SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 6 March 1862)

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he wished to call attention to the enormous increase in the allowance for law expenses. It was something fabulous. The estimated sum last year was £11,000, which was an immense increase on the charge in former years, and now it was £15,500. One really would have expected that the Horse Guards army was going to law, and not to war. He would move to reduce the vote by £4,000.

MAJOR KNOX
said, it appeared that a new office had been created, that of assistant solicitor at a salary of £825 a year. He should like to know the object of such an appointment, as it might reasonably be supposed that one solicitor would be sufficient; and also why thirty-seven additional clerks had been employed. There was also a great number of temporary messengers and doorkeepers employed. He thought those appointments would be well bestowed on well-conducted non-commissioned officers and soldiers of the Guards, who had a great deal of spare 1073 time. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would take that suggestion into consideration?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the reason why the law charges were heavier that year than usual, and why it had been necessary to appoint an assistant solicitor was the great increase of legal business consequent upon the fortifications that had been undertaken, and the investigation of titles. The Fortification Vote, which amounted to a large sum, was placed under the administration of the War Office, and that circumstance added materially to the business of that department. There were many other causes which of late years had increased the duties of the War Office—for example, the correspondence with the Volunteers; but the reason which had made it necessary to increase the legal staff was, as he had stated, the investigation of titles. The office of the Assistant Under Secretary, who died in the course of last year had not been filled up; and in the upper branches of the office there had not been any increase.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he thought that some explanation ought to be given of the excess over last year's vote of £8,000, caused partly by the employment of extra clerks, and also of the employment of a captain in the navy with a salary of £1,200, independent of his half-pay, as director of stores and clothing for the army.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he could say from experience that the naval captain referred to was a very valuable and efficient public officer, and extremely competent to discharge the duties connected with his appointment. With regard to the number of clerks the increase was apparent, not real, owing to the conversion of temporary clerks into permanent clerks, in consequence of opinions expressed by various Members in that House and of the recommendation of the commission of last year. He did not think that he had made an appointment of temporary messenger since he had been in office, though he had converted temporary into permanent messengers. Still, the suggestion of the gallant Major (Major Knox) should receive attention the first time that he (Sir George Lewis) had occasion to appoint a temporary messenger.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
thought the explanation of the right hon. Baronet very unsatisfactory. He considered that 1074 the expenditure on these enormous fortifications was very unwise, but at any rate the legal expenses ought to come out of the special fund provided for the fortifications themselves.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he would point out that, according to the terms of the Act of Parliament, the whole of the sum agreed to for the fortifications must be expended on the works, and he therefore doubted whether the War Department had any power to charge the additional expenditure for legal services on the Fortification Vote. But if Government were to act on the principle of charging that expenditure on the Fortification Vote, the services of other officers and clerks in the War Department, whose principal duties were connected with the expenditure of the money provided by the Fortification Vote, ought equally to be charged on the same Vote. He could only say that the increase was a bonâ fide increase, and there was no wish on the part of the War Department to favour any individual. There was business of considerable amount which must be done and must, be paid for; but as soon as the fortifications should he completed, there would be no disposition to retain the services of any person taken on only for temporary duty.

COLONEL DICKSON
intimated his intention to vote for the proposed reduction. The right hon. Secretary for War stated that the reason of the extra expense of £8,000 was because some temporary clerks had been transferred to the permanent establishment; but he found that the decrease on account of temporary clerks amounted to only £4,000.

§ MR. WALPOLE
remarked, that it appeared from the report of the Military Organization Committee that the employment of temporary clerks was deemed detrimental to the proper transaction of business,

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he thought it would be fairer to charge to the account of the Fortification Vote not only the law expenses, but everything connected with the fortifications to which that Vote applied.

