Page images
PDF
EPUB

to the Government, and he had no doubt and in those cheers he was perfectly prethat was also the case with the manufac- pared to join. He granted at once that turers of Birmingham. the prima facie case was against the GoTHE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-vernment being manufacturers, and it was QUER said, that, notwithstanding the with that impression that he himself had natural impatience of the Committee at looked into the facts of the case. He was that late hour (ten minutes after twelve), not very certain with respect to the prohe trusted they would permit him to ad- priety of all the manufactures now carried dress a few words to them upon a question on by the Government, but there were at of such interest as that which was now the same time certain cases in which the under their consideration, for although this Government ought to be manufacturers, was a Vote in the Ordnance Estimates, for and in which no one denied that they ought which his hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) was to be manufacturers. No one denied that primarily responsible, yet, as the person it was proper for the Government to conimmediately charged with the care of the tinue its manufactory of gunpowder. It finances of the country, he should feel him- had been stated to him upon good authoself deeply culpable if he permitted a Vote rity that that manufactory had saved the of this nature, for such a sum, and at such country not less a sum than 500,000%. a period, to be proposed to the Committee No one denied that Government ought to without having given it the fullest conside- continue to be the manufacturer of its ammuration, and entirely satisfied himself as to nition generally. No one objected to that. its propriety. Therefore, trusting to the On what principle, then, was there a dispatience and impartiality of the Commit- tinction drawn between certain articles of tee, he would state generally the grounds which it ought and other articles of on which the Government made this pro- which it ought not to be the manufacposition. At the same time he admitted. turer? The distinction obviously depended at the outset, that there was great diffi- on the particularities and specialties of each culty, considering the novelty of the pro- case, and therefore, if they meant to settle posal and the strength and activity of the the question on principle and on public interests which it had aroused, in convey-duty, not on class interests, it was not to ing to the mind of the Committee with be settled by general dicta about the imclearness those points of detail on which propriety of Government being manufacthe question in great part really turned. turers, but by a careful examination of the The motives which had induced the Go- particular merits of the case. What was vernment to adopt the proposal of the the case in the present instance with reOrdnance Department were these:-In the gard to cost? The musket now cost 31., first place, the extreme dearness of the and the Ordnance Department assure the arm which was at present furnished to the Committee that our musket can be manuforces; in the next place, the slowness with factured for 30s. But economy was not which that arm was prepared; and, in the the only question. What was the case third place, the inferiority consequent upon with regard to the rapidity of the manufaethe present mode of manufacture. In the ture? What said the Ordnance Departfirst place, with regard to its dearness. It ment? It had ordered tenders to be sent cost 31., whereas the cost of the rifle mus-in for 2,000 carbines on an improved plan ket used in America was only 17. 17s. to be ready by the 1st of March last, and [Expressions of dissent.] Hon. Gentle- not one of those carbines had yet been men cried down the quality of American received into the stores. What was the arms; but, as far as general opinion went, case with regard to the certainty of the he did not think they would be supported manufacture? It was this; the Commitin the sentiments they had expressed. He tee were discussing the finest instrument thought the lesson they had received from that could be made, and which required in Colonel Colt, a private American gentle-its manufacture the most rigid and minute man, who had shown England how to work in metals-that branch of trade with which we were beyond all others acquainted was a pretty good example of, at least, the non-inferiority of American rifles. It was said by the noble Lord behind him (Lord Seymour), amid loud cheers, that the Government ought not to be manufacturers,

precision. So great, indeed, was that precision that it was impossible to attain to it without having recourse to machinery. What had they been told that night? That the inspector of small arms in Birmingham, even although he was minute and critical in a fastidious degree, blundered as a viewer of arms. The hon.

Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to think that this must be ascribed to some purpose on the part of the public officer, who, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed, had acted only from an error of judgment; but it proved to him the extreme difficulty, not to say impossibility, of judging by the eye with regard to the quality of a rifle. What, then, was really the nature of the present case? It was a question of whether they would continue to have guns made for Her Majesty's forces by the old and obsolete process of hand labour, or whether they would apply to this description of articles that which they had applied to every other description of articles, and would bring to bear upon it the force and economy of machinery? It was not at all a question about monopoly on the part of gun manufacturers or of extravagant profits, and he would make no accusation against them, of having entered into a combination, for he had no evidence to support it; but it was a question between superior and inferior processes, between labour and machinery. But the hon. Member for North Warwickshire admitted that machinery was employed in America for the manufacture of arms, while he said that hand labour was all that was necessary in this country.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, he never stated that machinery was superior to hand labour in the manufacture of firearms.

cheap instead of dear arms-whether arms should be rapidly made whether they should be equally and precisely made by the unerring operation of machinery, or whether their production should be dependent on the uncertain and fluctuating application of the human hand and eye. As regarded economy, the result was most remarkable. Until he investigated the subject, he did not believe that, in a matter so comparatively small, it would be possible to realise a saving of from 800,000l. to 900,000l.; but that was the case as it stood on the positive estimate of what we were now paying and what we would have to pay, without taking into account the stock which it was necessary to keep in hand under the existing system. The noble Lord behind him (Lord Seymour) had asked whether th, Government were making provision for uture years. They were making provision he was sorry to say, for the war now gathering around

us.

The noble Lord asked when the factory would be in operation. It would be in operation within twelve months, and the Government expected to obtain in the course of next year a full supply of arms. If the Government and the Ordnance Department merited censure, it was not for having made this proposition now, but for not having made it at an earlier period. The noble Lord condemned this plan, because he said it would necessitate the THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- bringing together a large number of workQUER said, the hon. Member had stated men, and he wanted to know what was to that, in point of fact, machinery had been become of them when the demand for their employed for the manufacturing of arms in labour, which was of an uncertain chaAmerica, while the arms of Her Majesty's racter, should slacken or cease altogether. forces were made by hand labour, and the Now he entreated the attention of the question was whether they would continue Committee to the answer he was about to to employ hand labour or take to ma- give on this point, which was, in fact, the chinery? He (the Chancellor of the Ex-kernel of the whole case. The hon. Memchequer) said that they ought to employ machinery. It was said that they might trust to the resources of private trade, but that statement could be met both by argument and by experience. In former wars this country, it was well known, had been unable to obtain a sufficient supply of arms, and we were obliged to go to the manufacturers of Liege and other places for muskets to put in the hands of our soldiers. [An Hon. MEMBER: When?] The hon. Member never heard of it, but the thing occurred in the last war; it was a well-known fact, and the Ordnance Department could furnish the particulars of the transaction. It was a question of economy, therefore, whether we should have

ber for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) said it was a necessary ingredient in a fair contract that the demand should be continuous and equal. Now what security for continuity and equality could there be in the demand for arms? Let the House of Commons, whose duty it was to economise the public money, answer the question. In order to enable a private firm to fulfil a contract, must the Government undertake to keep up a war supply of arms in time of peace? The House of Commons, he apprehended, would say no. It was necessary to have the power of sudden expansion and rapid manufacture in emergencies, and those were the objects of the present proposition. Without the power

discharge of that duty, because he was most unwilling to evade the responsibility which certainly belonged to him as Minister of Finance with respect to the proposal, but he had no disposition to avoid any inquiry which the House of Commons might think fit to make. He would, therefore, explain what would be perfectly agreeable to the Government, provided it meet the views of the Committee. If the Committee thought fit to postpone this Vote for four weeks, with a view to the immediate appointment of a Committee-which Committee, sitting from day to day, should conduct its investigation into the whole question to a close in that period-to that proposal the Government would freely and readily assent.

