§ House in Committee.
§ Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
§ (1.) £251,238, Manufacturing Departments, &c.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYrose to make some observations with regard to the position of sergeants in the army.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that these remarks, as referring to a subject not included in this Vote, would be irregular.
§ MR. SPOONERwished to ask the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for War whether it was true that in 1855 the Government advanced a large sum of money to enable an American house to set up a manufactory of arms in America? If he (Mr. Spooner) was correctly informed, the Government in 1855 entered into a contract with Messrs. Fox and Henderson and an American house for a supply of arms for our soldiers; and in order to enable that American house to set up the manufactory or machinery advanced it a sum of £20,000 to begin with, and a further sum of £6,000 at a subsequent period—a large portion of which money was now due to this country, both the American house and Messrs. Fox and Henderson having failed. He wished to know, before the particulars of the Vote were entered into, whether his information was correct; and, if it was, by what authority such an advance of the public money was made for the purpose of setting up a manufactory of arms in America? If such a transaction had taken place, he believed it was a totally unjustifiable one. In fact, he was at a loss to know what reason could be given for such an appropriation, or rather misappropriation, of 1048 money voted by that House for the manufacture of arms, and not for the purpose of setting up a manufactory, especially a manufactory in a foreign country. He believed the Government held some security in the shape of a mortgage over buildings and land in America, but a very large amount was due to the Government; and on grounds of national policy as well as of finance, he thought the matter one that required explanation. He could not but regard the act of the Government as unconstitutional. When replying to his question, perhaps the hon. Baronet would be good enough to state what steps were being taken by the Government to get back their money; and what was the nature of the security held for the amount.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he had no complaint to make of the course taken by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in making this inquiry. It was quite true that an advance had been made by the Government to a manufacturing house in America; and he (Sir J. Ramsden) must commence his explanation by admitting, on the part of the Government, a rather larger amount of delinquency than that charged by that hon. Gentleman. He trusted, however, that when the Committee had heard the statement which he (Sir J. Ramsden) had to make, and which he would do as shortly as possible, they would take a more favourable view of the conduct of the Government in the transaction than that entertained by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when the war was at its height, there was a very large supply of small arms required—very much larger than it was possible for the home trade to supply, and it was found expedient to have recourse to the foreign market. In the first place, a contract was sent out to the home manufacturers; and when they were fully employed and the demand still unsatisfied, the Government had to have recourse to the foreign manufacturer. Contracts were entered into with houses in France and Belgium; but all they could do to meet the demand was insufficient, and still further arms were required. Messrs. Fox and Henderson were then engaged in various contracts for the Ordnance, and they suggested that they could procure 25,000 stand of arms from America, made on the best principles, and by machinery. They stated at the same time, that in order to enable the American house to set up the expensive machinery 1049 necessary for that contract, an advance should be made. Under those circumstances—considering the very great demand there was for arms, and how desirable it was to get a supply of an additional 25,000—the Government thought it advisable to make an advance, and accordingly an advance was made of, in the first instance, £21,875, which was one-fourth of the entire amount to be paid for the performance of the contract: 25,000 rifles were to be supplied at £3 10s. each. The whole contract was to amount to £87,000, so that the amount advanced was one-fourth. By the terms of the agreement, as the arms were delivered payments were to be made, on the principle of deducting one-fourth, which was to go in diminution of the advance of £21,875. Some months after the contract was entered into, the American house was in want of money, and was unable, without a further advance,' to carry out the contract. It then became a question with the Government whether it should close the security at once, or advance more money in order to enable the contractors to carry out their contract. The matter was very carefully considered, and taking into account the urgent requirements of the public service, it was determined to advance more money, and even a larger sum than that stated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was advanced. In various amounts about £14,000 was advanced in addition to the original sum; so that the total sum advanced was £35,659. But he should beg of the Committee to bear in mind that during the time these further advances were being made the arms were being delivered, of very good quality, in very considerable quantities, and with great regularity. The manufacture of arms by the American firm went on throughout 1856; but when 10,000 stand had been delivered information was given to the Government that the American house could not continue the contract. At the end of the account 10,000 stand of arms had been delivered, and the balance of money due to the English Government from the American house was £24,185. Steps were immediately taken to close the contract, and to realize the security held by the Government. That was at the end of 1856, and those steps were still in progress; and the Government was informed that the value of the machinery and of the buildings, and of the land which was attached to the latter, 1050 was very much larger than the amount of the debt due to our Treasury by the firm. Government was not yet informed whether that security had been realized, and it was impossible for him to say how much it would realize, for though it was of very great value, it was of such a peculiar character that the number of purchasers for such property was necessarily limited. But he had to inform the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to that security in America, which Messrs. Fox and Henderson had considered perfectly sufficient to justify them in advancing their own money to the American house, the Government had another security, which was one on the estate of Messrs. Fox and Henderson. It was only right he should state that, though Messrs. Fox and Henderson had met with pecuniary difficulties, there was no shadow of imputation on them in reference to the contract now under discussion. Their conduct throughout these transactions had been most honourable and straightforward. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire thought these advances a misappropriation of the public money. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that the money so advanced was a portion of an amount voted for a particular tender; but that was a mistake. The Committee would find on a reference to the Estimates for the army and commissariat in 1855–6. a sum of £257,400 granted for the supply of small arms. Out of that money the advance was made, and he was of opinion that it was perfectly competent to the Government to so apply a portion of money not granted for any particular contract, but for a general supply of small arms. The advances were brought forward in the accounts in the usual manner, as hon. Members would find on reference to page 70 of a Return laid on the table of the late House, on the 26th of July, 1856. On that page was an entry "Sums advanced to Messrs. Fox and Henderson, £26,485 11s. 8d.," showing a regular account of the advances up to the date of the preparation of that Return. He trusted that this explanation would be deemed satisfactory by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the Committee.
§ MR. SPOONERasked, was the security alluded to by the hon. Baronet as on the property of Messrs. Fox and Henderson, a specific security, or merely a charge on their estate, which would only give a right of proof against it?
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENA charge on the estate, not a specific security.