SIR. GEORGE LEWIS
said, he was proceeding in the course of converting temporary clerks into permanent clerks as fast as possible; but there was some difficulty in effecting the object, in consequence of the rules as to Civil Service examinations, because it would be un- 1075 doubtedly hard that persons who had been employed as temporary clerks, and had given satisfaction for seven or eight years in that capacity, should be subjected to a fresh examination before their appointment as permanent clerks. He had, however, done his best in that matter by transferring clerks from one department to another, without making examination a condition of the change; and he certainly should not lose sight of the object adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman—the conversion of temporary into permanent clerks. With regard to the fortification loan, it was certainly the intention of the House that the money should be applicable to the works, and to, perhaps, some local superintendence of these works; but as far as central superintendence was concerned that was made subject to an annual charge. Of course it was competent for the House to change its policy, and the House might perhaps think it worth while to do so, if a large annual sum were in question; but, as it was, the Estimate was framed in conformity with the existing arrangement.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he conceived that the Committee ought to have from the right hon. the Secretary for War some distinct assurance that the steady annual increase of the Vote should not be allowed to continue. He found, after careful examination, not of the Estimates, but of the actual appropriations of the last ten years, that an enormous increase in the expenditure of the War Department had gradually taken place. A comparison, for instance, of the year 1855–6, when the military establishment was notoriously high, with the present year, showed the following result—That whereas the number of men asked for in the Estimates in the former year was 215,941, and the number in the latter only 145,450, the sum voted for salaries and contingencies in connection with the War Office was only £160,459 in 1855–6, while, although since that time military departments which were then separate had been combined with the view of effecting 1076 a saving, the sum asked for, for the expenditure of the office in 1862–3, was actually £209,901—an increase of over £49,000 on a comparison of the two years, notwithstanding that the number of men voted was diminished by upwards of 70,000. He might further observe that he found, on looking over the Estimates, that the expenditure for the establishment of the Judge Advocate was in the year 1855–6 included in that of the War Office, whereas it was now embraced in another Vote. He might say that he had been careful to eliminate the charges for postage, so as to compare the different plans fairly. The increase in the expense of the department he believed to be pretty much in proportion to the number of persons employed; for comparing the War Office staff—and he must observe that his remarks did not relate to the Horse Guards—for 1855–6 with that for 1862–3, he had ascertained, that whereas with a force of over 215,000 men only 267 clerks were employed, there were now, notwithstanding the consolidation of the departments and the diminution in the number of men which had taken place, no less than 394. He was of course quite aware that there was work in connection with the Volunteer force to be done which was not called for some six or seven years ago; but neither that circumstance nor the allowance to be made upon the score that the expenditure for 1854 must not he judged of from the estimates, but rather from the actual audited accounts, satisfactorily showed why an increase of no less than 115 or 120 in the number of clerks had since taken place. The Committee, he could not therefore help thinking, were entitled to have some explanation on the subject from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department. He did not assert that the increase could not be justified, but he did maintain that no sufficient justification had been offered up to that time.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that two years previously a Committee on military organization, presided over by no less an authority than the late Sir James Graham, had investigated the whole subject of the constitution of the War Department, and he felt no doubt, that if that Committee were of opinion that any great economy could be introduced into its working, they would have made a recommendation to that effect. He might add that a very large branch of the office—the de- 1077 partment of the Accountant General—had last year been examined into by an official Committee, in which the Treasury was amply represented, with the object of seeing whether the strength of the department might not be diminished; but that they arrived rather at a conclusion that it was desirable it should be increased. So far as he was personally concerned, his business was to make a comparison between the state of things which lie found on his accession to office and the Estimates for the preceding year, unless there were some reason—which he did not think there was—for supposing that the assent of Parliament had been surreptitiously obtained to those Estimates without an examination of the real merits of the case. His hon. Friend, it was true, had gone back to the year 1856; but though he (Sir George Lewis) could not attempt to explain the increase in the Estimates of the current year over those of 1856, he was quite prepared to explain the small increase which had taken place since his accession to office. He might remark, however, that his hon. Friend seemed to forget that duties had since 1856 been thrown on the War Office for discharge which rendered necessary an increased establishment. Great manufactories, such as those at Woolwich arid Enfield, in connection with the office, had sprung up almost entirely since 1856. and he felt assured many hon. Gentlemen could bear him out in the statement that a great increase of the business of the office had been the result. Another cause of the increase was to be found in the amalgamation of the Indian with the Queen's army, a considerable amount, of the business incidental to which devolved on the department over which he presided. Then there was also the business connected with the Volunteer force, and the new subject of fortifications. He had made it his business to make inquiries with respect to the staff of the War Office, The number of clerks certainly seemed large, but from all the information he had been able to gather from the heads of departments, he believed that they were all employed, and that the office was by no means over handed. He might further observe that the accountant's branch of the office embraced nearly half the number, inasmuch as all the regimental accounts had to be investigated, and an enormous staff was required for the purposes of auditing the innumerable details of army 1078 expenditure. Those duties could be satisfactorily discharged only by a large number; and while, of course, it would he impossible for him to satisfy the hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of having a particular clerk, he could assure him that, if, upon inquiry, he found any material reduction could be effected, he should be happy to carry it into effect. If his hon. Friend were not contented with that assurance, he should not have the smallest objection to the appointment of a Committee to overhaul the department, and to ascertain whether the number of hands engaged was unnecessarily large.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
Before the Committee proceed to the discussion of this vote I think I shall best discharge my duty by giving them a general view of our manufacturing and other establishments connected with the War Office, and also by stating some of the more important results of the operations of those departments. We have at Woolwich a Royal gun factory, a Royal carriage department, a laboratory, the department of the Inspector of Artillery, and what is called the chymical department. At Enfield there is a small-arm factory, and at Pimlico and the Tower establishments for the repair of arms. At Birmingham we have an establishment for the examination of contract small-arms, and at Waltham Abbey there is a Royal gunpowder factory. There is a small laboratory at Portsmouth. At Plymouth there is n similar department, and we have also the establishment belonging to the Elswick Ordnance Company. These are the principal establishments in connection with the War Office. The quantity of arms and stores which they produce is very large. Take the small-arms. Since 1853 the number of small-arms manufactured has been 1,066,586, and there have been issued to the army, militia, volunteers, navy, marines, and other forces.501,321; to the Indian Government, 169,895; and to colonial Governments, 15,000—making a total of 686,216. We have in store at home and abroad 359,695; rendered unserviceable from wear and tear and other casualties, 20,675, which make up the whole number of 1,066,586.
I now come to the question of iron ordnance. The Committee are doubtless 1079 aware that a great change has recently been introduced into our iron ordnance, in consequence of the improvements made by Sir William Armstrong. The sum appropriated during the current financial year for the manufacture of Armstrong guns will have been altogether £521,000, for which sum 1,489 guns will have been produced. Of these nearly two thirds are heavy guns, 681 being 100-pounders and 341 40-pounders. These, with about 900 guns previously supplied, will make up a total of about 2,400 Armstrong guns. About the same number of guns will be produced for the sum which we propose to appropriate next year. Much interest has been excited by statements as to the failure of the Armstrong guns. I am in a position, however, from the information I have obtained, to give an entire denial to those reports. If it were necessary, I could lay before the Committee the particular points upon which dissatisfaction has been expressed; but I think it will be better not to anticipate any objections which may be made. Suffice it to say that the evidence which has been produced convinces me that the statements with respect to the failure of the Armstrong guns are either entirely erroneous or grossly exaggerated, and that, upon the whole, with the exception of certain slight defects which have been remedied by subsequent improvements, the guns of Sir William Armstrong have answered all the purposes that were expected of them. There is next the question of the Whit-worth guns. Mr. Whitworth is a very ingenious man, who proposes a certain improvement both in our large guns and in the regulation Enfield rifle. Last Session there was a debate upon the subject of the Whitworth rifle, and the Government undertook that the matter should be carefully considered. I shall state to the Committee exactly what has been done with respect to the inventions of Mr. Whitworth. A battery of six guns, complete for the field, has been cast at Woolwich according to a pattern furnished by Mr. Whitworth, and the guns have been bored by himself. That battery is intended to be used in the field, and will thus be tried by the experiment of actual service. In that manner we shall, I think, best arrive at a knowledge of the comparative merits of the Whitworth iron ordnance. Coining to small-arms, 1,000 rifles are to be made at Enfield according to a pattern supplied by Mr. Whitworth, and an 1080 infantry regiment is to be armed with them experimentally. He is also to manufacture 500,000 rounds of ammunition at the public expense, and I may state that he has committed to Captain Boxer the manufacture of his shells and fuses. Thus we shall have an actual experience of both his rifles and his heavy ordnance. Of course, these experiments will necessarily be expensive, but the Committee will see that the Government have redeemed the promise they made last Session to give Mr. Whitworth a fair opportunity of bringing his alleged improvements to the test of actual experience.
The manufactories at Woolwich are undoubtedly on a very large scale—a scale which, although I believe it is gainful to the public as compared with the cost at which the same results could be obtained from contractors, is nevertheless maintained only at a large annual cost to the Exchequer. But it is right the Committee should also be informed that the results are very important, and that the reserves of warlike stores at Woolwich are not only very large, but may be regarded as available at any time on the shortest notice. There is a siege train of 105 pieces of ordnance, fully equipped, with 750 rounds per piece. That train is equal to operations against a fortress of first-class importance, and would be ready for shipment within forty-eight hours. Such a train did not exist at the time of the Crimean expedition. I believe, indeed, that there never was a time when the country was so well provided in that respect. There are 150 sea-service wooden mortar beds, with 13-inch mortars, and 100 octagon beds complete. We have a complete pontoon equipment and engineer field reserve for 20,000 men. Prior to the Crimean war the intrenchment tools were of very inferior manufacture. They are now all of the most approved patterns, and available for immediate issue. There is also a medical reserve of litters, ambulance waggons, and carts for 20,000 men, and a large stock of harness and saddlery, all ready for immediate use. I may say, generally, that the stores at Woolwich are on a very extensive scale, and would be ready for embarkation upon very short notice. Great exertions have also been made for the rearming of fortifications, not only at Gibraltar, Malta, and other foreign stations, but also at home. Abroad the old ordnance has been replaced by new and improved guns, while a great addition has been made to the ordnance of 1081 forts in the United Kingdom. It is not necessary to read a list of the places which have been rearmed, but the Committee may rest assured that much has been done of late years to strengthen and improve our fortifications, both at home and abroad. The armament of the United Kingdom has been increased from 2,247 guns to 3,472 When the Committee bear in mind the great expense of each gun, they will see that the result just stated could not have been accomplished without a large outlay of money. It will be necessary to mike in this Estimate a considerable addition to the guru formerly voted for gunpowder. The consumption of gunpowder has greatly increased of late years. In the current year—a year of peace—in consequence of the extent to which experimental firing is carried on, the consumption of gunpowder is almost as great as if it were a year of war. There has also been a great improvement in our field artillery, which, according to the modern system of war, is of vast importance. I could state the details of the addition which has been made to our field artillery, but the Committee may be satisfied with knowing that it is upon an extensive scale. I believe I have now put the Committee in possession of the general outlines of the Vote which is now before them; but before sitting down I should wish to impress upon them the conviction at which I have myself arrived, that the money voted by Parliament for warlike stores is economically and beneficially expended with respect to the objects for which it is destined. I am quite aware that there is an impression abroad on some part of the public that we might have a more efficient administration with diminished expense by some other organization. Since I came to my present office I have, to the best of my ability, sought to inform myself upon that point, and 1 have certainly arrived at this conclusion, that unless by diminishing the numerical strength of the army, or by diminishing the provision of ordnance, military stores, and other articles necessary for the carrying on of warfare according to modern scientific principles, or by diminishing the provision made for the health and comfort of the soldiers, it is impossible to make any material reduction in the amount of the present Estimates. I fear, unless we are prepared to resort to one of these three alternatives, it is not possible to make any great reduction in the present charge, unless it should be found that after a certain 1082 time the provision of stores is sufficient to render a continuance of the present rate of manufacture unnecessary; and if we suppose that the progress of invention and improvement in the weapons of war should be arrested, that result might be hoped for. But if we are to have a constant rearming of our military forces—if there is to be a perpetual succession of new armaments—if the improved rifle or gun of to-day is to be discarded three or four years hence, I confess I cannot lead the Committee to anticipate with any sanguine hope any material reduction even in this large Estimate.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, certain points in the Vote required more explanation than the right hon. Gentlemen had given. The Vote was very important, because it was the first of a series which disposed of several millions, and it was extremely doubtful whether those millions were wisely or prudently laid out. In 1860–1 more than 13,000 were employed in the manufacturing establishments; in 1861–2 the number was reduced to 12,000; and now the Committee was asked to vote 10,070 workmen, and to find materials for their employment. Those were large items, and the points he should have liked to hear more clearly elucidated were—what was the cost of the establishments, what means the right hon. Gentleman had of knowing that cost, who kept the accounts, and how the accounts were kept? In 1860 a very important Committee had sat for the purpose of investigating those subjects. Amongst other leading Members of that Committee were Sir James Graham, the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), and the hon. and gallant General the Member for Wigan (General Lindsay); the House, therefore, had every guarantee that was necessary to assure them that the best attention would be given to the subject. That Committee discovered several defects, and they reported that a change in the then existing system of paying and accounting was necessary to secure economy in the administration of military affairs. Amongst other statements, the Report contained the following:— The arrangements are by no means satisfactory; there is no general cashier, no general paymaster. Each head of department employs his own labourers and fixes the rate of their wages. Public money is placed in private banks to the credit of each department, without any security. 1083 The Committee then recommended that the Government should take steps to amend the system. It was therefore desirable to know what changes had taken place in consequence of the Report, and what was the system since pursued. There was no doubt about the necessity of having manufacturing establishments, but the question was to what extent they should be allowed. It was a remarkable fact that the higher officers in the department had the greatest doubt as to the extent to which these manufacturing establishments were carried. Mr. Godley was examined before the Committee to which he had just alluded, and had stated it as his opinion that the Government did not trust sufficiently to private enterprise for the supply of stores. Sir Benjamin Hawes was of the same opinion; and although he was the person to whom, as a last resort, recourse could be had for information, he had confessed that he really had so much to do that he had not the power to inquire into or control these establishments. Such was the state of things in 1860. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the carriage department there was any balance-sheet at all. In 1860 there was no balance-sheet. He selected that department because it was certainly carried too far. If they had a good model, and knew what it cost, they might leave its production very much to private trade. He should also like to know what was the existing system as regarded stores. Had the right hon. Baronet any notion of our stocks? Had he any means of ascertaining them in the carriage department? In the laboratory, and especially in the small-arms manufactory at Enfield, which was under the superintendence of Colonel Dickson, a clear and satisfactory balance-sheet could always be obtained; but nothing of the kind could be got in any of the other establishments. Then, he would ask, what were they going to do with the present immense mass of stores? Was it not good sense to keep only stores sufficient for any immediate purpose, taking care to know where they could get others as they might want them? It was the addition of store upon store that involved such great expense to the country. It was here, if the House were inclined, that much might be done to relieve the public burdens. What had been done to carry out the recommendation of the Committee? From the evidence of Mr. Anderson it appeared that the officers of the Treasury 1084 were well aware that there were great defects in the system. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman had any power to check it. No man on earth could do so; but the House ought to see that the expensive arms produced in their establishments were fairly accounted for, and in this way as much as possible lessen the burden on the public.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
The hon. Baronet has carried down his readings in military history only to a certain period, and there stopped. He has followed the investigations of the Military Organization Committee, but he does not seem to have read the Report of the Committee to inquire into the Stores Department, which was presented on the 19th of March, 1861, and which was signed, among others, by Mr. Anderson, as representing the Treasury. Mr. Anderson, as every body knows, is an exceedingly acute accountant, and a most excellent, diligent, painstaking public servant; he made a report on this very subject, in which he says that all the defects of which the hon. Baronet spoke have since been rectified. The hon. Baronet does not appear to be aware of that report. I believe that in consequence of that Committee an inquiry has been made into the Woolwich accounts, and they were found perfectly satisfactory. A balance-sheet will now be sent in from every manufacturing establishment, which will be carefully examined. Every parcticable security is taken to see that the Government manufactories are remunerative and the system conducted on a principal of profit. The rule which the War Office follows is not to adopt either Government manufactures or contract manufactures exclusively, but in every case to draw part of their supply from the one source and part from the other, so that the one may serve as a check upon the other. The Government manufactories are found by experience to act as a check upon the contractors; while, on the other hand, the price of the contractors furnishes a guide in ascertaining the remunerativeness of the Government's manufactories. I can only say that the Government establishments, tried by this test, are now worked economically. There is no doubt about the perfect honesty of the persons employed in them, and we believe that there is no waste, and that the system is good. The Government is always aware of the price at which the contractors can supply the same articles, and can there- 1085 fore judge when their own establishments would be working at a loss in producing them. There is, indeed, some difficulty in instituting an exact comparison between the cost of production in Government and in private manufactories, and the contractors complain that in estimating the comparative cost of the two articles we do not make a sufficient allowance for the deterioration of plant. It may not be very easy to come to a precise result in our calculation, but the principal adopted is, we think, a sound one. As to the taking of stock, with respect to which the hon. Baronet says there is no security, I believe that the heads of the Government departments keep a most accurate account of all the stores under their charge, and I always find that whenever I call for an account of the particular articles intrusted to them, they are able at once to give a distinct answer. The system of taking stock is, in fact, very complete, and leaves no doubt as to the amount of stores of various kinds which are in the different Government establishments. With these explanations I trust the Committee approve this vote.

