The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-30 00:00:00

/12

[PRICE SD.

'her of garments, upon
• the materials for a given nutt
an estimate which we regulat. They get the gar-
ments made up in St. Giles's ai -Id the lowest parts of
London, at a rate so cheap it we uld surprise persons.
I should believe that as many as 8,000 persons were
employed in that way."
A statement which appeared in the Times not long
ago, showing the wretched emit igs of the women
who make up the army clothing, 6d. for a pair of
trousers and a shilling for a coat, A 111, bear witness
whether, when the poor sernstress has to find thread
out of that sum, the garments are :Nicely to be well
sewed. But, says Sir William Napier„ " the colonels
have no interest in sending inferior clothing to their
regiments." If not, who makes the contracts which
afford them a large profit, and the semst.eess 6d. for a
pair of trousers and ls. for a coat, leaving her to find
thread ? Sir Hussey Vivian said, the interest of the
clothing colonel is one thing, and his duty is another.
" But there are checks," says Sir William NOpier ;
" there are the ' Inspectors of Army Clothing,' and
the Board of General Officers:"
To this the Financial Reform Association replied
in their previous letter in the Times, that 11 out of
the 19 officers forming the board were themselves
clothing colonels, and the remainder were major-
generals, looking forward to be so ; persons ail inte-
rested less or more in getting the clothing done up
cheaply.
But Sir William Napier returns to the " checks
which protects the soldier." Inspectors of army
clothing have no interest in the emoluments; look
at them, he says—well, let us look at them. Let
us see them as those see them who know them best—
the contractors who supply the clothing which they
inspect.

Mr. liebbert, a contractor, extensively concerned
in supplying the clothing-colonels, says, pages. 76
and 76
" I consider the whole system of inspection very
de:ective."
And again—
" I consider, flatly, that the inspectors of the
supplies furnished by contract are men not to be
sufficiently depended upon, and that they are open to
influence ; and the experience which I have had
warrants me in saying that their decision has in many
instances not been correct, and that they have takers
articles which ought not to have been accepted. . . .
My remark applies both to the Government and the
East India Company. I have had articles rejected
partially. I never had any rejected so as to prevent
the completion of my contract, but I have had
great trouble sometimes in getting my supplies to
be accepted.
" Q. To what cause do you ascribe the trouble you
have experienced in the performance of your contract
for the inspectors ?
" A. To the loftiness of my own conduct towards
the inspectors, as I never cared to ingratiate myself
with them. Indeed, I have never personally had
anything to do with them, as I considered them open
to influence, and have, therefore, invariably set them
at defiance.

" Q. Then you ascribe the occasional rejection of
part of your supplies to your neglect of the means to
which you suppose others have had recourse ?
" A. That is the_ impression Cant has prevailed
upon me.
Mr. Hebbert then proceeds t- (rive instances, in
detail, too long to be quoted hero
Sir William Napier, in his lac is at some
pains to show that colonels are nc hors., dealers, and
quotes the regulation price and a of the
The " regulations" as to ago prove nothing. The
observation referred to cases in which the regulation
is departed from, and younger horses, are purchased
at inferior prices as a matter of ion Et. He says, the
horses are purchased by the lieutenant. colonel, or for
him, and not for the tailor-colonel. It LI said that this
is not so in all cases. But if it were it is only-a
quibble, so far as the financial question, and the tax-
payers are concerned.
I believe, although the associ:.tion is unable to ad-
duce official evidence in suppor of their statement, as
in the case of the army clothier*, that the matter
stands substantially thus—A fixed sum is paid by
the public to provide horses, and partz of this sum is
pocketed by somebody, it being well known in ca-
valry regiments that horses younger than the regula-
tion age are introduced, and equally well known to
those who breed and sell the horses to the cavalry
regiments, that prices very considerably lower than
the " regulation' prices are paid. It matters nothing
to the tax-payer whether the tailor-colonel or
lieutenant-colonel pockets the difference, and incur
the reproach of horse dealingiwith the public money.
The burden on the taxes is more than necessary if the
horses be as good as required. If not so good as
required, then, as Sir Hussey Vivian said of the
saddlery, and other cavalry appointments, " Interest
being at variance with duty, the former is sometimes
preferred to the latter."

If the assertion relative to horse-dealing, made in
the Tract N 0.4, be incorrect, the association are quite
prepared to withdraw it when better proof is adduced
than the army regulations; but they have stated it as
a matter generally understood, and they give Sir W.
Napier the benefit of his denial of it.

As the association have no personal object to serve,
and have come before the public rather in the capacity
of financial, than of army reformers, they will not
permit themselves to be diverted from the pursuit of
their main object by any controversy which rather
deals with details of a branch of the service than pro-
ceed on the broad ground of retrenchment, by expos-
ing abuses and mismanagement in the system itself.
I must therefore decline all further notice of Sir W.
Napier's wrathful letters, leaving the decision on the
merits of the case to an impartial public, who doubt-
less will be slow to believe that a man who loses his
temper has the best of the argument on his side.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Liverpool, Jan. 29. ROBERTSON GLADSTONE.