HC Deb 25 June 1863 vol 171 cc1461-7
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on Small Arms, and to ask Her Majesty's Government, what action they purpose to take thereon? He ventured two years ago, upon the ground that the arm purchased by the Government was not the best which could be had for the money, to bring the question of the Small Arms employed in the British army under the notice of the House, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government promised that the subject should be investigated. That pledge had been strictly fulfilled, and he wished to call attention to the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the matter. The reply of the Committee to the question whether the present Enfield rifle, 577 bore, was manufactured on the best possible principles, was that it was not. Now, it could hardly he considered a satisfactory position to have spent £3,000,000 on the purchase of arms, and not to have purchased the best. The course which the Committee had taken had been as follows. They had selected five ordinary service muskets; five muskets with five grooves instead of three; five with five grooves but with a sharper twist; and five with a still sharper twist. On experiment it was found not only that five-grooved pieces were better than three-grooved ones, but that the further they departed from the principle of rifling in the ordinary service musket, the better the rifle which they produced became. The elliptical system of rifling of Mr. Lancaster, proved itself superior not only to the ordinary service Enfield, but to the best of the rifles made on other improved principles. The Committee next proceeded to investigate the question of a different calibre, and they experimented on Mr. Whitworth's 451 bore, Mr. Lancaster's small bore, and the breech-loader of Mr. Westley Richards; and the con-elusion at which they arrived did at length that justice to Mr. Whitworth which had been so long deferred. Without urging its universal adoption in the army, they declared his rifle to be the best that had yet been invented, even as a military weapon. They also expressed an opinion that it was not probable there would be any material improvement upon it. The Committee arranged the small bore rifles in order of merit. The Whitworth came first, the Lancaster next, the Westley Richards next, and then the Enfield regulation rifle. It appeared then, that after the expenditure of large sums of money in the production of small arms, the Committee at last arrived at the conclusion which might have been easily come to before a great expense had been incurred, and he wished to know why the experiments which were ultimately: tried were not made sooner; He believed that the Ordnance Committee had no power to originate-experiments, but only to experiment in respect to matters referred to them; but he certainly thought, considering the simplicity of the experiments with regard to small arms, care should have been taken to institute them long since. The Committee on Small Arras very quickly established the fact that the rifle manufactured by the Government was the worst; and, consequently, it would be satisfactory if the Government could inform the House that some tribunal was about to be established, Which would consider these matters before the country was involved in a vast expenditure. With regard to the thinness of the barrel, the-Committee had not gone into that point; but it was evident, that in small arms of the same weight, the strength of those having the least-sized bore would be the; greatest, because, the metal would be thickest. The regulation rifle was a weak Weapon; the groovings were thin and easily worn down by the action of the ramrod, and after the firing of a comparatively few thousand rounds it became inefficient. That was not the case with the Whitworth or the Lancaster. But, in his opinion, the Committee had not sufficiently considered the question of the endurance of rifles likely to be subjected to much rough usage. The firing of 1,000 or 1,800 rounds could not be a sufficient test of endurance, and be should like to have seen the rifles exposed to the test of real hard usage, such as they were, likely to meet with: in the field. Considering that the Government were making a great number of these weapons every year, and that many were continually worn out by use in the course of years, if those weapons were replaced by a good arm, the error which had been fallen into would be retrieved. It had been said that the Westley Richards breech-loading rifle cost £9; but he had ascertained that if made in large numbers the Westley Richards breech-loading rifles could be manufactured for a sum not exceeding £5 each. Such an arm might be of great advantage in skirmishing. Another point to which the Committee had omitted to attach sufficient weight was that of penetration, which was increased by the greater hardness of the projectile. Defences used for field works were now made of a strength exactly sufficient to resist the ordinary rifle-ball; but if a hardened ball were employed, with a power of penetration three times greater, it was clear: that the strength of all those defences must be increased three times also. In conclusion, he would ask the Government what action they proposed to take in reference to the Report of the Committee on Small Arms.