MR. ELLICE
said, be thought it only fair to his hon. Friend opposite to say that what he had stated was perfectly correct—namely, that the Committee to which reference had been made, and of which he himself had had the honour to be a Member, found all the accounts of these establishments in a considerable state of confusion, not being kept as the accounts of private manufactories were kept, so as to enable the cost of the different articles produced to be ascertained, and to show on what principal that cost was calculated. The Committee also found that money was sent down to these establishments by private channels, and paid into the different local banks, instead of the very obvious rule adopted in the case of all other public establishments being followed—namely, that the money should be paid into the Bank of England to the account of the person who was responsible for its right application, and that the discharge should come in the same way by draughts upon the Bank. He had no doubt, however, that the requisite improvements had already been, or were about to be, adopted, in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee, and the inquiries which subsequently took place under the superintendence of the officers of the Treasury. All that the 1086 House could ask was, that in each department manufacturing any particular kind of stores regular accounts should be kept, showing the details both of expenditure and receipt, the amount of stock in hand, and the cost of the different articles manufactured. His hon. Friend said, that in the department at Enfield, under the charge of Colonel Dickson, the accounts were perfectly plain. The same ought to be the case in all the other departments, and then they would have some check upon the public expenditure. There was, happily, every reason to believe that, order was taking the place of the previous confusion, and that in another year each of the public establishments would produce a proper balance-sheet.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, he well knew the feeling of the heads of the various departments to which allusion had been made in this discussion, and he was able to say that nothing would give them greater satisfaction than to submit their accounts to any kind of investigation that might be desired at any moment. The hon. Baronet had referred to the Report upon Military Organization, but another report had been presented to the House in consequence of the first. Three gentlemen connected with the Treasury were sent down to Woolwich to inquire into the system of accounts there, and their report was, that they had never seen such faithful, regular, and satisfactory accounts kept anywhere as of those establishments. As to the taking of stock, the hon. Baronet had only to go down to the laboratory or the carriage department the next day, and he would find that the authorities were able to give an account of the stock in every branch. The hon. Baronet bad referred especially to the carriage department as one that could be all but dispensed with, and its work be turned over to the trade. He (Captain Jervis) quite agreed with the principle that Government establishments should generally be only used as checks on the trade; but at the same time they should always be kept in such a condition that Government could fall back upon them in time of need, when the trade failed. For instance, when during the late excitement it was apprehended that additional stores of small-arms would he immediately required, what would have been the ease if the requisition had actually eventuated, and there had been no establishment at Enfield? There would have been no means of sup- 1087 plying the want, because it was found that the trade had their hands already full with orders from America, Spain, and elsewhere. The hon. Baronet seemed to consider the carriage department as a minor establishment, but the Committee should bear in mind that the manufacture of a gun-carriage was of the utmost importance in relation to its efficiency in the field. Unless those responsible saw that every rivet and bolt was of the best description and driven in the best manner, that the wood was thoroughly seasoned, and, in fact, that every portion of the construction was perfect, it would be impossible to rely upon the artillery, one of the most important branches of the service, doing its duty upon foreign service. In such matters contractors could not be expected to be so particular. He was opposed, therefore, to any reduction of the kind suggested by the observations of the hon. Baronet.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he quite concurred with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down as to the establishment at Woolwich for the manufacture of ammunition and guns. The right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) was wrong in saying that the gun factory at Enfield was the only establishment the accounts of which were well kept at the period when the Committee sat. The accounts at the Royal Laboratory were then also in the same position. Balance-sheets that would be satisfactory to the House were henceforward to be presented from all these establishments. But the case of the army clothing manufactory was one of a totally different nature. The Committee would be asked for a Vote of £40,000 for new buildings and machinery to enlarge that establishment. The late Lord Herbert said that the true principle for the Government to act upon was to go to the trade for what the trade could make, and confine themselves to producing what the trade could not produce. At all events, with respect to clothing the Government ought certainly to maintain nothing more than a small establishment to check the private trade; but at this moment nine-tenths of the clothing for the army was made up in the Government establishments. If the clothing establishments were extended beyond their present proportions, the inevitable result would be to throw the entire clothing of the army into the hands of Government. There was, in his opinion, no 1088 analogy between the manufacture of guns for the army and the making of coats and trousers; and therefore when the Vote of £40,000 additional for the enlargement of the clothing establishments came on, he should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon it.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
observed, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War, that he had received a Report which led him to believe that the adverse criticisms which had been pronounced upon the Armstrong gun were not borne out by facts. Every one would be rejoiced to hear that statement; but as some strong criticisms had been passed upon that weapon by a very experienced naval officer, the Committee and the country expected and were entitled to have further information. As the Government were now manufacturing monster Armstrongs, it was most important to ascertain whether it really was the best weapon of warfare. The right hon. Baronet had told the Committee that he intended to have a battery of Whitworth guns to be used upon service; but the fact ought to be ascertained beforehand which was the best, and whether there was a better weapon than either. Many ships in the navy were being chiefly armed with Armstrong guns; and if they were liable to become unserviceable in action, the ship would be practically unarmed. He was not at all disposed to think badly of the Armstrong gun—on the contrary, he thought it was an admirable gun; but upon so vital a point there ought to be something beyond mere opinion. With respect to the manufacturing department, he could say from experience that nothing could be more satisfactory than the arrangements at Woolwich, for which state of things the country was largely indebted to the right bon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). There were some articles, such as gun-carriages, for which they could not trust to private manufacturers, well-seasoned timber being absolutely necessary, and for that article the Government could best rely upon their own resources. The right hon. Baronet had said that Whitworth rifles were to be issued to one regiment; but the best mode of comparison would be to issue half Whitworths and half Enfields to the same regiment, which would enable the officers of such regiment to ascertain the relative qualities of each weapon. This could be merely an experimental arrangement, because, as a general prin- 1089 ciple, it would be highly inconvenient to have two different descriptions of ammunition for the use of the same regiment.

§ MR. OSBORNE
said, there was one extraordinary statement made by the right hon. Member for Limerick which required an answer. That right hon. Gentleman had said that nine-tenths of the clothing of the army was made in Government establishments. Such a fact was quite new to him, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would be able to assure the Committee that the statement was incorrect; but, if it were true, then it was high time that the House should come to some direct vote upon the mode of clothing the army. No doubt much might be said in favour of manufacturing guns, gun-carriages, and ammunition in Government establishments, but what excuse could there be for the Government becoming a great clothing company.

§ MR. J. A. TURNER
said, that from personal knowledge he could declare that nothing could be more disgraceful than the manner in which the accounts of the establishment at Weedon were kept. With respect to Woolwich, he could say, as he had said in the Report of the Royal Commissioners, that the accounts were admirably kept. The store accounts were almost perfect, but as to the manufacturing establishments, there were items of expense which were overlooked, such as allowance for interest on capital and insurance. He thought nothing could be more improper than for the Government to set up establishments to compete with manufacturers in articles which were of ordinary production and consumption, although there might be some exceptional articles which they might best manufacture for themselves.

§ MAJOR WINDSOR PARKER
observed, that it was not necessary to manufacture gun-carriages in England to send out to India, because that country possessed the very finest and most suitable timber for making gun-carriages, and from the earliest time carriages made in India had been found the best and most enduring.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
suggested, that the experiment should be tried of making articles of clothing in the barracks, as was done in the continental services. In France, for instance, every article worn by the soldier, with the exception of the eagle on his shako, was made in barracks. He believed that by the adoption of the same 1090 system in this country a considerable saving would be effected. With regard to the rifles supplied to the Volunteers, he wished to know what steps had been taken to ascertain that these rifles existed, and were kept in a state of efficiency?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he was quite prepared to answer at once the question as to clothing. The Committee were aware that the workmanship only was supplied by the Government establishment, the materials being supplied by contract. He was not aware that there was any intention of increasing the manufacture of clothing, and the enlargement at Pimlico was required not for that purpose, but to increase the available storage. The Committee would be able to judge to what extent the army drew their supplies from that source when he stated that thirty-nine battalions of infantry were supplied from Pimlico, while forty-six had their clothing made up by contractors.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he would beg leave to ask whether that statement referred to the whole of the clothing or only to the tunics?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the paper in his hand referred to clothing, and, as he supposed, included both trousers and tunics. As to the alleged failure of the Armstrong gun, he had before him some information on that point, which he would state to the Committee. In the first place, it was said that the vent-pieces had failed. Now, in proof of the almost complete removal of that liability he would state that about 150 40-pounder guns were lately proved without the failure of a single vent-piece. Some of the new vent-pieces had been exposed to sixty proof discharges without showing a symptom of weakness. Then it was said that the vent-pieces blew out; but experience had shown that that always happened from negligence or imperfect knowledge of the gun. The liability, however, had been almost entirely obviated by a modification which had been introduced into the pattern. It had not yet been applied to all the guns issued, but meanwhile it was hoped that where it had not been applied greater familiarity with the weapon would prevent these accidents. A further allegation was that the gas escaped from the breech in the case of the larger guns; but that imperfection had also been completely removed. Then it was said that the lead was liable to separate from the projectile. That defect was greatly exaggerated, but 1091 the projectiles now made were altogether exempt from it.

COLONEL DICKSON
said, he hoped that hon. Members would bear in mind the startling statement that nine-tenths of the army clothing were now being manufactured in the Government establishments. Moreover, he had reason to believe upon good authority that the notion was entertained of eventually manufacturing the whole of the clothing in that establishment.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he was astonished at the charge of £5,985 for sweeping chimneys. Surely there must be some mistake.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, the right hon. Secretary for War was perhaps hardly aware that he was at the head of a great tailoring establishment. The fact was that the Government made all the trousers for the army, and forty-five regiments of the line alone got their tunics by contract. The system was slowly creeping on; and if it continued, the Government would by-and by become a sort of monster Moses and Son.

§ MR. H. BAILLIE
said, he did not see why, if the Government could undersell private manufacturers, they should not do so.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
replied, that the Government manufacture was carried on at a loss, and was much more expensive than that of private persons.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he could not understand why so much money should be required for lodgings out of barracks, when every year the House was asked for large sums for additional barrack accommodation. A large sum was also asked for rents of lands and buildings hired in connection with barracks, although the Vote for the purchase of lands and buildings had increased.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that one of the principal items of the increase alluded to was occasioned by the recent expedition to Canada. With respect to lodging accommodation for married soldiers, there was a diminution, the item being £3,000 instead of £5,000 as in the Estimates for last year.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he wished to call attention to the Vote items of £61,584 for clerks of works, and foremen of works and clerks, on the Engineer civil establishments, only to guard himself against being supposed to approve the principle of it. He would not discuss the 1092 Vote itself, as he was a Member of the Committee appointed last Session to inquire into the subject, and it had not yet concluded its labours.

MAJOR KNOX
said, he thought the Government had taken a step in the right direction by allowing certain corps of the army to make their own boots. Formerly a parcel of boots were sent out to a regiment many of which would fit no one in it. As to the army clothing, he believed the portion that came from the Pimlico establishment was better made than that furnished by contractors, and was thus an advantage to the soldier. He hoped the Government would persevere in making it.

§ MR. CAVE
was also in favour of the continued manufacture of soldiers' clothing at Pimlico. He was not surprised to hear of the contractors, when he considered the of the superiority of the work over that starving rate of wages paid by the latter to their work-people.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, all the clothing made by the Government had to pass through a most rigid inspection. If good, it passed; if bad, it did not pass. And if he was correctly informed, the inspectors reported quite as often against the Pimlico clothing as against that of the contractors.

§ COLONEL SYKES
asked, whether arms were still purchased from foreign manufacturers, notwithstanding the Government had its own establishments for making them. If they were not, what was the use of maintaining officers at Liege and elsewhere to inspect them?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
explained, that some arms were being taken on old and outstanding contracts from Liege, but that no new contracts for arms were entered into.

