The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-26 00:00:00

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY AND NAVY.

On the motion of Mr.WILLIAMS, returns were ordered
respecting the number of persons flogged in the army and
navy in the year 1860, with other particulars.

THE MARCH OF THE GUARDS TO GUILDFORD.

Sir H. VERNEY asked the Under Secretary for War
with what dress and accoutrements the detachment of
Guards was marched from Kingston to Guildford on Thurs-
day last, and at what hour it left Kingston and arrived at
Guildford ; and moved for a copy of the representation, if
any, which was made by the medical officer in charge to the
commanding officer on the probable effect of such a march
on the health of the troops.
Mr. T. G. BARING, in answer to the first part of the
hon. baronet's question, said that the dress and accoutre-
ments of the detachment of Guards on their march from
Kingston to Guildford on Thursday, were such as were used
in what is termed marching order; that was to say, the
weight of the dress and accoutrements altogether amounted
to from 451bs. to 491bs. He had only further to remark as
to the order in which they marched, that the commanding
officer stated that the men were allowed to pull off their
stocks and unbutton their tunics, if they wished to do so.
With respect to the hours, they started from Kingston at
10 minutes past six in the morning, and reached Guildford
at a quarter past two in the afternoon. In reply to the latter
part of the question as to whether any representation had
been made by the medical officer in charge, he begged to say
he had been informed that the assistant-surgeon to the de-
tachment made no representation with regard to the march,
that the detachment had marched on the preceding day
without any serious consequences resulting, and that the
medical officer did not think it necessary to make any re-
presentation. He would only add that the question of cloth-
ingthe u
in the army had long occupied the serious attention of
Guards, and that several great improvements
conducive to the health and comfort of the soldier hvadbeen
s
effected of late years.
THE SUEZ CANAL.
Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of. State for Foreign
Affairs whether he had
orwaslikely
es
receivedany information that M. de
i
Lesseps had obtained,
to obtain, authority from
the Pacha of Egypt to compel the natives, by
inforced labour
to work on the Suez Canal; whether tw ,
acpceordanrte, fee
with the engagements of the Pacha toward the
the observance of the Hatti Scheriff of Gulhane and other
r
humane edicts of the empire, that he should compel the na-
tives of Egypt to work by forced labour; and whether her
Majesty's Government had made, or proposed to make, any
communication to the Governments of Turkey, Egypt,
or
France, in the interest of humanity, on this subject?
Lord J. RUSSELL—In reply to the first question of the
hon. gentleman, I have to state that we had information
some time ago from her Majesty's Consul -General in Egypt
that M. de Lesseps had obtained an order from the Pacha of
Egypt, that 10,000 natives should be employed by forced
labour on the works of the Suez Canal. The consul-gene-
ral stated he believed that some of them had been sent
down by the railway in order to labour at these works,
but that he expected that in a few days they would be al-
lowed to leave it. I think that is rather a proof that the
works of the canal are proceeding. After that her Majesty's
Government applied to the Porte, and stated what the hon.
gentleman had referred to, viz., that the system of forced
labour was against the agreement of the Sultan. According
to the last accounts I have received, Kurschid Pacha stated
that there was no forced labour employed in Egypt, and
that he did not give any credence to the reports which were
prevalent. Whether it was that the pacha was deceived, or
the consul-general, it is impossible for me to say; I can
only say that I propose to make further inquiry into the
subjeit. In conclusion, I may inform the hon. gentleman
and thehouse that her Majesty's Government have received
intelligence to-day that the Sultan died this morning
(Tuesday).

THE ENFIELD RIFLE.
Col. VIVIAN rose to move for a select committee to in-
quire whether a more efllcieut weapon than the Edeld rifle

THE'

might not be provided for the use of her Majesty's forces,
without additional cost or serious inconvenience to the ser-
vice ? He said that a relative of his own when in office had
placed in the hands of the British soldier the most effective
weapon then in use. That perhaps might be an excuse for
his (Col. Vivian's) introducing the subject to the house.
In the year 1854 Lord Hardinge wrote a memorandum on
this subject, the most concise and far-seeing which had
come under his knowledge. Lord Hardinge called upon
Mr. Whitworth, who he considered the greatest mechanist
of his age, and had passed his life in perfecting machinery
for the textile fabrics of the country, to produce a rifle the
most effective that could be placed in the hands of the sol-
dier. Mr. Whitworth accordingly entered upon a course of
experiments, the result of which was to show that the so-
called Enfield rifle was incapable of performing the highest
serviceswhich might be expected from an arm of that descrip-
tion. The report of the committee presented in Jan., 1859,
recommended that further experiments should be made, but
so far as he knew, not one single experiment had since been
made by the authorities in order to test the merits of any
other rifle, but the particular rifle which they were engaged
in making. They had been making these rifles at the rate
of 1,000 a week, but they had never ',carried out Lord
Hardinge's suggestion to ascertain that the arm they were
placing in the hands of the British soldier was the best that
could be made. The Whitworth was confessedly a better
arm, and in point of precision, range, penetration, and in
other important particulars, its superiority over the Enfield
had been acknowledged by General Hutchinson and other
authorities. Lieut.-Colonel Dickson, who was at the head
of the Enfield Factory, rather argued down the merits of
the Whitworth rifle, but could not help making important
admissions of its efficien and in speaking of the small
bore Enfields, in which sie of the important features of
the Whitworth were introduced, had borne very high tea-

