§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)asked the Secretary of State for War what number of swords belonging to British troops were broken in the recent engagement near Suakin; by whom were they manufactured, and when were they supplied; what test was applied to them, and when and where: and, whether there are other similar weapons in the hands of other troops?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,) Lincolnshire, HorncastleIn answer to this Question and to that which appears on the paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Medway Division of Kent (Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy), I may say that as soon as I heard of the alleged failure of swords and pistols at Suakin I directed inquiry to be made into the matter. The Reports called for, which fully answer all the questions raised by my hon. Friends, were laid upon the Table last night, and will be in the hands of Members very shortly, as will also a Report on the swords of the 5th Dragoon Guards, in reference to which the hon. Member for South Donegal has given notice of a Question for Monday. Two swords broke during the action, but no lives were lost through the failure of any weapons at Suakin.
§ MR. HANBURYDoes the Report say that other similar weapons are now in the hands of British troops?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEThe Report will deal fully with the whole question.
MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)What was the cost to the Government of those swords?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEI am afraid that the hon. Member must give me notice of that Question. I have forgotten what the terms of the last contract were.
MR. MAC NEILLWill the right hon. Gentleman give, in the Report he 119 proposes to furnish, the name of the contractor who supplied these swords?
§ MR. E. STANHOPECertainly; the names of the firms contracting for all swords that have been tested will be given in the Report.
§ MR. MUNDELLAWill the Report state the difference in cost between really good, serviceable, and battle-worthy swords and those which proved to be defective?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEI do not altogether understand the Question.
§ MR. MUNDELLAI want to know what is the difference between the cost of these damaged swords and a superior weapon?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEA superior weapon, such as an officer in the Army might use, will probably cost about seven guineas, while the ordinary swords put into the hands of the cavalry soldiers have averaged, I believe, 16s. or 18s.; and, what is more, they passed every test which the Military Authorities have laid down.
§ At a subsequent period,
§ MR. E. STANHOPE saidIn reference to the question of the cost of the swords, I have an additional remark to make. The Question was put to me without notice, and I should prefer to state on Monday what the exact cost is. I may say that there has never been any intention to cut down the price. The Military Authorities settle for themselves what particular class of swords they want, and the contract is then put out to tender.
§ MR. MACNEILLWill the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance on Monday that the swords of the officers and of the soldiers are of the same quality?
§ MR. E. STANHOPENo; that is not so. The officers provide their own swords.
§ MR. HANBURYAre the officers' swords ever tested at all?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEThat is entirely a matter for the officers themselves. The officers buy their own swords—and no doubt take care to provide themselves with the best weapons.