§ COLONEL SYKES
Then the inspectors will not be continued when those contracts are completed?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
No.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
When were those contracts entered into?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
During the Crimean war.

§ MR. WARNER
hoped some more satisfactory answer would be given to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) as to the efficiency of the Armstrong gun. Captain Halstead had written a pamphlet that raised most serious complaints of the working of that weapon. The right 1093 hon. Baronet (Sir George Lewis) had made some remarks on the subject, all of which might be found in Sir William Armstrong's letter to The Times, in reply to this pamphlet. These assertions of Sir William Armstrong had been contradicted in many particulars; and very grave doubts had been raised on the character of the gun; it was stated to be extremely dangerous not only to those who fired it, but to all who were within reach of it. He hoped the Government could give some information on the subject, or that there would be some further inquiry.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
The defect that was mentioned was certainly much felt in the early period of the use of the gun. The objection was that the lead placed on the iron shot, in order to make it fit the interior groove, stripped off soon after the projectile quitted the muzzle of the piece. That difficulty has now been corrected. The lead is fastened in a manner that prevents it from stripping off until the shot either strikes the ground, en ricochet, or the object against which it is directed It is satisfactory to know that the difficulty of the lead stripping off the shot, which was attended with danger to the troops when fired over their heads, has ceased to exist. The splitting of the vent-piece has been pretty nearly corrected by an improvement in the metal used in their construction. There was also an objection to the vent-piece, that it was sometimes liable to be blown out in firing. But the cause of this was almost invariably found to be the not placing it properly in the gun—that is, not allowing it to drop freely into its place. By this means the screw was forced up against the breech, the vent piece was forced from its position, and a hollow was formed behind it. The consequence is, that in firing the gas gets into this space, which, if the vent piece is dropped freely into its position, and the screw acts freely, it cannot do. As to the marine gun, there is another cause that often pre vents the vent-piece from being properly screwed up. When the gun is elevated by coigns, these coigns often stop the handle of the breech-screw from working, and prevent it from going completely up: an arrangement is being made to remedy this inconvenience, and when the vent-piece is properly screwed up it is impossible an accident can happen.

§ MAJOR WINDSOR PARKER
said, that he considered the item of nearly £6,000 for sweeping chimneys a monstrous one.
1094 The value of the soot, one of the best known fertilizers, ought, under proper arrangements, fully to cover the expense of the work.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he was under the impression that private individuals had to pay for having chimneys swept, and did not find the soot returned them a profit. Many of the buildings in charge of the War Department were very extensive, having the character of manufactories, and the chimney-sweeping was mostly done by contract. Another item, of which no notice had been taken, was one to which the objection would equally apply; it was the charge of more than £12,000 for emptying cesspools.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
pointed out to the Committee that last year the vote for these items was £45,000; the present was £28,000—a reduction of £17,000.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
inquired, whether any decision had been arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman regarding the superior efficiency of the rifles served out to the Engineers over the ordinary Enfield rifle, and to what extent it was likely the principle would be adopted in arming the other branches of our military force?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the hon. Gentleman wished to elicit his opinion as to the relative merits of a large bore and a small bore. Experiments were going on, he believed, for the purpose of determining the very question to which he has called attention, and he hoped within a reasonable time to be able to give a decided answer.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he was glad he had been fortunate enough to elicit a joke on so dry a subject.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, a question had been asked on a former evening with regard to the transmutation of certain regiments from Light Dragoons into Hussars, and the official reply was that the change had been recommended by a Commission of General Officers, but no further information was offered. With all deference to the body of General Officers, he thought the change highly injudicious; for regiments cherished old badges and their ancient prestige, and were stimulated by that very renown and feeling of in- 1095 dividuality to increased efficiency. The 3rd, 4th, 13th, and 14th Light Dragoons were all distinguished regiments; they had done good service at Salamanca, at Vittoria, and in the Indian campaigns. What had been gained, then, by depriving them of the old British name, under which they won their glory, and converting them into foreign Hussars? In the infantry the same system of taking away all the distinctions on which regiments prided themselves was adopted. The Fusiliers were proud of their caps; these had been taken away from them. The 7th Fusiliers boasted of the fact that all their junior officers were lieutenants; this privilege, given as a reward for some distinguished services, had been cancelled. All were reduced to the same dead level. Was there any economy in such a proceeding? He maintained that there was none. Did it infuse additional spirit into the service? On the contrary, he knew, from dining at mess, that officers no longer felt the same pride in their own regiments.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the change referred to had not originated in any way with the Executive Government, but was regarded by them as connected with the discipline of the army. The Military Commission had recommended the change, and also further alterations, which were agreed to. The alterations were in the names of the regiments, and a slight change in the dress, which would be found, on investigation, to be really almost nominal.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, he believed the change from a Light Dragoon to a Hussar would entail an expenditure of £150 upon an officer. In point of fact, a Hussar was clothed rather more heavily, and were four additional bars of lace. But what he objected to most strongly was the destruction of the esprit de corps in the different regiments.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he could confirm the statements of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He well remembered the disgust which had been excited in the ranks of the Fusiliers when their bearskin caps were taken away on the paltry excuse that no bearskins could be procured. Why, they had only to cross the Channel to see them worn by numberless regiments. Last year it was proposed to take away the "eagle button" from his old regiment, as a species of compliment to our French neighbours, and the proud 1096 decoration of the Scots Greys, won on the field of battle, was to have been sacrificed for a like paltry reason.

§ COLONEL SYKES
knew that there was nothing more irritating to the army than incessant meddling with the uniforms and badges of the various regiments.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, I can quite understand objections to unnecessary change. But really the objections taken in the course of this discussion, if followed out, would go to this extent—that our cavalry ought now to appear as they did in old times, with pigtails, plastered heads, and cocked hats.

MAJOR KNOX
said, that the regiment to which he belonged at the outbreak of the Crimean War had the word "Peninsula" on their accoutrements. That word was removed, and when they applied to have it restored they were told to mind their own business.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, that was a matter which ought not to be joked away. Each regiment had its own peculiar associations connected with it, and if these were obliterated, it raised a serious impediment to recruiting. He objected to the change, as neither economy nor discipline would be promoted by it.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
observed, that the Vote for clothing had been increased by no less a sum than £70,000, and asked for an explanation.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the increase arose, not from the cost of manufacture, but in consequence of additions made to the clothing of the troops, both cavalry and infantry, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee which investigated the entire subject. The charge was certainly a large one, and, what was more, it would be permanent; but the comfort of the troops would in future be greatly enhanced.

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, that might be the proper time to put the question of which he had given notice. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could state how many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on recruiting in the army it was in contemplation to adopt?

§ MR. CAVE
would not object to the Vote for the new West Indian Regiment if it was likely to be efficient, because he thought that the black regiments, when properly raised, were of the greatest value in preserving internal tranquillity and relieving the white troops. Formerly these 1097 regiments were recruited from the warlike tribes on the coast of Africa, and when that was the system they were prized for their efficiency; but the same confidence was no longer reposed in them after the practice was adopted of recruiting them from the Creole, and even from the Coolie population of the West Indies. There was no sympathy between the African and Creole—hence the value of the former in case of an outbreak. He remembered two instances. A riot occurred when he was in Trinidad in 1847, and it was said that the time was carefully chosen while during a change of quarters the island was denuded of African troops But in the still more serious riots in Demerara in 1857, ten years later, the colonists were grievously alarmed lest the black troops should join the rioters, because they had been leavened with a large number of Creole recruits whose sympathies were in favour of the mob. Besides this, it was a great grievance on the planters who had gone to the expense of bringing Coolies to those islands, that the latter should be enlisted in African regiments. He hoped the Committee would receive an assurance that the fourth regiment now asked for would not be raised in that way, and that the system would not be continued.

§ MR. CRUM-EWING
said, he concurred in what the hon. Member who had just spoken had said as to the inconvenience caused in the islands by the system of recruiting which the hon. Member bad condemned. It was a serious thing to deprive the population of the labour of Coolies, who had been brought to the islands at an expense of £15 or more a man.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
observed, that from the observations made that evening as to the employment of those regiments, it was clear that their services were made use of for police purposes. That being so, it was too hard to call on this country to pay for them.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the main object of the addition to the West India regiments was to provide a garrison for the new station which the Government had acquired at Lagos on the African coast for the suppression of the slave trade. Only four additional companies would be created; and it would only be necessary to recruit for 200 additional men. He did not think that recruiting for that number in the West India islands would cause that 1098 drain on the population which hon. Gentlemen seemed to apprehend. With regard to what his hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) said as to the employment of these regiments as police, every one must admit that the suppression of the slave trade was a national object. It was an object which this country had pursued for many years at great cost. If it was to be carried out, no doubt it must entail very considerable expense.

§ MR. CAVE
asked, whether he was to understand the right hon. Gentleman that the practice of recruiting in the West Indian islands was to be continued, and that no attempt was to be made to recruit on the African coast?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
replied, that he could not say that no such attempts were to be made, because they would be; but neither could he enter into any engagement with the Committee that there should be no recruiting in the islands themselves. In reply to the noble Lord (Lord Hotham), the right hon. Baronet stated that, while several of the recommendations of the Royal Commission had been adopted, there were others on which no steps had been taken.

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, he could assure the right hon. Baronet that in the inquiry he had made on the subject he was not actuated by any desire to make complaints; but, having had the honour of being named President of the Royal Commission appointed in 1859 to inquire into and report on the existing system of recruiting in the army, it was not unnatural that he should wish to know how the Government were dealing with the recommendations of the Commission. Besides that, he thought it was due to those who had sat with him on that Commission that they should be made acquainted with the extent to which the Government intended to go in carrying their recommendations into effect. It would be satisfactory to them to know that their labours had not been in vain. He was willing to admit that the right hon. Gentleman had carried into effect many recommendations conducive to the health and comfort of the soldier. One of the first injunctions from Her Majesty to the Commission was, that in every recommendation the Commissioners might make, economy should be the first consideration. He felt bound to say that to that injunction the Commissioners bad paid implicit obedience. He should have been glad if some other 1099 recommendations had been adopted, but not being desirous to "ride a willing horse to death," he would not now press the right hon. Gentleman further. He would only, therefore, hope that next Session the right hon. Gentleman would be able to announce that he had taken further steps in carrying out the suggestions of the Commission, every one of which he could assure him would tend to the efficiency of the soldier and, consequently, to the advantage of the country.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he could assure the noble Lord that the recommendations of the Commission of which the noble Lord was chairman were duly appreciated at the War Office, and that no time would be lost in giving effect to the larger and more important of their suggestions. No one could be better aware than the noble Lord, from his great experience and the attention he had paid to the subject, that a great machine like the War Department could not be pressed into very rapid improvements, and that time was necessary in making these changes.

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, he felt the truth of what the right hon. Gentleman had just stated so forcibly that he had not opened his lips on the subject last Session. Nothing could be more reasonable than the request of the War Office for time for due consideration.