§ MR. SPOONERobserved, that a proof of £25,000 had been tendered against the estate.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the charge of the Government against the estate of Messrs. Fox and Henderson would not come into effect unless the mortgage on the property in America should prove insufficient. In such an event Government would have a further claim against the general estate. He could not answer the hon. Member as to what were the exact steps which had been taken to prove the claim of the Government against Messrs. Fox and Henderson's estate. He was not himself aware of the precise nature of the proceedings in that respect.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the could not but express his opinion that the Government ought not to have felt itself authorized, without the consent of that House, to spend in the shape of advances to an American firm, in order to enable that firm to manufacture arms, a portion of a sum voted for the purposes of the Army and Commissariat. In 1854 the Government proposed that a sum of £100,000 should be spent on the small arms manufactory at Enfield, which establishment it was stated would supply arms for our soldiers. Thus the arms trade of England was given to understand that they would not be called on for a supply. However, a Committee of that House was subsequently appointed to inquire into the matter, and that Committee was of opinion that the Government had committed a mistake. The Government was virtually told by the Report of that Committee that it had only to send orders to the arms trade of England and its orders would be supplied. He (Mr. Newdegate) had stated, on behalf of the trade when supporting the Motion for the appointment of the Committee, that the manufacturers of this country were perfectly prepared to supply 50,000 stand the first year; 100,000 the next; and more than 100,000 the year after. The House was convinced of the truth of that assertion; but an authority from the Ordnance stated before that Committee that the arms trade of England could not be depended on for the supply of more than 30,000 stand per year: by such assertions the Government had been misled. In two years and a half the arms trade supplied not less than 272,000 stand of arms, thus greatly exceeding 1052 the rate which he had assured the House they were capable of producing. In consequence of the Report of the Committee, the Government reduced the Vote they had proposed of £100,000 to £25,000, to be expended, not in the erection of a large and new manufactory at Enfield, but in the enlargement of the factory already existing there. What happened? They did not expend that 25,000 on the existing factory at Enfield, but applied it to the purchase of machinery for a new factory, which the House, at the instance of its own Committee, had prohibited. Afterwards in 1855, not only did the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, with that tact which at all times distinguished him, persuade the House to submit to this unauthorized reversal of its Vote, but in successive years to expend, not £150,000, which was the maximum stated in 1854 to be expended in two years, but £300,000, on the factory at Enfield, which up to March last had not turned out a single musket. After that he could not be surprised that the Government should presume upon the carelessness or the indulgence of the House, and without scruple, advance £20,000 or £30,000 to some foreign house, through an English house, for the production of a supply of small arms. The noble Lord had taunted his hon. Colleague with speaking in behalf of the interests of his constituents. Now it happened that orders for arms were sent not only to America but to Belgium and France in 1854, because the Government could not be persuaded to trust the arms trade of England. The result was that whilst the trade of England supplied 272,000 stand of arms during the period of the war, not one single musket for the purposes of the war did the Government obtain through, and during the period, those foreign orders; nor yet one to represent the return on the £300,000 which had been expended on the manufactory at Enfield. The noble Lord then should not have taunted the Members for North Warwickshire as having promoted the interests of their constituents to the detriment of the interests of the country; the fact being that if it had not been for the labours of the arms trade of England, of which the Government had entertained so ill-founded and unnatural a distrust, they would not have bad a supply of arms for the purposes of the war. The course the Government had adopted was to send the admirable pattern for the Enfield rifle out of the 1053 country, to be made by foreigners; and when the foreigners confessed that they could not make muskets of that pattern at the price of £3 4s., Government then agreed to give them £3 10s., or 6s. more, and sent skilled workmen from Birmingham to teach them to make them from the patterns which they had not invented, and could not carry out themselves. Now, he should like to know what was the use of inventing the best pattern muskets for the army of England if the most ordinary precautions were not to be taken, not merely for preventing foreigners from knowing how to make them, but to avoid teaching them how to do so. There was reason to believe that another most valuable discovery had been made in the rifling of small arms; and he trusted the Government would not disappoint those who had worked for them, as the trade of England had done, by allowing the new patterns to be consigned to foreigners before the home trade had the power of endeavouring to give the army of England at least priority in the possession of that weapon. The Government seemed to him (Mr. Newdegate) to claim a very wide latitude in applying the balances of public money. To appropriate the balance which might arise between the Commissariat expenditure and the Commissariat Vote as advances to foreign houses for the purpose of enabling those houses to make arms for this country from our own patterns was what he thought the House of Commons could never approve. He hoped, then, that the noble Lord, in considering the future conduct of the Government, would endeavour to limit his administration somewhat more within the rules which Parliament had always observed under the constitutional monarchy of England.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not meant to taunt him and his hon. Colleague with having taken a peculiar interest in regard to the affairs of their constituents. It was only natural that they should do that; at the same time it was but right that the House of Commons, when considering this question, should know exactly in what capacity and character hon. Gentlemen stood who offered certain opinions, so that it might be seen whether those opinions were impartial and unprejudiced as between the Government and the small arm manufacturers. It was all very well at the present moment to say that the Government were prodigal in sending orders to France, 1054 Belgium, and America for muskets when the trade at home might have furnished, as the hon. Gentleman said, 50,000 in the first year, and 100,000 in the next. [Mr. NEWDEGATE said, they did supply at the rate of 100,000 a year.] What the hon. Member engaged for the trade to do was to supply 50,000 stand the first year and 100,000 the next. But the first year was a year of great pressure, and 50,000 was not anything like the number of muskets which were required of the improved pattern. The Government were, therefore, obliged to go all over the world, wherever they could get muskets made, to supply the immediate and pressing wants of the service. That system arose on the emergency of the moment, and he thought they were perfectly justified in adopting it, and that they would have been very much to blame had they not done so. If the war had gone on, and they had not had proper muskets to put into the hands of the troops, it would have been no answer to say that they could only get a limited number from our own manufacturers, and did not choose to go and employ persons at Liege, at St. Etienne, and in America. But the hon. Gentleman said that the Government had employed money which had been voted by Parliament for one purpose in making advances for another. His hon. Friend (Sir J. Ramsden), however, had explained that this was not the case. The advance to the American house was an advance made out of Votes which were specially for the supply of small arms, and there was nothing in the Vote of Parliament to limit the quarters whence that supply was to come. Therefore, the transaction was perfectly constitutional and Parliamentary. The hon. Gentleman had also observed, that by going to Liege and other places, and sending thither the patterns upon which the supply was to be made, the Government had put into the hands of foreigners those improvements which ought to have been kept secret for ourselves. Did the hon. Gentleman really believe that any improvement in small arms made in any country whatsoever could be kept a secret for the sole benefit of that country? Why, God bless me! if we wanted to get patterns of Russian arms, or American arms, or French arms, or Austrian arms, or Prussian arms, we could get them in the shortest possible time, and the hon. Gentleman may rest perfectly assured that there is no improvement which can be made in the arms of 1055 this country which any other country, wanting to acquire it, will not also get in the shortest possible period. The idea, then, that any improvement in the musket could be kept a secret in one country, for the exclusive benefit of that country, was altogether a delusion. On the one hand, whilst no possible injury had arisen from the course which had been adopted, on the other hand, that course was the only one by which an immediate supply of small arms could be obtained.
§ MR. SPOONERThe noble Lord seemed to forget that he did not obtain a supply; that he sent the patterns abroad; but that during the war he got all his arms from Birmingham and London. It was true the Committee had agreed to a Vote for the purpose of getting small arms; but if the noble Lord had come down and put the question in this way—"We want to establish a foreign manufactory; give us leave to lend £30,000 or £40,000 to Americans for the purpose," did he believe that the Committee would have entertained his proposal? The noble Lord said that we could not keep our patterns secret; but the fact was that the Government not only sent the orders and the patterns, but the men how to teach foreigners to make the new muskets. The foreigners declared they did not know how to make these new arms, and under the name of "viewers" the Government sent them out the best men they could seduce from the service of their employers in Birmingham, to the great injury of the trade. The noble Lord said the arrangements entered into was rendered necessary by the emergency of the case—that it was not intended to be a permanent arrangement. But was the noble Lord aware what was going on at Birmingham at this moment? Why, there were agents there who were paying premiums to the workmen to induce them to leave. He could prove that large sums of money had been given to induce the men to quit their employers, and that upon their doing so they had gone to work at Enfield. Only within the last few days the order for "sights" had been suspended, and the men who were engaged in that branch of the manufacture, being the best filers, simultaneously with the suspension of these orders being turned out of employment, the streets of the town were placarded with notices that a number of the best filers were wanted at Enfield. Was that, he asked, a fair way of dealing 1056 with the trade? He contended that the persons who were sent to give orders at Birmingham, and to see that the manufacture was conducted properly, ought to be persons totally unconnected with the establishment at Enfield, inasmuch as persons employed there felt a natural anxiety to encourage that establishment. If the noble Lord would only carry out what he had stated the other night, that Enfield was only wanted—not to rival the London or Birmingham manufacturer—but simply to establish a manufactory by which the Government themselves could come into possession of knowledge which was exceedingly necessary, and have the means of introducing the best machinery, and doing the best they could to improve the manufacture generally, no man would complain. But when he saw a spirit of rivalry introduced, every possible attempt made to entice the men from their natural employers into the Government manufactory at Enfield, and that the orders were not given out in a regular tradesmanlike manner, then he must say that it did excite more than a suspicion in his mind that it was intended to set up at the public expense, and with the public money, a manufactory the ultimate object of which was to remove the whole of the gun trade from London and Birmingham, and put it into the hands of the Government at Enfield. He warned the Committee, then, not to lend itself to such a dangerous experiment, He would observe, with regard to Enfield, that the Government issued orders, and pretended to show the place to manufacturers, but he would bring men who would state that they had been refused an examination of the place. When they presented themselves they were told that one house was shut, and that in another the men were not at work, and thus the parties were prevented from seeing anything. Now, if the building had been erected for a national object, and not for the purpose of establishing a local trade, the Government ought to permit all persons to see and examine the Enfield manufactory. Enfield ought to be an encouragement to the trade generally, and not set up as a rival to London and Birmingham.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to refer to page 56 of the Estimates, and ask what was meant by the charge of £1,095 for three persons, superintending officers, for the manufacture of small arms in foreign countries. And at page 80 there was a charge of £4,292 as 1057 being required for nineteen artificers and labourers. He should like to know what these charges meant?
