it was calculated that at the factory they could be produced for ls. 6d. each, which would amount to only 36,375l., or a difference in favour of the public, by means of the factory, of not less than 145,500l. When, upon the authority of Mr. Anderson, the same gentleman who had effected such enormous savings in the Royal carriage department, he could show the Committee that, by the expenditure of the proposed 150,000l., such a large amount of arms could be produced at such a vast reduction of cost, he felt that Lord Raglan was, indeed, perfectly right in considering the matter now before the Committee as one of the very highest importance to the public service, as pre-eminently conducive to the permanent safety and well-being of the country. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would pass this Vote unanimously. He had stated that he did not conceive the proposed arrangement would do the injury to the gun trade of this country which that trade anticipated. Let it be borne in mind that our gun trade was at present in a very low condition, whereas that of the United States was in a very flourishing and advanced state. In the Report which was presented to the House the other day, with regard to the machinery department of the United States' Great Exhibition, it was stated that the gun trade of America was in a very high condition, and there seemed every reason to fear that, unless our gun trade became immensely improved, the whole trade would be transferred to the United States. Under such circumstances, to have a really good machinery for the construction of guns introduced to the observation of the gunmakers of England, whether by Government or by individuals, could not be deemed other than a public benefit. How stood the gun trade of England now? In 1851, we exported 247,236 muskets; in 1853, the number had fallen to 238,767. But now, turn to pistols. In 1851, we exported 5,333 pistols; in 1853, we exported 22,235 pistols, or more than four times the number we exported in 1851. How had this happened? Why, because Colonel Colt had introduced among us this very system of machinery, by means of which, producing pistols of admirable quality at a cheap rate, we had been enabled to effect so largely increased a demand for our pistols—surely a benefit to the gun trade of the country, which, with regard to muskets, had undergone deterioration. It was his opinion, that by the introduction, in like manner, of improvements in the construction of muskets, the Government would be benefiting our gun trade far more than the stoppage of the intermittent Government contracts would injure it; for those improvements would continue, and enlarge for the trade the whole market of Europe. He trusted that he had now satisfied the Committee, and that he should satisfy the deputation who had waited on him from the gunmakers, that the proposal he had made as to a Government factory would largely benefit the public, without sacrificing the permanent interests of the small number of persons whom that deputation represented.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the great cause of the dispute between the Board of Ordnance and the workmen in Birmingham had been the Minié rifle, an article with which, until lately, all parties were totally unacquainted. Difficulties had been thrown in the way by the Ordnance, and the people connected with the department, and that was the reason of the delay. The hon. Gentleman had laid great stress upon the saving to be made by creating this establishment, and filling it with machinery. But already a great portion of the manufacture of guns was done by machinery; and he took leave to doubt altogether the statement made as to the amount of saving to be effected. If the guns were fairly inspected, and the manufacturers had consecutive orders, there was no reason why any quantity of arms should not be made by the private manufacturers quite as well, and more cheaply, than they could be made by the Government. In estimating the saving to be effected by the new machinery, the hon. Gentleman had compared the cost of the work to be done with that of work hitherto done with the Ordnance, instead of, as he ought to have compared it, with that of work done by private individuals. He (Mr. Muntz) challenged any one to show an instance in which the Government had manufactured any article, in the manufacture of which private competition was possible, in which they had not lost 25 or 35 per cent by the manufacture; and so he was persuaded it would continue to be. If they were to effect the saving in the amount of stock to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, as a result of their having Government factories, it would be necessary to have a large number of men constantly ready for work, and this would necessarily be attended with great expense. With regard to the delay in the supply of Minié rifles, Mr. Muntz said, that these arms were quite a new article, new both to the Ordnance and the gunmakers; that there was a delay in the issuing of the patterns; and that after the sights had been fixed upon a number of the rifles, according to the directions of the Ordnance inspector, it was found that they were all wrong, and they had to be altered at the expense of the Board. This inspector was a man who did not understand his business, but he had resigned, and within the last fortnight the Board of Ordnance had appointed in his place a straightforward and able man. One serious cause of complaint, both by the gunmakers and their workmen, was, that when the tenders had been divided among the various manufacturers, no further orders were given until the whole of the first contract was sent in, so that if one man did not finish his contract, all the other manufacturers and their workmen were at a stand-still, frequently for many weeks together. Of course the result of this was, that the manufacturers could not do the work so cheaply as if they were consecutively employed, or in such quantities as were required. When the vote for the manufactory was proposed, he (Mr. Muntz) should move that it should be suspended for two months, and if the manufacturers did not within that time prove to the Ordnance, that they could manufacture any quantity of as good muskets as ever were seen, and as rapidly as they were required, be would give no further opposition to the vote. He ventured to say that, even if they got the factory, it would be two years before they got a single arm out of it.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he could bear testimony to the efficiency of our artillery, which he considered to be equal to any artillery in Europe. He thought the improvements contemplated with reference to the practice at Woolwich most advantageous, as the present grounds were certainly not sufficient for field guns, for which, if a proper range could be obtained, it would be of the greatest service to the corps. He considered that the question as to the manufacture of small arms was of the highest importance, and one which ought not to be lightly or hastily disposed of. He should like, also, to see the improvements suggested carried out in the laboratory, inasmuch as he believed them to be most necessary; and nothing would please him more than to see the present estimates framed upon a basis at once efficient and perfect, and such as was not only desirable but requisite, in a time of emergency like the present.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he could not help noticing the very large increase in the number of men in the Ordnance corps and departments, which in the years immediately preceding 1845 amounted only to about 7,000 or 8,000 men, in 1845 to 9,000; but in the present year, according to the proposed estimates, to 19,000. He thought the charge of 8,500l. for the servants of the 330 officers in the Engineers a very large sum, and also the amount of 120,000l. for additional aid and allowance, one that was out of all proportion, as compared with similar items for the Army and Navy. He should be very glad to see the improvements which had been spoken of carried out; but at the same time it was necessary that the Committee should use the greatest care in voting these estimates.

