Commons Sitting of 28 April 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—East India Finance, Mr. Haviland-Burke and Mr. Charles Dalrymple added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 27] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal* [27], nominated.
Third Reading—Ewelme Rectory * [96], and passed.

ARMY—EXAMINATIONS AT WOOLWICH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the forthcoming examination for Woolwich can be so arranged as to allow the candidates to leave their respective abodes the morning on which the examination begins, instead of, as in December last, their being compelled to come to London two days before they were wanted, in consequence of the early hour on the Monday morning on which their attendance was required, particularly as the lads who do not take up all the subjects must remain in the metropolis the intervening days upon which no work is done?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that to postpone the day for beginning the examination would throw the end of it into the following week, which would probably cause an inconvenience to the candidates at least equal to that alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member. To obviate the latter, arrangements will be made that the medical examination at Woolwich shall be held late on Monday, the 3rd of July, in the case of candidates coming from a distance.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE INCOME TAX—DEDUCTIONS FROM DIVIDENDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. ORMSBY GOREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that, notwithstanding the proposal of the Government to increase the present rate of the Income Tax has not become Law, the Bank of England has deducted Income Tax at the rate of £2 4s. per cent on dividends that became due after the 5th of April; and, if so, by what legitimate authority it has done so?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have not had time to get any very accurate information; but I believe the Bank of England has deducted some sums in this way to a small extent. What I am informed by the Inland Revenue Office is this. The Bank made application to know what rate of interest was to be deducted, as is usual when an alteration of the income tax is contemplated. The Inland Revenue Office informed the Bank of England that the proposal of the Government was £2 4s. per cent, and I believe that has been acted upon in some cases; but the Inland Revenue had no power at all to legitimate such a transaction as this, nor can it have any legal validity. That is, supposing such a sum to have been deducted by the Bank or any other body in a similar situation, it would be no defence to an action brought for the sum after the income tax law of one year had expired, and before the income tax of another year commenced. That is an inconvenience which follows from making the annual Income Tax Act terminate with the financial year; but, as I have said, the deduction made by the Bank has no legal validity, and if there is any error more or less in the amount kept back it will be rectified.
  MR. CRAWFORD: Allow me, Sir, to supplement the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bank of England has acted in this case under written instructions from the Board of Inland Revenue. Those instructions were that the deduction of £2 4s. should be made.

ARMY—EQUIPMENTS FOR VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL C. LINDSAYasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is in the contemplation of the Government to temporarily issue, on requisition, such equipment as may be considered necessary to those Volunteer Corps which have received, or will receive, permission to take part in the movements and encampment of the Regular Forces during the autumn?
SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, the Volunteers would receive the same camp equipment as the Regular Forces.

ARMY—VOLUNTEERS—MUTINY ACT.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL C. LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the event of the Mutiny Act being applied to the Volunteer Force, as announced in the 15th Clause of the Army Regulation Bill, it is the intention of the Government to issue pay and allowances to such portion of the Force as may for the time being be placed under the Act, according to the provisions contained in the second section of that Act?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I have already said that an allowance will be made to Volunteers going into camp, as has been the case heretofore with the Artillery Volunteers going into camp at Shoeburyness. It is not proposed that they shall receive pay as soldiers.

CASE OF MR. MURPHY.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the outrage on Mr. William Murphy at Whitehaven, Whether he is prepared on the part of the Government to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and especially as to whether the said William Murphy, on this or any other occasion, in the exercise of his profession of a public lecturer, has said or done anything to disentitle him to the recognition and protection of local authorities?
MR. BRUCE: Sir, I may as well take this opportunity of informing the hon. Member for North East Lancashire (Mr. Holt) that I have received the information he desired with reference to the outrage on Mr. Murphy. It appears that Mr. Murphy was announced to lecture at Whitehaven on the 19th of this month, that he appeared there, but was prevented from lecturing that evening. Whitehaven has no police force of its own; the county police act for the town. A considerable force of county police, about 30, were brought in to prevent a breach of the peace. They were kept at the station, out of the way, and a few men only were sent out to see that no danger menaced the public peace. It appears that a body of 200 or 300 Irishmen, miners from the neighbourhood, came into the town and went at once to the hall an hour before the lecture was

1851
announced to be delivered. Mr. Murphy was unfortunately there. They entered the room, dragged him violently down, kicked him in the most brutal manner, and inflicted on him serious injuries. Four or five policemen rushed in, extricated him from the hands of the mob, and in all probability were the means of saving his life. The number of rioters was so great that the police did not think it prudent to attempt to seize them. Some, however, were taken into custody, and it is expected that more will be apprehended and put on their trial. That is the state of the case with regard to this outrage. I am asked by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to agree to a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the case. The case is no doubt a very bad one in many respects; but there is nothing in the circumstances to warrant the unusual course of appointing a Committee of Inquiry. Mr. Murphy was grossly ill-treated, and no doubt proper justice will be done in the case. But when I am asked whether Mr. Murphy on this or any other occasion had done or said anything to disentitle him to the recognition and protection of local authorities, I can only say I should be afraid to trust my memory to state how often I have been applied to by the local authorities to protect them from the presence of Mr. Murphy, and by Mr. Murphy himself to protect him from his enemies. It is no small misfortune that a person like Mr. Murphy should go about the country irritating and insulting the feelings of large portions of the inhabitants. At this moment I have received an application from the town of Whitehaven to authorize the despatch of troops to preserve order when the men who committed the outrage on Mr. Murphy are brought up for trial, and the hon. Member for Peterborough will be glad to learn that Mr. Murphy has so far recovered that he has announced his intention of delivering another lecture at Whitehaven, while the authorities there have applied to know what means can be taken to prevent a breach of the peace.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE COAL OWNERS' RAILWAY.—QUESTION.
MR. BUCKLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, At whose instance, and under what circumstances,
1852
Colonel Yolland, Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade, has been ordered to make a Report on the South Yorkshire Coal Owners' Railway, pending inquiry into the merits of the undertaking by a Committee of this House?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the Report referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been made under his (Mr. Chichester Fortescue's) authority, in consequence of information he received from Colonel Yolland, and he was not aware that, in directing it to be made, he had exceeded either his powers or his duties. It was usual to supply the House and its Committees with Reports upon any question of public interest arising out of a proposed Railway Bill, and it was in accordance with that custom that this Report was made; but the greater part of the Report, and very nearly the whole, was also made in obedience to the positive Standing Orders of the House. Reports must be made in all cases in which a proposed railway crosses a road on the level; and this particular case was special and peculiar, because it was proposed not only that the proposed railway should cross a number of roads on the level, but also that it should cross other railways on the level; and though this particular kind of level crossing is not literally included within the Standing Orders, it is obviously within their spirit, because it is much more dangerous. He thought it was his duty to inform the Committee of the existence of these proposals in the Railway Bill in question, although the case did not come literally within the terms of the Standing Orders; and he had been in communication with the Chairman of the Committee, who entirely concurred with him as to the propriety of the opinion on which he acted.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EPPING FOREST—RESOLUTION.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLE,in rising to move a Resolution in relation to Epping Forest, said, that although everyone had heard of it, the distance of Epping Forest from that part of London might have prevented many hon. Mem-

1853
bers of that House from becoming acquainted with the beauties of the district. There were about 7,000 acres of primeval forest land, clothed, in some parts, with fine forest trees and a very rich underwood, graced with a picturesque beauty which art could not imitate; and that district was the resort of vast numbers of people from the East of London. 50,000 might be counted during the summer on Sundays and Mondays when the weather was fine, and much larger numbers on special holidays, such as Easter Monday, when hundreds of thousands roamed in freedom and gladness, enjoying themselves in its pleasant glades. It was most gratifying to witness multitudes of the working classes, who had escaped for a day from the smoky atmosphere and the dreary expanse of bricks and dust and dirt called the Eastend of London with parties of children, imbibing health and enjoying themselves intensely in innocent and health-giving pastimes. It was impossible to doubt that a large number of Londoners were benefited in respect of morality, health, and education by their enjoyment of Epping Forest; for health was promoted by pure air and by exercise, morality by innocent recreation taken by the whole family together, and by amusement free from pernicious excitement and degrading associations; while the educational value of the Forest might be illustrated by the increased interest it gave to the weavers of Spitalfields in the cultivation of flowers; and in Bethnal Green alone there were no fewer than eight entomological societies, consisting of working men, who found in the Forest opportunities of pursuing the study that was agreeable to them, and who had there discovered new and beautiful species of butterflies. There was risk in delay. A part of this national playground of considerable beauty, called High Beech Wood, was now threatened with danger, for the trees had received, by order of the lord of the manor, a mark which intimated to the public that he was about to exercise the right which he claimed of cutting down those trees, and that he intended to destroy the beauty of the district, and to prevent the public from deriving enjoyment from it. The encroachments which had already been made showed the danger that arose from leaving the question of right to the area of the Forest undecided. It ap-
1854
peared by the Report of the Land Revenue Commissioners, made in 1793, that the Forest then consisted of 9,000 acres of land: a later examination showed that the area had been reduced in 1850 to 7,000 acres, and he did not think that the open area could be estimated now at more than 5,000 acres; and of that, the portion over which the Crown retained its rights did not exceed 3,000 acres. The question might be considered one of public policy, as affecting the health and happiness of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Last year, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), the House unanimously adopted an Address to Her Majesty—
"Praying that She will take such measures as in Her judgment she may deem most expedient in order that Epping Forest may be preserved as an open space for the enjoyment and recreation of the public."
The Prime Minister, on that occasion, entered into the views of those who impressed upon him the importance of endeavouring to secure the Forest, and a Bill was introduced in July of last year; but it was faulty both in principle and detail, for it was a Bill for inclosing the Forest, giving 2,400 acres up to be sold, or to be appropriated by the lords of the manors and others—thus permanently depriving the public of their use and advantages, and leaving only 600 acres for the permanent enjoyment of the public; whereas what was required was a Bill for preserving the Forest. That Bill might have been acceptable to the resident gentry, and more particularly to those who had already made inclosures without the assent of the Crown; but it was not acceptable to those who desired that this large open space should be secured for evermore for the benefit of the public. He admitted that contributions could not have been obtained from metropolitan funds to carry out the objects of such a Bill; but if the Bill had been one for the preservation of the Forest, it would have been proper that compensation for the surrender of rights should be made out of metropolitan funds, and he believed there would be no difficulty on the part of the metropolitan authorities in providing the funds that would be necessary. The City of London had been in the habit of contributing liberally to objects which had in view the benefit of the population of

1855
the metropolis, and the Corporation of the City possessed a charter entitling the citizens of London to hunt in the Forest. But if the City would not take up this question, he thought it might very fairly be dealt with by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Metropolitan Board of Works had recently given great satisfaction throughout London by undertaking to buy up for £45,000—a sum the payment of which was to be spread over 20 years, and which would thus be almost imperceptible to the ratepayers—the rights of the lord of the manor of Hampstead Heath. The pecuniary rights of the lord of the manor of Wimbledon and Wandsworth Commons were to be bought by two contiguous parishes, in order to maintain an open space in perpetuity. The only objection which could be raised to his proposal was, that Epping Forest was beyond the jurisdiction of the Board of Works; but this circumstance need not be a serious obstacle, because if the people residing within the metropolitan area went beyond it for their recreation, it would be quite legitimate to expend funds derived from them in order to secure to them the benefits of the Forest, even although it might not be within the taxable area. He believed that the parishes contiguous to the Forest might also contribute towards defraying the expense. But though the Government would obtain the co-operation of the metropolis in any measures tending to the desired result, yet on account of the rights of the Crown in the Forest the initiative must rest with the Government. It was one of the blessings derived from the powers and privileges of Monarchy that London had been made more habitable, more healthy, and more enjoyable than it would have otherwise been; and when he walked through Hyde Park, he lifted up his heart and blessed King Henry VIII.; the sagacious acquisition of the Park by that Monarch had saved it from being converted into streets and squares. To the operations of the rights and property of the Crown we also owed the preservation of St. James's Park, the Green Park, the Regent's Park, Battersea Park, and Victoria Park. The rights of the Sovereign as lord of Epping Forest did not extend to felling timber, but was mainly the right of taking recreation over the lands granted to the lords of the manor.
1856
It was a right antecedent to, and paramount over, all others. Even in Saxon and Norman times the use of a forest in promoting the health and good temper of the Sovereign and his companions was recognized. This right of the Sovereign could not, in the nature of things, be exercised by him alone, but must have been shared by some of his subjects. Hunting could not be a solitary amusement, and this paramount right of taking recreation at Epping, which had been transferred to the nation with other hereditary rights, ought to be adapted to altered circumstances. This right of recreation might be used in more rational and harmless ways than hunting deer. These rights had never produced revenue; but in 1854 the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, finding it very troublesome to prevent attempts at encroachment in defiances of the rights of the Crown, abandoned the exercise of those rights, and converted them into cash. It was doubtful whether selling these rights was a proper use of them. They were established for other purposes than revenue; they were fully designed to be used in the liberal and generous spirit which was to be expected from the head of the nation. This plan was not originated, however, by the present Commissioners, but by Mr. Kennedy, one of their predecessors. The House of Commons, on consideration, determined that this was an improper use of the forestal rights, and passed a Resolution that the Crown rights ought not to be sold. Two Select Committees, which sat in 1863 and in 1865, confirmed that view. A Bill was afterwards passed transferring the management of Epping Forest from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to the Commissioners of Works, and he regretted that the New Forest was not also removed from the management of the Office of Woods. Thus the mode adopted by the Commissioners of selling the forestal rights for £5 an acre had been condemned by the House of Commons, by two Select Committees, and by the statute which deprived them of the power of doing it again. That measure was a very good one so far as it went; but it did nothing to remedy the bad policy which led to the sale of the forestal rights. He would suggest four sources of income, which might be obtained to meet the sum of money neces-