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the sum of £1,095 for superintending officers was on account of the old contracts entered into during 1854–55 for rifles. The contracts had not yet run out, and until they were completed these officers must remain abroad to inspect the small arms. The charge of £4,292 was for wages of the men employed under those superintending officers. In further answer to Mr. Williams, Sir John Ramsden said the charge of £5,272 to which he had alluded was on account of the clothing department for the infantry. All the clothing for the army was now sent down to Weedon for inspection—that was the general depot for the clothing, and it was there examined. He then said (in reply to Mr. Spooner) that he could mention a case which he thought would show that the hon. Gentleman had been misinformed. What had occurred was this: a workman was said to have been enticed from Birmingham to Enfield, upon the representation of another workman who was employed at Enfield. The man had been in the employ of a Birmingham manufacturer, and the superintendent at Enfield going soon after to Birmingham, the matter was brought under his notice. He at once said that the circumstance had taken place without his authority, and that the man should be sent back. Subsequently, therefore, the man was discharged from Enfield, and returned to his work at Birmingham. The hon. Member had also accused the Government of desiring to take the whole manufacture of small arms into their own hands. He might state, however, on their behalf, that only a short time ago a company of gunmakers came to them and represented that they were willing to supply rifle muskets of the pattern of 1853, and on the principle of interchangeability of all the parts; but could not undertake to do so unless they had a large contract to enable them to bear the great expense of setting up the necessary machinery. The Government were so anxious to encourage every effort of this nature in the gun trade, that they entered into a contract with the company to be supplied with 30,000 stand—and this for the purpose of setting up in England a private factory which should come into competition with their own establishment at Enfield.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, that the moment 1058 the time of the man to whom the hon. Baronet referred was completed at Birmingham, the authorities at Enfield took him back again, and that there he was now. He did not believe that an honourable private tradesman would have re-engaged a man who had thus deserted his employer.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONHis hon. Friend (Sir J. Ramsden) had stated that a company had been established to whom a contract had been given for the supply of 30,000 stand of arms. He should be glad to know of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire where he imagined the company was to get its workmen. Was not trade free? Was not labour in this country free? Was it not perfectly competent for any individual or company who entered upon a career of industry with new capital to bold out encouragement to persons skilled in that particular line to come and enter their employ? Never in his life had he heard such a doctrine as that because a certain number of persons in Birmingham happened to have in their employment a certain number of skilled labourers, the workmen were not to be at liberty, if they could find employment more to their taste elsewhere, to transfer their services to the market which promised to be most advantageous when their time had expired.
§ MR. SPOONERNobody disputed that; but then the Government were doing it with the public "money—money which the masters, from whom the Government seduced these workmen, had to contribute to in the shape of taxes. That, he thought, was a complete answer to the noble Lord's remarks.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONIt was no answer at all. If Parliament said that the Government should manufacture weapons, or ships, or any other things, for the public service, they would surely be defeating their own object to say to the Government, "You are to make these things, but we forbid you to take persons into your establishments to make them for you." [Mr. SPOONER: You are bribing them.] Bribing them! Why, the hon. Member might as well say that we were to have no shipwrights in our dockyards, because the shipwrights who came there had left the employment of some private tradesman. The hon. Gentleman talked of the Government as if it were a corporation, acting for its own advantage. It was the organ of the nation, to provide things for the service of the nation; and it was its duty to 1059 provide those things in the cheapest and most effectual manner. He contended, therefore, that if there was to be a manufactory of small arms at Enfield, and a manufactory of cannon at Woolwich, it was essential that workmen should be got to perform the processes by which alone those small-arms and cannon could be provided. Talking of that, he begged to remind the hon. Member that the mortars which were employed in the bombardment of Sweaborg during the late war, and which burst in the operation, were manufactured by the trade; whereas, if they had been manufactured in the Government arsenal, he believed that that would never have been their fate.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, it was necessary that the House should know the antecedents of the present Enfield establishment. The first attempt to manufacture small arms by the Government was in Allen Street, in the City. This factory was transferred to Lewisham; but after some years, it being found that the water power was insufficient, Enfield was added; and ultimately Lewisham was abandoned. Up to this period £500,000 had been lost in the abortive attempt to manufacture small arms. In February, 1854, the House granted £100,000 for Enfield, and the Government promised that by the aid of machinery the new weapon should not cost more than 30s. The weapon with which the British army was supplied, up to the close of the last century, cost only 30s. each; but at the beginning of this century certain improvements were made, and each weapon cost 48s. Now, those weapons, aided by the stout hearts of British soldiers, had gained more battles than adorned the annals of any other nation. Recently the Minié rifle was invented—an instrument of long range. Now, although the British soldier did not prefer a long range, but rather close quarters, it was quite right that he should not be exposed to a great disadvantage. The Minié rifle was therefore introduced and taken to Enfield, and was now called by that name. But at what cost was it made? At the promised cost of 30s.? No. Each rifle cost £3 8s. 6d. Now, if the British and Indian army were to be supplied with that rifle the cost would be about £1,500,000. But since the invention of the Enfield rifle (which was, in fact, the same as that invented by Minié, with a few alterations) a new rifle—namely, Whitworth's—had recommended itself to notice, 1060 and even another and yet another novelty might be devised. Of course, therefore, the whole of the outlay incurred on the Enfield rifle would be lost; for he presumed the existing machinery would not be suitable to convert the Enfield rifle into the Whitworth. Consequently there would be a further outlay, and hon. Gentlemen must not be surprised if next year the Army Estimates were considerably swollen on account of small arms. The British soldier was of course entitled to have the best weapon, at whatever cost, and no necessary outlay in that respect should be objected to by hon. Members. He thought that the Government had no right to interfere with the enterprize of individual tradesmen by setting up manufactories of their own at Enfield or elsewhere. As a small establishment to test the manufactures of contractors it might be justifiable, but if it was intended to supply the British and Indian armies with a new rifle, he thought it would be decidedly wrong on the part of the Government to produce the article in their own establishments. Such a policy would have a tendency to crush the competitive industry of the country. When anything went wrong in a Government establishment the officials justified each other and the Government justified the officials, and the public interest suffered; but in case of any negligence or inefficient work in a private establishment the country insisted upon getting its money's worth. He (Colonel Sykes) warned the House that £240,000 had been already granted to Enfield since 1854, and that the Vote annually for small arms would become not "small by degrees and beautifully less," but large by degrees and formidably expensive.