timony to the invention of Mr. Whitworth. These were
in fact nothing more than Whitworth rifles—the Whit •
worth principle did not turn upon having a polygonal
ball, but upon the length of the ball, and especially upon
the spirality given to the rifling. General Hay, who
was probably the greatest authority in this country
or anywhere else, upon the question of rifles and rifle
shooting, had also borne his testimony to the supe-
riority of the Whitworth rifle over the Enfield. But the
question of this superiority rested upon much broader facts
than even this testimony. The National Rifle Association
required the most perfect rifle for long ranges, and they
invited all gunraakers of whatever country to come forward
and compete for the honour of furnishing the rifle to be used
in shooting for the Queen's prize. Amongst others the
small bore Enfield was used, and the result of the trials was
that Mr Whitworth's rifle was declared to be the best. This
year the same advertisement had been put forth, but no one
bad undertaken to call in question the superiority of Mr.
Whitworth's rifle. They all remembered the marvellous
shot which was fired by her Majesty at Wimbledon. That
shot was not fired from thegun adopted by the Government
but from a Whitworth rifle ; it was only one inch and a
half from the centre of the bull's eye though fired in the
open air at a range of 400 yards, and was probably the most
marvellous shot ever fired in the world as a shot calculated
upon beforehand. At the Wimbledon contest also it would
be remembered the Swiss who came over to compete for
the prizes were at first very much distressed that their rifles
were detained at the French custems—their rifles arrived
upon the following day—and yet some days afterwards he
saw those men shooting with the Whitworth rifle. At the
rifle contest in France, upon the invitation of the Emperor
experiments were made with Mr. Whitworth's invention,
and the result was that after 700 yards the French rifle was
withdrawn, and Mr. Whitworth on the following day re-
ceived the ongratulations of the Emperor of the French
upon the very great success which had attended the trial of
his arm. The Queen's prize at Wimbledon was won by Mr.
Ross, with the Whitworth rifle, and he believed that the
Duke of Wellington's prize, the Prince Consort's prize,
and the Duke of Cambridge's prize, were all won with
breech. loading rifles made by Westley Richards under
license from Mr. Whitworth. The Enfield was completely
snuffed out after 600 yards ; and one of the highest autho-
rities had said that he would as soon play at marbles as
shoot with an Enfield beyond that range. Lord Herbert
had advanced against the Whitworths for the service that
they would cost LlO. But there was really very little differ-
ence between them and the Enfield in the manufacture. The
lock and the stook were precisely the same, and whatever the
cost of the barrel was put down at there could not possibly
be so groat a difference of cost. He (Col. Vivian) had written
to Mr. Whitworth to ask whether his rifle would cost more
than the Enfield, and whether the machinery now at the
Government factory at Enfield would be adapted to the ma-
nufacture of rifles upon his pattern, and the reply he had
received, dated July 12, 1860, was to the effect that there
would be no difficultyin adapting the Enfield machinery to
rifle the barrels according to his plan, and that the cost would
be no more than that of the Enfield, though a slight increase
of expense, say 55., might be incurred in making them of a
superior character than the Enfield rifles were now made.
Mr. Whitworth also alluded to the statement that his rifles
would cost £lO in the manufacture, remarking that they
necessarily cost in the manufacture upon a limited scale,
such as was carried on in his establishment, a much larger
sum than they would cost the Government, and that those
he made were finished in a superior manner to service rifles.
The Whitworth rifle could be produced for the same sum as
the Enfield, and in confirmation of that, he had received an
assurance from Mr. Westley Richards that he had manu-
factured the ordinary service musket and rifled it on the
Whitworth system, and that it had not cost sixpence more
than if manufactured on the Enfield system. Twenty mus-
kets manufactured at Enfield had been sent by Lord Herbei t
to Mr. Whitworth in order to be finished by him. Those
rifles had been returned on the 13th of September, 1860,
and, as far as he had been able to ascertain, these rifles had
not been tried since. They had now 500,000 rifles on the
Enfield plan. Lord Herbert said that 1,000,000 were re-
quired by the country. The British army was so divided
that in no country in the world could a new system be intro
duced more easily. (Hear, hear.) The machinery at Enfield
was adapted for making the Whitworth rifle, and if they
began now they would have 100,000 Whitworth rifles this
