HC Deb 06 July 1868 vol 193 cc761-81
MAJOR ANSON

, in rising to move a Resolution on the subject of our Expenditure on Warlike Stores, said, he felt bound to call the attention of the House to this subject in consequence of the enormous amount which our expenditure for Warlike Stores had now reached. Since the close of the Crimean War we had expended on this single item no less than £19,000,000, while £4,000,000 had been voted over and above the amount actually expended. From the confused manner in which the accounts were made up, it was impossible to arrive at any but very indefinite ideas respecting any particular item. In this respect our system of accounts presented a roost disadvantageous contrast with that of the French, which stated the expenditure under each head with the greatest accuracy. He had, however, compared our expenditure with that of the French in regard to Warlike Stores during the ten years following the close of the Crimean War, and in instituting this comparison he had classified the Warlike Stores under three heads—1. General stores. 2. Small arms. 3. Gunpowder. He found that during the ten years ending March, 1867, we had spent on general stores £9,875,431, as against £4,920,862 expended by the French in the same period. On small arms we had expended £3,891,779, while the French had only expended £1,679,822. And in respect of the item of gunpowder alone we had in the period referred to spent £1,671,207, as against £535,362 spent by the French. The total expenditure incurred by us during those ten years was, in round numbers, £15,438,000; and by the French £7,136,000; showing a difference against us of £8,302,000. While on this subject he wished to point out to the House that of the loan of £17,000,000 sterling contracted this year by the French the sum of £4,784,000 was taken for the purchase of warlike matériel during the years 1867, 1868, and 1869. That loan was contracted with the view of re-arming the whole of the French army with breech-loading rifles, and supplying the French navy with new artillery. Now, while we had voted two-thirds of that sum for 1867–8, we, unlike the French, had not determined what arm should be supplied to our troops, much less calculated what would be the total expenditure incurred. Indeed, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War, when bringing forward the Army Estimates, had stated that we were only on the very threshhold of the re-organization of our artillery. He believed he should not be incorrect in stating that it was under the consideration of the War Department to renew the whole of our field artillery. Under such circumstances, he thought himself perfectly justified in saying that great extravagance on our part might be assumed. He would, however, remind the House of the extraordinary causes of expenditure on the two armies during the period of ten years to which he was referring. In regard to our own army there were the Chinese War in 1858, 1859, and 1860, the New Zealand War, and the panic arising out of the Trent affair. During the same period the French were engaged in the Chinese War, conducted constant warlike operations in Cochin China, in Syria, in Algeria, at Rome, in the Italian campaign of 1859, and in Mexico. Taking all these facts into consideration, he believed he was justified in charging this country with being very extravagant in its expenditure on Warlike Stores. There were several causes for this extravagant expenditure, as, for example, the want of control; the separation of the military and civil elements in the army the bad system adopted of supplying the colonies with stores from this country and returning them to this country at a great loss when they become old and useless, and the craving after unnecessary perfection in regard to guns and matériel. The House of Commons was greatly to blame for all this, for after voting large sums to be expended in matériel, no pains were taken to ascertain whether the Stores had been wasted or applied in a proper manner. The result was that every one who had any concern in the expenditure for those Warlike Stores was as careless about it as the House of Commons; and, indeed, it was but natural that when the body which set itself up as the guardian of the public purse was so careless in the matter every one else should be the same. What he proposed was that for the future the House of Commons should have an accurate Return each Session of the stock of warlike matériel in the Government stores—the Return to show what the consumption had been during the previous year, the quantity used by the troops, the quantity under repair, and the quantity added to the stock. This system had been introduced in France as far back as forty years ago, and had led to great economy in the expenditure for warlike purposes. In a pamphlet published by Major General Balfour the arguments used by the gentleman who had proposed it in the French Chambers will be found stated. That gentleman asked whether public property was precious only when it consisted of monies, and whether 100,000 francs ought not to be looked after when they were transferred to bronze, hemp, or other articles, as well as when they were in specie. He further observed that the Chambers, while holding Ministers responsible for even a centime in money, kept no efficient control over the vast sums expended in Warlike Stores. Major General Balfour himself expressed a strong opinion as to the necessity for a regular Return to Parliament of the consumption and stock of Stores. Last year he brought forward a Motion on the subject of the conversion of guns. At that time we had 30,000 cast-iron guns rotting in our stores, which, guns had for several years previously been treated as so much rubbish. The officers of the Government had done everything to prevent them from being regarded as anything else. If year after year those guns had appeared in a Return presented to Parliament was it at all likely that the House of Commons would have gone on voting large sums for new guns without making an effort to have those old ones utilized in some way. Again, if such a Return was laid before Parliament, the House of Commons would not allow the War Department to fling in their face its inefficiency in respect of accounting