COLONEL NORTHregretted the absence of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), to whom he had given notice that he should to-night direct the attention of the House to a speech of his, reflecting upon the officers employed in various departments of the public service. The hon. and learned Member said he knew that the really honest disinterested men in the country refused to have anything to do with Government contracts, because they were obliged to preface their proceedings by bribing the department—that he was not then speaking in a whisper, for what he was saying the gentlemen below him (meaning the members of the press) would tell to all England, and he was as sure as he was of his own existence that there was 1061 bribery and corruption from top to bottom of every permanent department in the country. [Mr. HAYTER: That was in a hustings' speech.] The hustings was not a fit place to cast a slur on the public departments. He (Colonel North) was at that moment serving on the Committee of Contracts; and as a Member of that Committee, had read with the greatest care the two Reports which had been laid upon the table of this House, and certainly, from beginning to end of these Reports, there did not appear to be the slightest cause for the speech of the hon. and learned Member. Throughout the whole of the evidence he found but one single case, and that was the case of a viewer in the Tower of London, who had asked for some money. His conduct was instantly reported to the inspector, and the man was most properly dismissed. For his part, he believed that there was no country in the world more faithfully, honestly, or honourably served by the public departments, and the persons employed in them, than our own. From his personal knowledge, he could only speak so far as the War Department was concerned. The work done by the gentlemen in the War Department was incredible, some of them sat up half the night to perform their duty, and did it without any grumbling. He needed only mention in the War Department his old friend Mr. Crooms, who had retired after a service of half a century; and Messrs. Kerby, Marshall, Richards, and Roberts; while in the Commander in Chief's department, he might name Mr. Keddle and Mr. Brake; and in the Adjutant General's department the gentlemen would be found equally meritorious and hardworking. He thought it hard, therefore, that when the service of the country was performed so admirably, these departments should be attacked on the hustings or elsewhere, and he regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who, he felt sure, would give some explanation as regarded a number of gentlemen who felt deeply aggrieved by his remarks. He (Colonel North) had been enabled to clear the character of General Ashburnham on a former night; but what he deprecated was, that such statements as had been made, and which remained uncontradicted, in consequence of that gallant officer having sailed, were calculated to prejudice him with at least one half of his army.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEwas far from saying that the country was not honour- 1062 ably served by those connected with the Government departments. The Government, however, had set up a, factory at Enfield at the public expense to compete with the arms trade. Was it fair, then, that the officials employed at this establishment should be made judges of the arms supplied by private competitors? It must be obvious to every one, that while, on the one hand, these officers were urged by the Government, who were then employers, to make the Enfield factory excel the arms trade in production, both as to the quality and cheapness of the arms produced, they had no adequate inducement to do justice to the trade on the other; while over the trade they had almost absolute control. Even if they did not yield to this bias, their position exposed them to the imputation of unfairness which rendered their position unbecoming. The two offices were incompatible, and he hoped the noble Lord intended to give the trade fair play, but, if so, the superintendents of the arms supplied ought not to be connected with the Enfield manufactory.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman and his Colleague always assumed that the persons employed at Enfield had some personal interest in this question. He talked of competitive establishments as if he were talking of two rival companies making a profit by the superior quantity and quality of the goods they made. Now, it was no such thing. The Enfield manufactory was established for the purpose of supplying the public with weapons of the best possible description, and the private manufacturers were employed for the same purpose. It was necessary that somebody should be appointed to see that the muskets furnished by the trade were according to pattern and of the proper quality, and the question was who should be so employed. Why, naturally those who were most conversant with the manufacture, who knew how the different arms were made, and whether they were properly made. Surely, then, the persons connected with Enfield were the best fitted for this office. They obtained no profit from the quantity of muskets turned out at Enfield; and nothing could be further from the fact than to represent the Enfield manufactory in the light of a rival and a competitive establishment.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that it had been repeatedly stated before the Small Arms' Committee that the establishment at Enfield was to compete with the trade, 1063 and that it had so competed was a fact which could not be denied. Surely, independent persons might be found perfectly competent to judge between the merits of the arms produced at Enfield and elsewhere. When the noble Lord asserted that none were so competent to judge as the officers employed at this factory, he (Mr. Newdegate) met him with the fact that the pattern of the so-called Enfield rifle was not made in Enfield more than was the Whitworth pattern rifle. As long as Enfield was used for its present purpose, it must be considered a competitive establishment.
§ MR. CROSSLEYbelieved this factory had cost some hundreds of thousands of pounds, yet it had not produced a single arm up to the 1st of March in the present year. He strongly objected to the managers at Enfield being the judges of the arms supplied by the trade, because those gentlemen must be interested in giving patronage to the factory with which they were connected, and would be likely to overlook defects in their own manufactures, which they would condemn in those of their rivals. He thought the country would be a great loser by going out of its way to commence a manufactory.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had been rather alarmed by the noble Lord's statement that this was not a competitive establishment, for unless it was a competitive establishment he did not see why it should exist or what result was expected to accrue from it. No doubt, the noble Lord was correct in his statements, because of course, in his position, he must have the most ample means of information; but, irrespective of this, it appeared to him that there was ample evidence to show that Enfield was really not a competitive establishment. It had been stated, and the statement had not been denied, that as yet this manufactory had not produced a single rifle. He believed that Votes had been taken on account of it for nearly three years, and yet the public service had not been assisted in the slightest degree. It was, however, a very remarkable circumstance, according to his hon. Friend, that, although Enfield had not produced any arms, it had subtracted some of the most skilful artificers from Birmingham. The noble Lord had, he thought, rather misrepresented his hon. Friend when he said it was impossible to prevent the best models from being furnished from this country to foreign manufacturers, and that 1064 nothing could be more barbarous than to suppose that we could hinder improvements introduced here from being adopted abroad. Now what his hon. Friend complained of was, not that the best models were furnished from England to foreign countries, but that by the influence of our Government the best artificers were enlisted for service abroad, though without apparently accomplishing the object which the Government had in view. With regard to the present Vote he was not at all prepared to contend that on the version given of it, by the Under Secretary for War, it might not be worthy of support. Under the circumstances of the case he thought on this occasion the Committee were bound to put a most liberal interpretation upon the intentions of the Government when they considered the postion they were placed in at the period in question, but, even so, he conceived that the Government had committed a very great error in this matter. There could be no doubt that to make an advance to a manufacturer whom you employed, whether he were an American or an Englishman, was one of the greatest errors which in the transaction of business could by possibility be perpetrated. There was, indeed, only one greater error which could be committed, and into that also the Government had fallen—it was to make a second advance. That appeared to him to be an extremely indiscreet course. When they found that the first advance had led to so very unsatisfactory a consequence, it was a great mistake to make a second, and he was not at all surprised that the enterprise had resulted as it had. Still, the Government had been called upon to act in a moment of very great exigency; and whether they had acted prudently or imprudently it was one of those occasions on which their intentions ought to be regarded in the most favourable light; but the principle of advancing money to manufacturers was one which no Committee of Supply ought to sanction. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire had referred to a subject which deserved the grave consideration of Parliament; and although the Committee would not be called upon to express its opinion upon it by division, yet it was a most important question to consider whether the Government, with the capital of the country, should enter into competition with private manufacturers. The question was so grave that it must ultimately, and per- 1065 haps speedily, be brought to some conclusion in that House. He knew the arguments which were generally offered on this subject. They all resolved themselves into reasons of State. They could not be defended on economical or mercantile principles, and they resolved themselves therefore into political considerations. But if political considerations were, to be the test the public would demand that the result of the operations should at least be in unison with the State necessity which was alleged. If the public found that the competition which was carried on was contrary to all the principles which regulated commerce in this country, and that the consequence was so extremely unsatisfactory that the Government, employing and wasting the public capital, could not compete successfully with the private trader, it would be impossible for any length of time to maintain the present system; and the Government might rely upon it that when Parliament came, which it would inevitably have to do before long, to consider the financial position of the country, it would be necessary to arrive at some definite conclusion upon this matter. Although the subject of the Enfield establishment had been treated in a very light manner, the fact was that the whole of the important question to which he had referred was involved in it. In his opinion, it was impossible to answer the arguments which had been advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Was that establishment at Enfield a competitive establishment, or was it not? If it were, it was working against the private trader with public capital which was created by the public taxes of the country. If it were not a competitive establishment, it was a mere normal school of gun-making. They had then to inquire what was the expense of such an establishment, and whether the results were at all commensurate with the expenditure. These were questions which it would be impossible for Parliament to evade; the expense was so vast that before long a definite conclusion must be come to on the subject; but he (Mr. Disraeli) should not for the present offer any opposition to the Vote before the Committee.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the discussion appeared to turn very much upon the precise meaning which was attached to the word "competitive." If the Government were to set up a manufactory of things to be sold afterwards for the 1066 profit of the Government, he should say that in the strict sense of the word that would be a "competitive" establishment and a very impolitic thing it would be. But when the question was how things required for the public service were best to be supplied, his opinion was, that, as a rule, the more Government could have those things made by officers acting under their immediate superintendence and control, the better the public service was likely to be consulted. It happened, however, that no Government establishment could be on such a scale as to supply all the wants of the service, and there would, no doubt, occur times when more would be required than any Government establishment could produce. For example, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had a "competitive establishment," as the hon. Gentleman opposite would call it, for building ships; but when many gun-boats were required beyond what the Government Dockyards could supply he went to the trade. Formerly, when many more line-of-battle ships were wanted than the Government yards could furnish, forty were ordered from private builders; they were built—very bad they were, and they were called the "Forty Thieves." So it would be in every department if reliance were placed entirely on private traders; there would be no security that the supply would be so good as it ought to be. The advantage of having public establishments was, that we were sure of getting the things we wanted—that they would be good in quality, and as cheap as possible compatibly with the quality. In illustration of this subject, let them glance for a moment at the different things required for the army. The hon. Gentleman might complain that his noble Friend (Lord Panmure) had established a public manufactory of clothing in competition with the army tailors, and ask, "Why shouldn't he go to the trade—why should the clothes be made at Weedon?" The answer was, "Because they were better made there than by the trade—because the soldier had by this means better cloth, and was better clad than he had been before." On the same principle, why not go to the trade for cartridges? Because we had them better made under Government superintendence at Woolwich than we could get them from any private establishment. It was a mistake to suppose that public works of this description were conducted on so expensive a plan as to make the articles 1067 produced more expensive than they could be purchased for from the private trader. Take, for example, Lancaster shells. He had seen at Woolwich the manufacture of those shells, and he found that they were not only better than those supplied by the trade, but that they were manufactured at about one-third of the price. So it would be in all things. There ought to be the means of providing what was required for the public service under ordinary circumstances by Government establishments; they would give a standard of quality, and would supply a certain amount; but if a larger supply were required, recourse would then be had to private traders. When they were asking whether Enfield was a competitive establishment or not, his answer was that in one sense it was so—it supplied a certain proportion of the small arms required for the public service, but it was not expected that it would supply the whole amount of arms which would from time to time be needed. Under these circumstances he said that it was a wise thing for the Government to have establishments to supply, as nearly as possible, all those things which might be necessary for the public service.
§ MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the establishment at Enfield was opposed to all commercial and economical principles; but there was one thing which was even more important than commercial and economical principles, and that was that the country should be supplied with the best articles. There had been a great deal of advice offered to young Members in the course of the evening. He should not presume to lecture them, but if he might gently offer a hint, it would be to read the blue-books on all those subjects on which Committees had already sat. If they did so, they would find that "trusting to the trade"—to any trade—for anything to be good and honest would be a perfect delusion. They had a specimen of this in the "Forty Thieves," and in the case of every manufacture it was necessary for the Government to have a standard of their own. The freetraders might take an opposite view of the matter, but he would only say to them, "de te fabula narratur."
§ MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, that as a free-trader he could not sit still and leave such remarks unanswered. He had no hesitation in saying that if the whole manufacture of these rifles and the building of heavy ships were thrown open to competition the work 1068 would be a great deal better done than now. With regard to the clothing which the noble Lord had alluded to, the Government might depend on it that they would get better clothing from the trade for the same cost.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £221,868, Wages of Artificers, &c.
§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONcalled the attention of the Government to the great distress prevailing among the workmen at Woolwich, upwards of 5,000 of whom had been recently discharged from one Government establishment, they and the neighbourhood being deprived of the benefit of wages to the extent of about £340,000 a year. These unfortunate men were driven on the parish for support, and a great deal of distress had been occasioned, not only to their families, but to other families in the town. The Government had said they could give no assistance, but he thought it was the duty of the Government to consider the case in a favourable view. He did not mean to say that the Government could possibly devote a special sum for the purpose of emigration, but it was the duty of the Government, if they had the means—and they might find many—to assist these artisans in some way. He did not believe that it would ever be found that a private establishment dismissed a large number of men without endeavouring to place them in a position to gain their livelihood, if not permanently, at least temporarily. If the Government could not afford to assist these men in emigrating, at least they might do what was done in the army and navy—they might place them where they could get work, or at all events remove them to the parishes where they were chargeable.
SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSentirely concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. and gallant General. As Commandant of the garrison he had witnessed recently the wide-spread distress occasioned by the discharge of those men. The inhabitants had done all in their power to alleviate their wants, but the utmost of their endeavours fell short of the object in view. He trusted the Government would take the case into consideration as a very special one. They ought also to consider the peculiar position of Woolwich, being not only a Dockyard, but a military Arsenal, which when taken collectively was as great as all the military arsenals of France put together. The consequence was, that after the termination of a great war like 1069 the war against Russia, thousands of workmen were turned out of work weekly and thrown upon a town of very contracted population, and therefore the less able to bear the burden.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHrepresented the condition of the labourers at Woolwich, Portsmouth, Chatham, and Devonport, who only received 12s. a week, and yet, in consequence of the dearness of rents in those localities were obliged, many of them, to lodge at a distance of two miles. That compelled them to accomplish a journey of eight miles a day, and thereby unfitted them to do their work properly. Even after they left at night they sought employment in private establishments in order to add to their income, and that unfitted them still more for the labour of the morrow. He was satisfied the Government would do the work cheaper and better if they rewarded these labourers on a more liberal scale.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEthought it not right to give these men such low wages as 12s. a week, when agricultural labourers were receiving 18s. a week. [Cries of "Where?"] In the north of Scotland—and he had himself not paid less than 15s. a week during the last two years. At the present advanced rate of provisions it was perfectly impossible that these men could maintain themselves and families on 12 s. a week. He also complained that the Dockyard establishments were exempted from poor rates.
§ MR. BRISCOEhad no connection with Woolwich, but he knew that the distress there was extreme, and he could not help joining in the appeal to the Government that some means might he provided for alleviating that distress. If they did so, he was sure it would he gratifying both to the Committee and the public.