1857
sary to buy out the rights that must be extinguished. There were the existing forestal rights, estimated in the Bill of last year at 600 acres; there was the sum of £15,795, obtained by the sale of the Crown's forestal rights, which had been condemned by Parliament. This money should be restored by Parliament to the forestal purposes. There was the contribution that might be obtained from the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works; and there were rates from the parishes in which this Forest was situated. These suggestions, as to the means by which the necessary funds might be obtained, formed a Budget which he would take the liberty of presenting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fertility of invention and the powers of finance of his right hon. Friend might enable him to frame a better Budget; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow himself to indulge feelings of sympathy and commiseration, he would be able to find means by which a Bill might be introduced in the next Session of Parliament to confer a boon upon multitudes of the working poor in the East of London, similar to that which had been secured in regard to Hampstead Heath, and Wandsworth and Wimbledon Commons. He proposed, therefore, that the House should re-affirm the substance of the Address they presented to Her Majesty last year, because he wished it to be seen that neither the House nor the Government had lost any of their earnestness, and that the absence of any Bill on the subject this year must not be taken as evidence of change of purpose on the part of the House, or the Executive. The marking of certain trees at High Beech was no doubt intended as a test of what the House intended to do in regard to the question. He hoped it would be so regarded by those who had authority on the question, and that a friendly arrangement might be come to whereby the Forest should be secured for the advantage of the people without the interests of any person being prejudicially interfered with. He wished to be clearly understood that he had no desire to fetter the discretion of the Government in regard to the details of their Bill; and that he had moved in the matter simply to obtain from the House an affirmation of the principle that the whole Forest, and not a number of small patches here
1858
and there, ought to be preserved for the recreation of the people. As it was of importance that they should preserve to the public a considerable portion of the wild open scenery which constituted the special charm of Epping Forest, and was more attractive than any artificial park or garden, he trusted that the Government would feel no difficulty in acceding to his proposition. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
MR. HOLMS,in seconding the Motion, remarked that if the Government accepted it, they would win the gratitude of the vast working population at the East-end of London, to whom Epping Forest was what the sea-side was to their wealthier neighbours. These people had a feeling, which was not without foundation, that the Crown had not protected their rights in the past as they ought to have done. Now that the metropolis was extending so rapidly, it was of great importance that they should have secured, to them in perpetuity the advantages that such a fine open space as the Forest afforded. It was a spot much frequented, and especially by Sunday School children, when they were taken out for their annual excursion or holiday. He must say the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had looked upon the question in a cold unsympathizing manner, as a means, in fact, of obtaining revenue, and not in the interest of the people in the locality in which the Forest was situated. If the population of the metropolis went on increasing in the ratio that had marked the present century up to the present, these open spaces would grow increasingly important, and, therefore, he trusted the Government would concur in the object aimed at by the Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient that measures be adopted, in accordance with the humble Address presented to Her Majesty in February 1870, for preserving as an open space accessible to Her Majesty's subjects for purposes of health and recreation, those parts of Epping Forest which have not been enclosed with the assent of the Crown or by legal authority,"—(Mr. Cowper Temple,)
—instead thereof.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple)

1859
in speaking of the great advantages to the inhabitants of the metropolis to be derived from open spaces, and thus eliciting the sympathies of all who heard him, had forgotten there were other points which should not be lost sight of, in connection with this subject, in addition to those brought forward in the preceding speeches. He agreed with all the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple) had said of the beauties of the space referred to, and thought that every lover of the beautiful or picturesque must desire to keep it open. It was true that large numbers of persons from the metropolis occasionally repaired to Epping Forest; but the area of their visits was, he was grieved to say, limited to the neighbourhood of the different places of entertainment to be found in and near to the Forest, and evidence given before a Committee on which he had had the honour to serve, while eliciting that fact, had also furnished undubitable evidence that, for that reason, the main portion of the Forest was not so generally resorted to as was supposed. Further, the rights of property in the Forest ought not to be lost sight of. Then, as to the question of compensation—a very grave matter, for the lords of the manors of Epping Forest possessed manorial rights exactly similar to those exercised in other parts of the country, and it would be unjust to deprive them of those rights, simply because Epping was within a dozen miles of the metropolis. If that idea should be entertained, the compensation which would be required would amount to a very large sum—a sum which on good authority might be stated as something like £200,000. The parishes most affected would certainly oppose the imposition of any rate for the purpose of levying this money, for they were against the policy of preserving the Forest as an open space. Indeed, the inhabitants of those parishes would, he believed, infinitely prefer to see a large portion of the Forest brought under agriculture, for the result would be to increase their employment and their wages. In that case they would have to look for assistance from the Government, or to a rate raised by the Metropolitan Board of Works. To such a rate there would, he thought, fairly be a claim, because Epping Forest was essentially a recreation ground for the metropolis, and it did seem fair that
1860
London should be called upon to provide a portion, of the funds required. It was probably true that the lords of the manors had intended to cut down some of the timber for the purpose of asserting their manorial rights, for from what had occurred last year they had foreseen that their manorial rights might in future legislation, to a certain extent, be ignored. What had been done, however, had been done only with the object of testing their right, and not with any hostile feeling. He should be glad to have some assurance from the Government that they would be prepared to introduce a measure which, founded upon mutual concession, would be satisfactory to all parties. He thought that, while the lords of the manors should be required to give up some of their rights, the Government should, on their part, surrender their forestal privileges, and that some means should be devised for levying a rate for the satisfaction of the claims of the commoners. He believed that if such an arrangement were made, the people living in the neighbourhood would be benefited by a portion of the land being thrown into cultivation, while the public would derive as much advantage as they could avail themselves of by the preservation of the remainder for their benefit.
MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he did not see any reason why the commons rights should be extinguished or compensated at all. On the contrary, if it were kept open for the public and drained, the herbage of the remainder would, be much improved to the benefit of the commoners, whose rights would remain precisely as they now are. His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had, he feared, put forward an estimate of the price of purchasing the rights of the lords of the manors, which was rather calculated to frighten the House. To pay £200,000 for those rights would be to estimate their value at the rate of £66 an acre, when the sale of the rights of Chingford Manor—the only one which had taken place—reached only £4 15 s. an acre. While giving that as an instance, he was far from saying that the manorial rights could be purchased over the whole Forest at the same rate; but between £4 15 s. and £66 an acre there was a considerable margin. The Government had always told them that they administered the Crown

1861
lands, solely with the view of obtaining from them, for the benefit of the State, the largest amount of Revenue possible, without considering one iota the convenience of the people residing in their neighbourhood. But he thought that there should be some proportion between the price to be paid, the benefit to be gained, and the number of people who would enjoy it, and that when they could benefit one-tenth of the whole population of the country for an infinitesimal outlay, it should not be grudged. When they had formerly asked Government to forego its rights, the reply was, that their doing so would be equivalent to making the East-end of London a large grant of the public money, to which the whole North of England would object. He did not believe that such would be the case, or that a single hon. Member of any of the large boroughs in the North of England would get up in his place and oppose it. Some time ago, when he was concerned in the presentation of a memorial to Mr. Layard on this subject, he asked for the signatures of as many northern Members as he was acquainted with, and in no single instance was refused. It was objected by lawyers that the public had no right over these open spaces, whatever the rights of the people in the neighbourhood might be, and that might be true strictly and legally; but they had, nevertheless, he maintained, the prescription of immemorial usage in their favour, of which they ought not to be deprived. Two Bills introduced this Session proposed to deal with interests that no one, not even those most concerned, dared to assert were legal, and yet any proposal to deal with them, without compensation, was denounced as confiscation, and undoubtedly compensation would be given. In this case, the right of the public was still stronger; but as the public in questions of this sort had no organization and no paid secretaries, they must submit to be shorn unless the House interfered for their protection, and defended their right in this matter, for it was a right, whatever lawyers might choose to say. He had much pleasure in supporting the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that as a Londoner, and in default of local knowledge, he could consider the matter
1862
only as a question of public policy and as a ratepayers' question; and, considering the matter in this way, he had come to the conclusion that it was the duty of the Government, and all concerned, to deal with it in a thoroughly liberal and far-sighted manner, carrying out the old policy which had secured to the people of the metropolis the public parks. The question touched the health of London, and it was satisfactory to know that so many of the representatives of large towns, who, some assumed, although the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Johnston) had proved the contrary, would be against Imperial action in the matter, had signed a Memorial in its favour. He congratulated the hon. Member on having got rid of the provincial spectre which used invariably to be brought in to frighten them, whenever they commenced a movement on subjects kindred to the one under discussion. It was reasonable that Parliament should not grudge some proportion of the cost of retaining the open spaces of the metropolis for the people, since London was to the whole country as the heart or brain to the man. Regarding the question as a Londoner, he saw the West and South-west characterized by broad streets, squares, and gardens, while the East and North-east were characterized by narrow thoroughfares and houses closely packed, with scanty yards and unsavoury factories adjoining them. The great Parks of the West-end had long been consecrated to the public; Richmond Park was a noble breathing ground; Kew had not very long ago been virtually thrown open as a public park; and Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Hampstead, Commons secured for the public by the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works, with the Parliamentary Park of Battersea, all contributed, almost exclusively, to the enjoyment of the western portion of the town, which even in the absence of recreation grounds would be better able to help itself than the poorer districts of the East, which had nothing but Victoria Park and the threatened Epping Forest. Besides that, there was the great fact that during this century the population of London had increased from 1,000,000, to 3,000,000, while the Census just taken would, perhaps, show that the population approached to 4,000,000. These considerations proved that on grounds of public necessity, and

1863
even of public morality, Epping should be saved for the people. He did not wish to lay the burden on any particular party. No doubt the Metropolitan Board of Works and the adjoining parishes would contribute each their fair share towards that object; but he would urge upon the Government not to pursue the narrow-minded policy which had gone far to ruin the New Forest; that miserable policy against which all men of taste and generosity were crying "Shame!" Let Epping Forest be saved, if it were only to compensate the matchmakers for the fright the Government had given them. Let them be told that ex luce they should have this lucellum of Epping Forest. Such a message would conciliate them far more completely than the most astute lecture upon abstract political economy. Let the Government give the matchmakers the lucus, in return for the lux; and the House the assurance that the promises of last year would be liberally fulfilled, and that the question would not longer be allowed to rest in abeyance.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the difficulty had arisen through the Government having allowed the Crown Commissioners to exceed their duty by selling the forestal rights of the Crown. If the Government asserted that the Commissioners had that right, then the Government was equally to blame in allowing that alleged right to be exercised without consulting that House upon the subject, or affording any opportunity for an expression of opinion upon the question. He condemned that policy of the Government which put the acquisition of a few shillings before all other considerations, and he reminded Her Majesty's Ministers that they were not only the representatives of the Crown, but the representatives of the life interest of the public. The Crown Lands Commissioners had always attempted to deprive the public of their rights of recreation, and they had pursued the same course with respect to Epping Forest; he hoped that, since what had already been taken away from the Forest could not be restored, the Government would take care that the inhabitants of the East-end of London should continue to have those means of enjoyment which they now possessed, and which their forefathers had enjoyed for centuries.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, that fortunately, while the interest taken in this question could not be overrated, the difficulties were not so great as they appeared to be, for the inhabitants of the East-end would be perfectly contented to have reserved to them those acres that had not been inclosed. During the last 15 or 16 years, every green field in the eastern parts of the metropolis had been imperceptibly absorbed by building operations. The deputation that waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer about 18 months ago, explained to the right hon. Gentleman that Epping Forest had been materially reduced, in a manner quite inconsistent with the wants of the neighbourhood, and they would have been contented if they could have obtained from the right hon. Gentleman a promise that the practice of inclosing should be discontinued. It was then also pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that 4,000 out of 7,000 of the remaining acres had been disposed of for £18,000, and all the Committees that had inquired into the matter were thoroughly satisfied that the existing encroachment was not justified, and that further ones ought not to be permitted. The deputation referred at the same time to the promise made by the Prime Minister in that House, which led them to imagine they might thoroughly depend upon the Forest being in future retained for their use; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer attached very little weight to it, and he was understood to say that the promise so given was only intended to gratify and satisfy the public. This Forest was the only open space now remaining in that part of London, and he hoped the Government would not look with disfavour on a proposal which would cost them nothing, while it would be a great boon to a large number of poor people.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it would conduce to hon. Members coming to a conclusion on the subject, if they emancipated themselves from the ancient history of the question, because for five years the care of this Forest and the rights of the Crown had been transferred from the Woods and Forests Department to the Board of Works. He understood the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) to suggest that a certain sum of £15,000 which had been