for certain items of military expenditure in the colonies. This was done now in a note stating— This is exclusive of the army accoutrements, barrack, hospital, and other stores, a great portion of which is supplied from this country, and the value of which cannot be stated. The Department might just as well say that the cost of the food and clothing of soldiers in the colonies could not be stated. He had now to call attention to the manufacturing establishments. During the last Parliament those establishments were the subject of very great anxiety to the House of Commons; but the present Parliament had taken little or no notice of those establishments. It had allowed them to increase without making any inquiry or putting any check upon them. He ventured to remind the House of the arguments used in favour of those establishments. They were to give the Government the power of manufacturing for themselves in times of emergency, and also, he might say, to give them a certain efficiency in manufacturing. The second object in view was to have a check over trade prices in times of emergency. The third was, by having large manufacturing establishments, to enable the War Department to do with only a small stock on hand in times of peace. In his evidence before the Ordnance Select Committee Colonel Boxer adduced the last-mentioned argument in favour of those establishments. He now ventured to ask what had been the result of setting up those large manufacturing establishments? He admitted that in point of execution the gun-carriages and other work were perfection. With regard to our manufacturing establishments being a check over trade prices, he was afraid they had never shot the mark; because so effectual had been their check over trade prices that we had almost ceased to have any trade prices as a check over the prices of our manufacturing establishments. He thought this position was a worse one than would have been even that of our having no check over trade prices. It was true that for small articles, such as small arms, we went to the trade; but speaking as regarded the heavier articles, he was correct in saying that we had now no trade prices. With regard to the third expected advantage—the decrease of our stock of stores in times of peace, having no Return to go by he was unable to give a correct statement of facts; but he would venture to say that in neither this country nor any other were there to be found any establishments so filled to repletion as our Government establishments were with every kind of Warlike Stores. Though the last Parliament was of opinion that manufacturing establishments were desirable, that was only to a moderate extent. Sir Benjamin Hawes and Mr. Godley both stated their opinion that the Government should not carry the system of manufacturing in public establishments too far. The former Gentleman said he thought that we should rely more on private enterprize. The country had gone on increasing its establishments to such an extent that they had come at last to believe that they had a vested right, not only to manufacture but to invent; and that if any man dared to enter the field against them he was to be opposed by every means. To such an extent had the system been carried, that he no longer felt any faith in figures which might be placed in the mouth of any Secretary of State for War, or any Estimates which might be laid before a Select Committee—when comparison was made between Government work and that of an outsider. These were grave charges, but he was prepared to substantiate them. Last year, when he had raised the question as to the conversion of guns, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State replied that it was chiefly a question of expense, and the difference in price between the now 6½-ton gun as made at Woolwich, and the converted gun, was the difference between £405 and £263, or £142. This was while the Gun Factories were opposing the work; but by a Report of the Ordnance Select Committee, recently laid on the table, he found from an Estimate of the Royal Gun Factories, for the same work, that the difference was put at £268 instead of £142—this change in the price being mainly owing to the Ordnance Select Committee having reported favourably. He had further been informed that when the Royal Gun Factories heard that there was a chance of the conversion of these guns being given to the trade, they immediately reduced their estimates by £23 a gun. In 1864, the question of heavy ordnance was mooted; but the expense of their manufacture was so heavy that, the Ordnance Select Committee were— Instructed to give their early and best attention to the question of providing some cheaper mode of construction for heavy guns, looking to the probable introduction of a large number of such guns for coast defences, and to the importance of reducing the expense which would attend their supply as made at present. With such directions as these, the servants of the Government to whom the Committee had to refer for information, ought to have taken especial care that their figures were correct, or as nearly so as possible. There were three proposals submitted—two by the Royal Gun Factories, and one by Major Palliser; but, according to the existing practice, the Gun Factories had to estimate for all three. The proposals made by the Royal Gun Factories were a wrought iron gun with a wrought-iron barrel, or a wrought-iron gun with a steel barrel. Major Palliser's proposal was a cast iron gun with a wrought-iron barrel. The respective estimates sent in by the Royal Gun Factories were—Wrought-iron gun, with steel barrel, £684; ditto, with wrought-iron barrel, £482; cast-iron gun with wrought-iron barrel, £600. The glaring injustice of asserting that to make a gun two-thirds of cast-iron and one-third of wrought-iron would cost £118 more than to make one wholly of wrought-iron would at once be evident; but the Ordnance Select Committee were bound to take the Estimates furnished to them, and upon these Estimates they reported as follows:— The Committee do not at present recommend experiments to test the efficiency of Major Palliser's method, on the ground that it appears to be loss economical than the gun constructed wholly of wrought iron. There was an end