SUPPLY.—ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 11 August 1857)

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
wished to call the attention of the hon. Baronet, the Under Secretary for War, to the manner in which the accounts for the militia were kept. Under the present state of things, from the circumstance of accounts having been left outstanding, in some instances for at least two years, the paymasters of regiments were subjected to great personal inconvenience, in addition to which they were obliged to pay a higher rate of interest to the guarantee societies than would be the case if the accounts were settled every year. In the case of one regiment, the accounts for the quarter ending the 30th June, 1855, were outstanding at the beginning of this year. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman was the amount of money which was expended between the 1460 time of issuing the warrant for calling out the militia and the time at which they were actually called out. He had heard that in one regiment alone the expense thus incurred amounted to no less than £2,000, for which no service whatever was performed. That was a state of things which would easily admit of alteration, and to which he begged to call the attention of the Government.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
was understood to say, that it was perfectly true that there had been great delay in obtaining the accounts for the embodied militia; but that was owing to the fact that during the war, so enormous was the work thrown upon the War Department, that, although the staff of clerks had been considerably increased, yet it had been found almost impossible to keep pace with the work which had been thrown upon that department, he thought, however, that the hon. Baronet was mistaken in supposing that the paymasters had suffered in any way from the delay which had taken place, because he believed that the guarantee societies were liable for any amount to which the paymasters had insured with them. With regard to the other portion of the remarks of the hon. Baronet, it was perfectly true that, when a militia regiment was called out for service, by an old Act of George III. a large sum of money had to be paid between the time of issuing the warrant for the embodying of the regiment and the time when it actually assembled; but by a Bill which had been introduced in another place by his noble Friend at the head of the War Department, and which would shortly come down to that House, it was provided that the officers and men of the militia were not entitled to any pay between the time of issuing the warrant and the time when the regiment was called for actual service.

COLONEL KNOX
remarked, that he had known many instances in which paymasters had suffered from the want of promptitude at the War Department with regard to the accounts for the militia, and he did not think that it was too much to expect that those accounts should not be left out standing so long.

MR. RIDLEY
said, he hoped the Government would well consider the question—how the militia which were to be embodied were to be lodged. The system of billeting was a hardship to many persons, and had created great dissatisfaction throughout the country. He trusted that, 1461 wherever it was possible to do so, they would be placed in barracks, because he was convinced that the system of quartering soldiers at public-houses was injurious to the discipline of a regiment.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he wished to know if the Government had arrived at any decision with regard to a memorial which had been addressed to the War Department by the surgeons connected with militia regiments. In that memorial those gentlemen complained, and, as he thought, most justly so, of the scant remuneration which they received, and also that in the inspection of recruits, and duties of that nature, they were only allowed to act when a medical officer of the regular army was not present. The next point with respect to which the militia surgeons complained was the difference which existed between the allowance made for the examination of recruits for the line—which was 4s.—and that made in the case of recruits for the militia, which amounted to only 2s. 6d. per man. They also complained that, while they received no pay for the examination of recruits beyond the number of six, the civil practitioner was remunerated at the rate of half-a-crown a piece for the first eight, and 1s. for every recruit beyond that number. These were matters in reference to which he hoped his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War would be able to give some satisfactory explanation to the Committee.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, the subject to which his hon. and gallant Friend had called the attention of the Committee was one which had received the careful consideration of the Government. The result of that consideration had been, that it appeared to them no good reason had been assigned why the allowances of the militia surgeons should be increased. With regard to the difference which prevailed between the pay of those surgeons and civil practitioners in the case of the examination of recruits, he thought the Committee could not fail to be of opinion that the limit of 20s., beyond which the pay for such purposes of the former could not rise in a single day, was one which it was desirable to fix upon, inasmuch as, if no limit were prescribed, their receipts might in the course of a day, owing to the great number of volunteers who might present themselves for examination, amount to several pounds. The question of employing militia surgeons to perform the medical duties which were required to be 1462 discharged in the case of military detachments, was one in relation to which a communication had been made to the Commander in Chief, asking him whether, in his opinion, it would not be expedient to issue an order directing that, in all cases in which the assistance of a medical officer was needed by the troops of the line, there being no surgeon of the line at hand, the militia surgeons should be employed in preference to the civil practitioners. To that communication, however, sufficient time had not elapsed to admit of any definite answer being returned. In reply to the question of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ridley), he had to state that the Government were disposed to put an end, as far as possible, to the system of billeting, inasmuch as they believed it to be very much opposed to the feelings of the country generally, as well as injurious to the efficiency of the militia itself.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he could not understand why so great a difference should prevail in reference to the remuneration for the examination of recruits as that which existed between the pay of the militia surgeon and the civil practitioner.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
observed, that the reason why no limit had been fixed in the case of the latter was, that the duties which he was called upon to perform, in the examination of recruits, were considered to be out of the ordinary course of his profession.