1865
received for forestal rights should be expended in making a pleasure ground for the people of the East-end. In doing that, he did not understand the right hon. Member for South Hampshire to make any further demand on the Crown, but that the City of London, the Board of Works, and the adjacent parishes might with that sum raise sufficient to buy up the rights of the lords of the manors.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he contended that the Vote of Parliament, carrying money that had been derived from the Forest, should be applied thereto.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes; that the money obtained 12 years ago and the compound interest ought to be so applied. That position was not tenable, because the property sold was part of the domains of the Crown, and as such the property of the people at large, and was not confined to the locality, who had no claim on the amount. The object was, no doubt, a very good one, and the Crown ought to do everything in its power to assist in giving effect to the project, with this reservation—that it did not violate any duty it owed to the remainder of Her Majesty's subjects. What was the present position of the question? In February, 1870, the House passed a Resolution, requesting the Government to do all they could to save Epping Forest for the use of the people. The Government took the matter into their most serious consideration, and towards the end of the Session they produced a Bill which would have done much more than was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire. They entered into negotiations with the lords of the manors, who consented to freely surrender their rights over 1,000 acres for the use of the people of the East-end, who had no legal rights in the matter. That land was worth £100 per acre; but, taking it at £60 per acre, the Government had obtained land worth £60,000, instead of expending the £15,000 which his right hon. Friend had in view; unfortunately, the Bill was stopped in its progress in consequence of its clashing with the Standing Orders. The plan of the Bill was to sell 400 acres of that land, in order to extinguish the rights of the commoners who could not be deprived of those rights without
1866
compensation, thus leaving 600 acres for the use of the public in perpetuity. It would doubtless have been better if the City of London or the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the parishes adjacent to the Forest, or all those bodies together, had found the money required for that purpose, or if they could have obtained the sum from those excellent people who spent 20 times that amount of money in pauperizing and degrading the people by giving foolish and reckless charity. In that way, the 1,000 acres might have been secured, not all in one place, but in those spots which were most agreeable; but, as it was, 600 acres had been secured, and that result he contended was much more than his right hon. Friend asked for, because the Government had defrayed the cost of the Commissions which had to be appointed to determine the rights of the lords and commoners. They had also surrendered the remaining forestal rights of the Crown without compensation, in addition to which they were willing to pay the cost of the Bill passing through this House, and the expenses of the Commissioners who would set out the allotments. To raise the sum of money which was required would be a much better beginning than to ask the Government for £15,000, to which, he contended, there was no claim whatever. The Government, he thought, had fairly redeemed the pledge they gave to the House to do what they could, by bringing forward a Bill which was a measure of conciliation; and, if the House desired it, the Government were quite willing to regard that Bill as a basis for future proceedings. It might be better that 1,000 acres should be made over to the public, and that could be done if the funds were raised to compensate the commoners. It was said that the Government had not done what they ought to do in the matter; but they had to consider the interests of the great mass of the people of this country, who might not unnaturally entertain the opinion that a large and rich metropolis like London was able to pay for any ground which it might require for the recreation of its inhabitants, and ought not to take the money out of the pockets of the nation generally to any considerable extent for that purpose. That being the view taken by the Government, he was afraid he could not agree to the Motion of his right hon. Friend

1867
the Member for South Hampshire. He was informed that those parts of Epping Forest to which it related amounted to 3,500 acres, and it would not, he thought, be right in the interests of the public to pledge the House to such a large outlay as £350,000, which would be the sum required for their purchase. The Government, however, were at the same time willing to do everything in their power to bring about a satisfactory solution of the question.
MR. GLADSTONEexpressed a hope that his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a Division. While noticing that the House itself was evidently desirous of that course being adopted, if it were agreed to, he could only say that he would still be left in a state of doubt as to what were the views of Parliament on the subject. Parliament had advisedly passed an Act making over to the Metropolitan Board of Works the duty of providing pleasure grounds, parks, and open spaces for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis; but Epping Forest became to some extent an exception to that Act, because the Crown happened to possess certain rights in it, which it was fairly asked that it should use in the best and most convenient manner for the benefit of the public. That his right hon. Friend near him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had endeavoured to do by means of the Bill which he (Mr. Gladstone) had introduced, and he might state on his part and on the part of the Government that if the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had charge of those great matters—for they were great matters—could use the rights of the Crown more economically and more beneficially in the interests of the inhabitants of London, the Government would be perfectly willing to place themselves in communication with the Board, with the view to care being taken that the rights of the Crown should be made subservient in every way which was consistent with justice to the country at large, and to those interests. It was impossible, in his opinion, to adopt a fairer course, and under the circumstances his right hon. Friend would, he hoped, not press his Resolution.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that as it not unfrequently happened, the
1868
Chancellor of the Exchequer when they asked him for bread gave them a stone. It was very often maintained from the Treasury Bench that the Crown was entitled to deal with Crown lands on the principle on which a private landlord might act with respect to his property. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I said the very reverse.] The Minister, representing the Crown, must not, however, forget that they acted on behalf of the public in these matters; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must bear in mind, when he told the House that he was not going to give the money which the Crown got for forestal rights, which belonged to the public at large, to a particular locality, that the money was obtained by the sale of the interest of that very locality. He would venture to add that Epping Forest being a Royal Forest, none of the encroachments complained of would have been made if the Crown had chosen to exercise its rights; and, if the lords of manors had great interests there, it was only because those who had charge of the interests of the Crown had never taken care of the interests of the public as they ought to have done. It was very difficult to understand really what the Government offered as a settlement of the question; but what the House wanted was, that the Ministers of the Crown, instead of endeavouring to foist upon them another Bill of the same character as that of last year, which was so unsatisfactory that it would be useless to re-introduce it, should perform that duty which they had culpably neglected in the past, and that they should take the matter into their own hands instead of handing it over, as they proposed to do, to the Metropolitan Board of Works. There were large spaces still uninclosed over which the Crown had rights, which if they choose to assert them, would keep them open for the public benefit. That was what, as he understood, they were asked to do by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire. He recollected, he might add, having heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, whose absence from the House they had daily reason to regret, once say that the time was coming when the people of this country would have no place to walk except the dusty high roads, and he wished the spirit of that remark influenced a little more the man-

1869
ner in which questions of the kind were dealt with. Those who represented the Crown in asserting the rights of the Crown in Crown lands against the people, he was sorry to say, were deterred by no considerations; but he wished they would only be as equally astute in observing and enforcing them in favour of the people. In conclusion, he hoped the Resolution would be pressed to a Division.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he should like to suggest one alternative, which, in his opinion, the Government might advantageously adopt. He had the honour of sitting on a Committee two years ago with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who, at that time, was most sound on such questions as that before the House. There was, indeed, no man who then complained more loudly of the conduct of those by whom the Crown lands were administered. Now, if the matter were committed entirely to his right hon. Friend's hands, he had no doubt the old spirit would reanimate him, and that he would deal with it in a manner which would be conducive to the public advantage.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, that if the Resolution before the House meant that these 3,000 acres of uninclosed land were to be preserved for the benefit of the East-end of London without any outlay of national money, he would willingly support it; but if it meant, as he rather feared it did mean, that it involved the expenditure of a very large sum—["No, no!"]—he would not support it. Hon. Gentlemen might cry "No, no!" but he understood the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean that the country would have to pay a large sum for this ground, and he, as a provincial Member, would therefore strongly oppose the proposal. Ever since he had had the honour of a seat in the House he had observed that when the metropolitan Members were seen to rise one after the other in support of any given Resolution, there was sure to be something under it that needed watching. It was sure to be for a free pontage over Chelsea Bridge, or some similar benefit, at the national expense. He begged to thank the Government for the jealous and watchful care with which they guarded the Exchequer against the grasping claims of the metropolitan
1870
Members and other merely local claims, and he hoped all provincial Members would support the Government in that direction.
SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, they did not want a cuttle fish to stir up the waters of this debate, so that all insight into the merits of the case might be totally obscured from the gaze of hon. Members. There was no question of the expenditure of national money involved in the case under discussion, as it was money given to the Government for a particular purpose; and he protested against the imputation which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down sought to throw on 16 or 18 metropolitan Members.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEwas sorry that he could not accede to the appeal which had been made to him by the Prime Minister. An offer was made to the Metropolitan Board, in 1863, to accept the forestal rights of the Crown, and was declined, because it was thought that those rights ought to remain in the Crown.
MR. GLADSTONErose to address the House—["Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has a right to explain; and that, I understand, is the purpose for which the right hon. Gentleman has risen.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his right hon. Friend did not explain but reply, and he wished for a similar right; it has been granted in similar cases. He complained, on behalf of the Government, that this Resolution was impossible to construe. This was not a question of a small sum of money which had been received in former times by the Commissioners of Woods. If it were, let it be reduced to that, in plain terms. ["Order, Order!"] He had made an appeal to the House, which he hoped would be responded to. The question was that of the Government taking the responsibility. ["Order!"] He rose at the close of the debate, when no one else attempted to rise; his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) replied, and allegations were then made which, if made before, he should have met at the proper time. It was not improper, in such a case, for the responsible Minister of the Crown to reply to allegations which he had not had an opportunity of noticing before; and, in saying this, he should confine himself strictly to the point in

1871
question. He wished to state that as Government construed this Motion—and he did not think it could be construed in any other way—it threw on the Government the responsibility, either by itself, or by putting in motion other parties over whom it had no control whatever, of attaining the end, that all rights should be bought up and disposed of which prevented the absolute enjoyment of the remaining 3,500 acres of Epping Forest. If that was not the case, then his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire should give the Government a Motion that they could understand; or, if this Motion referred simply to the limited amount that had been received by the Commissioners of Woods, let his right hon. Friend put it in intelligible terms. For himself, he was totally at a loss to know how to act upon a Resolution of this character. The Resolution involved a great expenditure of public money, against which many had loudly disclaimed; if it did not, he was at a loss to understand what it meant.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided,:—Ayes 96; Noes 197: Majority 101:—Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That it is expedient that measures be adopted, in accordance with the humble Address presented to Her Majesty in February 1870, for preserving as an open space accessible to Her Majesty's subjects for purposes of health and recreation, those parts of Epping Forest which have not been enclosed with the assent of the Crown or by legal authority.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Amendment having been carried, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot) could not bring forward his Motion. Therefore, to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion, he would move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY.
Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Secretary Cardwell.)

