The Madsen Machine Gun

15 The Madsen [LORDS] Gun. 16 rather a broader and more general review of the whole situation affecting this gun. The Questions on the Paper seem to me to be framed almost with a wiew of extracting from an unwilling spokesman on behalf of the Government a series of admissions as to the good qualities of the gun. I should therefore like to take this early opportunity of saying that, from the information which is before me, it is acknowledged by all who shouM know the gun in its present form to be a very good gun. I will go further. The gun is in some respects, and for certain purposes, acknowledged to be superior to the Lewis or Hotchkiss gun in use to-day. It is quite true, as the noble and gallant Lord suggests in one of his Questions, that it is lighter in weight ,and I do not propose to quarrel with any of the statements he has made or to follow him over that ground. I understand that with certain alterations which will be necessary to suit our requirements, in the event of adopting this gun, the weight would be increased from 15 lbs. to approximately 16 lbs. However, that is a very small matter. Lord BERESFORD: Does the noble Lord know what these alterations are? Lord ELPHINSTONE: I think there is a question of the lengthening of the bar- rel. As I say, it is a small question against the .weight of the Lewis gun which, as the noble and gallant Lord stated, weighs about 28 lbs. It must also be remembered that in order to get full advantage from the Madsen gun you have to carry a spare barrel involving an addition of, I think, something approaching 5 lbs. in weight. As regards the various trials to which the noble and gallant Lord refers in Ques- tions No. 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, trials were in each of these cases carried out with, I understand, very satisfactory results. I think, therefore, that there is very little difference of opinion between us regarding the actual merits of the gun; and, as stated recently in another place by the Minister of Munitions, supposing we were to-day commencing the war, so to speak, de novo, it is possible that the Madsen gun in its present form might quite well be adopted in preference to the Lewis or any other gun in use to-day, though I l.ord Beresford. would rather hesitate to say this defini- tely, as it is not impossible that we might be in a position to adopt an even newer and more perfect weapon owing to the progressive improvement in science in these days. But to adopt the gun at this stage of affairs is an entirely different proposition, and one that involves certain considerations which possibly are some- times overlooked by the advocates of the Madsen gun. Let me refer for one moment to the practical position as it has to be con- sidered by the military authorities. We have to-day a Lewis gun. I am told that it is a magnificent weapon, and a very much improved one since we introduced it into the Service. It is a gun which no doubt has proved its value on many occa- sions, and in regard to which, so far as I am aware, no single adverse military re- port has ever been received. It commands, I am toM, universal confidence in the Army, and is now in use in its scores of thousands. The House will, of course, realise that I cannot present any figures, but I may give your Lordships some idea of the enormous output to-day if I say that every week now we turn out more machine-guns than our total stock at the outbreak of the war. Not only have we our present machine-gun in scores of thousands, but you must also remember that there are the gunners who are trained and being trained in its use. We have training schools in many centres, and we have countless depots for spare parts. We have huge factories gradually built up and equipped, and now at last, after many weary months, pouring out a steady- stream of machine-guns on which the military authorities can count with abso- lute certainty. To achieve this has not been the work of either days or weeks, but of many laborious and anxious months, running into years. What would be the result of changing this to-day, or of introducing a new type of machine-gun? I know quite well that optimistic promises have been made as to the marvellous results that would fol- low in some three of four months, but I can only say that the whole of our very large and varied experience at the Ministry of Munitions goes to show that those optimistic estimates are very seldom, if