Vote agreed to.

(16.) 902,817l., Pay, Allowances, &c.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, as the subject of clothing had been mentioned during the discussions on the Army Estimates, and as everybody followed French fashions nowadays, he begged to point out—while expressing his satisfaction at the more comfortable clothing which they were going to give the troops—a very commendable custom that prevailed in the French army. In every sentry-box in France there was a large cloak, in addition to the great-coat of the soldier, and the use of this cloak was considered by the medical men of France to be of great advantage to the men. This was a matter well worth consideration. He must say that he cordially concurred in the proposal that the system of clothing by the colonels should be altogether abolished.

Vote agreed to.

(17.) 557,176l., Commissariat and Barrack Supplies.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would beg to suggest that the barrack establishments, and those for the commissariat at home, ought not to be kept up separately, but combined into one system.

COLONEL GILPIN

said, he wished to draw attention to the want of accommodation for married men in barracks. It was known that women were required for washing, cooking, &c., and a certain number per troop or company were allowed to live in barracks, provided their characters were good. The married men were allowed the space occupied by two beds, and that was all, while the women were compelled to live habitually in the same room with sixty or seventy men. Much attention had been lately paid to the subject of the amelioration of the morals of the people, and why should not the soldier have the same consideration paid to him? This matter was a part of our military system which was degrading to the soldier and disgusting to the officer. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance would take the case of these poor women into consideration, and enable them to observe the decencies of life.

SIR WILLIAM CLAY

said, that no one who had ever seen a barrack could fail to concur with the hon. and gallant Member who had just addressed the Committee. He (Sir W. Clay) believed that there was hardly a barrack in the kingdom that would bear a moment's comparison for comfort and accommodation with either a gaol, a penitentiary, or an union workhouse. It was creditable to the spirit of the profession that our soldiers did not trouble Parliament or the public with complaints; and this abstinence from complaint on their part was in itself a reason why their grievances should be promptly and efficiently redressed. There were no barracks in the kingdom where ventilation was attended to. Where forty or fifty men slept in one room, as was at present the case, the atmosphere was almost insupportable, and great injury to health was the necessary result. Ophthalmia and other diseases among the soldiers could be traced to this cause. The evil might be remedied by a very small outlay of the public money. He wished next to call attention to the very defective state of the accommodation afforded to soldiers who were disposed to avail themselves of the regimental libraries. At a barrack he (Sir W. Clay) had recently visited, calculated to hold 1,000 men, the only accommodation for the use of the library was a closet of perhaps 10 feet by 6—but he was informed that, if a proper reading-room were provided, in which the men could sit and read, instead of being driven to the canteen and other places of resort, twenty books would be taken out of the library where one was taken out at present. Another want which was severely felt by the soldiers was that there was hardly a decent room for washing attached to any of the barracks in the kingdom. He was sure that that House and the country would cheerfully grant the necessary funds for providing the army with the comforts to which he had referred.

MR. MONSELL

said, that he sympathised with the kind wishes which had been expressed for the comfort of the soldiers, but he was sure hon. Gentlemen must see how difficult it was to carry out the different views which had been put forth. In all the new barracks the accommodation for married women had been touch improved, as, indeed, were the comforts of the soldier generally; but, in the case of the old barracks, great difficulty was experienced in making the required alterations.

COLONEL GILPIN

said, he thought that in the old barracks the same arrangement might be effected for the benefit of married soldiers as was adopted in behalf of the colour-sergeants—that was, their rooms might be separated by partitions.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, it would appear that the House of Commons had either been niggardly in supplying the wants of the soldier, or that the money which it had voted had been very ill spent. It was shown before the Committee on the Ordnance Estimates that great improvements had of late years taken place in the accommodations of the soldier. It was there stated that the accommodation had increased to that extent that the cost of supplying it for the soldiers in barracks amounted to 100l. a man. Now, if that was so, the soldier should certainly be very well supplied and well lodged. They had been told that the soldiers had no means of washing themselves in barracks, but he remembered that a large sum was voted for this very purpose when the subject of lavatories was brought forward by Lord Panmure, and there was a sum taken every year for washing in the new barracks; so that, so far from grudging good accommodation to the soldiers, the House of Commons had been most liberal on their behalf. No blame, therefore, attached to that House, though he was unable to say how the accommodation had been carried out by the proper officers.

CAPTAIN KNOX

said, he had belonged to a regiment which was stationed in new barracks, and certainly he was unable to discover any difference between them and old barracks in regard to the accommodation for married soldiers.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that since he had entered the service there could be no doubt that the comfort of the soldier was more attended to than it used to be.

Vote agreed to, as were also the three next Votes.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 639,552l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Ordnance Stores for Land and Sea Service, which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1855.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he should propose that this Vote be postponed for two months, for the reasons he had already stated.