ARMY—MARTINI-HENRY RIFLE.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTrose to call attention to the Report on the Martini-Henry Rifle, and to move that—
  "A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the merits of the Martini-Henry Rifle, particularly as to its lock arrangement and mode of stocking; and whether it is the most suitable rifle as compared with others now manufactured to arm our troops with."
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he brought this question before hon. Members with the full intention of dividing the House upon it, and without the least prejudice in favour of any other invention than that brought forward by the Government, and, as the House would readily believe, with no other interest, with no other view, than that of endeavouring to show that this weapon, which the Government wished to place in the hands of our soldiers and of our Reserve forces, was not the best weapon that could be placed in their hands. He could not believe that any Government, especially the present Government, though they had done many curious things, would attempt in such an important question as this was, at the expense of the ratepayers of this country, to place in the hands of our soldiers and of our Reserve forces a weapon which was not the best. The task he had undertaken was, doubtless, a difficult one. He knew he should have the full power of the Government against him, though he thought from what had just occurred in the House the power of the Government was not so strong as it appeared to be some short time before. He had no feeling against the Committee that reported on the Martini-Henry rifle; on the contrary, he was in favour of it. He believed that the gallant officer who presided over that Committee was a man above all suspicion, a man that would act only in the best interests of his country. And as regarded the other Members of the Committee they were equally honourable; but there was yet another name he had to mention—that of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) who sat below him, and who joined the Committee last year, and who, though he was at the time prejudiced against the very arm which he now recommended as the best, would no doubt state to the House what made him change his opi-

  1873
  nion on the subject. Having said so much for the Committee, he must now say that, with regard to the position of the Government in this matter, if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had paid a little more attention to remarks that were made by the Prime Minister, we should not now be in our present state. On the 12th of October, 1868, the Prime Minister said at Warrington—
  "You have heard much about our troops having been badly armed before, and being well armed now. Why, for the last 15 years we have been doing nothing but arming and re-arming, and building and re-building. Thinking we had found a better method of building ships, thinking we had found a better method of constructing guns or small arms, we rushed with precipitate haste to a wholesale execution of the idea of the moment, and before the idea of the moment had been fully embodied, at vast public expenditure, some superior inventions were brought forward and the whole thing had to be done over again. What is the lesson of common sense under these circumstances? It is this—to proceed with moderation. Of course, when you know of better arms and better ships you must get them; but do not throw yourselves into a fever for the purpose."
  He cordially agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in those views; but what was the lesson which common sense taught under such circumstances, and what course had the Secretary for War pursued? That right hon. Gentleman having informed the House that we were in a most efficient state, and fit to go to war anywhere, having told us that we had 300,000 breech-loaders in store—of which he (Colonel Barttelot) believed 200,000 were abroad—set to work to convert the Enfield rifle into a Snider breech-loader, and he had armed our troops and our Reserve forces with that arm, which was superior to any arm known on the Continent. We were now, however, asked to supply money for the most costly arm that had ever been introduced into the service, and he would undertake to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not know at this moment whether it was the best. In answer to the Question, why he was in such a hurry on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman said to him (Colonel Barttelot)—
  "My predecessor appointed a most competent Committee to examine the question what rifle should be adopted. About the time of my accession to office, that Committee reported in favour of the Martini-Henry. I referred the Report to the Ordnance Council, and, under their advice, the weapon has been tried by the troops in hot and cold climates, at home and abroad. The
  1874
  Reports from the different regiments have been laid upon the Table of the House, and are eminently satisfactory. I have re-appointed the Committee, under the same Chairman—Colonel Fletcher—with some new members, to consider those Reports, and the final Report of that Committee has been laid upon the Table also. Sufficient inquiry in a matter of so much importance is an excellent thing; but there is a point at which, if the Army is to be armed at all with the improved weapon, inquiry must terminate and action must commence. The present case is, in my opinion, one for decision, and not for further and probable indefinite inquiry."
  The impression left upon the minds of all was that the right hon. Gentleman, without intending anything actually discourteous in his answer—of which he (Colonel Barttelot) was perfectly assured—was so fully determined to arm the soldiers with this weapon that he would listen to no reasons for delay, and would not farther discuss the question. Having shown that the men were well armed at the present moment, he had another accusation to make against the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that this weapon having been accepted by the Committee in 1869, from that time to the present all other rifles had been shut out from competing with it. In reply to a Question he put, the right hon. Gentleman said that Ms only desire was that the best possible weapon should be ultimately adopted; and, in answer to another hon. Member, he had stated that no limitation whatever had been placed upon the powers of the Committee to examine other arms. These terms were too vague to be employed by a Minister with reference to matters of this importance, and it would have been far more satisfactory had the right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated whether or not private manufacturers, who had been labouring for years to produce a perfect weapon, and who were peculiarly qualified for the purpose, were to be allowed to compete with the Government factories. He was prepared to maintain that the private manufacturers had been totally and entirely excluded from such competition; and, moreover, that it had been found necessary to patch up and alter every portion of the Martini - Henry rifle, adopted in 1868–9, before it could be rendered fit to be introduced into the service. So great had been the alteration in the lock and other parts of that weapon, that it was thought that it would be necessary to alter the manual

  1875
  and platoon exercises before the rifle could be served out to the troops. He had it upon the best authority that all these alterations and mutilations had been made at the Enfield Factory at the expense of the nation. He, however, wished to lay it down as a broad prinple that the whole of these weapons ought not to be manufactured at Enfield, without giving private manufacturers and others out-of-doors an opportunity of competing with the Government. It was not too late, even now, to make the alteration; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to issue a notice to the effect, that the trade would be allowed to compete with the Government weapon. He suggested that 100 rifles of different descriptions should be manufactured by the trade, and sent down to the troops at Aldershot to be tested by them against the Martini-Henry rifle. His only object in making this proposal was, that the best weapon should be placed in the hands of the soldiers, and if the Martini-Henry rifle maintained its character as the best rifle, he should be the first to express approbation of it. His belief at present, however, was that it was not only not the best, but that it was of such a complicated and delicate construction that it would not bear the test of campaigning. If such should prove to be the case, how great was the responsibility which rested on the right hon. Gentleman. It was not because a weapon shot the best under ordinary circumstances that it was the best for the service. The rifle that ought to be selected for arming the troops was one of simple construction, which under the most adverse circumstances would not get out of order, and which, if it should get out of order, could be repaired with the greatest facility; and if the Martini-Henry rifle answered to those qualifications, he (Colonel Barttelot) would have no more to say on the matter. Now, the adoption of this weapon would involve an expenditure of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he carried his point, how rapidly he proposed to arm the troops with it. If the process were to be commenced at once, it would involve an additional expenditure upon the Army for the present year of £500,000, and he should like to know how the Government intended to meet the extra drain upon the finances of the
  1876
  country. He further contended that when any Committee was appointed to inquire into the relative value of weapons, the War Office had no right to make that Committee both a judicial and constructive Committee. The House was aware of the enormous sums which had been expended for the last 10 years upon the trials of various weapons, and from a Return which he had obtained—and in moving for which, he had fully described what he wanted, but what he had given to him was only the rewards given to inventors, and, moreover, was of a most meagre character—he found that £232,227 had been given as rewards to inventors of ordnance, and £8,124 to inventors of small arms. Those sums, however, did not include the cost of the experiments entered into to try the value of these different arms, which had amounted to an enormous sum. For instance, no less than £1,000,000 had been expended upon the 4 - ton 7 - inch Armstrong gun for the Navy, which they had heard so much of, and which, after all, had been condemned; and yet the country was now to be called upon to sanction an expenditure of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 upon a weapon the value of which was, at all events, doubtful. He must again say that before they went into the construction of the Martini-Henry rifle, they ought to be sure they had selected the best weapon procurable by either skill or money. He took three objections against the Martini - Henry rifle. In the first place, he objected to the short Martini-Henry rifle with a sword-bayonet, because he regarded the sword-bayonet as being a most unwieldly weapon, which could not be rapidly fixed on an emergency, and would interfere with the men using their rifles with effect. The result of the encounter between the French and the Prussians at Spicheren was decisive against the sword-bayonet, and proved the fact; for, whereas the latter moved with case with their light bayonet, which they fixed in ascending the hill, the former threw away their sword-bayonets when they ran away. His noble Friend (Lord Elcho)had invented a saw-backed sword-bayonet, and he (Colonel Barttelot) gave him credit for it, for there was no doubt that it was better than the one with which some regiments of our Army were at present armed. But what was the sword

  1877
  bayonet to do? If men were accustomed to chop and saw wood with their sword-bayonets, as had been said to be the case, they would end by roasting geese upon the barrels of their rifles. He further objected to the short rifle, as two ranks of men could not fire with it while the front rank stood upright, and nothing was more difficult than to get the front rank, who found themselves sheltered when kneeling, to stand up again. It might be all well enough to arm one or two regiments with the sword-bayonet, such as the Rifle Brigade and the 60th Regiment, but it would not do to place it in the hands of the whole Army. His second and next objection was to the spiral spring in the lock, and to the method adopted for the purpose of raising the "falling block." He should go but very shortly into this part of the subject, as his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Hick), who was well known as a mechanician, would deal with it by-and-by more effectively than he could hope to do, although he must say the opinions in the Blue Book were entirely against the efficiency of the mechanism employed. In regard to the spiral spring, if they looked through the Reports, they would find that when those arms were issued in some places not fewer than 80 per cent of miss-fires occurred. Could it be said that an arm liable to such a percentage of mis-fires was fit to be placed in the hands of our soldiers? [Lord ELCHO: There is a reason for it.] No doubt there must be; but they had to look not to fair weather times, nor to ordinary rifle - shooting matches and the like, when they could do as they pleased with their arm, but to times of emergency and of actual warfare; and to see that that arm did not got out of order, or, if it did, that it could be repaired in the easiest and speediest possible manner. The hon. and gallant Member then quoted the evidence of one of the witnesses—Mr. Davidson—to the effect that the spiral spring in the lock was not the best form of what was at best an uncertain agent, and that the coil spring would be more likely to be effective than the lever. When gentlemen received a fee of 50 guineas—for that was the sum paid to those witnesses—although he admitted that they were men above all suspicion, yet they would naturally be more inclined
  1878
  to advocate one side of the question than the other if they possibly could. He had, however, got the opinions of some authorities, which he confessed weighed with his mind very much in regard to the Martini-Henry rifle. He had the opinions of Mr. Ramsbottom, chief engineer of the London and North-Western Railway; of Mr. C. W. Baker, civil engineer; of Mr. Greenwood, of Leeds; of Mr. John Penn, of Greenwich; of Mr. Robinson, of the Atlas Works, Manchester, and other eminent gentlemen, who one and all condemned the spiral spring and lock arrangement of the Martini-Henry. The opinions of these authorities were equal in weight to those contained in that Report, and surely when they had such a conflict of opinion on the subject, they ought not to adopt an arm which might fail at the very time they most needed it. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give way, and that he would grant the Committee which was now asked for. Moreover, this matter was discussed by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers at Birmingham, on the 27th instant, Mr. Ramsbottom in the chair; all the rival guns were taken into consideration, and in the conclusion arrived at by that body, it was stated that the details of the lock action in the Martini-Henry involved serious mechanical defects, which, however, might be corrected by employing the ordinary principle of construction in gun-lock action that had been confirmed by long experience; and that this could be effected without any detriment to the principle of closing the breech, while very decided advantages might be gained in respect to other points. That was the opinion of a body whose authority the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not impugn; and if they were so unanimous that there were some defects in the lock apparatus of that rifle, surely he was not asking too much if he again said that he hoped the House would grant him a Committee to inquire into the subject. His third and last objection was, as to the mode of stocking, which in the case of the Martini-Henry rifle was faulty. The stock being screwed on in an extraordinary way, if it got bent it could not be taken out and replaced with the requisite facility as it could be in the ordinary stock at present in use; but it would have to be sawed in two in order to repair any defect occurring in it. He had asked the opinion of a vast

  1879
  number of officers, and they all said that, although that rifle shot well, its mechanism was too complicated for a private soldier. It had been rather difficult to obtain information on the point of merit in shooting; for although there were some rifles sent down to Aldershot, he was sorry to say they were only of one pattern; but when they were sent down the Martini-Henry was being tried at Aldershot, and accordingly these rifles were put into competition with that arm. With regard to their respective merits, he had received two letters which he had permission to use—the one from Sir James Yorke Scarlett, and the other from Major General Lysons. The first letter—from Sir James Yorke Scarlett—had reference to the Westley-Richards rifle. [Mr. CARDWELL: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman cheered; but he was sorry to be obliged to make use of those letters and of Mr. Richards' name, because, without meaning anything offensive, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had formed a strong prejudice against that arm. The letter of Sir James Yorke Scarlett was as follows:—
  "I have much pleasure in sending you the report made to me by Major General Lysons, whom I requested to try in every possible way the rifle you submitted to me. As far as my own judgment is worth anything, I like your arm better than any I have seen. It is handy and strong, and the mechanism of the lock and block arrangement most simple and easily worked. The bayonet fits admirably, and is a very serviceable weapon. The shooting as to accuracy, trajectory and distance being given, I do not think any better weapon could be placed in a soldier's hands. The only suggestion I have to make is that in the arm now before me the cartridge extractor does not seem to work with sufficient power; if the metal by any chance was to be split in the explosion and stick in the breech, though it throws back so easily now, it might be more difficult of extraction. This, I conclude, could be easily remedied. The index on the lock-plate is easily worked, and adds much to security from accident when the gun is loaded."
  The report of Major General Lysons, enclosed, said, that the writer had during the summer tried the Westley-Richards rifles which had been sent to him by Sir James Yorke Scarlett's orders, and had submitted them to every sort of practical test. General Lysons reported in the most satisfactory terms of this arm in respect of breech-action, arrangement and make, bayonet, the pull-off miss-fires, cartridge, and bolt arrangement. At any rate, whether the Com-
  1880
  mittee were granted or withheld by the Government, or whether they took the broad ground, and allowed these other arms to be tried at Aldershot, as he thought they should be tried, the country would have an opportunity of judging for themselves on this matter. He was biassed by no wish whatever, as he was actuated by no interest beyond that of seeing our soldiers armed with the very best weapon available; and so he confidently commended his Motion to the House as one to which, as being reasonable, the Government should assent. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  MR. HICK,in seconding the Motion, said, he disclaimed any intention of acting in any antagonism to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War or anyone else on this question. His only object was in accordance with that of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, to obtain the best weapon wherewith to arm our troops. He was quite aware of what he had done to effect that object, but he thought he should be able to show that further inquiry was not only desirable but necessary. He approached this subject with great diffidence, because any man attempting to re-open a question apparently settled incurred serious responsibility; but, at the same time, a still graver responsibility would be incurred by those who withheld the expression of the opinion they held as to the defects of the Martini-Henry rifle, as to which there had, he thought, existed considerable misapprehension. The Reports laid on the Table of the House dealt only with the Snider and Martini-Henry rifles, many other rifles—such as the Westley-Richards, the Henry, the Soper, and the Remington—being left unnoticed. He thought it entirely wrong to speak of one rifle as the Martini-Henry, because what was so called consisted of the Martini stock and lock and the Henry rifled barrel. They might as well speak of the Westley-Richards-Henry, or the Soper-Henry, or the Remington-Henry, because the same barrel could be used to any of the locks. This being so, he would put this incontrovertible proposition—given the same barrel, and the same ammunition, in the same hands, and there would be the same penetration and the same accuracy, and consequently he would leave the barrel and ammunition out of the