of the outsider, of course. This Report went forth to the War Office, and was acted upon, and not till he himself agitated this question and moved for the Return was there any suspicion of a mistake in the estimates. As soon, however, as the question was referred to the Royal Gun Factories, they appended the following Note to their Return:— This does not include an estimate of the cost of the 12½-ton gun made of cast-iron with a wrought-iron barrel. The Superintendent, Royal Gun Factories, states that when called upon by the Ordnance Select Committee for such an estimate, he explained to them his inability to furnish it, and that the estimate he did lay before that body (and which appears in their Report) was one of a compound gun, constructed on a general principle, in accordance with Major Palliser's views, as expressed in a (published) Letter to Captain Heyman, Secretary to the Ordnance Select Committee, on the 18th of May, 1864, and illustrated by a drawing; but, finding that this was not the description of gun they desired, he withdrew it. The Ordnance Select Committee appended the following Note to their Report:— In this Report the estimates sent in by the Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factories have been taken into consideration, as well as that of the Palliser gun, handed in by the Superintendent, and withdrawn by him, as before stated. The Ordnance Select Committee, in their Report, have treated the latter as if it were an estimate for a cast-iron gun with a wrought-iron barrel; and now state that, as far as their records show, it stands as given in their Report, and they were not aware the estimate had been withdrawn. They see no reason, however, to doubt the fact. This transaction called for no remark whatever from him; the facts spoke for themselves. He sincerely trusted the Secretary of State for War would look upon them in their true light, and not treat them, as he did in November, as mere matters of account. He proposed to trace the history of these guns somewhat fur- ther. In consequence of the Report of the Ordnance Select Committee a sample gun was made in 1864 on the cheap construction pattern, with a steel tube, the cost, which he had taken from the manufacturing accounts, being—for labour, £156; material, £516; percentage, £72; making a total of £744, or £61 more than the original estimate. In 1866 the gallant General the late Secretary of State for War (General Peel) adopted the cheap construction principle; and twenty-five guns of that class were ordered. The manufacturing accounts laid before the House this year showed that these cheap construction guns cost in each case—labour, £194; material, £554; percentage, £82; making a total of £830, or £76 more than the sample gun, and £147 more than the original estimate. The difference between the gun of 1866 and the sample gun, in labour alone, was £38, although in 1866 there were greater facilities in the shape of heavy steam cranes and hammers, and although the sample gun was made in seven pieces and the gun of 1866 in six pieces. Moreover, they had acquired greater experience in 1866; and it was always cheaper to make a number of guns than to make only one. With regard, again, to material, the steel in the gun of 1866 cost £48 less than in the gun of 1864; while the total material was represented as costing £38 more. Upon this calculation the iron and coal of the gun of 1866 would have cost £86 more than the iron and coal of the sample gun of 1864; but in point of fact iron had fallen £1 per ton meanwhile, and the material used was absolutely less than that used in the sample gun of 1864. He trusted that these statements of his would be thoroughly investigated, and for that purpose he was ready to lay them before a Select Committee. He had no personal interest to serve or to promote; his only object was to point out the system which this country had raised up, and the powerful influence which it brought to bear against both manufacturers and inventors in this country. The right hon. Baronet, when he brought forward the Army Estimates, admitted that they ought to be a subject of very great anxiety to the House of Commons, and that the House had little or no control over them; and he also proposed, as some improvement in the organization of those establishments, to set up one man as the head of the Arsenal at Woolwich. If, however, the man they appointed merely represented the different interests of those manufacturing establishments in the War Office, where they were already sufficiently powerful, he could not be of the slightest use in looking after their economical working. To what were the evils to which he referred due? Simply to the enormous increase of those establishments. The House voted, year after year, large sums of money for the increase of the capital account of those establishments; and yet they were unable to tell whether that outlay would be remunerative or not. Nay, more; there was no man in the War Department who was able to give an opinion on that point. The evidence given by Mr. Anderson, chief engineer of the Royal Gun Factory, before the Committee of 1860, with respect to an increased outlay of £100,000 upon that establishment, showed that no man but Mr. Anderson himself was able to give an opinion whether that increased outlay-would be remunerative. Again, with the facilities which those manufacturing establishments now had for coming to the House and increasing their capital account it was no wonder that they should do so. And that they did not only in the Estimates brought before the House, but by the various applications they made after the Vote was passed to the War Office and the Treasury for the transfer of money from one item to another. Never in one single instance had the head of those manufacturing Departments asked for a transfer from capital account to wages, but it was invariably from wages to material and from material to capital account. In 1864–5 no less than £45,000 was transferred from wages to materials in the Royal Gun Factories alone. In 1865–66 the Royal Gun Factories applied for £4,100 for increasing the machinery; and it was said that it would be more than covered by the saving in material. On the 17th of October an application was made for £14,000 for increasing the material, to be paid for out of the savings in wages. In December, in consequence of the great pressure of work at the Royal Gun Factories, it was necessary to spend a large sum of money for furnaces. In spite of the Appropriation Act passed every year, the House had no control whatever over the money it voted for those manufacturing establishments. In the expenditure for the year ending the 31 it of March, 1867, there was an excess over the grants made by that House of £41,129 for the Royal Gun-carriage Department; also an excess of £53,820, for the Royal Gun Factories; all that being for machinery, new works, and materials; for the Royal Laboratory the excess was £54,415; and the excess for the Royal Small Arms Factories was £89,065—making an excess, in those four Departments only, of £238,429; or with the surplus on other Votes, a total excess of £274,661 upon Estimates of £970,000. The House did not know how many guns or gun carriages they had for that money. If £100,000 were voted for machinery for the manufacture of large guns the money was spread over every article they made in the Gun Factories, so that the House could not know the actual cost of the guns, or make any comparison of the prices with those of the private trade, Another objection to the present system was that they were unable to separate their naval and military accounts for raw material. Everybody who wished for economy in the army expenditure had always felt the importance of having a separation between their naval and military accounts; but such a thing was impossible as long as they maintained the present system with regard to those manufacturing establishments. They had never known in one single year whether they worked those establishments at a profit or a loss. Now, he had a proposal which he wished the House to consider. He said they ought to throw on the man to whom they intrusted a manufacturing establishment the responsibility of proving that any application he made for an increase of the capital account was really necessary. He proposed that they should say to Colonel Boxer or any other person who was placed over those establishments—"We shall set you up with plant, machinery, buildings, and everything that is necessary to carry on your work; that plant, machinery, &c., shall be valued at; a certain sum of money, on which you shall pay so much interest in hard cash into the Treasury; the only person you shall have any communication with in the War Department shall be the Director of Contracts or the head of the Control Department; you shall enter with him into contracts in exactly the same way as he enters into contracts with the private trade; the articles you produce in your manufactories shall be subjected to an independent inspection exactly like the articles produced by the private trade; and you shall charge to the Superintendent of Contracts in the War Department such a sum as will not only enable you to produce the article you require, but to pay the interest on your capital, and also to provide for wear and tear and depreciation of machinery," He maintained that by that plan they would place their manufactories on a sound commercial footing; and that was the only way in which they could possibly obtain an accurate account of the articles they produced and their cost. They would thus be able to tell whether the money had been properly expended or not, and the result would be an enormous saving in many items of expenditure which under the present system were wasted. Moreover, instead of interfering, as they did at the present moment, in carrying out experiments with the public money, those establishments would confine themselves to their proper work—namely, that of manufacturing, and doing it in the best and cheapest manner they could. When the responsibility was thus thrown on them for the increase of the capital account, they would take care, before they spent money on new plant, machinery, and new buildings, that they saw their way to its being remunerative. We should also be able, for the first time in the history of this country to separate our naval and military accounts. The establishment could open a separate account with the Admiralty, and the Indian Government would be able to go to them and order what they wanted in exactly the same way they did with private contractors. He had heard it urged as an objection to his proposal that it would be impossible to pit Government manufactories against private trade; but he had the testimony of Colonel Boxer to the effect that the Government Departments possessed many advantages over private establishments, and that it would be a disgrace to them if they did not manufacture much more cheaply than private manufacturers. The result of the adoption of such a plan as he suggested would be to secure a clear system of accounts. He believed there had been gross extravagance in those establishments, and the sooner they were put on a proper footing the better.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in order to ensure economy in our Expenditure on Warlike Stores, it is advisable to have an annual Statement laid upon the Table of this House, showing the quantity and value of each description of Stores in the possession of the Troops, or in the Arsenals and Storehouses, the quantity issued and consumed during each year, and the replacements in consequence of a change of pattern or of the ordinary annual consumption; that in order to prevent the manufacture of Warlike Stores becoming a mere monopoly in the hands of the Government Establishments it is advisable to purchase a certain proportion of the articles required for Military purposes from the private trade; and to ensure accuracy of accounts, economy of production, and fair comparison of. Government with trade prices, the Manufacturing Departments shall be treated as private firms, the Government purchasing the articles required at remunerative prices, to be provided from Army and other Votes, and the capital charges of the Establishments (whether for buildings, plant, or working capital,) being provided by advances at interest made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners,"—(Major Anson,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. HAYTER

