The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-11 00:00:00

made at Birmingham cost 3/. ss. or 3/. 6e. The trials
made between the guns of Enfield and Birmingham
were, as he understood, all in favour of the Enfield gun.
Tee prophecy made by the Birmingham people with re-
gard to the machinery had completely failed, for the
pieces fitted admirably with each other. The experiment
of the Enfield was therefore entirely successful. He con,
curred in the praise which was due to the artificers and
workme❑ of Birmingham, but he did not think that the
gun trade would be injured by the establishment at
Enfield.

General PEEL hoped his hon. friend would allow the
dispute between Birmingham anti Enfield to come to an
end. He did not believe that Birmingham would be in-
jured by Enfield. There was at present plenty of work
for both. The price of the Enfield rifle was 2/. 6id.,
that of the London and Birmingham trade was 21.
18s. M. But there was also the advantage 'that the
pieces of the rifles m 91e at Enfield fitted into each other.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said that some of the muskets
which were sent from Birmingham and tried at the
Tower very nearly interchanged with each other, so ex-
cellent was the work, although they were not intended
to do so. What the best witnesses said was, not that
interchangeability could cot be established, but that the
weapons so made would not be so perfect and lasting as
those made by hand labour. With regard to the dif-
ference of price, he could only say that the Americans,
who made very cheap guns, had not succeeded i❑ mak-
ing guns so cheaply as the Enfield rifios were said to be
made, He was sure that the trade would avail them-
selves of any improvements which were made good at
Enfield.

Sir J. RA.NISDEN said that the Birmingham gun
trade continued to make guns by hand, whereas at En.
field they were made by machinery, and this produced
the difference in price. Every encouragement was
given by the Government to the private trade, with a
view to their erecting machinery, so as to keep the En-
field establishment up to the mark by compe'ition.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was willing to assume that the
difference betwee❑ the cost of weapons made in the Go-
v,rnment establishment and by private individuals was
correct. That was not the usual result, but the hon.
gentlemna❑ who spoke last explained the reason. There
were items for muskets made at Liege, St. Etienne, and
other foreign places. He should like to know the cause
of this. .

General PEEL said that these were contracts made
(luring the war, which' were not yet completed. In one
instance 12.000 muskets had been delivered, and 10,000

in another, hut all had not been yet delivered.
Colonel BOLDERO said that experiments had bee❑
made at Woolwich between "Old Bess," the Enfield
rifle, and Mr. Whitworth's invention. The result was
that one ball from "Old Bass" struck a target six feet
kigh at a distance of 300 yards. The Enfield rifle, at
500 yards, made 25 per cent., and the Whitworth, at
800 yards equalled the Enfield. (Hear, hear.) The
Enfield earried 1,100 yards, but Whitworth's carried
2,000.
Gtneral CODRINGTON said that he was last year
the president of the committee by which these experi-
ments were conducted. The committee had to investi-
gate into the range and precision of the guns, and their
applicability to the lives and quarters 4f the soldier.
Toe committee had as yet only tune to 'investigate the
range, arid there could be no doubt as to the
value of Whitworth's arm. There was no difficulty
with Whitworth's gu❑ to get so many shots in the tar-
get as to enable them to take an average ; but that was
no. the ca=e with the others. Tne invention was no
doubt of the gr,ateet value. He understood that com-
mittee of invest!gation was to be made permanent.
Lord ELCHO understood that the greater efficacy of
the Whitworth gun arose from its smaller bore.
harder metal than lead was made which increased the
penetration.

Sir W. CODRINGTON said that the experiments at
Woolwich were carried on, not to try the absolute
merits of Mr. Whitworth's gun, but to test it in com-
parison with the Enfield, and in both case's soft lead was
used. It was a part of the merit of Mr. Whitworth's
gun that an iron ball could be used without damaging
the gun.

General PEEL bad no doubt, after what the gallant
general bad sta,ed, of the superiority of the Whitworilt
gun, and every encouragement had been given by the
Government for testing its merits.
Mr. CONINGHAAI said it was a aew thing for Go-
vernment to produce a cheaper article.than private in-
dividuals. But the circumstance was explained by the
fact that machinery bad been erected at Enfield. The
principle of Government turning manufacturer was false
and dangerous. If the Whitworth gun superseded the
Enfield, would it not entail a loss upon the country ?
Sir W. CODRINGTON thought the manufacture of
arms was an exception to the general rule, and that the
result justified the experiment which had been made. 16
was a matter of experience that articles manufactured by
contract were not always to be trusted, and it was of
vital importance that the army should have weapons in
which they could trust.
Mr. NEVVDEGATE said that the superiority of the
rifles furnished to the trade had been clearly proved
in the Crimean and Indian war. Tao principle of the
pre ei;t Eufield was devised by Mr. Westley Ili3harde,
and the best thing done by the late Government was the
associating him with Mr. Whitworth, which ended in
the production of the Whitworth rifle. Hs trusted the
house would not believe that the trade were likely to