MR. MONSELL

said, he had already explained to the Committee the grounds upon which he thought this Vote was necessary, and it was impossible for him to agree to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. NEWDEGATE

was about to second the request made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, that the Government would postpone the vote of 100,000l. for establishing a Government manufactory of small arms, but he begged the House to believe that, if this postponement would, in the present emergency and prospects of war, in any way delay the necessary supply of arms for our troops, he (Mr. Newdegate) would never have sanctioned, tolerated, or joined in requesting it, but he was prepared to show that, instead of delaying the immediate supply of arms, this postponement would have the opposite effect. He held in his hand the copy of an offer of an immediate supply of arms, which had been made to the Board of Ordnance, contingent upon their not taking the general supply of arms for the Army out of the hands of the manufacturers of Birmingham and London, who, during the last war, had not only supplied the English Army, but many of their foreign contingents, and had maintained this country independent of a foreign supply of arms—no slight national advantage in any extended war. This offer was as follows:— We, the undersigned, on behalf of the gun trade, will undertake (if the Board of Ordnance will enter into contracts for that purpose) to supply and deliver complete 50,000 rifled muskets within the first year, 100,000 in the second year, and a much greater quantity in the third year. We will undertake to find all the materials for the above muskets except the rough stocks, of which the Board of Ordnance have a large quantity in store, and can supply. If the Board of Ordnance will entertain this offer, we will immediately make twenty rifled muskets of the pattern required as samples, which shall be inspected, marked, and sealed by the inspector of small arms, ten of which shall be retained by the Board of Ordnance, and ten retained by the contractors; the whole of which shall be kept for reference in case of dispute. We propose that the course of inspection shall be the same as carried out by the Board of Ordnance; that is to say, each part of the musket shall be inspected and marked in each stage of manufacture as being of proper quality and make. But we will undertake and hold ourselves responsible for the production of a perfect arm, according to the pattern supplied. (Signed) "HOLLIS AND SHEATH. CHAS. P. SWINBURN AND SON. THOMAS TURNER. TIPPING AND LAWDEN. Now, this was an offer to supply 150,000 rifle muskets within two years. If the first stone or brick of the proposed Government factory were now laid, it would be quite impossible to produce from it a single musket within a year; it was highly improbable that this, as yet, foundationless factory could be fairly in work before the eighteen months had expired. It was not unreasonable to expect that it would be two years before muskets could be produced from it in any great quantity, and within which time the manufacturers of Birmingham offered to supply no less than 150,000 rifle muskets, of the most approved pattern, if the supply of arms were confided to them, and their trade not supplanted. The quickness of supply, therefore, rested in favour of the postponement of this Vote. The Government said the Birmingham manufacturers were not able to manufacture muskets or rifles for them, and rested their whole case on the success of the Springfield manufactory of arms, which the Government of the United States had established; yet he (Mr. Newdegate) understood that parts of some arms turned out of that factory had been supplied from Birmingham. He found that, on an average of three years, Birmingham and London turned out above 274,000 muskets and fowling-pieces annually; and yet the Government had ventured to assert that they were unable to get supplies of arms in England. He might also instance a case in which the French Government sent over an officer to Birmingham, who, after inspecting the patterns made for the Board of Ordnance, adopted a Birmingham improvement, which cost 3s. 6d. additional for each musket. This improvement the Board of ordnance had rejected, and the consequence was, that the French troops were supplied with a better arm than the British troops. He might be told that there would be no better chance of the contract being completed, if this offer were accepted, than of the completion of the contracts, the failure of which has caused the Government to entertain the notion of manufacturing for themselves. He (Mr. Newdegate) should be quite of that opinion if any of the Lovell family were to be continued in the office of inspectors or viewers of the arms in Birmingham; for first the son and then the father, Mr. Lovell, had held these offices, and it was impossible that any officers could have adopted more persevering or ingenious means to defeat the intention of their employers, and to destroy the trade they were appointed to regulate. But first the son Lovell, and now the father Lovell, have been removed; and the arms trade of Birmingham, trusting that, at last, they might have fair play, approach the Board of Ordnance and this House with the expression of their hope that they will not deprive them of the first fair opportunity for serving them that the trade of Birmingham have had for many years. He therefore felt confident that, if the Government chose to accept this offer, and to make the terms of the contract such as will enable the trade of Birmingham freely to complete it, there can be no doubt of its being faithfully executed. He not only asked the Government to avail themselves of the immediate means of supplying the country with arms, but he asked them, in justice to the public service, and in justice to this House, to allow a Committee of that House to examine into the alleged causes which are said to necessitate this vote of 100,000l., and into the effect upon the public service which their declining the offer he had read to the house, and insisting on this Vote, were likely to produce. If the House would grant this inquiry, he believed it could be easily shown that, although there had been faults on both sides, the failure of timely compliance with orders, on the part of the Birmingham arms trade, was, in great measure, if not entirely, attri- butable to the conduct of successive Governments, and of the Boards of Ordnance, especially the conduct of the subordinates of the Ordnance Department, who had had the immediate direction of the trade. One of the principal causes of complaint on the part of the arms trade is, that, instead of availing themselves of the recent improvements in the manufacture of arms, by applying scientific examination to them for years past, as the French Governments, under all the vicissitudes to which they have been subject, have done, and then sending to Birmingham contracts extended over a sufficient period in peaceful times to keep the trade employed, the Board of Ordnance for years closed their eyes to these improvements, until, about