said, that before the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War replied, it would be convenient that he should call the attention of the House to what was comparatively a small matter, but nevertheless one of great importance—namely, the advantage of returning to the old practice in respect to the serving out of ball ammunition. The practice up to the year 1827 was to keep the twenty rounds of ball ammunition now carried by all non-commissioned officers and privates of the army in store, to be served out to the men only when going on guard, or when held in readiness for immediate duty. That practice still obtained in the cavalry. It was absurd to suppose that it would be considered a slur upon the army to withdraw this ammunition from the possession of the men. He heard a general complaint expressed of the delicate character of the Snider ammunition, inasmuch as it was apt to bleak through the paper, and becoming loose was rendered unfit for use. "When such an accident occurred the whole expense of re-covering it fell upon the captains of companies, which was viewed by them as unjust. If the practice he suggested were adopted also, they would get rid of the double process which was now required on every field day, when the ball cartridge had to be delivered into store, previous to the issue of the blank. Should it be necessary to hold the troops in readiness, a previous order would be given by the general officers in command, or whole battalions might be served with ball cartridge in twenty minutes. Much greater security would also be obtained against the acts of men of violent and furious temper, or of drunken habits, who in their moments of insanity were tempted to perpetrate crimes of murder or manslaughter, from which they themselves would wish to be guarded against. He need only remind the House that in 1861 there were six cases of military murder to show the importance of adopting some means to prevent the repetition of such offences. In the present year a case had lately occurred at the Horfield Barracks, Bristol, in which a Serjeant Maskell, of the 3rd Buffs, armed with a breech-loader, had fired five successive shots in the barrack-yard and ultimately taken the life of a private soldier, before the guard could close with him, and this murder was also committed with the service ball ammunition. Although happily there had been a considerable diminution of such crimes of late years, they nevertheless occasionally occurred under circumstances to excite the utmost horror and alarm. Military friends of his were in favour of the plan he recommended, and amongst them he would wish to include Lord Penrhyn, who as an old adjutant, and strong Conservative in military matters, gave to this proposal his most strenuous support.