time next year. It was calculated that the Enfield rifle
would not last more than 12 years, so that every rifle in
their possession would have to be changed at the end of
that time. They were called upon to vote £760,000 for
small arms, and were they to spend this large sum of money
in the manufacture of an arm which was confessedly worse
than another which could be produced for the same money
as the inferior one ? He had shown that the Whitworth
was the better and more efficient gun, that it could be pro-
duced as cheaply as the other, and he hoped to see it in the
hands of the army and the volunteers in a very short time.
It might be said that a committee of that house was not the
best tribunal for investigating a question of this kind. He
believed that a committee of members well qualified to con-
duct such an inquiry could be appointed. He was opposed
to referring the subject to prejudiced officials. On the
former inquiry there were but two really unprejudiced
persons, and they were in favour of Mr. Whitworth's rifle.
If a committee were not competent to investigate this ques-
tion, how were they fit to vote the money ? Thanking the
house for the patience with which they listened to him, he
should now sit down, with a determination, however, to in-
troduce the subject next year, if he was not now successful.
Mr. TURNER said. he felt he should not be doing justice
to Mr. Whitworth, one of his most valuable constituents,
if he hesitated to second the motion just made. It was the
general opinion in the country and in his own neighbour-
hood that scant justice had been done to Mr. Whitworth
by the Government, which did not recognise his services
after his experiments had been carried out with such a
successful result. Mr. Whitworth was one of the most
celebrated mechanicians of the age, and had realised an
ample fortune not only by the invention of machinery. for
the manufacture of textile fabrics, but of the instruments
by which the machinery itself was made. He was applied
to by the Government with respect to the improvement of
small arms, and he devoted some thousands of pounds of
his own fortune in making experiments. He did not desire
to make a fortune out of the manufacture of rifles,
but he desired to benefit his country by the
production of the best weapon that could be manufactured
for its defence. (Hear.) That was the only honour he
sought. He should not enter into the details of the ques-
tion before the house, but it was generally admitted that he
had produced a weapon more effective than the one now in
use, and at as small an expense. In the hands of a good
marksman it was as effective as three or four Enfield rifles,
and therefore there could be little doubt which ought to be
in the hands of the army. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BARING said that it was clear from the speech of
the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion that the
subject was in competent hands, and it was not his inten-
tion to dissent from the terms in which both he and the
hon. member for Manchester spoke of Mr. Whitworth. Mr.
Whitworth had a European reputation, and nothing that he
could say could add to that reputation. He believed that
they were not influenced by any other than public motives
in desiring the more extensive use of the weapon invented
by Mr. Whitworth, but on the other hand he could assure
them that the heads of departments had no interest in not
introducing and adopting improvements. No jealousy of
that kind was entertained by those gentlemen who were
' connected with the Government manufacturing establish-
ments.ir. w
Hheitwwoourtlh,
dabebgeg
thein hon. gentleman therefore and
the house to put aside any idea of " interested officials," or
of A
from
Mr. bullied or badgered. Ho had
not seen anythingWhitworth to give colour to
the idea that he felt so.

Mr. BARING said he was gladtoh
supposedee t
acrotnihmatietstepel.anation,
because the house might have
Col. VIVIAN said he alluded to th
withregard
he had been
bullied by the Government, eNow gvyarhdictoh
thethe im-
portant memorandum of Lord Hardinge, to
gentleman referred, what was therein stated had hon.
been
carried out under Lord Hardinge's own directions. ivirWhitworth had been allowed to erect at the public expense
the apparatus to which his hon. friend alluded. No less
than £16,000 bad been expended, and very properly, for the
purpose of enabling him to carry out his experiments. No
blame could attach to succeeding Governments. If his hon.
friend meant that the supply of improved small arms should
be stopped till the result of these experiments was ascer-
tained, the supply of rides to the army would have been
little or nothing. That result was not known till 1857, and
to stop all supply of improved small arms till then would
not have met with the approval of the house or the country.
(Hear, hear.) lie 4i4 ;lot think the result of the last Cote,