§ ٭(9.51.) MR. MARJORIBANKSI do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will grumble if I ask leave to refer for a few moments to the subject which the House discussed at some length a few days ago. There are very few subjects in which the House of Commons should take a more keen interest than the question of a complete re-armament of the Forces of the country with an entirely new weapon. The House of Commons is in duty bound to do all that it can to insure to the soldiers and sailors not only as good an arm as can possibly be obtained, but an arm which is unequalled by that of any other country. This is not too much to ask, seeing that England is the first country in the world in regard to the manufacture of small arms, and if we cannot turn out a better weapon than any other country we have no right to the position we now hold in regard to gun-making among the nations of the world. The House is specially interested in this question also, because it is the guardian of the public purse; and when such a change of weapon is effected, at a cost of many millions to the country, the House is bound to secure that the weapon selected shall be one that is, while really effective, of not too expensive a character. Since the last Debate on the subject I have had the opportunity of examining many rifles, and within the last two or three days I have had placed in my hands the rifle which has been just adopted by the Belgian Government. It is the latest form of the Mauser rifle. As the hon. and gallant Member for Galway will admit, the rifle is a very taking weapon in appearance. It is of very ingenious construction, quick-loading, and simple. The Secretary for War has again and again stated that the contract price for the British rifle as supplied by private firms in the country is £5 10s. I am in a position to give the exact contract into which the Belgian Government has entered for a supply of 150,000 of the new pattern Mauser from a private company in Belgium. The price is 81½f., including bayonet and sheath. The bare allowance for these accessories is 5½f., 1158 thus reducing the actual cost of the rifle to 76f., or practically £3. This price covers all the patent rights, and, further, out of this contract the company expect to recoup themselves for £112,000 expended in fitting up the new machinery for the manufacture of the rifle. The weapon is very much less complicated than the Lee rifle. The number of processes necessary for its manufacture is about 700, as against 1,600 in the British rifle. I do not wish to raise again the question that has been debated by the House, and I intend loyally to accept the decision which the House came to on that occasion. But I think the House has some right to feel that the Committee who selected the Lee-Enfield rifle were very much enamoured of the offspring of their own brain. Really a service is being rendered to the right hon. Gentleman and to his colleagues in stiffening them a little against accepting as absolutely correct all the conclusions arrived at by the Small Arms Committee. I will recapitulate some of the principal objections against the Lee rifle. In the first place, the bore is too small, especially because it necessitates the adoption of a bullet with a metal case instead of a simple leaden bullet. The system of rifling, again, though admirably suited to a plain leaden bullet, is not suited for a hard metal-cased bullet. The right hon. Gentleman the other night stated to the House, and very rightly stated, that the bore adopted is approximate to that which has been approved by all foreign Governments. That is true enough, but no foreign nation has adopted the system of rifling selected by this country. The system we have adopted is one in which the bullet is taken by the sharp edges of the grooves, and so is given the necessary spin; but the system adopted by foreign nations is one in which the bullet itself is moulded into the shape of the grooves, and is taken by the flat sides of the grooves. Objections are taken to many of the details of the rifle—to the magazine itself, to the system of the breech action, its complexity and method of working, to the necessity of having two methods of loading, and to many other details. I only refer to them roughly and briefly, but if even a few of the objections urged 1159 against the rifle are well founded, it is certain that the decision of the Committee ought to be reviewed. The right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have admitted that, though they have issued and are issuing every week large numbers of Mark I, and have already sent out some 50,000 or 60,000 of them, yet they have decided it is necessary to manufacture a hundred rifles of Mark II., in which changes of a very material character are to be introduced for the purpose of experiment. I do not find fault with that decision. On the contrary, I think it extremely wise and proper; but what I want is that the Government will, at the same time as they make these trials, also make trials of other patterns of magazine rifles. I have been enabled to see many patterns of magazine rifles, but I am not an advocate of any one of them, and no inventor has got hold of me. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there is an immense number of patterns which in many points resemble the pattern adopted by this country, and from those rifles I think the Government should endeavour to glean improvements for their own rifle. The Mannlicher, the Kruka, and the new pattern of Mauser, adopted by the Belgian Government, for example, in many ways run on the same lines as those of our new magazine rifle. In every one of those rifles there are faults. But they all have good points in which they excel ours. I admit the Government, having adopted a particular pattern, cannot go hack upon it, but they can and should make improvements on it. My own view is that to bring these outside weapons into the experiments would be useful from another point of view, as they would supply a standard of comparison with the Government weapon. To take only one point of detail, I believe there can be no doubt the Government rifle can be improved in its method of closing. It requires no great mechanical knowledge to see that if a bolt locks in the breech where the explosion takes place, that form of locking will be stronger than a locking which takes place four or five inches back, as it does in the Government rifle. I think an improvement might be obtained in that respect easily, and without at all changing the 1160 system, or necessitating any change in the machinery for making the rifle. I make these suggestions as a well wisher to the War Office, and with the sole desire that the Army and Navy shall have the best possible weapon.
§ (10.8.) MR. E. STANHOPEThere was one point at least in the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which I can entirely agree—indeed, we are all agreed, in desiring to obtain the best rifle we can. I cannot, however, go so far as to agree with the argument the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to the House with regard to the Belgian rifle based on its price. I do not mean to deny it is an advantage that a rifle should be cheap, but I do not admit that it is possible to make a real comparison between the cost of the Belgian rifle as made in Belgium, and the same rifle if made in England, especially having regard to our requirements as to interchangeability of parts.
§ MR. MARJORIBANKSI ought to have said the parts of the Belgian rifle are interchangeable.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEAt any rate, it is very difficult to compare the price of a rifle as made in Belgium with the price of one as made in this country. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, the Committee which chose the magazine rifle for the British Army did examine every rifle then in existence. It had every single form of magazine rifle before it, with the result that the principles contained in the present rifle were adopted as on the whole best suited for a military weapon. We have gone on improving. We have adopted all sorts of improvements up to the time of manufacture, and we shall not stop. I have no doubt that in a year or two other suggestions will be made tending to a simplification and cheapening of the cost of manufacture, but I cannot undertake to do what the right hon. Gentleman asks. We are going to try Mark II., but to try all other weapons against it would be as much as to say we propose to abandon the rifle and adopt a totally different principle. That is not contended for by the right hon. Gentleman, who is now prepared, partly perhaps 1161 because he cannot help himself, to adopt the rifle and adopt improvements to it from foreign weapons. The only effect of adopting the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be to throw back the manufacture now being carried on. Before we chose a new rifle we tried the Mauser rifle against it, and we were always trying other weapons. I hope these experiments will lead to improvements which will be to the advantage of the weapon as a whole. I have consulted the Adjutant General of the Army on the point, and he has stated with very great force that of course we cannot aim at finality in these early days of magazine rifles, and if we were to adopt another pattern it would be at least three or four years before the rifle could be issued to the troops. The Adjutant General concluded his Minute with these words—
This is the satisfactory position we now are in—we confidently believe that in Mark I. we have a good useful military weapon, and that Mark II. will be a thoroughly satisfactory arm in every way.The Government are willing to submit the weapon to any fair test, but we cannot re-open the question by any fresh experiments, and so delay the general issue of magazine rifles to the Army. While I am willing to make every use of the suggestion made, I cannot consent to reopen the general principle of the weapon which has been adopted.