  1881
  question, and reduce the matter to the Martini lock. The Martini lock would never have attained the position it now held if it had been connected with a barrel inferior to what it had; not that he regarded that barrel as by any means the best, for he believed that it was not so good as the Whitworth barrel, which he was sorry had been so much ignored in consideration of this question. The hon. Member said he would briefy describe the different rifles now before the public; and that he could do plainly enough if he had been able to place before them drawings, diagrams, and models; but as their rules did not permit him to turn the House of Commons into a lecture-room he could only attempt to impart by verbal explanation the knowledge he wished to impart. Having accordingly explained the peculiarities of the several rifles referred to the hon. Member proceeded to say—In the opinion of all practical gunsmiths the flat main-spring was incapable of improvement; at least, it was very undesirable to replace or alter it. The defects in the Martini rifle were—first, the spiral main-spring, which consisted of nine coils placed in a cylindrical cavity in the breech-block, and made to act upon a piston or striker placed in the coil. The spring had an initial velocity of 40 lbs. or upwards. The action was that of a short stiff spring moving through a small space, and was more of a push than a blow. This mode of ignition in connection with this spiral spring was, he thought, open to many objections also. To ignite a cap, a sharp, smart, but not heavy blow was required. The consequence was a liability to miss fire, which it was sought to overcome by introducing a stronger spring; but with what effect? By throwing an increased weight on the lever it was almost impossible to make it go along. To facilitate its movement the tumbler of the lock was bevelled, the result of which was that the act of grounding arms was now frequently sufficient to send the rifle off. The second defect was having the lever so near the centre in which it moved that any wear which might occur was multiplied at least seven times at the other end, so that in a short time the block would cease to be raised to the right point, and then miss-fires would frequently occur; to add to this, it would be almost impossible to get the
  1882
  cartridge home. Another cardinal defect was the liability to rust, and the effect of rust on the coils. The witnesses examined before the Committee stated that the spiral spring was more liable to break than the flat spring, and that the spring was the weak part of the arm; and altogether the statements made on this head were strong and startling. It appeared that the springs became weak at the close of the experiments, and that out of 377 miss-fires, 349 were due to the arm and 28 to the cartridges. Then as regards the stocking—it was said that the mode adopted was very convenient, and ensured sufficient firmness for all practical purposes. To that he (Mr. Hick) entirely demurred, for he concluded that a very slight blow laterally would bend the stock from its true position, and with it the screw, which it would then be impossible to withdraw, and the rifle would consequently be rendered useless. It was of the utmost importance that rifles should have a uniform pull, but the pull of this rifle was stated to be irregular, requiring sometimes a heavy and sometimes a light pressure. The pull of the Martini was a straight pull in the direction of the shoulder, whereas in most other rifles the pull was a simple pressure of the finger and a corresponding pressure above with the thumb. Several witnesses spoke to the liability of the Martini to disablement by rust; and there was also evidence of excessive recoil, which, it was said, would give a man a blow on the nose and put him off the firing. [The hon. Member read numerous extracts from the evidence published with the Report.] With all this weight of evidence, he thought they were fully justified in asking for a Committee to inquire into this matter. It might be, and it ought to be, possible to say a great deal in favour of the rifle; else why had it been adopted? But that was scarcely the point at issue; the question was, whether there was any rifle superior to, and not possessing any of the disadvantages of the Martini-Henry rifle; and he believed he had, at all events, made out a case for further inquiry, and that sufficient had been stated to justify the appointment of a Select Committee. While refraining from expressing his opinion as to which was the best rifle, he had no hesitation in saying that, in regard to the points

  1883
  he had named, the Martini-Henry rifle was the worst.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the merits of the Martini-Henry Rifle, particularly as to its lock arrangement and mode of stocking; and whether it is the most suitable rifle as compared with others now manufactured to arm our troops with,"—(Colonel Barttelot,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD ELCHO,having been a member of the Committee whose Report was under consideration, and which had been so extensively and minutely criticized, believed it was the wish of the Secretary of State that he should at once, on behalf of that Committee, offer a few remaks to the House. This he should do most readily, as he was anxious to justify the recommendations to which he had attached his name. Being aware of the strong common sense which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) always so clearly expressed, he had looked forward to his speech with curiosity, though not with alarm. Many years ago he heard the late Mr. Hume remark of some hon. Member, that he was the greatest "allegater" in the House, and he (Lord Elcho) thought his hon. and gallant Friend would in some sort come under that remark, for his hon. and gallant Friend had made a number of allegations which he had wholly failed to subtantiate. He stated that the rifle would not do this or that; and that it had been so altered and transmogrified that its own parents would not be able to recognize it—indeed, his hon. and gallant Friend went on "allegating" in this way to a great extent, but did not give the House documentary proof of any sort whatever. On the other hand, no one could complain in this respect of the hon. Seconder of the Motion, who had displayed much ingenuity and industry in accumulating documentary evidence—indeed, the hon. Gentleman had handled the subject in a most clear and scientific manner. But how did he preface his remarks? He expressed a wish that he could produce diagrams, drawings, and sections, in order to render
  1884
  the subject more intelligible; but this he was unable to do, because the House of Commons was not a lecture-room. He (Lord Elcho) himself also regretted immensely that diagrams could not be exhibited; but, surely, the circumstance showed that a discussion of this nature was not a fitting one for the House of Commons. A chance vote might be given one way or the other; but such a question could not be satisfactorily discussed here in any matter connected with its technical details. He would cite a case in point. After the question of a survey of Scotland had been carefully inquired into by Committees and numerous scientific men, the Report which was drawn up did not satisfy an hon. Member of this House, who procured its rejection; and if a deputation on the subject had not gone to "another place," and got a Commission appointed, there would have been no great cadastral survey of Scotland. He denied that the House of Commons was a proper arena for the discussion of technical questions of this kind, and must say of the manner and extent in which the subject-matter in dispute had been entered into, that probably no technical question had undergone a more protracted and searching investigation than this of the Martini-Henry rifle. He believed the result was thoroughly satisfactory, and that the Report of the Committee rested on grounds which could not be shaken by quoting the opinions of one engineer against another, or by selecting passages from Reports concerning rust and miss-fires. It had been said that if you put an Irishman on a spit you would always find another Irishman ready to turn him; and, in the same way, engineers were always ready to contradict the opinions of their professional brethren. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) told the House that his object was to get the best rifle; but surely this was the object sought by everybody. At all events, this was the object which the Committee endeavoured to attain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman patted the Committee on the back, but fell foul of the Secretary of State for having gone on manufacturing Sniders, instead of adopting the Martini-Henry rifle. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was obliged to do so, because the store of arms was so low that it was absolutely necessary to procure a fresh supply of rifles, and it

  1885
  would have been most imprudent to have ordered the stoppage of the manufacture of Sniders, and the alteration of all the machinery at Woolwich, in order to manufacture a rifle on which the Committee had not at that time finally reported. The House ought to understand that the Committee had gone to the very root of the matter. It originated under these circumstances. Our country was far behind the rest of the world in regard to breech-loaders. Prussia having used breech-loading arms to suppress the revolutionary movement of 1848; but it was not till 1866 that steps were taken to supply our Army with a breech-loading weapon. In that year General Peel, then Secretary for War, offered three prizes: one of £1,000, for the best combination of qualties in a military rifle; another of £600 for the best breech-loading arrangement; and a third of £400 for the best ammunition. An invitation was sent to a number of gun-makers, and 105 responded to it. In March, 1867, a Committee was appointed, consisting of Lieutenant Colonel Fletcher (President), Captain Rawlins, Captain Mackinnon, Earl Spencer, Mr. Edward Ross, and Captain Hay, of the Royal Artillery, who was secretary. This Committee reported in 1869, when it issued five Reports of different descriptions, and its course of procedure was as follows:—Out of the 105 arms sent in, 37 were selected as having complied with the terms of the competition; but with regard to ammunition, the terms had been complied with by one person only—Mr. Daw. Out of the 37 arms they selected nine, and six of each of these nine kinds of arms were ordered to be supplied, together with 1,000 rounds of ammunition. These were tested; the result being that the Committee awarded the second prize to Mr. Henry, while Mr. Daw took off the third prize of £400 for the only ammunition sent in. It might appear strange that the Martini-Henry rifle, which was one of the selected arms, did not obtain a prize in the first award, but the simple reason was that the ammunition was very faulty. The powers of the Committee were then extended, so as to enable them to examine and report upon the best arm for the service. This they proceeded to do, having first reported unfavourably of repeating rifles and compressed powder. From 64 arms sent in, the Committee first
  1886
  selected 10, which they divided into two categories—namely, bolt-rifles and block-rifles—and then, having examined them and tried them further, they adopted the first-named variety, and decided finally in favour of a weapon which was a combination of the Henry barrel with the Martini breech. The Report of the Committee, drawn up in 1869, two years after its first appointment, having been endorsed by the Ordnance Council, according to the customary regulation on the subject, six rifles, made by hand on the model which had been supplied, were sent to Canada, India, Dublin, and elsewhere, to be tested and reported on. Other 200 similar rifles, made by machinery, were afterwards sent out to be tried. This completed the first great division of the question. Immediately after this two minor Committees were appointed, one consisting of military members of the original body, to consider such questions as those of bayonets, muzzle-stoppers, and the rest, and the other to report upon the powder best to be used, and other similar questions. He now came to the second branch of the question—the period at which he himself individually had any connection with it, and that was when the second Committee was appointed in May, 1869. With the 200 arms which had been sent to all parts of the world were sent out 20 questions to be answered by the regiments and persons to whom the arms were forwarded. Reports came in gradually, and he quite admitted that it did appear from these Reports that the arm had not been satisfactory. The Secretary for War in 1869, proceeding anxiously and steadily, as he was bound to do, appointed this second Committee to collect these Reports, tabulate them, consider them, and advise on the whole question. The Committee went very carefully into the Reports, and the result was a Report drawn up in July upon long-action arms. It appeared to the Committee that there had been miss-fires, but it arose from the fact that whereas the Henry-Martini had a spring with a striking power of 40, these arms had been sent out with a striking power of 26 only. Stronger springs were then substituted, and, as a result, miss-fires had practically ceased. The ordinary soldier pull was 6 lbs.; for fine shooting with a small-bore it was fixed at 3 lbs. and the pull of the Martini-Henry had

