§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the swords served out to the City of London Artillery are in the condition in which they were originally issued, and that, consequently, the explanation given of the failure of the Infantry bayonets, owing to structural alteration, does not apply to them; whether the worthless-ness is due to their manufacture from an 538 improper material—namely, Bessemer steel; and, who had the contract for; and, who passed these swords?
§ THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE) (Exeter)(who replied) said: The sword bayonets of which the City of London Artillery are in possession are in the condition, so far as pattern is concerned, in which they were originally issued. No structural alteration has been made in them. An inspection of these sword bayonets is now in progress; and until it is completed it is impossible to say by whom these particular weapons were made, and who passed them. The manufacture of sword bayonets of the pattern referred to commenced in 1854, and went on till 1876. Large numbers were obtained from contractors at home and abroad, and many were made at Enfield. Those made at Enfield were all of "Firth's steel;" and the specification for those obtained by contract required that they should be of the best cast steel.
§ In reply to Mr. HANBURY (Preston),
§ MR. NORTHCOTEsaid: The Report as to sword bayonets has not yet been received; but we are pressing for it. With reference to intrenching tools, it appears that a number of ordinary shovels issued to the 2nd Battalion of the East Kent Regiment were recently broken while being used by the troops. Opinions differ materially as to whether the usage to which these shovels were subjected was fair or otherwise. They have been returned into store; and the Inspector General of Fortifications has been requested to assist in thoroughly investigating the question.