§ MR. CRAWFORDasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that contractors for the supply of arm, deliverable in the course of the current financial year, have been requested to postpone delivery until a later period; while the manufacture of arms at Enfield is being proceeded with on the same scale as heretofore, and arrangements are in progress for extending still further the manufacture at that establishment?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he was happy to be able to state that the supply of rifles was in so satisfactory a condition that it was not necessary to continue the contracts to the financial year 1861–62 as had been the case during the present financial year. In consequence of that the London and Birmingham gun trades had been requested, if convenient to themselves, to meet the views of the Government by postponing a portion of the deliveries under their contracts from the year 1861–62 until the ensuing year. The trade had readily met the views of the Government upon that point; or, rather, they had not protested against them. At the same time the Secretary of State did not consider that it was right to postpone the deliveries from the trade, and continue the manufacture at Enfield to the same amount as before; and, consequently, the manufacture at Enfield had been reduced to the extent of 200 stand of arms per week. He believed that what his hon. Friend had alluded to as an extension of the manufacture at Enfield was, simply, an alteration of some machinery which would enable the Government to manufacture at Enfield short rifles as well as long rifles. All those Gentlemen who had given any attention to the subject thought it right that the Government should manufacture every species of arms to a certain extent, and at the same time apply also to the trade for arms of all descriptions, inasmuch as they would by that means be able to provide a check on the trade prices, while the trade would continue to be employed to manufacture a portion of the rifles required for the use of the army.