  1887
  been reduced to 3 lbs. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion before the House, held that a proper "pull off" could not be obtained with the stronger spring, but he did not know at what the hon. Gentleman estimated the "pull off" with such a spring would be.
  MR. HICKexplained that he had stated the amount of pull would reach 12 lbs. to 14 lbs.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had shot with one of these rifles, and the pull did not amount to anything like what the hon. Member had stated. As Chairman of the National Rifle Association, he was naturally anxious to obtain one rifle instead of many, and he made inquiries with a view of ascertaining whether, for finer or small-bore shooting, in which they required a pull of not more than 3 lbs., such a result could be obtained with the description of spiral spring that had been resorted to in order to prevent miss-fires. The question was submitted to Mr. Perry, of the Small Arms Factory at Enfield, a most intelligent working man, to whose opinion he hoped the House would attach due weight, and Mr. Perry in his reply stated that a "pull off" of 3 lbs. could be obtained with perfect safety, by a very slight modification of the spring, and without interfering with its principle. The Committee, in accordance with the decision it had formed upon its consideration of the subject, then recommended the issue of 22 short-actioned arms to troops in different parts of the country. The difference between short and long-actioned rifles was that they were constructed in the breech for using short and long cartridges respectively, and in addition to other advantages possessed by the short-breech action it was thought that it gave a neater and lighter rifle. These rifles having been tried and returned with the Reports, the Committee reported in the strongest terms in favour of the weapon with the short-breech action. This was not, however, the final Report of the Committee, for proceeding cautiously and steadily they were at length able to obtain a Martini-Henry weighing 8 lbs. 7 oz. instead of 9 lbs. 7 oz., the original weight, which was a great advantage, because it enabled a soldier to carry a larger quantity of ammunition with the same aggregate weight. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend opposite cheered that
  1888
  statement; but he (Lord Elcho) maintained that a more handy or better shooting rifle than the one in favour of which the Committee finally reported had never been seen. Having thus stated the course that the Committee had pursued, with the result that had flowed from it, he now proposed to deal with the objections that had been taken to the weapon by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot) and by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hick) who had seconded his Motion. Their first objection was to the sword-bayonet; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman was of opinion that a simple bayonet, which could be used for no other purpose than thrusting, was the best form of that weapon, and that the sword-bayonet on a rifle ought not to be used in a military point of view, on the other hand, Lord Sandhurst had warmly approved the new sword-bayonet, and had pronounced it to be a great and important improvement in the equipment of the British soldier. The Report of the Committee rested upon the practical experience of the new arm of regiments and officers in all parts of the world, which he thought was a sound and secure basis. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had laid great stress upon the opinions of two officers whose letters he had read to the House; but the Committee had had before them the opinions of no less than 90 officers, all of which were summarized and reported on by the Committee, and contained in the book which he now held in his hand. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had further stated this weapon to be of such a delicate and complicated construction that it was utterly unfit for a soldier's arm, and he had stated that the spiral spring was defective, rusted easily, and would not work. But what were the reports which had been received on this subject from India—a country whose warm, moist climate was calculated to test the durability of the weapon and its power of resisting injury to the utmost—thereby showing the opinion of soldiers upon the matter, a jury in whom he was perfectly ready to risk the practical issue of the question? From every quarter in that country reports had been received to the effect that, when the spiral spring had become stiff from the action of rust owing to the want of oil, by opening and closing the breech a few times the

  1889
  freedom of its action was restored. He should like to know whether the same could be said of flat or any other description of springs. It was further stated that, with regard to accuracy, the rapidity of the bullet's flight, and consequent flatness of the trajectory, simplicity of the breech mechanism, and extreme non-liability to get out of order, it was unrivalled, and that compared with it on all these points the Snider was a mere toy. The miss-fires that had occurred with the weapon at one time had entirely ceased now in consequence of stronger springs having been adopted. A large number of these rifles had been fired 1,500 times with ball, and 6,000 times with blank cartridges, and one of them had been fired 10,000 times without being injured. He concluded, from these ameliorations, that the defects found to exist in the long-action rifle, arising mainly from the cartridge and miss-firing, were entirely obviated by the new arm. But, in addition to these opinions of practical soldiers, the Committee had had those of scientific men on the subject. He might, perhaps, be permitted to state that when he first saw this weapon he was greatly prejudiced against it, and it was only after it had been tested at Wimbledon by the best shots in the country, that he began to look upon it in a different light. It appeared to him when he first saw it to be heavy, ill-balanced, and to have a defective lever. This was in March, 1870, and he wrote to the Secretary of State for War to point out these defects. He added that the Westley-Richards seemed to him to be a better arm, and that he had asked Mr. W. Richards to make a rifle free from these defects, which had been done, and which he examined closely, and finding the principle well adapted for the ends proposed, he accordingly submitted it to the notice of the Secretary of State. When it was proposed to him to serve on the Committee, he stipulated that the best and most decisive scientific and mechanical authorities should be invited to examine the breech action. The question arose who should be on the Committee, and he recommended Mr. Gregory, President of the Institute of Civil Engineers. Mr. Gregory was added to the Committee, and was consulted as to the scientific witnesses who should be examined. He recommended Mr. Bramwell, Mr. Nasmyth,
  1890
  Dr. Pole, and Mr. Woods as scientific men, and Colonel Dixon, Mr. Perry, a practical man from Enfield, Captain Beaumont (South Durham), and Mr. Martini were also added to the list; but of these, Mr. Bramwell declined to be consulted, because he had already given his opinion on the subject; the rest of the gentlemen named entered upon a thorough investigation of the Martini rifle. It occurred to him that the scientific evidence would be overhauled, and he asked Mr. Gregory the grounds upon which he had recommended these gentlemen to the Committee. Mr. Gregory replied that they were not only men of high scientific character and distinguished antecedents, but also of different orders of mind and methods of treating the subject; for instance, Mr. Woods was a member of the College of Civil Engineers, and was held in great estimation, and Mr. Nasmyth was well-known as the inventor of the steam hammer, and as a judge of delicate machinery. It was supposed that these gentlemen, because they received a fee of £50, were likely to report in favour of those who gave them that fee. All he could say was that the Committee had great difficulty in getting this fee for them, which he (Lord Elcho) did not think excessive, considering the nature of the labours they undertook to perform, and a correspondence went on for nearly three weeks upon the question whether they should receive £2 2s. or £50. They answered a long string of questions put to them in writing, and they were also examined vivâ voce. An hon. Member, quoting the evidence of Mr. Davidson, said—"And he was one of your own witnesses." Well, the witnesses were not bribed by the Committee, nor were they asked to bolster up the evidence in favour of any particular rifle. Mr. Davidson was the only witness who gave evidence in favour of the case attempted to be made out to-night. Everyone who knew anything of deerstalking was acquainted with the difficulty of getting practical gunmakers to alter their weapons when improvements were pointed out to them. The deerstalker was like the soldier; he wanted to get the most efficient weapon for shooting which was, at the same time, the lightest to carry. The deer-stalker had lightened his gun in defiance of the practical gunmaker's opinion, and inquiry had proved

  1891
  that the soldier could be supplied with a 7½ lb gun equal in effect and with less recoil than the old one. He was not surprised the gunmakers preferred the old form of lock, because a change would oblige them to alter their patterns; but it had been proved beyond question, by the opinions of Dr. Pole, Mr. Nasmyth, Mr. Rigby, the well-known gunmaker of Dublin, and by Mr. Whitworth, that the striking power of the Martini-Henry lock was greater and gave a smarter blow than the exposed mechanism of the old lock. The evidence of gunmakers even showed this. Mr. Lancaster, the gunmaker, had expressed the opinion that the present lock was obsolete for breech-loaders, and that the spiral spring was preferable; other evidence had shown that the spiral spring could be made without difficulty, and that there was no objection to using it long. On the other hand, there were some witnesses, including Mr. Westley-Richards, who did not approve of the lock; and he might remark that the mechanical engineers of Birmingham, at a recent meeting, suggested for what they considered defects remedies which would conform to the character of the Westley-Richards lock. The breech block had also been objected to as unmechanical; but Mr. Nasmyth had said that by the same rule every action of the human arm was unmechanical, and he laid down a far more reasonable test when he said the question was—Did the contrivance do the work required of it? He had quoted evidence showing that it did work; and, in fact, they had in favour of this weapon a combination of evidence founded on practical experience such as had hardly ever been adduced on any matter submitted to Parliament. The allegation that the block pin would be strained by use had been proved to be false by the fact that the Committee had caused a rifle with a leaden block-pin to be fired many times, and then withdrew the pin without difficulty. He must further say that tests had shown that the stock was better than the ordinary stock, even before the arm had been further strengthened. He had felt bound, as a member of the Committee, to justify its action, and to show that the members had no foregone conclusion—unless, like himself, they objected before going into the inquiry to this rifle. Yet he became a warm advocate of the arm,
  1892
  and after hearing the evidence of three of the witnesses he had named to the House, he moved that no further evidence be taken; but the members of the original Committee, and others, determined to go on with the inquiry. They had been prepared to try other arms if necessary, and he resolved to apply to the Secretary of State to obtain such a trial if the Martini-Henry proved defective. He was relieved to find, however, that it was one of the most perfect arms they could obtain. The matter had been submitted for four years to gentlemen who were admitted to have been unprejudiced, and to have acted fairly, and perhaps not unintelligently; and he could bear testimony to the admirable tact, judgment, and firmness of the Chairman of the Committee. It was desired to put the best arm in the hands of the troops; but when were they to do it? When they had got such an arm. They had got this arm after the most laborious work, and after great sacrifice of time and convenience by the members of the Committee, who had gone thoroughly and searchingly into the question. The hon. and gallant Member who proposed another Committee might have the names of gentlemen amongst them, perhaps, being gunmakers, who were disappointed rivals of this weapon; but it did not follow that their evidence would be conclusive. Another inquiry would not settle the question; and if they found the arm defective they would have to throw open the competition to the gun trade of the United Kingdom, for they could not select for trial the rifles of Mr. Westley-Richards, or Mr. Henry, or Mr. Soper. Thus the possibility of arming our troops with the best rifle would be deferred to a remote period. That would not be a practical course; and he might add that gentlemen, whether professional or scientific, or Members of that House, would be discouraged from undertaking such inquiries as he had described if they found that, after all their labour, the question could be re-opened by a Motion and referred to a Committee, which, with all deference to the House, he must say was not so good a tribunal as the one which had drawn up this Report.
  MR. M. T. BASSsaid, the noble Lord need not apologize to the House for occupying its time, for the country was indebted to him for the trouble and

  1893
  patience he had bestowed upon questions of this kind, and of which the one under consideration was not the least important. He did not profess to rival the noble Lord's acquaintance with the subject, and would only repeat the opinions of men who combined the highest science with a degree of practical mechanical knowledge which qualified them to be the most competent witnesses. The question was certainly one of a purely technical character, and no one could thoroughly discuss it who was not master of all the technical details. In accordance with that, it would not be easier to find a higher authority upon it than Mr. Whitworth, and he was informed that Mr. Whitworth was totally opposed to the rifle under consideration. At present, the weapon had really no existence, because the Committee in their Report recommended certain alterations, and all they said was that the desired weapon could be produced by improvements in the Martini-Henry rifle. No doubt the witnesses examined were men of the highest character and engineering qualifications; but with the exception of Mr. Davidson, of the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich, they had not had any experience of that description of mechanism peculiar to the rifle, and Mr. Davidson objected to the Martini arm on several grounds. He (Mr. Bass) was told that the pull-off was heavy; that, instead of being 4 lb or 5 lb, as it ought to be, it went up to 7 lb, and some regimental reports stated that it varied from 6½lb to 17 lb. Such a variation would surely not be sanctioned at Wimbledon, and it would render the arm quite unreliable in a campaign. No foreign Power had adopted the principle of this rifle, and the Portuguese Government had examined it, and had rejected it as an undesirable military weapon. The objections against it had been urged by men of scientific attainments, who were also working mechanics. He was informed that many high authorities at Enfield were strongly opposed to this rifle, and there was a prevailing opinion that the Snider as a military weapon was better. It might not be as accurate in shooting, for he believed the barrel of the Snider was not equal to that of the Martini-Henry; but the mechanism of the lock and breech was far more simple, more effective, less liable to get out of order, and,
  1894
  in short, the Snider was far more serviceable. Was it to be supposed that in the four years which had elapsed since the Committee sat there had been no improvement in rifles, and that the experience of the late war had been thrown away? If this question had been discussed eight months ago, he would have said—"Make any number of Martini-Henries you can;" but now there was no danger, and having waited for four years we might very well wait for a few months longer, for there was a prevalent opinion, that there were many other rifles which would shortly be brought under the public notice, far superior to the one now adopted by the Government. He was further of opinion that such delay would afford the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War a better opportunity of deciding upon the weapon which should be finally adopted. He had that very day received a letter, dated yesterday, in which the writer, who was pretty well known to hon. Gentlemen opposite, had asked him what he thought of a rifle that made 10 shots at 1,000 yards with 35 points, 10 shots at 1,100 yards with 32 points, 10 at 1,200 yards with 26 points, 10 at 1,300 yards with 24 points; and in 40 shots only once was the target missed. He should like to try the Martini-Henry against that rifle. He must support the Motion for inquiry as proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot).
  MR. MALCOLMsaid, that he had been practising the use of the rifle for the last 20 years, and flattered himself he had acquired a good knowledge of the weapon. He must be allowed to correct the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. T. Bass) in respect to the evidence given by Sir Joseph Whitworth, as that gentleman, when giving evidence before the Committee of 1869, stated that he could see no objection to the use of the spiral spring; at the same time, he must allow that he (Mr. Malcolm) did not know what his present opinion might be on the matter. [Mr. M. T. BASS: The very reverse.] With regard to the "pull," having handled 9 out of the 12 rifles sent down by the Government to Wimbledon last year, for the use of the Volunteers at firing points, he must say that he had felt no difficulty whatever as to the "pull," and no variation at all in its working. In the com-