LORD BURGHLEY
said, he hoped the Government would recognize the necessity of making the militia surgeons some allowance to provide themselves with quarters in those towns in which they were engaged in attending upon military detachments.

§ MR. ADAMS
remarked, that he thought the militia surgeons were entitled to consideration at the hands of the Government, upon the ground that, during the late war, many of them had been employed in doing garrison duty, and had in consequence lost their private practice. He saw no reason for a distinction being made between the rate of pay for examining militia recruits and that for recruits for the line.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he hoped that the Government would consider the question of limiting the pay of militia surgeons with respect to examining a certain number of recruits a day. It was necessary to have a high class of men for this duty, and they ought not, on account of a trifling expense, to run the risk of causing dissa- 1463 tisfaction among the whole class of militia surgeons.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, he believed that the difference in payment between the medical examination for the militia and that for the line was not framed upon the theory that the militia was an inferior force, but because a subsequent and independent examination was required for the line.

COLONEL WILLIAMS
said, he would express a hope that the grievances of militia surgeons would receive the favourable consideration of the Secretary at War. A great many surgeons threw up their private practice when the militia regiments were embodied, who at the close of the last war were thrown upon their own resources.

COLONEL GILPIN
said, that the Government were about to increase the duties of the militia surgeons; and, if they thought proper to put them upon the same footing as the surgeons of the line, with regard to the payment for medical examination of recruits, he should offer no objection. But he believed that the Government had treated the militia surgeons with great liberality. They were told that, when their regiments were disembodied, no claim would be admitted unless they had served ten years, and yet they received a whole year's pay. Let the Committee contrast that liberality with the treatment of the paymasters, who received only three months' pay, although their responsibility did not cease with the disembodiment of their regiment.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, he felt bound to draw attention to the enormous expense of the militia, which was, in proportion to the outlay, a very inefficient force. The number of men to be raised for the militia in 1855–6 was 136,000, while the whole number actually on foot was only 51,182. He believed that, from the way in which men were enlisted for the militia, enlistment for the line was injured rather than promoted. It was incumbent on the Government to say whether some method should not be adopted by which the population might be compelled to serve in the militia. There was no reason why every district in the country should not be required to furnish its proper quota to that force.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, that the Government did not agree with the noble Lord as to the expediency of making service in the militia compulsory, because it was found, during the late war, that this force was of immense advantage in sup- 1464 plying recruits to the regular army. The number of volunteers into the line had been very large, and the previous drill they had gone through while in the militia made them useful soldiers in a very short period. With regard to the allowances granted to militia surgeons, he could only say that all the information he had been able to obtain showed the present position of a militia surgeon to be one that was much coveted. It was not merely the actual amount of the allowance that had to be considered, but an indirect advantage was realized by militia surgeons. Service in that force had, in many instances, proved the very best introduction they could have to a general practice. The Government, therefore, did not feel justified in calling upon Parliament to increase the remuneration of this class of officers.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wished to ask on what principle this Estimate was framed? 62,400 of the militia were embodied in the year 1855–6, or fewer than half the number of men voted, and yet the expenditure amounted to —2,930,000, or only £880,000 short of the entire sum originally asked for 136,000 men. The cost of the militia was immensely higher than the charge for an equivalent number of officers and men belonging to the standing army; and if the whole number voted in that year had been raised, the expenditure would have exceeded the Estimate by nearly £2,000,000. Yet complaints were made of the insufficiency of the sums granted to this branch of the service.

§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
remarked, that the calculations of the hon. Member for Lambeth were not always very lucid; and he would therefore wish to inquire whether the hon. Gentleman had taken into account the number of men who volunteered from the militia to the line. The bounty, outfit, &c., of these men was included in the Militia Estimates, and ought in fairness to be deducted from the cost of this force. His noble Friend the Member for Northumberland (Lord Lovaine) had described the present militia force as "inefficient;" but he trusted his noble Friend would be induced to reconsider his opinion on that point. There was another subject on which he entirely differed from his noble Friend. He was surprised to hear him finding fault with the Government for not having recourse to the ballot. It was one of the proudest distinctions of this free 1465 country that not only were its army and navy entirely volunteer forces, but that compulsion was equally discarded in the levying of its militia; and yet no deficiency was ever experienced in the number of men available for the national defence. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had made statements without availing himself of the ordinary means of information.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, that he would still insist that this number of militia could not be raised except by compulsion. In spite of all the flourishes of the noble Lord who had just spoken, he maintained that this force would, to the extent of one half, be merely a paper force. The Estimate for last year was 136,000 men, and all that could be mustered was just 51,183 men.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, his statements were supported by the best authority, namely, a Return made to that House, and which showed, among other things, that the expenditure for recruiting last year was £161,000.

