The facts now proved as to the condition of the
bayonets supplied to the British Army are most disgraceful. During the recent operations in the Soudan, it was discovered that the bayonets in many instances bent when used ; and recently an order was issued to test those belonging to several regiments. The tests were honourably applied, and it was found that about one bayonet in three was "soft," or bad in some other way. In other words, either the Arsenal issued bad bayonets, or bad bayonets purchased at Birmingham were passed by the examining officials. There is no need to impute corruption, though we do not believe that corruption in "passing " material, cavalry horses, and stores is as strictly prevented as it should be, the actual work of examining being left to half- paid underlings ; but criminal carelessness of this kind should be much more severely dealt with. We have never been able to understand why a contractor who sells bad goods to the State, or the officer who " passes" bad weapons, should not be held guilty of minor treason, and sent into penal servitude. We should shoot a commanding officer who took a bribe to betray his regiment ; and what is the moral difference ? In a campaign like that of the Soudan, a Department or a contractor might just as well poison 300 men per battalion as serve out to them soft bayonets.
Previous page