COLONEL NORTH

said, he trusted that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War would not follow the advice of the hon. and gallant Member. Every officer he had spoken with expressed, surprise that an officer could be found to make such a suggestion, which, in plain. English, meant that our soldiers were such a body of assassins that they ought not to be trusted with ammunition. It was a gross insult to the army. If they could not be trusted with ammunition, they were not fit to be soldiers at all.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

, who rose with other hon. Members, said, he had given way to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter), as he thought that he was going to address the House on the larger question introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson). He was ready to admit the great importance of the proposals embraced in the Motion of that hon. and gallant Member who was entitled to thanks for the attention he had given to a subject, which not only involved the interests of the country as regarded our armaments, but also affected in no ordinary degree the expenditure of the country. But the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member had brought that subject before the House was a matter of regret. He (Sir John Pakington) had come down to the House prepared to discuss the Motion which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had placed upon the Paper, but greatly to his surprise the hon. and gallant Member had devoted a great part of his speech to a discussion of the most minute details touching complicated questions respecting the Government Manufacturing Departments. They all knew the state of transition in which they lived. Only a few years ago the largest gun in the service was a 95-cwt. gun, not weighing five tons, and now they had 22-ton guns. There were all sorts of pending questions, involving an endless variety in construction with respect to cast-iron, wrought-iron, wrought-iron linings, steel guns, and various methods of rifling. All these were unsettled questions, and, in addition, there was the most hostile rivalry between the Government Manufacturing Departments and outsiders, and endless inventors contending that they had the power of providing a cheaper and more efficient gun. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member might lead one to suppose that he had been inspired by some of those outsiders and inventors. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had entered on this discussion without any Notice whatever, and with a spirit which showed hostility to some extent, or, at all events, doubt with respect to the honesty of the public Departments. This course of proceeding was hardly fair. The matter brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member was one of great difficulty, and it was the duty of the Government to be impartial with respect to it, and to take the line which to the best of their judgment appeared the most conducive to the public interests. For his own part, he could say that he had no undue leaning to the Government Manufacturing Departments. The hon. and gallant Member begun by stating that he had serious charges to make, in that case it was his duty to have given distinct warning of those charges; but the Motion placed upon the Paper certainly did not give such warning. "What was to be thought of the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member made the charges, when he declared that he had no faith in the figures of the public Departments? That was tantamount to saying that when the public Departments stated their case he would not believe them. With reference to the price of guns good reasons could be given, but the hon. and gallant Member never mentioned what was the particular gun of which he spoke, and it must be remembered that there were endless varieties of guns. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about Major Palliser and of the comparative prices of guns made in the public arsenals and by the private trade. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman went into the subject with due care, he would find that in almost every instance the guns made at the public arsenals were made at a cheaper and lower rate than those of the private trade. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not believe figures. However, he (Sir John Pakington) maintained that until the balance-sheets came out and there had been an opportunity of testing the accuracy of the figures they must be accepted as correct. Having thus met that part of his hon. and gallant Friend's speech which he had no right to expect, he begged now to turn to what he had a right to expect from the Motion which stood on. the Paper in his name. He was sorry his hon. and gallant Friend had not been content to deal with it, for it was a very large subject, involving three different propositions, and on each of them he was prepared to state the course which, the Government intended to pursue. The first proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend was that we should have an annual statement laid upon the table of this House, showing the quantity and value of each, description of stores in the possession of the troops or in the arsenals and storehouses, the quantity issued and consumed during each year, and the replacements in consequence of a change of pattern or of the ordinary annual consumption. The French Government had adopted the plan of laying a very accurate statement before the Legislature of the state of their stores, and he was quite willing to meet his hon. and gallant Friend by the admission that it was most desirable to have such a statement laid before the House. The only objection he knew to such a statement was that he was afraid it would be impossible to provide it without some not inconsiderable expense in the way of assistance in the Department. But he would endeavour to ascertain—and it could only be done accurately by experience—what the expense would be of conceding that portion of his hon. and gallant Friend's requirement. He was convinced that it would be satisfactory to the House and to the public, and would check the tendency to accumulate an undue