§ MAJOR BARTTELOT
said, that the grievance of frequent changes in the uniform of cavalry regiments had been felt for many years. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) as to the hardship to the officers of the Light Dragoon regiments changed to Hussars, in having at great expense to supply themselves with new uniforms before the old were worn out. He had served for many years in a cavalry regiment, and he could state that from the time of the Prince Regent the greatest disgust was felt among the officers at the changes which not only year by year, but sometimes month by month, were made in their uniforms. These alterations were a peculiar hardship upon Quartermasters, Riding-masters, and Adjutants, who had risen from the ranks, who were called upon to incur great expense for the benefit of contractors and tailors, with no advantage whatever to the service. If the right hon. Gentleman could check that great and crying evil, it would be a great boon to the army, and he would receive the 1100 thanks of a most meritorious body of men, who had always faithfully endeavoured to do their duty.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, there had been an increase in the Vote, but it had been principally owing to the reinforcements that had been sent to Canada. There had been a considerable increase to the amount of rather more than £75,000 in the articles of fuel and light; but the greater part of that was required for the troops in British North America. There was also an item of special allowances of £55,000 to the troops serving in China. The item for barrack furniture also exhibited an increase.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
objected to the item of £5,004 for table allowances at St. James's and Dublin. He never saw more than four or five sentinels on duty at St. James's Palace, and he could not believe that a table at the public expense was required there for the officers. The superior officers of the Guards received nearly 50 per cent more pay than those of the Line, and altogether enjoyed such vast advantages that they amounted to a disrespect of the Line. He should move that the Vote be reduced by £5,004.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, that an officer of the Guards cost the country much less than an officer of the Line, because, instead of barrack accommodation being found them at the public expense, the officers of the Guards found their own lodging, and consequently had no mess-room. The hon. Member was quite mistaken in supposing that any jealousy of the Guards existed in the Line. He was quite satisfied that if the Line had the option of doing away with the privileges of the Guards, they would be against it. It was true the Guards were exempt from colonial duty, but whenever the country was in danger every one knew that the 1101 Guards were the first that were sent to face it. He was quite sure, though he would not say that the Guards did their duty better than the Line, that no one would say they did it worse.

§ MAJOR BARTTELOT
said, the real fact of the case was, that this dinner was supplied to the Guards as the guard of the Sovereign at St. James's. The dinner was laid for eight; five Guardsmen and three Life Guardsmen. The Line was not excluded, because in Dublin they had it provided for them just as it was for the Guards at St. James's. He thought, therefore, the item ought not to be expunged. If the hon. Gentleman had the pleasure of going into the mess-room, he would not object to vote.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that the objection was a mere hobby of the hon. Gentleman, who took a similar objection last year, As he (Colonel North) bad before informed the hon. Member, the dinner was a privilege not peculiar to the Guards, but was extended to any regiment that happened to be doing duty at the Palace. The Guards were exposed to considerable expense, as they had no mess or barracks. He could remember the 6th doing duty at the Palace and of course partaking of the dinner.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the item had been in every Estimate for near a century. The material consideration for the Committee was, that the officers of the Guards had no barrack accommodation and no mess. The dinner was, no doubt, practically for the officers of the Guards, though there was no exclusive rule; and if officers of the Line were at St. James's, they would partake of it. It would, in his opinion, be very ungracious for the Committee to exclude the item.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
intimated his intention of pressing his Amendment. The officers of the Guards had a mess-room like other gentlemen of the army, for they had what they called "a club." He was aware that any reduction of a Vote for the army would always be opposed by military men.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he had had the honour of constructing all the barracks in London, and he had never constructed a mess-room for the Guards. The dinner was not intended for the Guards, but for any one on duty at St. James's.

MAJOR KNOX
said, he was about to 1102 propose a reduction, in which he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Williams) would support him. It had been always felt as a real grievance by the cavalry that they were charged 8½ d, a day for forage. He thought it very hard upon a comet, who had only 8s. a day and had to provide himself with a fine and expensive uniform, that 8½ d. should be deducted from his pay. He would therefore move the reduction of the item for forage by £20,000.

§ MAJOR BARTTELOT
said, he perfectly agreed with what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend with regard to this case of hardship But the cornet suffered a reduction not of 8½ d a day but of twice 8½ d., because he had to keep two horses, a lieutenant three, and a captain four. Though the Government had lately recommended that they should be allowed to purchase their horses out of the troop horses, yet they had not been able to do so, and therefore they had to buy their horses at great expense, and to keep them for the public service. It was therefore a hardship and a grievance that they should be called upon to pay for forage. He begged heartily to second the Amendment.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he should certainly support the Amendment. For the last three or four years he had done everything in his power to remedy this crying evil.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, it appeared to him, that if cornets had reason to complain of the present state of things, they would have still greater reason to complain if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was carried, because, if a man was to pay 8½ d. now for his forage and it was proposed to diminish the allowance for forage, he would be in a worse position than before. There might be something peculiar in the matter which military men might see, but for his part he could not help thinking that the proposed was a very strange way to get rid of the hardship complained of.

COLONEL NORTH
said, their object was, that the cornet should receive his 8s. a day without reduction, and that the country should give the forage.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he did not quite see how the object was to be effected by the proposed Amendment. He understood from the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he wished to relieve 1103 officers of stoppages, and in order to do that he proposed to diminish the Vote. What he ought to do was to propose an increase of the Vote. [Major KNOX: I have no objection.] If he could increase the amount of the Vote and abolish the stoppages, his object would be attained, but that could not be done without the consent of the Crown; and as he (Sir George Lewis) could not without consideration undertake to recommend that that consent should be given, he feared the only effect of the Amendment would be to put the Cavalry officers in a worse position than before. Therefore he would strongly advise the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he were a friend to the Cavalry officer, to lose no time in withdrawing his Amendment.

MAJOR KNOX
said, he hoped, then, that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point before the next Session.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he was afraid he could not enter into any formal engagement in reference to the question. He should not object to consider the subject, but he could not hold out any very sanguine hope of the alleged grievance being remedied.

§ MR. WYLD
said, he wished to call attention to the state of the canteens throughout the barracks of the empire. In 1855, in consequence of a Report of a Committee on that subject, hopes were held out of considerable improvements being made in those canteens, to the comfort and profit of the soldier. Unfortunately, those improvements had never been effected, and at that moment the canteens were nothing more nor less than bad beer-shops. They had fallen into the hands of contractors, who amassed considerable sums of money at the expense of the soldiers. From £15,000 to £16,000 per annum might be saved out of those canteens, and the money appropriated to providing better accommodation for the soldier. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the subject his consideration.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he could not but regret the answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given with regard to the lighting of Waterford barracks with gas. Gas rendered the barracks more comfortable and cheerful to the soldier, who was often driven to the pot-house from the miserable condition of the barrack-room, lighted with a couple of miserable candles.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that this 1104 class of subjects, which related to the moral condition of the private soldier, had of late years received very great attention from a large number of persons, particularly connected with the War Department, and he felt sure that the subject of the canteens had not escaped observation. He agreed that it would be better if all barracks were lighted with gas, but the Committee would observe that all these improvements were attended with expense. He had not intended to say that Waterford barracks should never be lighted with gas, but only that he was not prepared to make the change now.

§ COLONEL SYKES
asked, for an explanation of the increase of £52,520 for fuel for North America, and £29,273 for New Zealand.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, that it had been explained that the increased charge for North America arose from the increase in the number of troops there.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the same explanation applied to New Zealand.

§ MR. P. W. MARTIN
said, he wished to ask whether any portion of the Vote was being applied to the increase of the store of Enfield rifles? He could not but deprecate the enormous and continuous accumulation of warlike stores, in the face of the new inventions which were coming out every day both in arms and projectiles. The Government had made, and were making, immense stocks of weapons, which would most probably in five years become obsolete. He had, a few days since, seen two very fine small-bore carbines, which had been bought at 5s. the couple. Here must have been an enormous loss to the public.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that upon the total of the Vote there was a decrease of £140,305 as compared with last year. The small-arms in store amounted to 361,000, a number which, considering the demands upon the Government, was not thought to be excessive. In the item for the purchase and repairs of those arms there was a decrease of £143,712. Upon ordnance and projectiles there was a decrease of £106,732. The main increase in the Vote was for gunpowder and saltpetre.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he wished to ask for an explanation as to the large charge for miscellaneous stores.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that unless the hon. Member went to Woolwich he could have no idea what a variety of necessary stores were included under that description.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he hoped the Government would not be too precipitate in taking on hand a large stock of small-arms, as it was still doubtful which would prove the best description of weapon. He understood that the iron target which had been deemed invulnerable by the Government had been pierced by three shots of an Armstrong gun.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the last remark of the hon. Gentleman might cause misapprehension. The experiment referred to was for the purpose of ascertaining what was the resisting power of iron on iron. It was found that at a certain distance the same weight of artillery which failed to destroy the model of a side of the Warrior, composed of iron and wood, destroyed a double plate of iron. There was an elasticity in wood which resisted the shock of artillery more effectually than a double coating of iron. The result of the trial was therefore highly satisfactory, as it showed that the Government had adopted the better plan.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, it had been stated that a regiment was to be armed with the Whitworth rifle, and he wished to know whether any experiments were being carried on with regard to breech-loading rifles, and if it was intended to arm a company of each regiment with such rifles?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, a number of experiments had been made at Woolwich upon a great variety of small arms, under the auspices of a Committee, which he hoped would be able to report before very long. The experiments were very dilatory, and required a good deal of time for consideration. Breech-loaders were among the arms which had been tested; but, as far as be could judge, the military authorities appeared to be adverse to the adoption of that class of rifle. There was an impression that it led to too hasty and lavish an expenditure of ammunition.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, that he held the maintenance of permanent Government factories of small-arms to be pernicious, as they checked competition in industry and ingenuity.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he was rather sorry to hear that a whole regiment was to be armed with the Whitworth rifle. He 1106 thought the long Enfield was a good enough arm for any service. He hoped, however, that whatever changes the Government made in the choice of small-arms, they would adhere to one uniform guage, or otherwise there would be great risk of confusion in issuing ammunition.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the Government had agreed to arm a regiment with Whitworth rifles, in deference to the opinion expressed by the House last year, when the question was debated. Many persons both in and out of the House considered the Whitworth a better weapon, and he had no doubt that a marksman firing calmly and deliberately at a target, free from any of those agitating conditions which attended actual conflict, would find the Whitworth superior to the Enfield. Whether its practical superiority was such as to render it necessary that the Government should go to the expense of re-arming the forces, a few years after they had been supplied with new rifles, was a very different question. Several eminent scientific authorities, General Hay among the number, were in favour of the Whitworth rifle, and the Government deemed it right to give it a trial. At the same time it must be understood that they were not in the least pledged to the adoption of the arm by the step they had taken.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, that the House had many sins to answer for, but he was not aware it had ever expressed any opinion on the Whitworth rifle in its corporate capacity. Individual Members had done so, but the House had not. It was problematical whether the Secretary for War ought to have given his sanction to the arming of the regiment with the Whitworth, because he was evidently laying the foundation for an increased vote. With his slight knowledge of firearms, he had no hesitation in saying that they must come to the breech-loading principle sooner or later, as foreign armies were armed with breech-loading rifles. Although right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench might be prepared to stick to the old pigtail principle, they would be obliged to come to the breech-loading principle.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
I believe no single Continental army has adopted the breech-loading principle.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
Why, the Prussians have, in the needle-gun; and it is universal.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
Certainly the French army has not, and the Austrians hare not.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
They have tried experiments.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
And the great army in North America has been armed with a rifle closely resembling the Enfield rifle. I do not at all anticipate that the breech-loading principle will make the progress which the hon. Gentleman thinks it will.

§ Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE
Does the right hon. Baronet shoot?

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he could corroborate the right hon. Baronet as to the opinion of military authorities that breech-loaders led to too rapid firing. A Committee, presided over by General Simpson, reported that such a weapon would he unsafe.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
reminded the right hon. Baronet that revolvers, which were a description of breech-loaders, were widely used in America.

CAPTAIN JERVTS
said, there was not a single breech-loading rifle in America or Europe fit to be employed in the army.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
stated, that it was proposed to take from the Vote the sum of £30,000 for the purpose of defending certain commercial harbours, including the Humber and Holyhead, and it would be competent for any hon. Gentlemen to object, if they thought fit, to any one of the items making up the amount of £30,000. About £13,000 would be applied to carrying on works already under contract on the Humber and at Holyhead; £6,000 would he expended on the Mersey, and £3,000 on the Severn for the protection of Gloucester and Cardiff. The sum allotted to Scotland and Ireland amounted to £7,500, namely, 5,000 for the Frith of Forth, and 2,500 for Belfast, leaving a remainder of £500 to meet contingencies.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he should propose that the item of £3,000 for the defences of the Severn be omitted; but he thought that, before entering upon the question of the defence of commercial har- 1108 bours, some explanation ought to be given respecting Alderney.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
replied, that the sum to be voted for Alderney only amounted to £2,000, and was required for the purchase of some land.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he hoped the sum of £2,000 would be the last required for that place. He objected to Alderney as a station; but as the works had gone on so far, he should not desire them to be left incomplete for the want of so small a sum. With regard to the commercial harbours, the amount originally proposed to be devoted to their defence was £450,000, of which £176,000 had been expended. His complaint, however, was that the works were not carried on fast enough. He would rather see money spent on the defences of commercial harbours than on Ports down Hill. If the country were to have an army at all times sufficient to occupy the proposed forts in that neighbourhood, then the case would be different; but it never would have such a force, and so these forts were likely to become powerful in the hands of an enemy. He trusted that many of the forts originally conceived would not be constructed, and that other works would be completed on the smallest possible scale. It had been said that an enemy might land at Chichester or in Christ-church Bay, and thus threaten Portsmouth; but no hostile army would dare, for the purpose of attacking Portsmouth, to make so long a flank march, and then leave their rear exposed by taking up a position to the north of Holsea Lines. However, if danger was to be apprehended in that quarter, why should a large hospital be built within range of the guns of an invading force? He also wished to ask where the central depôt for stores spoken of last year was to be established?

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he observed an item for the defences of the harbours of Harwich, Newhaven, and the Downs. The total estimate for completing the works was £120,000, and he thought the Government ought to specify what were their intentions with regard to each of those places. He looked upon the proposed expenditure as perfectly useless. As for Harwich, any enemy would find great difficulty in getting there, and the existing works were quite sufficient for the defence of the harbour. Then again, what was meant by the Downs. Did the term refer to Walmer Castle?

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, that the harbour of Harwich had always been considered one of the most important in England, and was large enough to admit an enemy's fleet. In case of a continental war, the first thing the French would do would be to invade Belgium; and if they obtained possession of Antwerp, they would be in a position directly opposite Harwich. He wished to know, whether there was any chance of the Vote being expended dining the year? It was a matter of just complaint that votes were taken every year for fortifications which were never erected. In the case of Hull, money was granted for many consecutive years before it was actually spent.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that a Vote in Committee of Supply was in the nature of a maximum. It was not incumbent on the Government to spend the whole amount which they were empowered to spend. It was a matter of discretion. With regard to these three harbours, it might be wrong to class them under one head; but it had been done in previous votes, and it was convenient not to introduce the novelty of a division. Engineering and military authorities had advised the War Office that Harwich, Newhaven, and the Downs were open to attack, and should be made the subject of some fortifications. He was afraid that those persons would agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the amount was inadequate, but £15,000 was what he asked the Committee to Vote for the present year. He would not undertake to say that even that amount would he expended, but of course it would not be exceeded.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
asked, whether the right hon. Baronet could assure them that the whole would be expended.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he could not enter into any undertaking.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, the gallant Officer should know the reason why sometimes the whole sum voted was not expended. Until the Estimate was voted, the drawings could not be made out or the contracts entered into. That took a considerable time; and, when the Estimate was voted late in the Session of last year, the winter came on and the works were interrupted by the weather. That was the reason why it was often impossible to do in the financial year the works which were estimated and voted for in the course of the year.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he was of opinion that neither the Bristol Channel stood in need of land defences, nor that the proposed defences were judicious. The only danger to be apprehended was from privateers; but with Milford Haven and Falmouth, which were both considerable ports for the rendezvous of men-of-war, the inlet was safe; and if an unfortunate privateer entered it, a telegram to either place would bring a vessel of war in pursuit long before she could reach the Steep Holmes, 100 miles above Swansea, and she would be caught in a complete trap. A fortification had been put up at the Mumbles Head; but he considered that they might just as well have thrown the money into the sea. They could not resort to artillery practice for fear of breaking the windows of the lighthouse close by; and now it appeared that another battery was required to defend that which had been erected. It would be far better to keep a few gunboats moored in the neighbourhood ready to be put into commission on the threat of war; and he begged therefore to move that the Vote be reduced by £3,000.

§ SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he thought the Government had come to a very wise decision. A gunboat ought to have a point d'appui where shelter would be afforded if a larger vessel entered the Channel.

MAJOR KNOX
said, he felt bound to expostulate with the Government on the shabby sum of £2,500 appropriated to the Irish harbours out of £163,000. Belfast, Galway, and Londonderry were quite defenceless.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, he would suggest that, instead of setting up on isolated rocks batteries that could either be captured by the enemy or avoided by him altogether, they should adopt a plan by which the navy might be made more available for defence. A fleet of gunboats located in Cork Harbour might, for instance, be got ready at a moment's notice, to beat off any suspicious looking vessels which might appear on our coast. Thus, by placing the lighthouses, where necessary, in telegraphic communication with one another, and with those harbours in which the gunboats were situated, he would have a weapon always in readiness for the protection of the coast. Entertaining that view, he should vote for the reduction proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, being prepared at 1111 the same time to submit his own plan to the Committee as a substitute for that of the Government.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that the suggestion of the noble Lord was worthy of attention; but it could not be considered an economical mode of defence. It would obviously be cheaper to have batteries, which could be manned by the Volunteers of the neighbourhood; and he was sure the Vote would not be grudged by the commercial communities, to whose protection it was intended to contribute.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) in the opinion that the establishment of gunboats, as proposed, would be by no means an economical arrangement; while it was quite clear that but a very small extent of submarine telegraph wires could be laid down for the amount of the item which it was sought to strike out of the Estimates—£3,000. He might add, that all the Government asked the Committee to expend in the shape of votes for completely new works for the defence of our commercial harbours was £170,000, which could hardly be considered an extravagant amount, especially by those who were aware, as he was, of the great alarm which prevailed among those connected with those harbours when it was thought there would be a war with the United States. He was, indeed, prepared to admit that he did not think any great degree of danger was to be apprehended from privateers or men-of-war entering our commercial parts, inasmuch as the entrance would be attended with much risk; but he did not at the same time think it would be advisable to leave the enormous mass of shipping in those ports wholly unprotected. Cardiff, Gloucester, and Bristol would, at all events, be benefited in no small degree by the expenditure of the £3,000 under discussion, and he therefore hoped the Committee would sanction the scheme.

§ MR. MONSELL
thought the question for the Committee to consider was, whether the plan of the Government was likely to be an effectual one compared with that of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. The latter, although it would be costly, would no doubt be effectual. Nor did he think the country could be at war for a single year with a naval Power without the commercial towns forcing the adoption of that plan upon the Government of the day, whether the defences now pro- 1112 posed were executed or not. He would therefore venture to propose that the Vote be postponed with the view of consulting competent authorities out of doors on the subject.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
contended, that floating defences, such as those proposed, could never be so applicable at the moment to the object sought to be attained, or so effectual, as defences on shore. Of the justice of that view an instance had been furnished in the Danish war, in which the superiority of even earthen batteries thrown up on a sudden to vessels had been shown in the case of a Danish ship of the line and a frigate, one of which had been taken and the other destroyed by a battery of six guns, thrown up by the Duke of Coburg on the shore. A battery was always ready and on the spot, and he had no doubt those interested in the harbour of Bristol would prefer it as a means of defence to a number of gunboats stationed in Cork harbour or in Plymouth. The fact was, that some time must elapse before the aid of these gunboats could be made available in the event of a sudden emerge nest, while it must also be borne in mind that the hostile force might be superior to the gunboats at command. The principles of common sense, then, he thought, pointed out that means of defence on shore was preferable. If the Government had proposed a large sum for the purposes of such defence, some hon. Gentlemen would, no doubt, object to the extravagance of laying out so much money for the protection of commercial harbours. As the case stood, however, the sum was said to be too small; but when he informed the Committee that good judges of military defence had pronounced it to be sufficient, he did not think the Vote could reasonably be objected to on the score of its amount.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
said, that Cardiff had latterly increased very much in importance. It was now the greatest port for the exportation of steam coal and iron, and its tonnage was four times as great as that of Bristol. There could be no doubt that the proposed defences would be a valuable defence to Cardiff, but he did not understand how they would contribute greatly to the defence of Gloucester or Bristol.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, that if these Votes were proposed on some comprehensive plan, they would be much more satisfactory.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
observed, he was afraid of comprehensive plans. Last year they had a comprehensive plan for fortifications—£11,000,000 that came to; and the public were now beginning to find out that as far as one port went—Portsmouth—the money was pretty nearly thrown away, for the Warrior could not get in above five days in the month, it was quite clear that the noble Lord's Government, with all its good qualities, was a most expensive one. The noble Lord had not the least idea of saving money, and he never would have until a Vote of the House of Commons forced him to it. The speech of the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Dillwyn) had received no answer. If it were not answered, he should support him in his Motion for reducing the Vote by the sum of £3,000. He was only sorry that the hon. Gentleman had not gone the "entire animal," and moved the omission of the whole £30,000 instead of the £3,000.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
explained, that by a comprehensive plan he meant that these Votes should be prepared with some care and attention, and not put forward in a haphazard kind of way. He had always opposed the fortification scheme.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he understood that in future wars privateers were not to be used, and yet that was the class of vessels which these fortifications were intended to resist. He would move the omission of the whole item of £30,000.