two years since, they were startled from their sleep by the announcement that 10,000 of the French army were armed with Minié rifles, which are effective at 1,000 yards, instead of at 200 or 300, the effective range of the old musket; and then all of a sudden, having left the Birmingham trade almost without orders for a length of time, and having rejected all suggestions for the improvement of the arms, suddenly the Board of Ordnance send down contracts for arms of a kind never made before, limited to such short periods as to render it almost impossible at once to obtain the best hands to carry out this new plan, owing to their having sought other employments during the previous long abeyance of Government orders. But the great, the most recent, and the most aggravated impediment, thrown by the Ordnance in the way of the arms trade of Birmingham, has been, by the appointment of inspectors, determined to obstruct the completion of the Government contracts in Birmingham. Mr. Lovell, the father, was some years since appointed to manage the Enfield establishment; he seems to have done this with zeal and ability; he greatly improved the make of the old musket, but he was always jealous of the fact the Enfield could not turn out muskets so cheaply as Birmingham. Mr. Lovell had two sons, both of whom he brought up to the arms trade; he always wanted the Government to manufacture more largely for themselves, but failing in that, he sent one of his sons to set up in the arms trade at Liege, and he got the other appointed inspector at Birmingham. Of course the whole family became more interested in the success of the trade of Liege, where one of the brothers was manufacturing on his own account, than in the success of Birmingham; and one of the first things he (Mr. Newdegate) heard of Mr. Lovell the younger, when Government inspector at Birmingham, with full liberty of access to all the Birmingham factories by virtue of his office, was, that an improvement in rolling barrels for muskets had been made in Birmingham, and that Mr. Lovell, Jun., used the opportunities of his office to procure patterns of the machinery, which was patented, and to send men from Birmingham to set up the like of it in Liege. So absolute was the power with which his office of inspector invested him, that the manufacturer and patentee dare not complain. Well, time rolled on, and he (Mr. Newdegate) heard many complaints of the injustice perpetrated by the rejection of good articles, and by other annoyances, to which this inspector subjected the trade. At last, just about the time that Lord Hardinge was appointed Master General of the Ordnance, Mr. Lovell's injustice grew to such a pitch, that he rejected sixty per cent of good barrels. The trade set a trap for the inspector; they put a private mark on the rejected barrels, cleaned them up, and sent them in again to the inspector with some others. On the second view, the inspector passed almost all those very barrels which he had previously rejected. This was made known to Lord Hardinge, and Mr. Lovell, Jun., was very soon after removed from the inspectorship of Birmingham. The trade rejoiced, but their satisfaction was not to be of long continuance; Lord Hardinge was unfortunately persuaded to remove Mr. Lovell, the father, from Enfield, and send him to Birmingham as successor to his son. From that hour the brief prospect of fair play for the trade of Birmingham waned; Mr. Lovell, the father, was certainly more competent than his son, but it was not owing to his incompetence that his son had failed to do justice to his employers, and to the trade of Birmingham. In 1851 and 1852, a contract for 23,000 Minié rifles was in course of completion at Birmingham, and delivery of them had commenced. Mr. Lovell, the father, had then been about six months in office, at Birmingham, when it was discovered that the sights had been placed crooked on the greater part of 23,000 rifled muskets—a more diabolical invention than supplying our troops with muskets made to shoot crooked, could, he thought, scarcely have been devised, if this was the result of design—or a grosser case of neglect, if it was an oversight. It was part of the duty of the inspector of small arms to have the barrels marked for affixing the sights, and a very singular fact is, that, although Mr. Lovell, the father, had been some time in office at Birmingham, and was the inventor of a very effective machine to ascertain the straight-sighting of muskets, he never discovered, at all events was not the first to make known, this gross abuse; but more than this—the workmen, who were employed in Birmingham, are prepared to testify, that they told Mr. Lovell that in working to their marks on the barrels, as they (the inspectors) directed, they were sighting the muskets crooked, and were retorted upon by being told to mind their own business. Now this abuse may have commenced under the regime of the son Lovell, who was displaced, but it continued under that of the father Lovell who succeeded him; he (Mr. Newdegate) believed that Lord Hardinge was persuaded that the father had not been a party to originally crooked marking the barrels for sighting, but had simply failed to detect the mischief his son had set on foot. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought his Lordship mistaken, and, on the part of the trade, represented to his Lordship that they were convinced, if Mr. Lovell was continued at Birmingham, the trade would be prevented fulfilling their contracts, and it has been so. On the general ground of economy he was prepared to contend, that the attempt on the part of the Government to manufacture for themselves was extravagant, because they could not get the work done so cheaply as it can be procured through the exertions of the regular trade, stimulated by competition; and, further, he contended that the great improvements, which are likely to be made in the musket, did not originate at Enfield, but are the result of the mechanical knowledge, ingenuity, and enterprise of private individuals; and that, whether the House regard economy or the improvement of arms, it is inexpedient to transfer the supply to a Government establishment. He might be told, indeed, that there is some improvement in machinery, by which, in America, muskets can be produced ready-made, without, or almost without, the intervention of manual labour, or the superintendence of human intellect. He did not believe that rifled muskets, such as those now required by Government from the trade of Birmingham, could be produced almost exclusively by machinery, and he thought the House would do very wrong, were it to sanction a large expenditure for the purpose of trying the ex- periment, which the erection of this machinery would involve, without appointing a committee to inquire into the feasibility of the scheme. But suppose it is true, that much may be done by machinery, what presumption was there that Birmingham cannot use such machinery to as good purpose as the Government? He should certainly vote for the postponement and inquiry proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham.