amount of stores in our arsenals and elsewhere; but he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend was aware that from the nature of the Return it would be impossible to give it immediately following the year to which it applied. On the French plan a year always intervened. He would have a Return prepared in the shape to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred, showing fairly and honestly the stale of our stores; but the House must not expect that the statement of our stores closing, say, on the 31st of March, 1868, could be laid on the table in the course of 1869, but he saw no reason why it should not be presented the year after but one. The next portion of the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend was— That in order to prevent the manufacture of Warlike Stores becoming a mere monopoly in the hands of the Government Establishments it is advisable to purchase a certain proportion of the articles required for Military purposes from the private trade. Now, his hon. and gallant Friend could hardly be aware of the extent to which that was already done. If he examined the Estimates of the present year he would see that we now resort to private trade for a very large portion of our stores. He would state to the House exactly how we stood in that respect. Take the article of clothing, to which he referred: there would this year be manufactured and repaired at their own clothing factory to the amount of £509,746, leaving to the amount of £418,288 to be purchased. Of gunpowder there would be manufactured during the year to the amount of £4,382, and £9,700 would be purchased. Of small arms there would be manufactured to the amount of £146,702 while £76,000 would be purchased. Iron ordnance would be manufactured to the value of £203,446, and the value of £10,400 would be purchased. With respect to the Laboratory, he was sorry he could make no such statement. The Laboratory was one of the heaviest sources of expenditure, and there he could show no per contra to be derived from the trade; but he quite acceded to the principle that it was very desirable with regard to projectiles as well as arms themselves that private trade should be resorted to. The fact that it was not was to be attributed to the great change occurring in that Department, and particularly the adaptation of the Snider rifle. With regard to gun-carriages, these would be manufactured to the amount of £215,175, and £38,450 would be purchased. The general result was that there would he manufactured and repaired during the present year stores to the amount of £1,661,565, leaving to be purchased £834,838. All this was being done during the current year without any Motion by his hon. and gallant Friend, so that actually they were at the present moment resorting to private trade for one-third of our whole stores. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would see from this that there was no indisposition to establish that check on the manufacturing establishments which he desired by resorting largely to private trade for our stores. The most important part of his hon. and gallant Friend's Motion was the last, in which he wished to make a complete change in our whole system of manufacturing establishments. He proposed that— To ensure accuracy of accounts, economy of production, and fair comparison of Government with trade prices, the Manufacturing Departments shall be treated as private firms, the Government purchasing the articles required at remunerative prices, to be provided from Army and other Votes, and the capital charges of the Establishments—whether for buildings, plant, or working capital—being provided by advances at interest made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. He wished that instead of dwelling during the greater part of his speech on facts and details his hon. and gallant Friend had devoted his time to a little more explanation of the manner in which he proposed to work out this great and important change. He (Sir John Pakington) was by no means disposed to refuse it. He quite admitted its importance; and if the change were successfully brought about it would tend in a very great degree to simplify the accounts. On the other hand he believed it was a change wholly without precedent, There were, he believed, some precedents in France. The French Government had carried out that system in two respects—with regard to printing and gunpowder; but these were very small precedents. He believed there was no precedent in any country for carrying on a large Government establishment on the principle which his hon. and gallant Friend proposed. There were great difficulties of detail which he wished had been explained. How were the funds to be provided for carrying on these manufacturing establishments? Were these establishments to be removed from Parliamentary control? Then again, if these large Government establishments were to be placed on the same footing with private firms, were they to accept business from all customers that might come for goods, or were they to be restricted to supplying the requirements of the Government? These were questions that required much consideration, and the Government would have to weigh the matter very carefully before it committed itself to the proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which affected not only the War Department but the Admiralty and Treasury Departments. Under these circumstances he could not say that he was at once prepared to adopt the plan of the hon. and gallant Member, which would effect a complete revolution in that branch of the public service to which it had relation—a revolution, however, that certainly held out great promise of improvement, but he was willing to submit the plan of the hon. and gallant Member to a joint Committee of the War Department, the Admiralty, and the Treasury, for them to inquire into the subject and report upon it. The hon. and gallant Member's first suggestion respecting a Return he thought should be adopted; his second plan, he had shown, was already carried out to a great extent; and with respect to his third plan he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentlemen that it should receive the most careful consideration.