  1895
  petition for the Duke of Cambridge's Prize, 3,119 rounds had been fired from 12 rifles, in the hands of 77 men, none of whom could have had any previous experience of the weapon. Therefore the Martini-Henry could not be such a very difficult arm to manipulate. It had been stated that the Whitworth barrel was superior to the Henry barrel; but, if that were so, why did the makers of all the other rifles choose the Henry barrel? He thought it was a conclusive proof that the latter was considered the best. In noticing the foregoing objection, he must also take notice of the one that had been raised by some hon. Gentlemen to the name of this rifle. He did not think there was any validity in that objection, inasmuch as the breech action was purely that of Mr. Martini, and the barrel and ammunition that of Mr. Henry, than whom no man deserved greater credit for having devoted the whole power of his mind to the lubrication of the bullet and the manufacture of the best ammunition. In all the statements made on the subject that night, no rifle was put forward to compete with the Martini-Henry; no other rifle had gone through the same amount of test and trial. Many hon. Gentlemen, however, seemed to think that the competition ought to be kept still open. Now, every gunmaker had had a fair chance for competing; the time was fixed for all those rifles to be sent in; and every man who had put in his rifle had it fairly tested, the result being the adoption of the two parts combined in the Martini-Henry rifle. A great many hon. Members had paid no attention to the Reports of the two previous Committees. A great deal of stress had been laid on the evidence of Mr. James Davidson. No doubt that gentleman was a very able man, and was employed in the Laboratory at Woolwich. He was, however, more accustomed to the manufacture of ammunition than of arms. Mr. Davidson, speaking of the arrangement of all the parts of the breech action, said he thought that the Martini-Henry rifle was the best that could be devised, and that it protected the working part from any injury. That gentleman concluded by saying, that he was not prepared at present to suggest any better arrangement of the main spring than that shown by the combination; and that he had a high opinion of the spiral springs as far
  1896
  as they had gone, but what he was afraid of was, that they would not continue the same when made in large numbers. Against this last observation, there was the opinion of Mr. Nasmyth, who said he could make 10,000 of them at a time of the same strength. With regard to the objections about the lever he (Mr. Malcolm) thought that the lever did its work, and that it had not in any case failed to do it, either on the trial given by the troops, or at the long-continued firing which the weapon had passed through at the hands of the Volunteers at Wimbledon. He knew an instance in which one of these rifles fired 3,102 rounds in England between December and March without cleaning. At the end of that time it was taken to pieces, when it was found that the coil spring was all right, and that the oil and dirt which had penetrated, to a very small degree, through the hole out of which the plunger had come, had made a perfect case for the spring, which was as bright and as good as when it was first put in. Another had fired 5,097 rounds of ball cartridge and 1,020 blank cartridge without cleaning; while Mr. Perry, the gunmaker, had taken to pieces 65 arms which had been returned from various regiments, and although some of those weapons were returned in a wretched and rusty state, which showed that they had undergone severe treatment, the action in every case worked freely, and the springs were found to be without the least rust. A little practical experience was worth an enormous amount of theory, and the experience derived from this gun showed that it had done its work well. One of the objections urged against it was that the coil springs would get weak, but it had been found that when supplied with the proper 40 lb spring there were no cases of miss-fire. In all these trials, only one coil spring had been broken, and no one could tell how that one breakage had happened. There had been no loss of strength in any other of the coil springs, and when examined those springs were found to be of the same length as when first supplied. No springs could do more than withstand such severe trials as these had been subjected to. As to the trials at Wimbledon, it should be remembered that the man who shot the rifle had a great deal to do with its success or the want of it. The Martini-Henry rifle had

  1897
  been handicapped very heavily at Wimbledon; because, as it was a Government weapon, the general body of men had not been able to get hold of it until they went on the ground; but notwithstanding that it had made extraordinary practice and carried off many prizes. With regard to the question of expense, the cost of this rifle was very much the same as the Snider-Enfield—the difference between them was not more than 1s. The troops themselves declared that for accuracy, flatness of trajectory, penetration, strength and simplicity of mechanism, and strength and safety of ammunition, this rifle was infinitely superior to the Snider. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the Government would decline to grant a Committee; because by granting a Committee they would only be putting off the arming of our troops with a thoroughly efficient weapon for at least three years more. He ridiculed the proposal for referring this question to a Committee of that House, who would merely be able to weigh the evidence of gunmakers on the one side or the other; for no Committee of that House could afford the time for going down to Woolwich Marshes and practically testing the rifles in every possible way. He trusted the Government would decide upon adopting this arm, which was peculiarly suited for the steady courage of the British soldier.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was disposed to recommend the Government to appoint this Committee upon many grounds. He was glad that a large number of our troops were armed with the Snider rifle, which he believed to be a most useful arm; and he must totally dissent from the opinion that this was not a fit subject for that House to take into its consideration. The subject, moreover, was one of the most special interest to the taxpayers of the country, as it involved a very large expenditure. The machinery of our small arm factories ought not to be altered to suit this weapon, until it had been proved beyond doubt that it was the best arm that could be obtained; and it was evident from the Report of the Committee, that its construction had been considerably changed, and that its final form had not even yet been decided upon. [Lord ELCHO: The pattern was sent in on Tuesday last.] Well, even if that was the case, the House had not yet had
  1898
  time to consider the question. The weapon had continually miss-fired, and the evidence given before the Committee proved it was only by a very recent change that that evil had been remedied. While allowing that that object had been attained, he must still, however, object to the rifle on the ground that its efficiency was liable to be seriously impaired by rust. In his opinion, a Committee of the House of Commons would be the best judge of the merits of the weapon; and it could scarcely be disputed that this country was entitled to have the full advantage of the whole intellectual and scientific progress that had been made during the past year. He hoped, therefore, the Government would allow the Committee, moved for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot), to be appointed.
  COLONEL JERVISsaid, this was not a question of four or five shillings, but a question of the re-arming the whole Army at an enormous expense, while they were at present in possession of the very best rifle in Europe. He should not enter into details or engineering questions, because he had been long enough in the service to know that inventions cropped up daily; and although they had gone on improving, it would be years yet before they got a perfect weapon; but from what had occurred in that House, even recently, he thought the Government might well reflect before they asked the House to refuse an inquiry into the expenditure of several millions for re-arming our Army, that was already well armed. His objection was not to the Martini-Henry, but that the Report of the Committee which sat on it would not have the confidence of the Army or the people. He had been long enough in the Army to remember the change from the old Brown Bess to the Minié rifle. That weapon was adopted, not on the recommendation of a scratch Committee, but on the report of a Board of general officers, assisted by competent persons to carry out the experiments. There was not a single officer on the late Committee in any way connected with the small arms department; and the only witness found fault with by the Committee was the only practical man called before them in any way connected with the service—the foreman of the Laboratory at Woolwich. The basis of small arms should be the

  1899
  cartridge, and after that the barrel, stock, and lock. No practical evidence was given before the Committee, and the Inspector of Small Arms, who was one of the most able men in the service, was not called, and consequently they knew nothing of his opinion upon the matter. That being so, why did the Government refuse further inquiry? If this country was famous for the production of one thing more than another, it was in the manufacture of weapons of warfare; and whilst our manufacturers supplied nearly every Government in the world, they were not employed by our own. When the war broke out between France and Prussia, the Government was extremely anxious to arm the service, the Militia, and the Volunteers, with the best weapon that could be had. The heads of the small arms department in Birmingham and London were sent for; but their answer to the Government was that their offers had been so repeatedly refused that they were not then in a position to supply arms, from the want of the requisite machinery, and that it would take them several weeks to provide it. The course of the War Office had been, to rely on those connected with it, instead of the great manfacturers of the country. He spoke practically and not theoretically. He was for more than 12 months at the head of the whole of the small - arms branch in Birmingham, and since then he had had considerable experience in the department in London, and he knew that the manufacturers had at all times been most anxious to do everything in their power to serve the country; but repeated Governments had done all in their power to break up the trade. The arming the British Army was not a question of Whig, Radical, or Tory, but to do what was right, and he for one should be happy to give the Government any assistance in the matter. It was unsatisfactory to the Army at large to know that the armament of the service was in the hands of a Committee of that House—what he might call a political Committee, and Gentlemen not practically acquainted with the small arm branch—instead of being in the hands of general officers to report to the Secretary of State for War. To be practically acquainted with the subject, it should be learned as a mechanic; and unless a man paid attention to one particular branch, he could
  1900
  not expect to become master of the art, and the country could not get what was wanted. This, he again said, was not a party question, and he hoped that if the Government consented to the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry, it would not be with the desire of throwing a silent shield over the question of the superiority of the Martini-Henry, which was started before they came into office, as he was of opinion that neither the Army nor the country had the same confidence in the Martini-Henry rifle as had been expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). He believed the Government had done their best to carry it through; and if a new arm was to be issued, he was desirous it should be done with the fullest consideration, in order that those who gave and those who accepted might be confident they had the best weapon in the world, and not one that had been supplied to them from any political motives. He should, from these considerations, support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot).
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he concurred in the opinion that this was no party or political question, and he was sorry that his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) who preceded him in office, and appointed the Committee, was not present to take part in the discussion. Neither was it a question of expense, because it was not at all necessary or reasonable that if we had got what we considered to be the best weapon, that the country should, on that account, incur greater expense than the circumstances of the time required in anything in the nature of armament. By failing to adopt the best weapon, they would not incur less expense; because, of necessity, the Army must be armed, and in order to do that there must be a reasonable reserve of arms. He hoped the House would not be misled on those points. There were two questions now before them, and they were these—Firstly, had the Committee done its duty, and if they had, had they adopted an arm which, according to their present light and knowledge, it was judicious for them to adopt; and secondly, if there was any doubt about it, was a Committee of the House of Commons the most likely and the most practical way of arriving at a better conclusion? The Mover of

  1901
  the Resolution, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot), in his opinion had justly praised the Committee appointed by his (Mr. Cardwell's) predecessor, and spoke of them in terms very different from the rather disparaging epithets applied to them by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Jervis) who had last addressed them. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex had not been pleased to speak in complimentary terms of himself (Mr. Cardwell); but had found fault with him for one or two things, and he had endeavoured to extract from his speech what those things were. He thought it was alleged that the Government were in too great a hurry in what they did, and refused the co-operation of the trade; but the charge of hurry preferred by the hon. and gallant Member was simply disposed of by the fact that this matter had already occupied attention for some four or five years; and with reference to the other charge—namely, that competition had been refused, that, also, might easily be disposed of, by the remark that he (Mr. Cardwell) entirely accepted the principle that it would be very undesirable the Government should entirely rely upon their own manufacture, as one of the great sources of strength of this country in the moment of emergency was the command of that vast support which outdoor trade was always able to give to the Government in the manufacture of arms. The only object the Government had in view was to obtain the best weapon. There was a time when they talked about "finality" in politics, and they came to the conclusion that there was no finality in politics, nor was there any finality in inventions; for whatever conclusion they might come to to-day, the intelligence would arrive to-morrow that somebody had invented something which ought to be considered; so that a question of this kind could scarcely ever be closed; and it would always be the duty of the Secretary for War to be open to receive suggestions from every quarter, and to consider, not only their value as inventions, but also the cost their adoption would entail to the country, with a proper regard for the efficiency of the services and economy of expenditure. What had been the actual course pursued in the present instance? In 1866, General Peel, then Secretary for War,
  1902
  invited the competition of all gunmakers for the best weapon that could be put into the hands of the British soldier. A reward of £1,000 was offered for such an arm, and a most competent Committee was named to distribute the reward. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last had described it as a "scratch Committee." That was not a complimentary term, but the fact was, that the Committee, which devoted much time, energy, and practical skill to the solution of a most difficult question, was appointed by his predecessor in office, and it consisted of a colonel of the Guards; Earl Spencer, the President of the National Rifle Association—who took so much interest in the subject that he left his own pleasures and pursuits, and took a house at Woolwich, in order the better to labour in the inquiry; the other members being Mr. Ross, Captain Rawlings, and Captain Hay as secretary. Surely, this was a Committee worthy of commendation, and not to be described by such a term, as had been used by the hon. and gallant Member. They had before them some 120 arms, a sufficiently wide range of choice, as he thought; and as the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex had attributed to him prejudice against the weapon of Mr. Westley-Richards, he had simply to deny the existence of any such prejudice, and to inform the hon. and gallant Member that no fewer than nine of the arms submitted to the Committee belonged to Mr. Richards, and if they had not a fair chance, Mr. Richards himself was alone responsible, because he withdrew them from the competition. Indeed, he must say, that he should, in no degree, have been sorry if Mr. Richards's arm had proved the best. The Committee sat, more or less, from the year 1867 to the beginning of 1869, and the arm selected was referred to the Ordnance Council, which consisted, amongst others, of the Under Secretary for War (Lord Northbrook), the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Sir Henry Storks), a general officer; Major General Lefroy, Lord William Paulet, Sir Edward Lugard, Sir Hope Grant; Admiral Cowper Key, not a general officer, but competent to give an opinion on the subject; Colonel Jervois, and Colonel Halliday, Inspector General of Musketry, also competent to give an opinion. This council recommended the provisional adoption of the Henry-Martini rifle, and suggested that