§ MR. TOWNSENDbore his testimony as to the distress existing at Woolwich, and trusted that the Government would be able to assist the distressed people to emigrate. The Government establishments at Deptford and Woolwich contributed nothing to the relief of the poor of the parish, while the existing state of things caused a great pressure on the ratepayers. He could assure the Committee that great misery and distress prevailed among the class of workmen who had been referred to, and he hoped the Government would devise some means for their relief.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the case of the workmen discharged from the public establishments at 1070 Woolwich had received the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and they were most desirous, if they could justly do so, of appropriating a sum of money to the alleviation of the distress which had been described. But there were great difficulties in the way of such a measure. It must be remembered, however, that this was not the first occasion on which workmen had been discharged in large numbers from public establishments, and it would not he the last; and if the Government once laid down the principle that whenever workmen were discharged under such circumstances they should receive temporary relief in the shape of gratuities, or should be furnished with the means of emigrating to the Colonies, there might be a draught upon the public Treasury which in many cases it would be extremely difficult to satisfy. On the one hand, then, they had to consider the danger of establishing a precedent, and on the other the great hardships endured by the workmen who had been discharged. During the war many persons who were not skilled artificers, but common labourers, had been employed to attend to the machinery at Woolwich, and, instead of receiving the ordinary wages of labourers, they had obtained for the discharge of duties which very short instruction enabled them to perform, wages as high as a, guinea a week. At the termination of the war the services of many of these persons were no longer required, and it became necessary to discharge them. They might, he believed, in almost every instance have returned to their previous occupations and have obtained as high wages as they received before they were employed by the Government; but not unnaturally, perhaps, they were unwilling to accept such wages, and they refused to engage in any work unless they received as high a rate of wages as they had obtained in the service of the Government. Under these circumstances some difficulty was felt in interfering with what might he considered the natural distribution of labour, for undoubtedly nearly all the persons who had been discharged might have obtained employment if they had been willing to accept it. The Committee had been told that if the means of emigration were offered to the men many of them would probably avail themselves of such an offer, but it was not thought desirable to adopt that course. A communication was made on the subject to the Poor Law Board, and they were 1071 requested to report on the subject. The Report which they had presented to Government did not, however, represent the distress as either so general or so intense as to-night it had been stated to be. He admitted that the case was one of great difficulty, but it was one in which the inclinations of the Government were not in accordance with their sense of public duty.
§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONsaid, that many of the discharged men had travelled about the country rather than become a burden to the parish, but their wives and children had experienced extreme distress.
§ MR. BRISCOEhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make the case of these men an exception to the general principle laid down by him, in the justice of which he fully concurred.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) 278,570, Clothing and Necessaries.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYwished to know whether it was intended to alter the equipment of the Life Guards or Horse Guards. Minié rifles and conical balls had rendered the cuirass useless.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he was not aware that there was any intention to deprive the Horse Guards of their cuirasses, which, though they might not be impervious to a Minié bullet, would still be of great service in a close encounter.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the comparative cost of clothing for the Horse Guards was double that of the ordinary cavalry, and that the clothing of the Foot Guards was also much more expensive than that of the infantry of the line. The present Duke of Somerset, when he occupied a seat in that House as Lord Seymour, pointed out the utter uselessness of maintaining three regiments of Horse Guards, numbering some 1,300 men, and said the duties they were called upon to perform could be discharged with equal efficiency by 400 men. The maintenance of this force was formerly defended on the ground that in the case of disturbance it constituted a sort of police for the metropolis; but, now that an efficient police force was established, he saw no necessity for continuing, on such a scale, this expensive branch of the army.
§ MR. RICHsuggested that in future Estimates the number of rank and file in each regiment should be stated in a column opposite to the cost of the clothing. By so doing the matter would be better understood.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he 1072 wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the item relating to the Foot Guards. The total number of these troops were 6,310 men. He entertained no prejudice against them; on the contrary, if he had any prejudice it would be decidedly in their favour, and he would be the last to complain of the privileges they enjoyed if he thought those privileges were consistent with the interests of the public, He had to complain, however, that a captain in the Guards had the same rank as a lieutenant-colonel in the Line. That was a constant subject of dissatisfaction among officers of the line, and especially during the late war, when the effect of the arrangement was that lieutenants and ensigns were subjected to an extra amount of duty in the trenches. What was the case of the French army? He was informed that the French army went into the trenches with a division complete in all its parts—that General Canrobert himself went into the trenches—but that when Sir Colin Campbell on several occasions did similar service, an order came out that generals of division were not to go into the trenches. Again, he was informed that the detachment work was all done by the line and not by the Guards, and that this privilege of the Guards gave rise to great dissatisfaction in the line when the army was in Bulgaria. He thought also there must have been some influence at work which produced the result that, at one time, in August 1855, there was a commander in chief, a Guardsman; the chief of the Staff, a Guardsman; three generals of division, Guardsmen; and three generals of brigade, Guardsmen. He likewise complained that the Guards did not take their regular turn of duty in the Colonies, and were consequently not exposed to changes of climate as were regiments of the line. He had again to complain that officers in the Guards had another privilege which did not belong to those of the line, in that they were competent to hold certain staff appointments leading in three years to the rank of lieutenant colonel; that upon one occasion a young officer in the Guards, having from his rank had a right to command 2,000 men in presence of General Todtleben, it had been found necessary to "break the roster," as it was called, or in other words to place an inferior officer at the head of the force; that in seven battalions of Guards there were eighty officers holding the rank of colonel, while in 112 battalions 1073 of the line there were only 190 officers of the same rank. They had also another privilege which he might mention, though the House would probably think it a trivial matter. The Guards marched right in front (a laugh). Hon. Members might laugh, hut their marching right in front meant this, that the regiments which followed in the rear had to pick up all the stragglers and do all the dirty work. He denied that there was any thing in the argument that the Guards were entitled to these privileges because they paid more for their commissions than officers in the line, seeing that the addition was compensated by extra allowances. He hoped the hon. Baronet, the Under Secretary for War, would be able to afford some satisfactory explanation of the grounds of the invidious privileges to which he (Sir. J. Trelawny) had ventured to call his attention and that of the Committee.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he would remind the hon. Baronet that the Vote which the Committee was now discussing had reference to the clothing of the army, and even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the whole system of promotion in the army was utterly bad and indefensible, still he (Sir John Ramsden) did not see what logical connection there was between that subject and the particular vote under consideration, or that that should be any reason why the officers and men in the army should go stark naked for a year. It would be much more convenient if the hon. Baronet would raise this whole question on a separate and substantive Motion so that the House might argue the point, and come to some conclusion upon it, instead of bringing it under discussion in this incidental and irregular way.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he knew this was an unpalatable subject, but he was not going to be put off in that way. He certainly did not mean to propose that the army should go naked; but what, he would ask, could be more natural than that they should discuss the privileges of the Guards on a vote for the clothing of the army? He must now refer to a question which he brought under the notice of the Committee on Monday night—he alluded to the great hardship done to sergeants in the army at the present time under an order issued in the middle of January last.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must remind the hon. Baronet that he was now infringing 1074 a rule of the House by referring to a matter which took place in a former debate, and was also diverging from the subject immediately under the consideration of the Committee.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he would ask the hon. Baronet whether he had reconsidered the answer he had given the other evening to a question he (Sir J. Trelawny) had put to him with respect to the pay of the sergeants? [Cries of "Order!"] He would put three cases—
GENERAL PEELrose to order. The question of the pay of the sergeants could not properly be introduced in connection with a Vote for the clothing of the army.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had already stated that the hon. Baronet could not then raise a discussion, with reference to the pay of the sergeants. The observations of the hon. Baronet with respect to the Guards had been quite irregular, although he had abstained from calling him to order. But he hoped that the hon. Baronet would then confine himself to the question before the Committee.
§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONsaid, the hon. Baronet could bring that subject forward upon a substantive Motion, and many hon. Members would then he inclined to enter into it. This was not, however, the proper time for so doing.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY, in expressing his submission to the general wish of the House, said he thought the reply of the Under Secretary for War the other evening might have been more courteous.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he had to ask what was the number of the infantry who were to be clothed, and whether the cost of the tailoring was included in the Vote of £174,000, and also where the clothing was made up?
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the clothes and materials were sent to Weedon for inspection, where they were delivered out to be made up, and were again inspected when returned into store. It was the development of the new system which caused an increase of charge for the establishment expenses. The item of £174,000 was for the clothing of the whole of the infantry of the line. It applied to 69,722 rank and file and 7,630 sergeants, and was taken at the rate of £2 3s. 6d. per man, being 2s. per man extra, because there were a great many shakoes new this year.