allow themselves to be boat ; the country could not com-
mit a greater mistake than to sacrifice private trade to
support. a Government. establishment which coal only
be c,rried on at a great expense.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that in the estimates the
storoke,pers and barrack m;isters were in columns. He
thought the duties of these departments could be per-
formed by one staff of officers*
Th-- vote was then agreed to ; as wac also the next,
358,317/., waged of artiff:ers and labourers.
On the next vote,
450,4601. for clothing and neceosariee,
Mr. MONSELL asked the rea.ou of the increase of
the vote for clothing of the infantry of the line.
General PEEL said be had himself been surpie..ed at
the increase, but it aro e from the increa,ed sum given
to recruits. They now got the bounty in full, and part
of the increase was to provide for the free kit which was
given. The vote for the embodied militia made up the
rest of the increase.

Mr. WILLIAMS also considered the vo c very large,
but he congratulated the right hon. gentl,man on having
abandoned the building at Itotherhithe, which would have
cost 300,0001

I.mel KNOX said that the present system of the
clothing was the Nont p issible. It now cost twice as
much as it, and the soldier was not as efficiently clothed.
Tne system of clothing colonels was the most ccJnomical
for the country.

Colonel GILPIN also thought the old System svgs the
most economical.

—Col. BOLDER() objected to the v Its. He thought it
was not in a proper for,n. It WP.s impossible to tell from
it what was the cos: of clothing a private soldier. Cloth-
ing and neces,aries ought to be kept distinct. As far as
he cool make ant, the clothing of each man cost 31. lls.
Under the old system it was only 2/. 6s. If they bad
all the details, he was sure they would find the loss
double.
Lord ELCITO wished to aik a question with regard
to the great coats. He Lund that a system had been
introduced in London of having an extra great coat
hawing up in each sentry-box, but at Edinburgh Castle
the was nothing of the kind,
General CODRINGTON said the regiments could
use up the old grea coats for the purpose ; they only
required t ask p=rmission.
General PEEL would be very glad to have the custom
introduced in all garrisons. Every sentry-box of ,the
Guards now had a tzreat coat in it,
Mr. KINNAIRD thought it would be better to
diminish the number of sentries, There was no possible
use for them.
Colonel BOLDERO raid the East India Company
was responsible f, ,r 92,000 men, but he unders,nod the
War Department now wished to clothe them, He
wished to know why there was no appearance of this
charge in the (stimates.
General PEEL said that the East India Company
paid a certain sum every month, but it went to the
Treasury, not to the War Department.
Lord ELCao thought it was a mere work of super-
erogation to have sentries at the Royal Academy and
the British Instltution.
Major WORTLEY said those sentries were on duty
only in the d tame.
Mr. WORTLEY thought it would be better if the
whole of the charge troops in India was borne on tl- e
votes, and credit then given for the sum paid by the East
India Company.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the next vote,
690,624/. for provisions, fuel, and light,
Mr. MONSELL asked whether there would be any
objection to ailow the permanent staff of the militia to
obtain rations at contract price ?
After a brief conversation the vote was agreed to, as
was also a vote of 634,727/. to defray the expense of war-
like stores for the land and sea forces.
On the vote of 285,736/. for fortifications,
Sir C. NAPIER took exception to the item in the
estimate for forts. described the forts as being small
and useless, and objected to their being spread over the
whole of our c a-t, as trey were so insignificant as to be
quite inapplicable to repelling an invading force. He
proposed, therefore, to move the reduc:ion of the vote by
50,0001., the amount required fur these inter.nediste torts.
Sir J. RAMSDEN observed that the hoe, and gallant
admiral was under a mistake in supposing that the forts
exttek-Aed over the whole of the coast. The charge to
which he referred was fur three forts between Gosport
and the advanced lines.
Sir C. NAPIER said this explanation removed his
objection to the vote.
Sir J. TR ELA.WNY compla'.ned that many of the
forts being built of limestone were who ly unfit for their
purpose, and instanced the one as the back of Mount
Edgecumbe, which a 30-gun brig would destroy in ten
minutes.
Mr. \V, WILLIAMS deprecated the outlay for this
class uf works,
H. WILLOUGHBY wished 1) know whether the
21,0007. st,iteci iu this estimate w.nle. finish the work ?
Gen. PEEL could not say ; but is reply to another
question, ssid that any balance that might remain over
the expenditure of the yel-a would be paid back again,
into the Exchequer. The limestone forts had been erected
oil the recommendation of a scientific commission.
The vote was agreed to.
74,780/. for civil buildings, after a brief discussion, was
also agreed to.
397,6911. for barracks.
NORTH asked if any notice was to be taken of
those plants which had been sent in and gained priz,s by
competing architects. He beiieved the cost of the prize
plan was 140/. a man, while the cost of the barracks at
i r
the s,
requirementsv asloO/.
ofa
court-martialDidluAlaldue.hotthiswl'irclohoool:l;s3,as mesarGbuani lt
robovyoenaresanfland other necessary