VISCOUNT JOCELYN

said, that the Committee could not forget that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had, to a certain extent, been speaking, and fairly so, on behalf of the constituencies they represented. The question the Committee really had to consider was, how the service could be best supplied with arms. They had been told by the Clerk of the Ordnance of the great public inconvenience caused by the want of a sufficient supply of arms. He thought that gentleman was justified in making that statement, not only as regarded the necessity for a present supply, but also as to the past. He recollected that some few years ago a Committee sat and deliberated as to what arms should be given to the Rifle Brigade, and after the arms had been decided upon, it was nearly three years before they were supplied. The question was, whether they should combine the two establishments now in existence and form one establishment, by means of which the service would be better supplied. He considered the argument used by the hon. Gentleman as to the Government inspector being sent down to Birmingham was one of the strongest arguments that could be used in favour of the arms being manufactured in one establishment. He did not think that this would be injurious to the trade, for what the Birmingham manufacturers required was a stimulus, and when they could produce a better arm than the establishment proposed by Government, no doubt their proposals would be accepted. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen might smile, but he believed that he was fully justified in saying that, if such a stimulus were given to private enterprise, it would cause manufacturers to produce a better article than the Government itself, so that eventually the Government would be able to get rid of the manufacture altogether. He certainly would be no party to refusing, at such a time as this, a Vote which Her Majesty's Government considered to be necessary in order to enable them to provide efficient arms for their troops.