§ MR. ELLICE (Coventry)said, he thought it would be convenient that the 1075 number of men in each, force should be put in a column with the cost of clothing per man, so that they could compare the charge in any one year with that of the year preceding.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, it would appear, from the evidence that had been laid before the Select Committee which was inquiring into that subject, that the clothing of the army under the present system was very much superior to the clothing under the old system; but they had no means of determining whether it was also more economical.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, it certainly appeared that the clothing had become improved under the new system; but as that system had only come into operation on the 1st of April last, no very positive conclusion could as yet be drawn with respect to its precise value.
§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that when the system was changed by the Administration to which he had the honour of belonging, it was never contemplated that it would be productive of any saving of the public money. He was convinced that a more unfounded accusation had never been directed against any men than the charge put forward against the Colonels of regiments, that they had made a profit out of the duty entrusted to them of seeing that the men were properly clothed. It was thought desirable, however, that any odium which the Colonels had incurred in that case should be removed by relieving them of that business, and a hope was at the same time entertained, that by the adoption of a system of centralization a better material might be procured for the same outlay, but even that was very doubtful. If any saving could also be effected, that could only be regarded as an additional and an unexpected advantage to be gained by the measure.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought it would be better in making up the Estimates to follow, in that instance, the former practice, which showed the cost of clothing each regiment.
§ MR. KERsaid, he believed that a portion of the contract for supplying the army with clothing might with great advantage be given to Irish manufacturers. The cloth manufactured in Ireland was better and cheaper than the cloth provided in this country.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £636,900, Provisions, Forage, &c.
1076MR. RIDLEYasked, whether any additional expense was contemplated for billeting soldiers, or for recompensing the persons who received them on march? He did not think it would ever be possible to do away entirely with billeting in the case of a regiment on march, nor did he suppose that innkeepers wished to have it abolished; but what they did expect and what they had a right to claim was, that they should be paid the amount of their actual disbursements. He hoped that next Session, if not before, the Government would be prepared to submit some proposal on the subject.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, it was not in the contemplation of the Government to make any change in the present allowances for billeting. The subject was under consideration two years ago, and then an alteration was made. Billeting was a privilege which it was impossible for the Government to give up, but it was one which they used with the greatest care for the convenience of those who were subject to it.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYinquired whether accommodation had been provided for the wives of sergeants in barracks? He was told that sergeants and their wives slept behind a curtain in the same room with private soldiers.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENreplied, that the recommendations of the Committee which sat on that subject were being carried out in all the new barracks now in course of construction.
COLONEL SOMERSETcomplained that the allowance granted to infantry officers for the keep of their horses—2s. per diem—was barely sufficient to provide the necessary supply of corn and hay, exclusive of other charges. He thought that commanding officers should receive an allowance for the keep of two horses each; one was insufficient, as field days happened more frequently now.
CAPTAIN VIVIANremarked, that cavalry officers were in a worse plight than their brethren of the infantry, inasmuch as they had no allowance at all for the keep of their horses.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENstated, that the allowance of 2s. a day was fixed by the Government after great consideration. They were of opinion that it was sufficient to keep a horse, and in corroboration of that he might state that the contract price was only 1s. 6d. The case of cavalry officers was under consideration, but 1077 the Government did not at present feel justified in recommending any change.
§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONhoped that the commanding officers of regiments would be granted an allowance for the keep of two horses. They might occasionally have to discharge the duty of brigadiers, and it was therefore important that they should have a second horse to fall back upon.
COLONEL SOMERSET, with reference to the statement of the Under Secretary, that the contract price was 1s. 6d. a day, stated that he paid 12s. 6d. every week for his horse at Aldershot. He wished to know whether the claim of commanding officers for the keep of two horses would be taken into consideration?
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENreplied that it would.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £400,191, Warlike Stores for Land and Sea Service.
§ MR. AYRTONdrew attention to the circumstance that in these Estimates the same article appeared not in one, but in several places, and suggested that in future the several sums expended upon any one object should be brought together. At present the Estimates were unintelligible. He wished to find out the expense of the Enfield factory, but as the Vote was divided into six or seven heads, scattered over as many separate places, he could not do so.
§ MR. RICHthought, that whenever a subject was mentioned twice, the fact should be stated in a foot note.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the sole object of the Government in framing the Estimates in their present shape had been to render them intelligible to the House. The principle that had been adopted was, to divide the expenditure under general heads, such as buildings, stores, &c., and it naturally followed that the same establishments appeared under several different heads. A paper had just been laid upon the table, and would immediately be printed, giving, under one head, the total expenditure upon the factory at Enfield up to the 31st of March last.
§ COLONEL SYKESobserved, that the constant repetition of one establishment under various heads occurred in other instances.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROremarked upon 1078 the difference between the Vote of £3,000 this year and that of £572,482 last year, for the supply of iron ordnance, shot, shells, &c., and especially wished to know something about two enormous mortars which had been constructed to throw shells thirty-six inches in diameter, and 470 lb. weight, and which he saw lying in Woolwich Arsenal when he went down the river the other day. He wanted to know whether they were the property of the Government or of the firm which manufactured them, and what was the price to be paid? He was told they cost £12,000 a piece. Those guns had never been tested, and, nothing was known of their merits. For what service were they intended? For sea or land?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought he was the best person to answer the question, as he had given the order for those guns. At the commencement of the last war two very ingenious and scientific men came to him with plans for mortars of a peculiar construction. Those guns were very much larger than any over before employed, and were to be made in segments to facilitate conveyance, which their enormous weight, as a whole, would have rendered most difficult, if not impossible. He sanctioned the construction of two guns, one of which was intended for service in the Baltic, and the other in the Black Sea. In consequence of the failure of the firm to whom the work was intrusted, the guns were not completed until the war was over. He had no doubt those guns would answer, but at present they had not been tried. He had full confidence in the skill and ingenuity of the engineers who had proposed them, and undoubtedly if they did succeed, they would be very formidable weapons.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROdid not doubt the skill of the manufacturers, but he wished to know what was their cost, and to whom they belonged.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied that the guns were the property of the public, but he was not able to state the cost.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROhoped notice would be given of the proof of those guns, as he should wish to be present.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, notice should be given to the hon. and gallant Member.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked whether Lord Panmure had the power of altering the proportions voted under 1079 each head, or were the items separately dealt with?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that the nature of the Estimates was, that the Government stated prospectively the sums that would be required under each head of service, but of course they could not be bound by their anticipations. One head might not require so much as was voted, while another might require a larger sum.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYthought the question was very important. The Committee were called upon to vote an aggregate sum of more than half a million under one head, divided among various items, but their discussions were entirely thrown away if the Secretary of State had power to appropriate the money as he chose. During the war no less than £9,800,000 was voted under one head, and if Lord Panmure had power to dispose of that sum as he pleased, without reference to the proportions in which it had been disposed in the Estimates, the deliberations of the Committee were a perfect farce. He thought it should be understood as a principle, that where a sum had been voted for a particular purpose and was not expended in that manner, the balance should be paid into the Exchequer as balance unexpended. He observed, also, that £700,000 was voted last year for gunpowder, and £82,000 was now asked. He wanted to know the stock in hand, as he thought, after the large vote of last year, there must be a considerable quantity in hand.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROthought the hon. Baronet did not quite understand the facts of the case as regarded gunpowder. The siege of Sebastopol had required so enormous a quantity of powder that the stock in the magazines, large as it was, became exhausted, and the Government had to send to the colonies for powder, and to employ merchants to purchase gunpowder and saltpetre wherever it could be obtained. The army was in the same state as our fleet at Algiers, which would have been destroyed had the battle lasted another hour, their supply of powder being exhausted. He thought the Government were justified in replenishing our magazines to meet any event that might happen.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £163,133, Fortifications at Home and Abroad.