MR. OTWAY

said, he did not think that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War had met the charges of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson), or that he was entitled to shelter himself behind the excuse that, not expecting from the form of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Notice that the subject of the accounts would be brought forward, he had not prepared himself to enter into the question. His hon. and gallant Friend had referred to the great waste of money which was taking place in the War Department, and that was also a point eminently worthy of consideration. In addition to the cases specified by his hon. and gallant Friend he (Mr. Otway) had some charges to bring against the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. The first was that when an invention had been approved and the inventor had been rewarded by that House, the Committee to which, reference had been made took upon themselves so to alter the invention as to render it perfectly worthless. Thus, the rockets invented by Mr. Hale, who had received £8,000 for his invention from that House, had been so altered as to be almost useless. His second charge was that such vast quantities of gunpowder were kept in store for so long a time in the various batteries that it was deteriorating in power. His third charge was that 1,000 rounds of ammunition per gun were despatched to Abyssinia, while probably not two rounds per gun were actually fired, nor was there any possibility of the number of rounds sent being used in any campaign in that country. He hoped that the mutters alluded to by his hon. and gallant Friend would be investigated, and that the Government would be prepared with some more satisfactory explanation.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite that it was impossible for him to meet the charges of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson) without ample notice having been given of them. Instead of wording the Notice as his hon. and gallant Friend had done, he could not help thinking, if his hon. and gallant Friend had intended to bring such grave charges forward, he ought to have used such language as—"In order to prevent erroneous Estimates, in order to prevent utterly falsified accounts being presented, such and such things ought to be done." He thought, however, that when charges of so grave a character were made it was not sufficient that the right hon. Baronet opposite should come down to that House and content himself with making a counter-statement. The hon. and gallant Member, after making such serious charges against the Department, ought not to be satisfied without moving for a Select Committee, or obtaining a promise from the Secretary of War that the whole matter should be fully inquired into by an independent body. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the difficulty which stood in the way of dealing with the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He went even further, and contended that the proposal to work those establishments as private firms was utterly impracticable. He had had some little experience in connection, with those establishments, and believed that they had conferred great advantage on the country. It was no doubt expe- dient to resort as far as possible to private enterprize; but it was, in his opinion, nevertheless of the greatest importance that these establishments should be maintained in a state of thorough efficiency. He had made these few remarks because he thought it of the highest importance that there should be the most perfect honesty and rectitude on the part of those who managed these establishments, and because he thought that the accounts ought to be above the shadow even of suspicion.

MAJOR ANSON

desired to say a word in personal explanation of the charge which had been brought against him. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War had complained that he had brought this matter forward without having given sufficient notice of his intention. He certainly was under the impression that the right hon. Baronet knew that he was going to make these charges, and he could only further say that he had not made a single charge which had not been previously brought officially before the Secretary of State.

COLONEL ANNESLET

said, that some of the charges brought forward were of a most extraordinary character. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), for instance, had made it a matter of compliant against the Government that they had supplied each of the guns sent to Abyssinia with 1,000 rounds, while not more than two rounds to each gun had actually been expended. (Mr. OTWAY: Had probably been expended.] The fact, however, was that there had been scarcely any fighting in Abyssinia, and if the reverse had been the case, and the Government had neglected the precaution of providing an ample supply of ammunition, the hon. Member for Chatham would have been only too ready to have charged the Government with their neglect. He ventured to think that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) was incorrect in the opinion which he had expressed, because his belief was that the officers of the army were far from wishing to deprive the soldiers of the ammunition which at present was placed in their care. If that were done, what would be the result when the soldiers were called upon to engage in active service at a moment's notice, a tiling to which they were always liable? During the prevalence of the Fenian alarms, for instance, a detachment of troops was telegraphed for at twelve o'clock, and left town for Osborne in con- sequence of that telegram within an hour, a promptness which could scarcely have been attained if the delay consequent on the distribution of ammunition to each man had had to be incurred.

SIR. GEORGE BOWYER

said, he regarded these establishments as resembling to some extent the gardens in which the proprietors cultivated their own vegetables at a cost greater than the price which would have been demanded for them in the market. The Government had not the same motives to economy which were to be found in private establishments. They laboured under no fear of bankruptcy, and consequently did not pay that attention to details which private persons find so necessary to the success of their undertakings. He thought, therefore, that it would be much better for the Government to go into the open market and purchase what they required as cheaply as they could, instead of carrying on those expensive establishments. But if the Government were resolved to maintain the manufacturing establishments, the strictest accounts ought to be kept in order to compare the cost of munitions of war supplied by private manufacturers with those manufactured by the Government. The only sound principle on which public manufactories could be conducted, was that laid down by Sir Henry Parnell in his Work on Financial Reform, who said that they ought to be maintained on the same principle as private manufactories, and that, there should be an account current of profit and loss between them and the Financial Department.

GENERAL PERCY HERBERT

said, that when the Government purchased Warlike Stores the quality was almost invariably found inferior. If the Government did not manufacture a large portion of their gunpowder, they would run the risk of getting powder of inferior quality, which would derange all calculations of range and accuracy of firing.

LORD ELCHO

said, his hon. and gallant Relative (Major Anson) being unable again to address the House, wished him to express his desire for a searching investigation into the statements he had made, and his intention to move on Thursday next for a Select Committee. He would prefer, however, that the inquiry should be proposed or instituted by the Government.

MAJOR ANSON

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee deferred till To-morrow.