MR. MUNTZ

said that, with regard to the question of the American gun to be made for 37s., he found that it could easily be made in this country for 28s. or 30s., and that it had no connection with the Minié rifle.

MR. GEACH

said, he considered the proposition of the Government as an unjustifiable interference with private enterprise. Nothing could be more fallacious than to suppose that a Government establishment could be conducted with greater economy or efficiency than a private enterprise. It was really amusing to compare the manner in which the work was done in Government as compared with private establishments. As the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance had mentioned the name of a Gentleman on whose calculations they had depended, and as it was the same gentleman who had stated that private enterprise was unable to supply Government with arms, he could not help telling to the Committee a circumstance which occurred two months ago. At that time he was at the Society of Civil Engineers, when this gentleman, Mr. Anderton, came forward and warned them against extending the size of the ships, as beyond a certain size great difficulties would arise, and the ship would be rendered capable of carrying little else than its own fuel, and the speed would not be increased. It had been found, however, that the Himalaya, now employed in the conveyance of troops, was, although one of the largest ships ever built, one of the most efficient. So that, if they had had the same confidence in Mr. Anderton that the Government had, the improvements in shipbuilding would not have gone on to any extent. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the manufacture of guns by machinery; every one who knew anything at all about manufacturing by machinery knew that it was necessarily imperfect at first, and that they went on slowly and gradually improving. But Government required the article to be perfect at once, and yet be manufactured by machinery. Was it to be supposed that in a country like this, where the manufacture of arms had been carried on for so long a period, they could not rely upon private enterprise, but must have a Government establishment to make them safe? This was not, as he bad said, a question of whether they should employ such and such gunmakers, but whether they should pay extravagantly for the same description of article which gunmakers could furnish cheaply. Reference bad been made to American machinery and to Colonel Colt; he gave great credit to Colonel Colt for his improvements, and was glad he had come to England. Private enterprise, conducted with skill and industry, was sure to succeed in this country, but the Government establishments had no profit or loss account whether they conducted matters well or ill and if the present proposition were agreed to, they would hear nothing of difficulty or expense in the process of manufacturing. Had the Government exhausted all the means which existed in this country for the supply of arms, then, indeed, they might come forward to ask for public money for the purpose of constructing a manufactory which would compete with private enterprise; but they had not exhausted the means which already existed, for he ventured to say that, if any merchant received at the present time an order for a stand of 10,000 arms, of equal quality to those which the Government required, they would find a means of getting supplied, while the Government by its false system would not. He hoped the Committee would not consent to the proposition made by Government.

MR. MONSELL

said, he thought the hon. Member who had just sat down had, in several particulars, greatly misrepresented the proposal he had had the honour to make to the House. In the first instance, he had spoken of a Mr. Anderton, with whom he (Mr. Monsell) had nothing to do—the gentleman he spoke of being Mr. Anderson. Then the hon. Gentleman had said, if the Government made this establishment, they would go on well or ill, as the case might be, without at all troubling their head about difficulties or expense. The hon. Gentleman was not justified in forming any such conclusion; he must have forgotten that he (Mr. Monsell) had had, on a former occasion, the honour of submitting to the House a proposition for the improvement of the carriage department. Did that show any great self-laudation or reliance upon their own powers? On the contrary, did it not show that they were animated by a desire for improvement, and did not the present proposal evince the wish of the Government to proceed in the best, and, at the same time, the cheapest manner? On that latter point no hon. Gentleman who had spoken had addressed one word to the Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had, indeed, asked him whether the musket proposed to be manufactured in the Government establishment, was the American rifle, and whether that was the Minié rifle or not. To that question he said, he did not know; but he knew that it was a very admirable rifle, and very celebrated for its range and execution. But the hon. Member had altogether misconceived the statement he (Mr. Monsell) made, if he imagined he rested his case on the American rifle costing the Government only 30s. He had stated in the most minute manner, that the calculations which had been made led them to imagine that their musket would be manufactured for 30s., and that that musket would be as good or better than the musket for which they now paid more than 3l. If that were the case, surely the hon. Gentleman could not maintain that there were any public grounds for resisting the proposition made to the House. At present they had an enormous demand made upon them for arms, and, having the necessity imposed upon them of supplying that demand with the least possible delay, if they could show the Committee that, by providing for it in the way they suggested, they could save some 70,000l. or 80,000l. of the public money, the Committee would have had very good grounds for finding fault with the Government if they had not made the proposition, and would show great neglect of the interest of the country if they did not support it. As to the observations which were made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he believed a similar statement had been made to Lord Hardinge, when Master General of the Ordnance, and was well considered by his Lordship, who did not arrive at the same conclusion. It was beside the question, and a strong argument in favour of the proposition, showing, as it did, how difficult it was to make the system of manufacturing in different parts, and then getting a viewer to have it set up perfect. On this subject he referred hon. Gentlemen to the report of Mr. Whitwill, of Springfield establishment, in America. But he would call the attention of the Committee again to the fact with which he commenced—that this was not merely a question of getting the best arm, or getting the best arm in the shortest time, but a question involving material financial considerations. By the course they proposed, they would save a large sum of money to the country, and the arm that would be produced would be much better than the one now produced at Birmingham.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, he considered the question one of great importance, and he was sorry to see it prejudiced by being brought forward as a Meal question relating to Birmingham. The question of Government manufactories and Government manufactures had frequently come under the consideration of Committees of that House, especially on the Navy and Ordnance Estimates. The opinion, he believed, of several members of the Cabinet, which was coincided in by general opinion, was that Government manufactories were not advisable. It might be well to have a small manufactory, as some cheek upon the private producer, but nothing more—the general system should be that of contract. As to cheapness in Government establishments, he asked, was there any man in that House who believed in it? Would any member of the Cabinet get up and say he believed Government manufactures were cheap? They might get up an article so as to be certain of its quality, but they would have to pay a great deal more to get it up in that manner. But what did the Clerk of the Ordnance tell them to do? To establish a large factory to supply the whole of the muskets for the use of the Government. They were told it was always for the interest of the Government and the nation to produce largely, and, accordingly, they were to make an immense number of muskets in the one year. These muskets were now required, but that number would not always be wanted; and how were they to reduce the establishment, for they well knew if machinery was not constantly at full work, the production of the article was carried on at great loss? Having once established this manufactory, that very circumstance would be used as an argument why they should continue to keep it in work and make an immense stock. Thus, they would be involved in enormous expense, without having any adequate use for the articles produced. It was for the present war these muskets were required, and he wanted to know if this proposition were granted, how soon this establishment would be at work? Would it be eighteen months or two years? And would the Clerk of the Ordnance guarantee that they should produce 50,000 muskets in that time? They were told that new discoveries and new improvements were being made with wonderful rapidity, and he doubted whether, by the time the proposed establishment had got into proper working condition, the improvements in the general manufacture would not place them in a very disadvantageous position. He would, therefore, recommend the Government to postpone this Vote for a time. If there was a refusal on the part of manufacturers to work fairly, or if they attempted to make unfair terms with the Government, let them be told that the House of Commons would furnish all the money that was necessary, but would not heedlessly run into unnecessary expenses.

