been introduced in France as far back as forty years ago, and had led to great economy in the expenditure for warlike purposes. In a pamphlet published by Major General Balfour the arguments used by the gentleman who had proposed it in the French Chambers will be found stated. That gentleman asked whether public property was precious only when it consisted of monies, and whether 100,000 francs ought not to be looked after when they were transferred to bronze, hemp, or other articles, as well as when they were in specie. He further observed that the Chambers, while holding Ministers responsible for even a centime in money, kept no efficient control over the vast sums expended in Warlike Stores. Major General Balfour himself expressed a strong opinion as to the necessity for a regular Return to Parliament of the consumption and stock of Stores. Last year he brought forward a Motion on the subject of the conversion of guns. At that time we had 30,000 cast iron guns rotting in our stores, which guns had for several years previously been treated as so much rubbish. The officers of the Government had done everything to prevent them from being regarded as anything else. If year after year those guns had appeared in a Return presented to Parliament was it at all likely that the House of Commons would have gone on voting large sums for new guns without making an effort to have those old ones utilized in some way. Again, if such a Return was laid before Parliament, the House of Commons would not allow the War Department to fling in their face its inefficiency in respect of accounting for certain items of military expenditure in the colonies. This was done now in a note stating

"This is exclusive of the army accoutrements, barrack, hospital, and other stores, a great portion of which is supplied from this country, and the

value of which cannot be stated."

The Department might just as well say that the cost of the food and clothing of soldiers in the colonies could not be stated. He had now to call attention to the manufacturing establishments. During the last Parliament those establishments were the subject of very great anxiety to the House of Commons; but the present Parliament had taken little or no notice of those establishments. It had allowed them to increase without making any inquiry or putting any check upon them. He ventured to remind the House of the arguments used

in favour of those establishments. They were to give the Government the power of manufacturing for themselves in times of emergency, and also, he might say, to give them a certain efficiency in manufacturing. The second object in view was to have a check over trade prices in times of emer gency. The third was, by having large manufacturing establishments, to enable the War Department to do with only a small stock on hand in times of peace. In his evidence before the Ordnance Select Committee Colonel Boxer adduced the lastmentioned argument in favour of those establishments. He now ventured to ask what had been the result of setting up those large manufacturing establishments? He admitted that in point of execution the gun-carriages and other work were perfection. With regard to our manufacturing establishments being a check over trade prices, he was afraid they had never shot the mark; because so effectual had been their check over trade prices that we had almost ceased to have any trade prices as a check over the prices of our manufacturing establishments. He thought this position was a worse one than would have been even that of our having no check over trade prices. It was true that for small articles, such as small arms, we went to the trade; but speaking as regarded the heavier articles, he was correct in saying that we had now no trade prices. With regard to the third expected advantagethe decrease of our stock of stores in times of peace, having no Return to go by he was unable to give a correct statement of facts; but he would venture to say that in neither this country nor any other were there to be found any establishments so filled to repletion as our Government estab lishments were with every kind of Warlike Stores. Though the last Parliament was of opinion that manufacturing establishments were desirable, that was only to a moderate extent. Sir Benjamin Hawes and Mr. Godley both stated their opinion that the Government should not carry the system of manufacturing in public estab lishments too far. The former Gentleman said he thought that we should rely more on private enterprize. The country had gone on increasing its establishments to such an extent that they had come at last to believe that they had a vested right, not only to manufacture but to invent; and that if any man dared to enter the field against them he was to be opposed by every means. To such an extent had

appointed merely represented the different interests of those manufacturing establishments in the War Office, where they were already sufficiently powerful, he could not be of the slightest use in looking after their economical working. To what were the evils to which he referred due? Simply to the enormous increase of those estab lishments. The House voted, year after year, large sums of money for the increase of the capital account of those establishments; and yet they were unable to tell whether that outlay would be remunerative or not. Nay, more; there was no man in the War Department who was able to give an opinion on that point. The evidence given by Mr. Anderson, chief engineer of the Royal Gun Factory, before the Committee of 1860, with respect to an increased outlay of £100,000 upon that establishment, showed that no man but Mr. Anderson himself was able to give an opinion whether that increased outlay would be remunerative. Again, with the facilities which those manufacturing establishments now had for coming to the House and increasing their capital account it was no wonder that they should do so. And that they did, not only in the Esti mates brought before the House, but by the various applications they made after the Vote was passed to the War Office and the Treasury for the transfer of money from one item to another. Never in one single instance had the head of those manufacturing Departments asked for a transfer from capital account to wages, but it was invariably from wages to mate. rial and from material to capital account. In 1864-5 no less than £45,000 was transferred from wages to materials in the Royal Gun Factories alone. In 1865-66 the Royal Gun Factories applied for £4,100 for increasing the machinery; and it was said that it would be more than covered by the saving in material. On the 17th of October an application was made for £14,000 for increasing the material, to be paid for out of the savings in wages. In December, in consequence of the great pressure of work at the Royal Gun Factories, it was necessary to spend a large sum of money for furnaces. In spite of the Appropriation Act passed every year, the House had no control what ever over the money it voted for those manufacturing establishments. In the expenditure for the year ending the 31st of March, 1867, there was an excess over the grants made by that House of £41,129