But, at the same time, he wished it to be understood that, not at all on account of any pertinacity in their own opinions, but on account of carrying for

ment did not propose to relax those preliminary and preparatory proceedings in which they were engaged; they would continue them on their own responsibility during the period the Committee was sitting, and leave the House of Commons to exercise its judgment freely when the result of that inquiry was made known.

of expansion, and without the power of producing with certainty a large amount of arms, we should be compelled to go on pottering with the private trade, and fail to obtain the supply we wanted, as had happened with the 2,000 carbines to which he had already referred. Was it necessary, because the Government would lay out a sum of money on machinery, that they should maintain a large staff of workmen? On the contrary. While we depended on hand labour, it was necessary to maintain a large number of skilled workmen, but by adopting machinery the case would be entirely changed. Then, instead of requiring 90 per cent of skilled labour, and 10 per cent of unskilled labour, we should require only 10 per cent of skilled to 90 per cent of unskilled labour. The Government, therefore, would maintain the small staff of skilled labour at all times, and when a time of emergency should ar-ward the plan efficaciously, the Governrive they could at once obtain unskilled labour and produce an unlimited supply of arms. It was not to depress the private trade that at such a moment the Government invited the House of Commons to undertake such an enterprise. Unless they had been well convinced it was important to the public interests, they would not have gone into such a proposal. They would not have gone into it unless they had been well convinced it would lead to an immense saving of the public money; above all, for higher objects than the saving of money that it was material to the discharge of their duties in this emergency that they should put the country, not into a tolerable condition, but into the best possible condition with respect to the supply of arms. He hoped the House of Commons would not refuse to back the Government in the performance of that duty to the country; but, on the contrary, that they would assist the Government when they came to give a decisive vote in establishing the means to supply the country with superior arms at a lower price and with far greater certainty and rapidity than under the precarious and inconvenient system on which they were now dependent. One sentence more, and it would, perhaps, tend to shorten this debate. He had now stated the material considerations for agreeing to this proposition, but at the commencement he had allowed that, in the case of a novel proposition, it was hardly fair to invite the assent of the Committee, without giving means of acquiring further knowledge. He could not dispense with the The Chancellor of the Exchequer

some

MR. MUNTZ said, that the right hon. Gentleman had made a very ingenious speech, as he always did when called to the rescue of his colleagues, and at the same time had shown he knew nothing about machinery. ["Oh, oh!"] It was very easy to say "oh, oh!" but what did the hon. Member know about it? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a question between machinery and hand labour. It was no such thing. Did any of them know what a good fowling-piece was? And yet not one fowling piece in England was made by machinery. It was a compound of hand labour and machinery, and that was the American scheme. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think making guns was like spinning cotton-they put iron and wood into a "hopper at one end, and they came out Minié rifles at the other. Let the right hon. Gentleman show them first that the American rifle was a rifle. He said it was a plain simple musket, and did not cost 28s. The right hon. Gentleman said here the private trade charges 31. for a gun which the Americans make for 30s. Let the right hon. Gentleman prove the cost. What did he know about the cost of guns? He had it upon autho

rity. Upon what authority? The Clerk of the Ordnance. The fact was, it was all assumption. Because the Government had got hold of a very clever talking character, they thought, if they had a fine piece of machinery, they must have a complete gun, and a perfect gun, and it must be made for 30s. He knew that 30s. would be 50s., and instead of 100,000l., the establishment would cost 500,000l. Let the right hon. Gentleman prove that the American gun was a rifle; that he could make the gun for 30s.; and that the establishment would not cost more than 100,000l. The right hon. Gentleman knew he was wrong, and he confessed at the outset all Government establishments were bad. He (Mr. Muntz) was not surprised at that admission, for it was just what he should have expected from a man of such acuteness as the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry to oppose the Government; but he considered his proposition was a moderate one, and he could not see how the Government could reasonably object to it. His proposition was, to allow the manufacturers two months only to deliver any quantity of guns required. He should, therefore, press his Amend.

ment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he did not object to the Amendment. He would propose the Vote again that day month. The hon. Member had challenged him with having shown no great knowledge of the subject, and his statement that arms were purchased abroad during the late war was scoffed at. He had in his hand a Report of the Board of Ordnance on the subject; and after stating the number of arms in store in 1792, the Report went on to say. "This made it absolutely necessary to collect arms from every part, and to purchase them in foreign countries ;" and no less than 219,000 stand of arms were so purchased in foreign countries, besides those of our own manufac

ture.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT said, he had observed that a great deal had been said about the trade of Birmingham, and he wished to say a few words with regard to that of London. There had been made in London, during the last ten years, no less than 584,376 small arms, which gave an average of something like 58,137 per

annum.