COLONEL BOLDERO

said, he would recommend the Government to adopt the same system with regard to the manufactory of small arms as was adopted with regard to the manufactory of gunpowder. The inspector of that department had told him in 1842 that 20,000 barrels of gunpowder would be required in the year, but, instead of inserting all item in the Ordnance Estimates and increasing the amount supplied from the Government manufactory, he had only obtained 10,000 or 12,000 barrels from the manufactory, and had distributed the remainder of the amount required among the various firms of gunpowder manufacturers in the neighbourhood of London. By allowing those manufacturers to supply 2,000 or 3,000 barrels each a year, they were able to keep up their establishments, and employ a good body of workmen; and upon an emergency such as this, they could thus supply any quantity that might be required; whereas if the Government had supplied the whole of the amount themselves, the manufacturers would, as he had been told by a friend of his who was a manufacturer, require eight or ten months before they would be in a position to assist the Government. There might be good reasons for the contemplated removal of the gunpowder manufactory, although he could not understand why that removal was necessary, as, in his opinion, our present gunpowder establishment was as perfect as it could be; but, Wherever they established themselves, he hoped they would adopt his suggestion as to not manufacturing the whole of the gunpowder required in their own establishments. The gunpowder manufacturers were intelligent, honourable men, who would give every assistance they could to the Government, and he had no doubt that was also the case with the manufacturers of Birmingham.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that, notwithstanding the natural impatience of the Committee at that late hour (ten minutes after twelve), he trusted they would permit him to address a few words to them upon a question of such interest as that which was now under their consideration, for although this was a Vote in the Ordnance Estimates, for which his hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) was primarily responsible, yet, as the person immediately charged with the care of the finances of the country, he should feel himself deeply culpable if he permitted a Vote of this nature, for such a sum, and at such a period, to be proposed to the Committee without having given it the fullest consideration, and entirely satisfied himself as to its propriety. Therefore, trusting to the patience and impartiality of the Committee, he would state generally the grounds on which the Government made this proposition. At the same time he admitted, at the outset, that there was great difficulty, considering the novelty of the proposal and the strength and activity of the interests which it had aroused, in conveying to the mind of the Committee with clearness those points of detail on which the question in great part really turned. The motives which had induced the Government to adopt the proposal of the Ordnance Department were these:—In the first place, the extreme dearness of the arm which was at present furnished to the forces; in the next place, the slowness with which that arm was prepared; and, in the third place, the inferiority consequent upon the present mode of manufacture. In the first place, with regard to its dearness. It cost 3l., whereas the cost of the rifle musket used in America was only 1l. 17s. [Expressions of dissent.] Hon. Gentlemen cried down the quality of American arms; but, as far as general opinion went, he did not think they would be supported in the sentiments they had expressed. He thought the lesson they had received from Colonel Colt, a private American gentleman, who had shown England how to work in metals—that branch of trade with which we were beyond all others acquainted—was a pretty good example of, at least, the non-inferiority of American rifles. It was said by the noble Lord behind him (Lord Seymour), amid loud cheers, that the Government ought not to be manufacturers, and in those cheers he was perfectly prepared to join. He granted at once that the primâ facie case was against the Government being manufacturers, and it was with that impression that he himself had looked into the facts of the case. He was not very certain with respect to the propriety of all the manufactures now carried on by the Government, but there were at the same time certain cases in which the Government ought to be manufacturers, and in which no one denied that they ought to be manufacturers. No one denied that it was proper for the Government to continue its manufactory of gunpowder. It had been stated to him upon good authority that that manufactory had saved the country not less a sum than 500,000l. No one denied that Government ought to continue to be the manufacturer of its ammunition generally. No one objected to that. On what principle, then, was there a distinction drawn between certain articles of which it ought and other articles of which it ought not to be the manufacturer? The distinction obviously depended on the particularities and specialties of each case, and therefore, if they meant to settle the question on principle and on public duty, not on class interests, it was not to be settled by general dicta about the impropriety of Government being manufacturers, but by a careful examination of the particular merits of the case. What was the case in the present instance with regard to cost? The musket now cost 3l., and the Ordnance Department assure the Committee that our musket can be manufactured for 30s. But economy was not the only question. What was the case with regard to the rapidity of the manufacture? What said the Ordnance Department? It had ordered tenders to be sent in for 2,000 carbines on an improved plan to be ready by the 1st of March last, and not one of those carbines had yet been received into the stores. What was the case with regard to the certainty of the manufacture? It was this; the Committee were discussing the finest instrument that could be made, and which required in its manufacture the most rigid and minute precision. So great, indeed, was that precision that it was impossible to attain to it without having recourse to machinery. What had they been told that night? That the inspector of small arms in Birmingham, even although he was minute and critical in a fastidious degree, blundered as a viewer of arms. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to think that this must be ascribed to some purpose on the part of the public officer, who, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed, had acted only from an error of judgment; but it proved to him the extreme difficulty, not to say impossibility, of judging by the eye with regard to the quality of a rifle. What, then, was really the nature of the present case? It was a question of whether they would continue to have guns made for Her Majesty's forces by the old and obsolete process of hand labour, or whether they would apply to this description of articles that which they had applied to every other description of articles, and would bring to bear upon it the force and economy of machinery? It was not at all a question about monopoly on the part of gun manufacturers or of extravagant profits, and he would make no accusation against them, of having entered into a combination, for he had no evidence to support it; but it was a question between superior and inferior processes, between labour and machinery. But the hon. Member for North Warwickshire admitted that machinery was employed in America for the manufacture of arms, while he said that hand labour was all that was necessary in this country.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he never stated that machinery was superior to hand labour in the manufacture of firearms.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Member had stated that, in point of fact, machinery had been employed for the manufacturing of arms in America, while the arms of Her Majesty's forces were made by hand labour, and the question was whether they would continue to employ hand labour or take to machinery? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said that they ought to employ machinery. It was said that they might trust to the resources of private trade, but that statement could he met both by argument and by experience. In former wars this country, it was well known, had been unable to obtain a sufficient supply of arms, and we were obliged to go to the manufacturers of Liege and other places for muskets to put in the hands of our soldiers. [An Hon. MEMBER: When?] The hon. Member never heard of it, but the thing occurred in the last war; it was a well-known fact, and the Ordnance Department could furnish the particulars of the transaction. It was a question of economy, therefore, whether we should have cheap instead of dear arms—whether arms should be rapidly made—whether they should be equally and precisely made by the unerring operation of machinery, or whether their production should be dependent on the uncertain and fluctuating application of the human hand and eye. As regarded economy, the result was most remarkable. Until he investigated the subject, he did not believe that, in a matter so comparatively small, it would be possible to realise a saving of from 800,000l. to 900,000l.; but that was the case as it stood on the positive estimate of what we were now paying and what we would have to pay, without taking into account the stock which it was necessary to keep in hand under the existing system. The noble Lord behind him (Lord Seymour) had asked whether the, Government were making provision for future years. They were making provision he was sorry to say, for the war now gathering around us. The noble Lord asked when the factory would be in operation. It would be in operation within twelve months, and the Government expected to obtain in the course of next year a full supply of arms. If the Government and the Ordnance Department merited censure, it was not for having made this proposition now, but for not having made it at an earlier period. The noble Lord condemned this plan, because he said it would necessitate the bringing together a large number of workmen, and he wanted to know what was to become of them when the demand for their labour, which was of an uncertain character, should slacken or cease altogether. Now he entreated the attention of the Committee to the answer he was about to give on this point, which was, in fact, the kernel of the whole ease. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) said it was a necessary ingredient in a fair contract that the demand should be continuous and equal. Now what security for continuity and equality could there be in the demand for arms? Let the House of Commons, whose duty it was to economise the public money, answer the question. In order to enable a private firm to fulfil a contract, must the Government undertake to keep up a war supply of arms in time of peace? The House of Commons, he apprehended, would say no. It was necessary to have the power of sudden expansion and rapid manufacture in emergencies, and those were the objects of the present proposition. Without the power of expansion, and without the power of producing with certainty a large amount of arms, we should be compelled to go on pottering with the private trade, and fail to obtain the supply we wanted, as had happened with the 2,000 carbines to which he had already referred. Was it necessary, because the Government would lay out a sum of money on machinery, that they should maintain a large staff of workmen? On the contrary. While we depended on hand labour, it was necessary to maintain a large number of skilled workmen, but by adopting machinery the case would be entirely changed. Then, instead of requiring 90 per cent of skilled labour, and 10 per cent of unskilled labour, we should require only 10 per cent of skilled to 90 per cent of unskilled labour. The Government, therefore, would maintain the small staff of skilled labour at all times, and when a time of emergency should arrive they could at once obtain unskilled labour and produce an unlimited supply of arms. It was not to depress the private trade that at such a moment the Government invited the House of Commons to undertake such an enterprise. Unless they had been well convinced it was important to the public interests, they would not have gone into such a proposal. They would not have gone into it unless they had been well convinced it would lead to an immense saving of the public money; above all, for higher objects than the saving of money—that it was material to the discharge of their duties in this emergency that they should put the country, not into a tolerable condition, but into the best possible condition with respect to the supply of arms. He hoped the House of Commons would not refuse to back the Government in the performance of that duty to the country; but, on the contrary, that they would assist the Government when they came to give a decisive vote in establishing the means to supply the country with superior arms at a lower price and with far greater certainty and rapidity than under the precarious and inconvenient system on which they were now dependent. One sentence more, and it would, perhaps, tend to shorten this debate. He had now stated the material considerations for agreeing to this proposition, but at the commencement he had allowed that, in the case of a novel proposition, it was hardly fair to invite the assent of the Committee, without giving some means of acquiring further knowledge. He could not dispense with the discharge of that duty, because he was most unwilling to evade the responsibility which certainly belonged to him as Minister of Finance with respect to the proposal, but he had no disposition to avoid any inquiry which the House of Commons might think fit to make. He would, therefore, explain what would be perfectly agreeable to the Government, provided it meet the views of the Committee. If the Committee thought fit to postpone this Vote for four weeks, with a view to the immediate appointment of a Committee—which Committee, sitting from day to day, should conduct its investigation into the whole question to a close in that period—to that proposal the Government would freely and readily assent. But, at the same time, he wished it to be understood that, not at all on account of any pertinacity in their own opinions, but on account of carrying forward the plan efficaciously, the Government did not propose to relax those preliminary and preparatory proceedings in which they were engaged; they would continue them on their own responsibility during the period the Committee was sitting, and leave the house of Commons to exercise its judgment freely when the result of that inquiry was made known.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had made a very ingenious speech, as he always did when called to the rescue of his colleagues, and at the same time had shown he knew nothing about machinery. ["Oh, oh!"] It was very easy to say "oh, oh!" but what did the hon. Member know about it? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a question between machinery and hand labour. It was no such thing. Did any of them know what a good fowling-piece was? And yet not one fowling-piece in England was made by machinery. It was a compound of hand labour and machinery, and that was the American scheme. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think making guns was like spinning cotton—they put iron and wood into a "hopper" at one end, and they came out Minié rifles at the other. Let the right hon. Gentleman show them first that the American rifle was a rifle. He said it was a plain simple musket, and did not cost 28s. The right hon. Gentleman said here the private trade charges 3l. for a gun which the Americans make for 30s. Let the right hon. Gentleman prove the cost. What did he know about the cost of guns? He had it upon autho- rity. Upon what authority? The Clerk of the Ordnance. The fact was, it was all assumption. Because the Government had got hold of a very clever talking character, they thought, if they had a fine piece of machinery, they must have a complete gun, and a perfect gun, and it must be made for 30s. He knew that 30s. would be 50s., and instead of 100,000l., the establishment; would cost 500,000l. Let the right hon. Gentleman prove that the American gun was a rifle; that he could make the gun for 30s.; and that the establishment would not cost more than 100,000l. The right hon. Gentleman knew he was wrong, and he confessed at the outset all Government establishments were bad. He (Mr. Muntz) was not surprised at that admission, for it was just what he should have expected from a man of such acuteness as the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry to oppose the Government; but he considered his proposition was a moderate one, and he could not see how the Government could reasonably object to it. His proposition was, to allow the manufacturers two months only to deliver any quantity of guns required. He should, therefore, press his Amendment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not object to the Amendment. He would propose the Vote again that day month. The hon. Member had challenged him with having shown no great knowledge of the subject, and his statement that arms were purchased abroad during the late war was scoffed at. He had in his hand a Report of the Board of Ordnance on the subject; and after stating the number of arms in store in 1792, the Report went on to say, "This made it absolutely necessary to collect arms from every part, and to purchase them in foreign countries;" and no less than 219,000 stand of arms were so purchased in foreign countries, besides those of our own manufacture.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he had observed that a great deal had been said about the trade of Birmingham, and he wished to say a few words with regard to that of London. There had been made in London, during the last ten years, no less than 584,376 small arms, which gave an average of something like 58,137 per annum. There were 1,900 workmen, and eighteen houses, already engaged in the manufacture of small arms in London; and he understood that eight or ten of these houses had offered their services to the Government, but they had been rejected.

MR. SPOONER

said, he would advise I the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) to consent to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same time he (Mr. Spooner) would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a month would scarcely afford sufficient time for an inquiry on this subject. The gunmakers said, "Tell us exactly what you want; tell us what time you will give us, and what price you will pay, and we will give you any security that we will manufacture arms as good and as speedily as you, the Government, can manufacture them yourselves. We can get our machinery cheaper and we can work it Letter than you can." The manufacturers, however, might not be able in a month to produce a fair sample of what they would be able to do if more time were allowed them. He had no hesitation in saying that if, upon inquiry, the gunmakers were unable to show that they could meet the exigencies of the case, there would not be one word of opposition from them to the proposal of the Government. He was satisfied that, if the Government threw themselves upon the private enterprise of the country, their demands would be fully met.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he did not think that it was possible, even in two months, to prove the case of the manufacturers as it ought to be proved. He was ready, however, to agree to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a month should be taken for the inquiry.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, it was not intended to limit the sittings of the Committee by a single day; but he thought they should sit de die in diem, and that if due diligence were used they might complete their inquiry in a month.

Motion by leave withdrawn. The following Vote was then passed.

(21.) 539,552l., Ordnance Stores.

house resumed.

The House adjourned at One o'clock.