ther. In consequence of the Report of the Ordnance Select Committee a sample gun was made in 1864 on the cheap construction pattern, with a steel tube, the cost, which he had taken from the manufacturing accounts, being-for labour, £156; material, £516; percentage, £72; making a total of £744, or £61 more than the original estimate. In 1866 the gallant General the late Secretary of State for War (General Peel) adopted the cheap construction principle; and twenty-five guns of that class were ordered. The manufacturing accounts laid before the House this year showed that these cheap construction guns cost in each case-labour, £194; material, £554; percentage, £82; making a total of £830, or £76 more than the sample gun, and £147 more than the original estimate. The difference between the gun of 1866 and the sample gun, in labour alone, was £38, although in 1866 there were greater facilities in the shape of heavy steam cranes and hammers, and although the sample gun was made in seven pieces and the gun of 1866 in six pieces. Moreover, they had acquired greater experience in 1866; and it was always cheaper to make a number of guns than to make only one. With regard, again, to material, the steel in the gun of 1866 cost £48 less than in the gun of 1864; while the total material was represented as costing £38 more. Upon this calculation the iron and coal of the gun of 1866 would have cost £86 more than the iron and coal of the sample gun of 1864; but in point of fact iron had fallen £1 per ton meanwhile, and the material used was absolutely less than that used in the sample gun of 1864. He trusted that these statements of his would be thoroughly investigated, and for that purpose he was ready to lay them before a Select Committee. He had no personal interest to serve or to promote; his only object was to point out the system which this country had raised up, and the powerful influence which it brought to bear against both manufacturers and inventors in this country. The right hon. Baronet, when he brought forward the Army Estimates, admitted that they ought to be a subject of very great anxiety to the House of Commons, and that the House had little or no control over them; and he also proposed, as some improvement in the organization of those establishments, to set up one man as the head of the Arsenal at Woolwich. If, however, the man they

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

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

MR. HAYTER said, that before the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War replied, it would be convenient that he should call the attention of the House to what was comparatively a small matter, but nevertheless one of great importance-namely, the advantage of returning to the old practice in respect to the serving out of ball ammunition. The prac. tice up to the year 1827 was to keep the twenty rounds of ball ammunition now carried by all non-commissioned officers and privates of the army in store, to be served out to the men only when going on guard, or when held in readiness for immediate duty. That practice still obtained in the cavalry. It was absurd to suppose that it would be considered a slur upon the army to withdraw this ammunition from the possession of the men. He heard a general complaint expressed of the delicate character of the Snider ammunition, inasmuch as it was apt to break through the paper, and becoming loose was rendered unfit for use. When such an accident occurred the whole expense of re-covering it fell upon the captains of companies, which was viewed by them as unjust. If the practice he suggested were adopted also, they would get rid of the double process which was now required on every field day, when the ball cartridge had to be delivered into store, previous to the issue of the blank. Should it be necessary to hold the troops in readiness, a previous order would be given by the

general officers in command, or whole battalions might be served with ball cartridge in twenty minutes. Much greater security would also be obtained against the acts of men of violent and furious temper, or of drunken habits, who in their moments of insanity were tempted to perpetrate crimes of murder or manslaughter, from which they themselves would wish to be guarded against. He need only remind the House that in 1861 there were six cases of military murder to show the importance of adopting some means to prevent the repetition of such offences. In the present year a case had lately occurred at the Horfield Barracks, Bristol, in which a Serjeant Maskell, of the 3rd Buffs, armed with a breech-loader, had fired five successive shots in the barrack-yard and ultimately taken the life of a private soldier, before the guard could close with him, and this murder was also committed

Al

with the service ball ammunition. though happily there had been a considerable diminution of such crimes of late years, they nevertheless occasionally occurred under circumstances to excite the utmost horror and alarm. Military friends of his were in favour of the plan he recommended, and amongst them he would wish to include Lord Penrhyn, who as an old adjutant, and strong Conservative in military matters, gave to this proposal his most strenuous support.

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

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, who rose with other hon. Members, said, he had given way to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter), as he thought that he was going to address the House on the larger question introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson). He was ready to admit the great importance of the proposals embraced in the Motion of that hon. and gallant Member who was entitled to thanks for the attention he had given to a subject, which not only involved the interests of the country as regarded