§ SIR EDMUND LACONsaid, he begged to inquire whether any report had been received from the commanding officer of Engineers at Harwich, or from any officer sent down for the purpose, relative to the Arsenal at Yarmouth; if so, whether that report recommends that building to be converted into barracks; and if it be intended to have an artillery force stationed at Yarmouth; further, if it is the intention of the Board of Ordnance to errect new batteries at the entrance to the harbour, or upon any commanding situation in the immediate neighbourhood?
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, there had been a report received from the District Commander of the Royal Engineers, saying that the Arsenal was unfit for barracks, but certain representations had been made of an opposite character, and further inquiries would be made. As to the second question, whether it was intended to have an artillery force, he had to inform the hon. Member that it was decided to have some militia artillerymen stationed at Yarmouth, and early arrangements would he made for that purpose. In answer to the third question, he had to state that orders had been given for the construction of a battery at the mouth of the harbour, and three existing batteries had been ordered to be made serviceable. He would take that opportunity of answering a question put to him the other day by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) in reference to entrenching tools. The hon. and learned Gentleman at that time asked him whether there had not been a Commission issued after the camp at Chobham to inquire into the quality of 1173 entrenching tools, whether that Commission had not made a report condemning some of the tools, and whether, notwithstanding that Report, the Board of Ordnance had not continued to issue them. He begged to inform the House that there was no Commission, that there was no Report of any sort against entrenching tools after the camp at Chobbam, and therefore the information of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not correct.