There were 1,900 workmen, and eighteen houses, already engaged in the manufacture of small arms in London; and he understood that eight or ten of these houses had offered their services to the Government, but they had been rejected.

MR. SPOONER said, he would advise the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) to consent to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same time he (Mr. Spooner) would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a month would scarcely afford sufficient time for an inquiry on this subject. The gunmakers said, "Tell us exactly what you want; tell us what time you will give us, and what price you will pay, and we will give you any security that we will manufacture arms as good and as speedily as you, the Government, can manufacture them yourselves. We can get our machinery cheaper and we can work it better than you can. The manufacturers, however, might not be able in a month to produce a fair sample of what they would be able to do if more time were allowed them. He had no hesitation in saying that if, upon inquiry, the gunmakers were unable to show that they could meet the exigencies of the case, there would not be one word of opposition from them to the proposal of the Government. He was satisfied that, if the Government threw themselves upon the private enterprise of the country, their deniands would be fully met.

[ocr errors]

MR. MUNTZ said, he did not think that it was possible, even in two months, to prove the case of the manufacturers as it ought to be proved. He was ready, however, to agree to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a month should be taken for the inquiry.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, it was not intended to limit the sittings of the Committee by a single day; but he thought they should sit de die in diem, and that if due diligence were used they might complete their inquiry in a month.

Motion by leave withdrawn. The following Vote was then passed. (21.) 539,5521., Ordnance Stores. House resumed.

The House adjourned at One o'clock.

INDEX.

INDEX

ΤΟ

HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES,

VOLUME CXXX.

BEING THE FIRST VOLUME OF SESSION 1854.

EXPLANATION OF THE ABBREVIATIONS.

1R. 2R. 3R. First, Second, or Third Reading.- Amend., Amendment.-Res., Resolution.- Com.
Committee.-Re-Com., Re-committal. Rep., Report.-Adj., Adjourned.-—cl., Clause.--add.
cl., Additional Clause.-neg., Negatived. l., Lords.-c., Commons- m. q., Main Question.-
o. q., Original Question.-d
-o. m., Original Motion. - p. q., Previous Question.-r. p., Report
Progress.-A., Ayes.-N., Noes.-M., Majority.-1st Div., 2nd Div. First or Second Divi-

sion.

When in the Text or in the Index a Speech is marked thus it indicates that the Speech
is reprinted from a Pamphlet or some authorised Report.

When in this Index a* is added to the Reading of a Bill, it indicates that no Debate took place
upon that stage of the measure.

BERDEEN, Earl of (First Lord of, Arms, Export of-Proclamation against,
c. Question (Mr. Bright), 914

[blocks in formation]

Army,

Administration of the, c. Question (Lord Sey-
mour), 816

Cavalry Horses, Transport of, 1. Question
(Earl of Cardigan), 1133;

c. Question (Gen. Wyndham), 1252
Estimates, c. 1283

Military Establishments- War with Russia,
c. Observations (Sir J. Walsh), 1264
Soldiers' Wives and Children, c. Question (Mr.
Macartney), 1254

Assessed Taxes Act Amendment Bill,

c. Leave, 215; 1R.* ib. ; 2R.* 268; 3R.* 358
7. 1R.* 389; 2R.* 484; 3R.* 545

Assessment, Uniform, Bill,

c. 1R.* 1045

Assistant-Surgeons in the Royal Navy,
c. Motion (Col. Boldero), 817, [Ă. 104, N. 216
M. 112] 831

ATHERTON, Mr. W., Durham, City

Portuguese Government, Claims against the,
Com. moved for, 366

ATTORNEY GENERAL, The (Sir A. E. Cock-
burn), Southampton
Bribery Prevention, Leave, 754
Peterborough Election, 220
Public Prosecutors, Leave, 668
Stannaries Court, Leave, 309

« EelmineJätka »