  1903
  200 of these weapons should be manufactured, with a view to their being tried in every climate, by the heat of India and the cold and wet of Canada. This test was absolutely necessary before a safe decision, could be arrived at. Of these 200 rifles which were manufactured, about 100 were forwarded to India, and the remainder distributed in other places. If, as had been suggested in the course of the present discussion, the arm was sent for trial to Aldershot, it could not be there subjected to the test of extreme differences of climate, to which it ought to be subjected before a proper conclusion could be arrived at. They were told that theory was nothing in comparison with practice; that what was wanted was practical experience. Now, what was the way to get practical experience? Was it not to distribute these weapons, and get them used by the soldiers in the field in all parts of the world? That was what the Government did; and in the middle of last year, when the Reports came back they laid them on the Table of the House. Then they appointed a new Committee to examine them; they did not appoint the same Committee. His noble Friend Earl Spencer had ceased to be President of the National Rifle Association, having been called to the discharge of public duties elsewhere, and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), who had shown by his speech that evening the attention he had paid to the subject, was appointed in his room. Would that justify the imputation that the Government had any prejudice against the arm of Westley-Richards? Why, the noble Lord was at that time the warm advocate of that arm. He had written to him (Mr. Cardwell) to urge the claims of Westley-Richards. Well, he said to Colonel Fletcher, on re-appointing the Committee—"Don't be troubled by the consideration that you are merely to consider one subject. You will find that if you are to have a practical inquiry in every part of the world, and if you are to be continually re-opening the question, you will get into a vicious circle, and will never come to a decision at all, and the result will be, that in looking after the better you will never get the good thing at all. Take care that, if you are of opinion that any weapon other than the Martini-Henry should be examined, you will have the right of examining it." The only mem-
  1904
  bers of the former Committee were Colonel Fletcher, Mr. Ross, and the Secretary. Who were the rest? Captain Chapman, Captain Aylmer, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, all perfectly independent and impartial men, as must be acknowledged. And what did the Committee? They determined to take scientific evidence. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Jervis) said, that notwithstanding that a knowledge of machinery and a knowledge of metals were very good things, they did not qualify a man to give an opinion on small arms. [Colonel JERVIS: With many years' experience.] He would like to know how many Gentlemen there were in the House of Commons whose experience of many years had qualified them for giving an opinion on small arms? There were many Gentlemen in the House of Commons who possessed great knowledge on almost all subjects—a great knowledge of mines, a great knowledge of machinery, a great knowledge of metals. He would not have ventured to say that these were not competent to give an opinion on almost every subject; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Jervis) had cut the ground from under him by saying that they were not competent to express an opinion of small arms. Able speeches had been made by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire and the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Malcolm) on the subject, which, in his (Mr. Cardwell's) opinion, somewhat militated against the dictum of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It would have been his (Mr. Cardwell's) duty to have entered into various particulars recorded in the Blue Books; but he found that the passages which he had marked for that purpose were precisely the passages which had already been quoted in the course of this discussion. They dealt with the question of the coiled spring: they were told that Mr. Woods objected to it, because the spring might rust; but when told that there was a protection against the rust he altered his opinion. They had been told by the last speaker that the Martini-Henry rifles had been treated as pet rifles; but he believed that if ever any rifles were exposed to severity of treatment, whether in Canada, in India, or afterwards at Enfield, those rifles were

  1905
  those in question. After that a Report was made by this Committee, and that Report was considered by the Ordnance Council. He now came to the officers of that Council. The members were not the same. Sir Richard Airey had taken the place of Lord William Paulet; Captain Hall of Admiral Cowper Key; and there were other changes. And what did this new Council? They recommended the final adoption of the Martini-Henry; the Lords of the Admiralty confirmed the recommendation; the Commander-in-Chief confirmed it. That was the course which had been taken with regard to this question. Now, he asked the House—and he wished to do so in the spirit in which the whole discussion had been conducted—were they likely to mend the conclusion by a Committee of that House? The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Jervis) said there was no need for any hurry in this matter. He agreed with him. He did not think that the Government had shown any disposition to hurry, nor would they desire to hurry the subject in future; neither would they shut their ears to any alteration or suggestion that might be brought forward on the subject. But the question was—"Would improvement be effected by referring the matter to a Committee of the House of Commons? How would the Committee be formed? What witnesses were to be called before it; and what was likely to be the result of the proceedings? The House had already been told that there were no hon. Members in the House sufficiently acquainted with small arms to be competent judges on the subject. What sort of witnesses were they to call? Should they call the Government witnesses? The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass) suggested men practically acquainted with the subject. He (Mr. Cardwell) took the liberty of interpreting the phrase to mean gentlemen interested in the manufacture of small arms. Now, he ventured to say, that if they appointed this Committee, and that Committee called before them such witnesses, the result would be to verify the old adage of Quot homines, tot sententiæ everybody would recommend his own weapons, and the result would be greater confusion than ever. As practice was to bear the bell, and theory was to be disregarded, every man would recommend
  1906
  his own invention, and claim that his opinion must prevail, on the ground that his experience of it was the greatest; and the general perplexity on the subject would be increased. And when they had got the Report, the House would be in this position—General officers, members of the Ordnance Council, had expressed their opinion as to the recommendation; distinguished soldiers and experienced riflemen had done the same; and that opinion was in favour of the Martini-Henry rifle. The highest professional authorities were unanimous in favour of the Martini-Henry. Then what was that House to do? Were they to send out for another two years a large number of weapons to every part of the world to be reported on subsequently? Great expense would be incurred, delay would be occasioned, and the House would arrive at no opinion at all. To recapitulate, competition was tried, but no weapon obtained the prize that was offered. Then we had a most competent Committee, which suggested a weapon for provisional adoption, and that weapon had been tried in India, in Canada, at Aldershot, in the Navy, and at Wimbledon. It had been again referred to the Committee and to the Ordnance Council, and scientific men had given their opinion upon it; and that being the case, he would respectfully ask the House to be allowed to adopt, as the best weapon known at the present moment, the Martini-Henry rifle. The Government did not propose to launch into any extravagance, and the Estimates were not framed with any view to the total re-arming of the British Army; and though he did not think that the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex had any just ground of complaint against him for giving the troops last autumn the best weapon then available—the new one not being adopted—he did submit that it would be more advisable, now that the superior weapon had been adopted, and had been shown by experience to be better, not to go on manufacturing the former weapon, but, in the true spirit of economy, make the best rifle of which they were aware. Should it come to the knowledge of those who were responsible in the matter, that it was an error to proceed manufacturing Martini - Henry rifles, other measures would be taken. But they would go on to infinity and land in an absurd conclu-

  1907
  sion if, after the theoretical and practical testimony in favour of a particular weapon which they had had, they hesitated, to adopt it, and expended the public money in the manufacture of an arm less desirable and valuable.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he had failed to learn any satisfactory reason from the right hon. Gentleman why the Committee should not be appointed, as those which he had given would be equally forcible against the appointment of any Committee. The opinions expressed during the discussion surely justified some investigation. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had told them he was no egotist, and that he had sat on the Committee with a prejudice at first in favour of the Westley-Richards rifle; but the noble Lord was just an illustration of the man who "went to scoff and remained to pray." Then the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Malcolm) said this inquiry would take three years. Now, he (Mr. Muntz) guaranteed it would not take three months; and if, at the expiry of that period, the Martini - Henry was not proved to be perfectly unfit for the use of our troops he should give up the question. They had had five years already of investigation and discussion, and surely an additional three months was a matter of little importance, as there was no immediate hurry. They were beginning to distribute the Snider, which he believed to be the best gun in Europe. It was better than the needle-gun, or even the Chassepôt, the recoil of which was much to its disadvantage; but as to the Martini-Henry, while admitting the excellence of the barrel, the chief cause of its good hitting powers, what would they say of a weapon which in one of its trials had 382 miss-fires out of 1,000 rounds? He had pointed out two years ago that the spiral spring was not sufficiently strong, and that miss-fires might consequently be expected; and the Blue Book had proved the correctness of every word he had then said. He knew he spoke at a disadvantage on this subject, because he was supposed to be urged, on by his constituents. The fact was, however, they did not care one farthing about it. They were indifferent as to the nature of the gun so long as they could secure orders for its manufacture. Then it was also most unfair to insinuate that this was a
  1908
  question of Mr. Westley-Richards, for he knew that gentleman, and if there were an election for Birmingham tomorrow, he would, probably, vote against him (Mr. Muntz); therefore it was unjust to put him under such an imputation. If the Martini-Henry rifle were a safe gun, he should not have said one word upon the matter; but he contended that if the Germans had been armed with it in the late campaign, one half of the muskets would have become useless before they reached Sedan, as he was confident it would not stand the wear and tear of service in the field. In Sir John Moore's retreat from Lugo to Corunna, even the old Brown Bess was knocked to pieces, and became useless. Was it right for a great country like England, which, though she had no great anxiety now, might be compelled, at no distant date, to defend her territories all over the globe, that we should risk the probability of an inferior weapon being placed in the hands of our troops? All that was asked for was six weeks or two months' delay for investigation, and he should be sorry if the Government should incur unnecessary responsibility by refusing the Committee.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Secretary for War thought that a Committee would be of no service upon the question of small arms; but he (Mr. Newdegate) happened to be a Member of the Small Arms Committee of 1854, the result of whose investigations materially affected the supply of small arms to our troops in the Crimea. The House, acting on the Report of that Committee, induced the Government to send orders to the arms trade of England, though they had sent orders to foreigners, and the result was that the English trade, which had been reported against by the Ordnance Office, supplied all the arms that were wanted, which were five times the number the Ordnance Department said they would be able to produce. This showed that a Committee upon this subject would not be incompetent. It was evident from the debate, that the question had been decided in favour of the Martini-Henry rifle long before the tests to be applied to it had been decided upon; and the Government were acting upon the tests applied to one rifle instead of the many. What was felt was that the tests should be applied to some of the other arms. It did, indeed, hap-

  1909
  pen that tests had been applied to one other of these arms by Sir James Scarlett and the troops at Aldershot, and it had gained the complete approval of the commanding officer at Aldershot, and of the Army also. But the Government ignored the experience thus gained, though the experiments had been conducted under the direction of the Secretary for War. He could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman was weary of the experiments, and took refuge in the advice of his own officers. For years, officers consulted upon this subject had shown a dislike to the production of any English gunmaker. As a proof of this, he would mention that in 1852 he himself introduced Mr. Westley-Richards to Lord Hardinge, and he attended all the trials of the rifle invented by that gentleman, and he could answer for this—that the arm he shot with was the arm adopted by Lord Hardinge. But the Government had changed the name, and called it the Enfield rifle, although it had been made by Mr. Westley-Richards, under the direction of Lord. Hardinge, and Enfield never saw it until it was complete. He mentioned this as evidence of the objection to which he had referred. It was not unnatural that officers should be jealous of information coming from practical men, for it offended their pride; and unless its producers made over to the officers of Government the credit of producing the arm, they were sure to meet with coldness from the officials. The Secretary for War said that all the arms were tried about two years ago, except the Westley-Richards, and this omission was because that gentleman withdrew his weapon. The reason he did this, was because he feared a repetition of the unfair treatment experienced in former years. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought that it was a mistake to withdraw his weapon; but were they to be deprived of the benefit of having it because of this? He thought that the Secretary for War was making a mistake in refusing the assistance of a Committee, because such a Committee would embody public opinion and collect the knowledge of practical men without being influenced by official prejudice.
  CAPTAIN BEAUMONTsaid, he opposed the Motion, on the ground that it would be impossible for a Committee of that House to arrive at a conclusion of
  1910
  any practical value on a technical subject like the one under discussion, without causing great and unnecessary delay. Either the question must be hung up for a year, or the Committee must report within three months, a result which he did not think desirable.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTopposed the Motion, and denied, as a musketry instructor of experience, that the Martini-Henry rifle was a weapon of such delicate mechanism as had been stated by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). It had passed successfully through a test to which scarcely any other weapon had been subjected.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANobserved, that the principles which had governed the manufacture of rifles of late years were due to Sir Joseph Whitworth; and what was called the Henry was a direct piracy of Sir Joseph's invention.
  SIR HENEY STORKS,in answer to a remark of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), said, he never intended to disavow any statement in regard to the labours of the Committee that had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Under Secretary for War (Captain Vivian). He on one occasion urged Captain Fletcher to expedite the labours of the Committee; but praised the diligence and energy they had displayed in conducting the work intrusted to them.
  MR. NEWDEGATE,in acknowledging a correction of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hussey Vivian), said, he had omitted to notice the fact that Sir Joseph Whitworth had been associated with Mr. Westley-Richards.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 72: Majority 65.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL.
  Select Committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal Bill nominated:—Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. JESSEL, Dr. BALL, Mr. BRISTOWE, Sir RICHARD BAGGALLAY, Mr. SHERLOCK, Mr. MATTHEWS, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL:—Three to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.