1080§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERwished for some explanation of an item of £300,000 under the head of "Portland."
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENexplained that it was for the defence of the commercial harbours of the United Kingdom.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERthought that £300,000 was a large Estimate, unless the particular harbours were specified. Commercial harbour was a very general word, and certainly £300,000 would go but a little way in fortifying all the commercial harbours of the country. He thought it would be bad policy to attempt to fortify all the harbours by placing a gun here and a gun there. It would be better to use some of our numerous gunboats for the purpose. He wished for further explanation.
§ MR. DILLWYNasked if any part of the sum was to be expended in defences for the Bristol Channel, which was at present entirely defenceless.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the Estimate was one for the defence of ninety-one commercial harbours all over Great Britain and Ireland, by the erection of small batteries to keep off privateers. He could not state whether any part of the sum of £13,500, which was all that was proposed to be expended in the present year, was to be applied to fortifications for the Bristol Channel.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERthought that £300,000 was a large sum. Woolwich, where all our naval and artillery stores were, was simply defended by a garden wall; it was nothing better. He questioned whether it would not be much better to expend £300,000 in the defence of Woolwich. If any attempt was made upon the country, the first place attacked in force would probably be Woolwich.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHmaintained that Portsmouth was not so vulnerable as many hon. Members seemed to suppose. The subject was closely considered by the Duke of Wellington, the Marquess of Anglesea, and Sir John Burgoyne, and the Duke of Wellington recommended that a, line of defence exterior to Gosport should be established. A sum for carrying out part of this plan would be taken in the present Estimates. Intermediate works were also to be constructed, and when the line was completed, an enemy would have no chance of attacking Portsmouth on the 1081 sea face. Works were also planned which would make the defences equally strong on the land side.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERobserved, that he had not said one word about Portsmouth; but as the subject had been mentioned, he would make one observation. A great deal more money had been spent at Portsmouth than was at all necessary. He did not refer to the field works at Elson and Portsea, but to the great sums that had been spent in the town of Portsmouth. If a well-chosen hulk were properly sunk in the middle of the channel of Portsmouth harbour, all the purposes would be answered at a much less expense. He wished for some explanation of the intentions of the Government as to the fortification of Woolwich.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the subject of the fortification of Woolwich had occupied much of the attention of the Government. It was undoubtedly a very important consideration, but, as the hon. and gallant Admiral knew very well, the peculiar formation of the ground about Woolwich rendered it exceedingly difficult to defend that place by works to be thrown out on the land side. Any attack on the land side, he was afraid, must be resisted by troops; and as to an attack from the Thames, that could be easily provided against by stationing gunboats and floating batteries in the river.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROthought the expenses for civil buildings ought to be separated from the Army Estimates.
§ MR. BUTTasked for some explanation of the plan which the Government meant to adopt in the fortification of the commercial harbours.
§ MR. RICHthought we should depend more on our army and navy than on any internal fortifications. He had no wish to see our commercial towns, like those of the Continent, surrounded with batteries. The best safeguard of the country was in the valour of the inhabitants.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that no one could, for a moment, doubt the very great reliance which was to be placed upon the valour of our gallant army, but as that army was at the present moment very small, it would be useless to expect it to do impossibilities. In his opinion Woolwich could, by means of throwing up a few redoubts, be put in such a situation as would enable a few men to defend it, and he trusted the Government would adopt the suggestion of throwing up some works there.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, Her Majesty's Government have had a great many representations made from several large commercial towns on the sea coast as to their totally unprotected state, in case an attack should be made by one or two cruisers running in upon them. The Estimate now before the Committee contains what would be the expense of defending by small batteries all towns so situated, but it is the intention of the Government to begin and carry on the erection of these works very gradually—only erecting small works in those towns that were most important. His notion was, that if we were unfortunately engaged in wars, small and very trifling works would be sufficient in these different towns—that volunteer artillery corps would be found to man the batteries for the defence of their own property, and that all the Government would have to do would be to construct the defences on scientific principles, and supply the volunteers with ordnance to defend the works.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYopposed the Vote as one that would lead to a great expenditure.
§ MR. AYRTONthought it would be satisfactory if the Government would state for what particular towns the expense of these works was to be undertaken.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould not state to what particular towns this expenditure of £13,500 would be applied. He would observe, however, that if the proposal was to begin a single great fortification that would cost £300,000, it might be urged, that if once begun and then stopped, the money expended would be entirely thrown away; but as the proposal was to fortify a great number of towns, each of which would cost but a small sum, should they not think it necessary to go on next year or the year afterwards voting these small sums, the money actually expended would not be thrown away. He was not prepared to say what towns would be first fortified, but Liverpool, Hull, Sunderland, and many similar places, had been represented to the Government as standing much in need of defence.
SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, it was most desirable that the fortifications 1083 under consideration should be proceeded with, if on no other account but for the reason that, during the late war, the French Government had adopted similar measures with regard to all the seaports facing the coast of England; and from this cause Nelson had been unable to stop the coasting trade. With regard to the subject of artillery, he was anxious to state a few facts to the Committee which would, he trusted, produce a salutary effect on the minds of the people. To take, for instance, a few of our foreign ports. The gallant General then went into a detail of the number of guns in each of our foreign military stations, and of the number of artillerymen to work them, showing that the latter was quite inadequate for the service they had to perform. In Gibraltar, for instance, there were 669 guns mounted, and only 800 artillerymen to ply them.
§ SIR HENRY VERNEYThe opinion was very prevalent abroad that our colonial defences were next to useless, and he did not think the sums proposed to be voted would be sufficient for putting those defences into proper condition. Who could believe that £5,000, for instance, was a sum sufficient to put Corfu in a state of defence? He was sure that no army performed more arduous services than did the British army when employed on foreign stations.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHremarked, that it should not be supposed that a fortress mounting 500 guns wanted of necessity more than 500 men to defend it, for it might be one of twelve sides, and only two of which were assailable by the enemy at one time. It was, therefore, evident that the guns of the other sides would be silent, so that the men attached to them could be employed to defend the other two.
SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMSsaid, that Gibraltar mounted all her guns upon one face of the fortress; but all he meant to argue was, the necessity of having some fortification. It would be in the remembrance of many hon. Members, that Admiral Somers was defeated off Algesiras, and had to retire, not by the French fleet, but by two or three well-directed guns from a small fort.
MAJOR STUART WORTLEYwanted to know if Lord Palmerston had received any intimation from the inhabitants of the different seaports that, in the event of the 1084 military defences being withdrawn, they would be willing to defend those ports?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas quite satisfied that the public spirit of the country would prompt them to do so.
§ MR. RICHthought, that before voting the money, it was desirable that the Committee should hear the reasons for the erection of each particular fort.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERadmitted that it was mainly upon the spirit of the people that we must depend for the defence of our coasts; but he would remind the noble Lord, that the first thing which would occur on the breaking out of war, would be the withdrawal of the coast-guardsmen and volunteers to man the fleet. These batteries must be left to the tradesmen and shopkeepers, who would no doubt fight very well if they knew how, but who were entirely wanting in that knowledge.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMS moved that the Chairman should report progress.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed the Motion. The Committee had heard all that could be said upon the Vote, and upon a great variety of subjects more or less connected with it; he therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow this Vote to be agreed to, and progress might then be reported.
§ After a few observations from Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas understood to say, that the first towns which it was proposed to fortify were those upon the Tyne.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported on Thursday next: Committee to sit again on Friday next.