§ LORD FERMOY
maintained, that if his plan were adopted, no additional expense would be caused. No more gunboats would be needed beyond those which they would keep up in time of war. Under any circumstances, all that was necessary was to place them in central points, from which they could be readily summoned on an emergency. He understood that a telegraphic company had recently offered to place the Admiralty and the Foreign Office in communication with the principal points round our coast on the Government paying a rent for a single wire.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, the time was when the only object of an Englishman was to come into personal contact with his foe and strike him to the ground. We were now fighting behind iron plates in our ships, while on shore we proposed to defend ourselves behind stone and brick walls. The change was quite unworthy of the ancient English character.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that as the defence of the Bristol Channel stood upon the same ground as the defence of all our commercial ports, and as many professed economists had just voted against the proposition of the hon. Member for Swansea, he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing upon his Motion.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, he wished to call the attention of the Government to that portion of the Vote which was proposed for fortifications at the Mauritius. The House had considered the general question only two days before, and he wished to know how far the Government intended to carry into practice the decision then arrived at? According to the Resolutions assented to by the House, the distant possessions of the Crown were to be responsible for their own internal defence, and to take their own share in the repulse of a foreign enemy; and the further proposition that distant fortifications should be discontinued was only not pressed because accepted of course. After the avowals of the Government the other night, he wished to know how it was that this particular Vote was allowed to re-appear. He was anxious to know whether their policy was changed by the debate on Tuesday night, and whether their continued Vote to fortify the Mauritius was part of a policy which lasted up to the Motion of the hon. Member for Taunton? He did not for a moment object to the Vote for the fortifications of imperial garrisons in the Mediterranean, such as Gibraltar; but he certainly did object to fortifying any such posts as the Mauritius. Those fortifications were at present utterly inadequate; but to make them adequate not only would cost an enormous amount of money, but they would take more men than we could possibly spare to garrison them. Sir J. Burgoyne, in his evidence before the Committee, expressed his opinion that it would take a million of money to make all our distant fortifications adequate, and in case any, by inadequate defence, were lost in a war, a vast amount of stores, besides men, would be sacrificed. Under any circumstances there would be a loss of men, because 1115 those who would form the garrison might as well be prisoners of war so far as rendering any service to this country was concerned. The estimate made for the completion of our defences in the Mauritius was £202,000, of which £140,000 had been spent; while, in consequence of the change which had been made in the system of warfare since that Estimate was made, Sir J. Burgoyne now considered that nothing short of fortifying the whole island by a chain of forts would be effective. They knew very well that the present system of war was to strike a blow at the heart of an empire; consequently, the practice of concentrating the troops at home and defending our distant possessions abroad by the navy, in conjunction with the means of defence the colonies themselves supplied, should be adopted. The utility of expending large sums of money in fortifying such islands as the Mauritius, was contested by Admiral Erskine and other high authorities. Earl Grey, a good colonial authority, stated before the Committee that he considered the money already spent was absolutely wasted, and that the best thing that could be done would be to blow up the fortifications that had been begun. The same remarks he had made in respect to the Mauritius applied in a still greater degree to St. Helena; and he would, if he found any support, go so far as to move the omission of that part of the Vote. If the hon. Member for Montrose would repeat the Motion which the Government had induced him to withdraw on Tuesday, he would certainly support it by his vote.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, the objection urged against the Mauritius and St. Helena applied with the same force against the fortification of the Ionian Islands. Before the Committee to which allusion had been made, important and most conclusive evidence had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this point. He stated distinctly that he had minutely inquired into the state of the fortifications and their possible use in time of war; and his deliberate opinion was that these fortifications were worse than useless; that they would require an enormous force to man them which could not be spared; that they were within thirty miles of Malta, whence, if we had command of the sea, we should be able to send a fleet to defend the islands in case of attack, while if we had not, it would be utterly impossible for any force we could leave on the islands to 1116 defend them against any enemy that chose to attack them. Under these circumstances he thought the Vote for the Ionian Islands ought to be included in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. COX
suggested, that Newfoundland for which there was a Vote of £1,000, and Nova Scotia, for which there was a Vote of £10,000, should be included in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, which would bring it more within the scope of the Resolution passed with regard to the colonies on Tuesday night.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he wished to relieve the Government from any charge of bad faith in dealing with the question. The Resolution passed on the 4th of March was in these words— Resolved that this House, while fully recognising the claims of all portions of the British empire to Imperial aid in their protection against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy, is of opinion that colonies exercising the rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own external defence. His hon. Friend stated in general terms that the Government agreed to the proposition that no large expenditure should be made for colonial fortifications; but he was quite sure that he also conveyed the impression that the Government did not assent to the last part of the Resolution, while they were prepared to assent to the previous part of it. Therefore, so far as good faith was concerned, the Government stood perfectly clear. The question was wholly independent of the Resolution passed two nights ago. It was entirely a question of expediency. With regard to the Mauritius, what was intended was, at the cost of £15,000 to complete the fortifications in Port Louis. It was proposed simply to complete that fortification, and it was not the intention of the Government to ask for the £49,000 which appeared in the fifth column. In order that the history of the Vote should be exhibited, the original figures stood as they had done in former Estimates, and the balance was stated in the fifth column; but he repeated that it was not the intention of the Government to ask for anything more than the £15,000, unless, contrary to their expectations, that sum should not be sufficient. With that explanation, he trusted that the Committee would agree to the Vote.

§ MR. COX
asked for an explanation of the items for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, they were introduced at the time when the alarm existed as to hostilities with the United States. It was represented—and he believed with perfect truth—that St. John's in Newfoundland, and Halifax in Nova Scotia, were inadequately defended, and that it was desirable, having regard to the naval interests of the mother country as well as to our commerce, that they should be more completely protected. Of course at that moment they hoped that nothing would happen to cause an interruption of peace with the United States, and therefore the immediate necessity for such a measure had ceased. At the same time the Government thought that on the whole it would be a prudent precaution to maintain these two items, and therefore, unless any hon. Gentleman could state any good reason to the contrary, he would wish to press them on the Committee.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, he was satisfied, as far as Mauritius was concerned, with the right hon. Baronet's promise that the Vote of £15,000 then proposed for the works in progress would be the end of all the Votes that would be asked for. With respect to the answer made by the Under Secretary for the Colonies on Tuesday last, he must say that his impression of it was quite the reverse of that described by the right hon. Baronet. As regarded Nova Scotia, bearing in mind the Resolutions agreed to the other night, he wished to ask what share of the burden of its own defence the Government expected that colony to take?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
replied, that its share would be the maintenance of a militia. Undoubtedly they did not expect it to pay a sum of money towards the fortifications of the port of Halifax, a great naval station in which England had a direct imperial interest. The view taken by the Government was that the way in which our North American colonies could contribute to their self-defence was not by maintaining a standing army in the form of permanent paid regiments, but by providing an efficient militia.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he desired to ask, whether a practice which prevailed at the Admiralty prevailed also at the War Office—namely, that as long as the department kept within the expenditure sanctioned by that House as the total amount of the Vote, and also kept within the amount placed in column one as the entire estimated cost of each work, 1118 they deemed themselves at liberty to spend any sum on any work without reference to the precise sum specifically granted for it by Parliament.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the practice of the department was one thing, and the legal rule another. [Laughter.] He was afraid the Committee had begun to laugh rather too early. What he meant to say was, that the legal rule was more lax than the practice, though the Committee had probably thought that he meant just the reverse. The rule of law was that the department was merely hound by the Appropriation Act, and, provided it kept within the total amount voted by Parliament, it had power to transfer one item to another. But it was not the practice of the War Office to make such a transfer; it adhered to the items as agreed to in Committee of Supply. He did not mean to say that it had never in any single instance departed from that principle, but, unquestionably, it generally observed it.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that answer was perfectly satisfactory. He only wished that the same practice was adhered to by the Admiralty.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he should take the opinion of the Committee on the Vote for fortifications in the Ionian Islands, as he considered the evidence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer conclusive on that point.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, he would oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it had been decided to furnish such fortifications in that island as were absolutely required. Moreover, those islands paid a large contribution towards their own military protection. Their fortifications had long been in a state of dilapidation, and the sum spent in improving them had been remarkably small.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
explained, that there had been a re-armament of the fortifications at Corfu; that larger guns had been brought into use, and had necessitated larger magazine accommodation.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he was also of opinion that as long as the British protectorate was maintained there, they ought to supply the money necessary for keeping up the fortifications; besides which, those 1119 islands might prove of immense importance in enabling us to maintain our power in the Mediterranean.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, he also would appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press his Amendment, as the fortifications were kept up in those islands in consequence of an agreement which was in the nature of a treaty or contract.

SIR MORTON PBTO
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he rose to call attention to the injury done to the manufacturers of small-arms in consequence of their being all sent for inspection to Enfield, where rigorous tests were applied, whereas the competing Government Enfield rifles manufactured there were sent out without subjecting them to more than ordinary inspection. He asked whether the Government had any objection to the arms manufactured by the trade being inspected by Colonel Tulloch, independently of the Enfield establishment, it being admitted on all hands that Colonel Tulloch was the most competent small-arms inspector in the country.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he had no reason to suppose that any unfair advantage was taken of the small-arms manufacturers in consequence of the arms being sent to Enfield for inspection in a competing establishment. He would, however, bear the observations of the hon. Gentleman in mind, and cause inquiries to be made. He apprehended, however, that if any change were made, it would lead to additional expense.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he rose to call attention to the item for the enlargement of the clothing establishment at Pimlico. In the Report of the Weedon Commission, which had been presided over by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Turner), it was recommended that the Government should maintain a small establishment as a check upon the private trade. But what was the case now? As he before stated, no less than nine-tenths of the clothing of the army had been taken out of the hands 1120 of contractors and was in the hands of the Government. The Committee would be surprised to learn that all the cloth trousers, all the summer trousers, shakoes, shell-jackets, all the greatcoats, and all but the tunics of forty-six battalions of infantry were made at Pimlico. That was quite different from the recommendation of the Commission. It was not reasonable to suppose that the Government could manufacture clothing at a smaller cost than private traders. The hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon had said that the clothing made in the Government establishments was better than that supplied by contractors, but how could any but the best articles be received when all had to undergo strict inspection? At Pimlico there were two different establishments, one for manufacturing clothing, and the other for inspecting clothing, so that all the articles supplied by contractors were sent to Pimlico to undergo inspection, while the goods manufactured on the premises underwent no inspection at all. That was not fair to the contractors. The right hon. Secretary for War had told them that a great part of the money asked for was wanted for storage, but he (Mr. Monsell) was informed that the Government had at their disposal storage for the clothing of 500,000 men. If there was any article which private contractors might be expected to supply well, it was clothing. One hon. Gentleman had asked why we did not adopt the French plan and have the clothing made up by the regimental tailors; but the answer to that was that we had no conscription, and therefore could not calculate upon having a sufficient number of skilled tailors in the army. He thought they had gone too far in the direction of Government manufactures, and unless some check was applied, the Government would soon absorb the entire clothing of the army. It was, no doubt, necessary that the Government should keep a check upon the contractor, but it was equally necessary that the contractor should keep a check upon the Government. He moved to reduce the Vote by £26,100, the sum asked for the purchase of Mr. Dimes's factory.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, his answer to the Amendment was a very short one. The officers of the War Department 1121 were already in occupation of part of Mr. Dimes's factory, for which a heavy rent was paid. It was thought that it would be more advantageous for the public to buy the premises, as the interest of the outlay would be less than the rent. The Committee would observe that there was a diminution in the total amount of the Vote; but if they should refuse to grant the sum asked for, the result would be that the War Department must continue to rent the premises.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he saw no objection to the Government making all the clothing for the army, and, putting aside the question of comparative cost, he should be glad if they were to do so.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
explained, that the general rule of the Government was not to rely exclusively upon their own establishments or upon contractors. There was one large contractor who supplied a considerable amount of clothing to the army, and who happened to be a constituent of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. MONSELL
observed, that that was a mistake.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, at all events the contractor lived in that part of the country. He believed that the establishment was economically conducted, and he repeated that there was no intention of altering the proportion of clothing now supplied by contractors.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
affirmed, that it was impossible that the Government could compete satisfactorily as clothiers with private tradesmen, and it was not for the public interest that they should compete. It was said that the present system was not to be further extended, but the fact remained that already nine-tenths of the clothing of the army was manufactured by the Government. All kinds of clothing but trousers were made by the Government, and only forty-five regiments had tunics made by contractors. The Weedon Committee came to the conclusion that a small Government establishment would suffice to check the trader, but the small establishment had grown into one which clothed nine-tenths of the army. Government had also got five years' stock of clothing, but the Committee recommended the keeping on hand of a very small stock, say a supply for six months. That was the recommendation of the storekeepers at Woolwich and Chatham. The Government did not propose to go further; but could they well stop? They had an enor- 1122 mous staff, and an inspector of clothing, who inspected the clothing made by the Government, and also that made by contractors; and if the latter was not thoroughly good in workmanship and material, it was rejected. It was high time the Committee came to som? decision on the question whether the Government were to be army clothiers and were to compete with the trade.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that his hon. Friend must be aware that the clothing, under the old system, was ill-made and made up of bad materials, so much so that on wet days the clothes were completely shrunk.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, that he had the honour to serve under the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and a very severe commander he was. But the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend were misplaced, because what he referred to took place under the system of the army clothing colonels, which had nothing whatever to do with the existing system.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he would remind the Committee that the question whether the Government should become clothiers on a large scale did not arise upon the Vote, which was simply to decide whether certain premises should be bought instead of rented.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
pointed out, that if these premises were once purchased, there was much less probability than before of the Government ever ceasing to supply clothing largely. He again recommended that the clothing should be made in the regiments, which would give the men occupation and would excite a useful rivalry as to which regiment should be the best clothed. At present there was a want of occupation in the army, and the plan he suggested had been found to work very well in Fiance.