MR. H. BERKELEY

said, that the details which the hon. and gallant Member had brought forward were such as the House could scarcely deal with. He could not assent to the alleged perfection of either the Whitworth or Westley Richards rifle. There might be more correct weapons than the Enfield, but he believed that for all the practical purposes, of a campaign, a better rifle was not to be found. He wished however, to call attention to a rifle which had been in the hands of the10th Hussars for more than two years, and upon which the commanding officer had reported favourably. He alluded to Terry's breech-loading rifle. Before he (Mr. Berkeley) was aware of that debate, he had entered a question for the following evening with regard to that weapon. That instrument could be used with the Enfield barrel; it was very efficient in all respects, and it possessed this advantage over the Westley Richards, that it was half as cheap again. He was informed, that on a recent occasion, 1,500 rounds of ammunition had been fired from one of those rifles, and it was found to be perfectly clean afterwards. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether Terry's rifle had been referred to in the Report of the Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, the House and the country were much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for the pains which he had taken in investigating the subject, and for the Motion which he made two years ago, and which resulted in the Report of the Committee before them. He could not, however, admit that the Report showed that the Government of the day had taken a wrong course, or wasted public money in the manufacture of the Enfield rifle. That manufacture was commenced at a time when much alarm and anxiety prevailed throughout the country on account of their not being provided with a good rifle for the army. Under those circumstances, it was incumbent on the Government to adopt that rifle, which, although it might be open to some scientific objections, offered the greatest number of advantages for practical service in the field. The Report of the Committee distinctly stated that the Enfield rifle was introduced at a time when there was only limited experience in regard to elongated rifle bullets, and that the greatest credit was due to those who produced a weapon which was believed not only then, but still, to be superior to any arm adopted by other countries If that were the case, it could not be said that the Government had failed to do their duty in the matter. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the fact that the Committee had reported in favour of the Whitworth rifle, but it was most important for the House to bear in mind that the trials which were conducted by the Committee were entirely of a theoretical and not of a practical character. The results were, no doubt, sufficiently favourable to the Whitworth, and sufficiently unfavourable to the Enfield, to justify the Government in making further experiments in regard to these arms. Considering, however, that they were at that moment in possession of a weapon which the Ordnance Committee themselves declared to be superior to any possessed by other countries, it would obviously not be right for the Government to enter into a heavy expenditure, such as would be required in order suddenly to substitute another instrument for the Enfield as the rifle of the army, except on the fullest consideration and after the most complete practical experience. One difficulty of changing the Enfield for another rifle of smaller bore was, that if before the alteration was entirely concluded war broke out, they would have go many regiments armed with the one instrument and so many with the other; and two different sorts of ammunition would have to be served out That might lead to great confusion, and possibly even to the most disastrous consequences. It was therefore the intention of the Government not to desist from the use of the Enfield until they had ascertained, by the most thorough and conclusive trials, the superiority of the Whit worth. With the view of giving a complete practical trial to the Whitworth Rifle, they proposed to issue that arm to the eight battalions composing the Rifle Brigade and the 60th Rifles. That rifle would then be in the hands of expert soldiers in every part of our possessions, and would be subjected to every kind of usage or accident which could possibly happen to it. On the Report which was made of the performances of the Whitworth under these circumstances, the Government would decide what should be their course for the future. As to large bores, the Committee had reported more favourably of the Lancaster than the Enfield, and the former could be more easily substituted for the Enfield than the small bore to which he had referred. Mr. Whitworth did not provide a large bore rifle for trial, because he was aware that he could not obtain the same advantages with a large as with a small bore. The Government, in consideration of the recommendations of the Committee, had resolved to proceed as slowly as possible with the manufacture of the present service En-fields, and Mr. Whitworth had been requested to furnish a number of polygonal rifles of the large bore size, in order that they might undergo competition with the Lancasters. Whichever was found to be the best for practical purposes would gradually be introduced. There would not be the same difficulty in the substitution of an improved large bore for the En field as in the case of small bores, because the issue of different ammunition would not be required. The hon. and gallant Member who brought forward the Motion had gone, in his opinion, a little too far in stating that the Ordnance Select Committee reported that the Whitworth was absolutely the best rifle. As he had already mentioned, the trials were theoretical and not practical; but, moreover, the Committee themselves pointed out several defects in the Whitworth, such as breaking of hammers, and the inconvenience in some respects of the ammunition. These points, small as they might seem, were really of more importance than any question of extraordinary accuracy at long range. Most military men were agreed, that however useful a rifle possessing precision at a long range might be under certain circumstances, and in the hands of experienced men, the arm best fitted to be used by the general rank and file, was that which could most simply be managed, which was least liable to derangement, and which was generally most useful. There was, however, no such extraordinary difference between the Enfield and the Whitworth rifles for the purpose of actual service as would justify the assertion that the public money had been wasted on the manufactory at Enfield. [Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN explained, that he had not said that the public money had been wasted] Neither had anything come out that would justify the Government in subjecting the army to the great inconvenience of suddenly changing the rifle used in the array. Only one other point remained. Among military men, great difference of opinion prevailed with respect to breech-loaders. No doubt, under certain circumstances, these rifles possessed great advantages; but some authorities believed that the extreme facility of loading would induce the men to fire away their ammunition with too great rapidity, which would counterbalance the advantages they possessed in other respects. The question of cost was also one of considerable importance. On the whole, then, the Government did not feel themselves justified in ordering breech-loaders to be issued to the troops for actual service; but, at the same time, the merits of the arm invented by Mr. Westley Richards were such as entitled it to a further practical trial, and the Government had consequently determined to place 2,000 in the hands of men scattered over all parts of the world, in order that the weapon might be thoroughly tested. Such were the decisions to which the Government had come, relative to small arms, and he hoped they would be satisfactory to the House. He should be happy to answer the question of the hon. Member behind him, on the following day. In conclusion, he would repeat that the House and country ought to feel obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having paid such attention to the subject.