COLONEL KNOX
said, there were quite enough non-effectives at present in the army, without having tailors or shoemakers in addition. The clothing supplied from the Government stores was a great improvement upon that previously provided, and was duly appreciated by the army He hoped, therefore, that the Government would continue so salutary a check upon the contractors.

§ MR. J. A. TURNER
said, that if those premises were purchased instead of rented the country would be, in a great measure, tied to the present system; but if they came to the wise conclusion that they were 1123 going too far in making clothes for the army, they need not buy the building. They might, perhaps, sell it for a profit; but it would be the first time they had done so. The Weedon Commission had recommended that a small check should be maintained upon the private trader; but the converse of this seemed now attempted, and the private trader was allowed to keep a small check upon the Government. He believed it impossible that the Government could compete with private traders, either in point of economy or of efficiency, as regarded articles which were not exceptional, but were in general demand.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, that if a small check produced better clothing, he thought it would be still further improved by a larger check. The preponderance of the evidence before the Committee was in favour of extending the check on the contractors; and if by that means they could be made honest, a success would have been achieved.

§ CAPTAIN CARNEGIE
said, he should like to have the clothing of the army manufactured in the army itself; but he did not wish to have the soldiers' clothing spoiled. There was always work enough for the tailors now in the army in altering the clothing when supplied, and in afterwards making the necessary repairs.

§ MAJOR WINDSOR PARKER
asked the right hon. Gentleman to state the nature of reports made by the officers of the regiments who now inspected the clothing supplied, whether by the Government or by private contractors.

§ MR. COX
thought the Committee should be informed what rent the Government was paying for the premises in question, that they might judge as to the reasonableness of the price.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, that as he understood that the Government proposed to take a portion of the premises already in their possession, and not distinct premises, and as the present was not therefore a favourable time to test the principle, he would withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. SELWYN
said, that he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £12,700, the probable charge consequent on the augmentation of the Military College at Sandhurst, by increasing the number of cadets to 400. He thought the reduction was, on the right hon. Baronet's own admission, indispensable. He had stated that it was not necessary that all candidates for commissions in the army should be educated at Sandhurst; and, if not, where would the right hon. Gentleman draw the distinction? It appeared that a course of instruction at the college was to be enforced for all those who did not purchase their commissions; while those who purchased them might he educated where they thought fit. The compulsory instruction at the college was abandoned for those who could afford to pay for a commission, and enforced for those who could not. That he must again confess that he could not understand; he could not understand it even in reference to the question of patronage. If it were necessary to have some check on patronage, let there be an examination, however stringent, but let the candidates acquire their knowledge anywhere they chose. Why force them to obtain it in a particular place, and in a particular manner? Let all the candidates have an open and fair chance. If Sandhurst was the best place for obtaining the necessary education, why was not the residence there compulsory on all? If it was not the best, why make the course compulsory on any? If a liberty of choice was given, it should be given rather to the poorer class of candidates than to the rich. If any doubt were felt whether the system of free and open education was beneficial to the army, at least let it have a fair trial before they sanctioned an immediate expenditure and a large annual charge.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, a Vote of £15,000 was agreed to last year, for enlarging the College at Sandhurst. Up to the 1st of January only £953 of that sum had been expended. Most of the Vote of last year, therefore, was still unappropriated. The sum now asked for, added to the sum that had been expended, was not equal to the Vote passed last Session. All that was proposed was to make certain additions to the college, in order to enable young men who entered the army without purchasing their commission to be educated for the examination under the present rules, which required candidates who did not purchase their commissions 1125 to have passed a year in residence at Sandhurst and a specified examination. He should not make any observations on the hon. and learned Gentleman's want of intelligence, which might be very great; he merely differed from him in opinion. He thought the distinction between the cases of an officer entering the army by purchase and another who entered without it, was very obvious; and the measure was founded on that distinction. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote.

MR. H. A. BRUCE
was glad to hear that only £953 of last year's Vote had been expended. Since then the scheme had been largely modified. Officers purchasing their commissions were not to be obliged to pass an examination at Sandhurst. The latter class included a large number of the officers who entered the service. If his right hon. friend would make inquiry, he would find that there was sleeping accommodation at Sandhurst for 400 cadets—a number far beyond the present requirements, or any likely to arise under the altered regulations. Additional halls of study were the things most requisite at Sandhurst.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he would press on the Government the propriety of considering the views expressed by his hon. and learned Colleague. He thought it above all things desirable that young men before they entered the army should have an opportunity of mixing with the future members of other professions. He put it to the Committee whether it, was wise to sanction a Vote that would have the effect of entailing on the country an annual expenditure of £12,000 which might well be saved.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the question was not a purely military one, but had an important political bearing. A standing army had been attended with less injurious effects in England than in other countries, because the officers in the British service were not brought up as a separate class, and never forgot that they were members of society. It was impossible to make a French officer understand that he had any other duty than to obey his superior in command; he was perfectly ready, when the order was given, to fire upon any one. Upon general pub lie grounds he objected to this Vote, and the Committee ought to set their face against any attempt to draw candidates into a single military establishment, and thus to separate them in their habits and 1126 sympathies from the rest of the population.

COLONEL NORTH
said, the objection to officers of the present day who came from the Universities, was that they were too old when they entered the service. They were no longer of the same stamp as those who came years ago from the public schools and could be moulded into anything.

§ MR. SELWYN
explained, that candidates for commissions would not be required to go through the whole University course, but only to keep six terms, from October in one year to June in the next, so that they would still be quite young when they joined the army.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that under those circumstances, he did not see what advantage was to be gained by their going to the university at all.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the proposal of the Universities amounted, in fact, to a plan for ingrafting on the ordinary curriculum of Oxford or Cambridge a species of Sandhurst education for young men about to enter the army. He confessed he did not Bee any great benefits which would accrue from such a system. He by no means advocated a universal and exclusively professional training for the great bulk of the officers of the army. But, with regard to the holders of non-purchased commissions, he thought they might advantageously go to Sandhurst, where the special training they received would enable them to join their regiments without delay. Though the Vote was asked for, no more money would be expended at Sandhurst than was absolutely necessary.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he objected to a scheme which tended to establish in the army an aristocracy of wealth. A broad line would be drawn between those who went to Sandhurst and those who did not, as in the case of oppidans and collegers at public schools. There would be the "tug-muttons," who were forced to go to Sandhurst, and the chartered libertines, who received their education wherever it was most agreeable to them. The scheme he held to be fundamentally erroneous.

GENERAL LINDSAY
said, he thought it perfectly fair that the Government, in granting commissions without purchase, should be at liberty to make terms with the recipients. The object of the Sandhurst scheme was to bring young men of eighteen or nineteen into the army.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he should like to hear what the present state of things at Sandhurst was before he was called on to agree to this Vote. He was informed that at present there were only 200 cadets at Sandhurst, while they had accommodation for 400; and, nevertheless, they were now asked to create accommodation for 400 more.

MR. HENLEY
said, he was afraid that the Committee were in this difficulty—that they had to choose between two jobs. If there was to be a perfectly free and open competition, that might be a very intelligible proposition; but all parties seemed to agree that there must be a special education; and, if so, he could not understand why it should be Cambridge against Sandhurst.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) had fallen into a mistake. There was no proposition for a special education by Cambridge, Oxford, or Dublin, but a proposition that young men from those universities should be allowed to enter the army without passing through the proposed course at Sandhurst, if they could answer in the peculiar examination which the Military College required. The age at which young men were admitted to the army did not depend on whether they had been educated in a university or not. They were not admitted under the age of eighteen nor over that of twenty-three. What was the objection to admitting young men within those years, wherever they might have been educated, if properly qualified?

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, that young men after their course at Sandhurst were perfectly qualified to go into the country and make sketches on which military operations could be undertaken. It was a great advantage to have a number of young officers trained in that manner.

§ SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY
expressed his opinion that young men were well disciplined in the public schools and colleges.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
(in answer to Sir HARRY VERNEY) said, that the sum of £3,000 was taken for the purchase of the building lately used as a club-house at 1128 Aldershot. The proprietor of the house had been permitted to erect an officers' club; and that having failed, it was thought desirable to take the house off his hands.

§ MAJOR BARTTELOT
said, he hoped that the item of £3,400 would be sufficient for insuring a water supply at Aldershot, which was greatly needed.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he knew that there had been a great want of water at Aldershot. He had been assured that the Estimate would be sufficient.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he did not propose to take any further Votes that night. He would proceed with the Army Estimates on the following Monday.