§ SIR JOHN BULLER
said, he wished to know whether the Government would take into consideration the case of the rifle and other volunteer corps raised during the war? They got no assistance from Government, not even a supply of ammunition for practice, and if some help was not afforded them the colonels would find it difficult to keep them up. He suggested that they should be allowed ammunition for practice, and day pay when so engaged.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
remarked that these corps were volunteer corps, and when they were raised it was understood that they should not cost anything to the public. There was no intention of altering that arrangement.

§ SIR DENHAM NORREYS
said, he understood that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had thought proper to override, to a certain extent, the decision already arrived at by the House by appointing a Commission to reconsider the Ordnance Survey of Scotland. He, therefore, wished to ask the noble Lord if the Government agrees to the issue of a Commission, pursuant to an Address to the House of Lords, to consider the scale of the National Survey? If he is prepared to state to the House the names of the Commissioners to be appointed, and from what funds the expenses of the Commission are to be paid? Whether the terms of the 1466 Commission will be laid on the Table of the House? Whether such Commissioners will be required to make an estimate of the expense of a survey, and the engraving and publication of maps, on the scale which they shall recommend, for the entire of Great Britain and Ireland? Whether they will be required to make an estimate of the cost of such an establishment as may be requisite to maintain the continual accuracy of such maps, by replotting and engraving all changes of boundary, new roads, new subdivisions of estates, &c., &c., by periodical revision? Whether such Commissioners will be directed to consider and report whether maps on the scale which they shall recommend will be available for a system of registration of title connected with public works, and whether such maps will be equally available in the transfer of houses, or small lots, in rural districts, as for the transfers of estates? And, whether, in the event of the Commissioners coming to a decision in respect of scale, which is in opposition to the late decision of the House of Commons, the House will have an opportunity of accepting or rejecting such decision before it shall be acted on by the Ordnance Survey Department?

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he could assure his hon. Friend that the appointment of this Commission was not at all intended, as he imagined, to override the decision of that House. The other House of Parliament requested the appointment of a Commission, and there was no valid reason why a Commission should not be issued. That Commission would have to inquire, investigate, and report; but their Report would by no means be a decision. He could assure his hon. Friend that the decision of that House would not and could not be overridden by that Report. The House would be afforded an opportunity of considering whether the information that would be gathered by the Commission ought to induce them to take steps at variance with the decision already arrived at. There would be no objection to lay before the House either the names of the Commissioners or the instructions given to them. They would of course be required to give an estimate of the expense attending any altered arrangement they might recommend; and it was also exceedingly desirable that they should report as to the application of any scale they might suggest to the transfer of property and to deeds. The hon. Baronet 1467 further inquired whether the Commissioners would be required to make an estimate of the expense of preparing, upon a large scale a plan of the whole of Great Britain. He (Viscount Palmerston) did not think it very likely that such a question would come practically under their consideration, because even if it were thought desirable to alter the decision adopted by the House with regard to Scotland, and to finish the survey of the cultivated districts of that country upon a 25-inch scale, he was told that ten years would be occupied in completing the work, and until that was done the survey could not be extended to the whole of Great Britain. It would therefore scarcely be necessary for the Commissioners to make such an estimate, although there could be no objection to their doing so. He did not think, however, that it would be possible for the Commissioners to make an estimate of the expense of the establishment requisite for keeping a map upon any scale in a state of completeness and accuracy with regard to alterations of boundaries, roads, and divisions. That was an expense which he did not imagine the House would contemplate. In fact, such alterations could only be ascertained by a re-survey. In the case of Ireland, great changes with respect to boundaries, roads, and other matters had taken place since the 6-inch survey was made, but he was not aware that that country had been re-surveyed for the purpose of correcting the maps. Generally speaking, there could be no objection to giving the Commissioners the instructions suggested by his hon. Friend, and when the Commission was issued, the names of the Commissioners and a copy of the instructions should be laid on the table.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, this Estimate was for the sum to be expended in completing the works already commenced. Until the Royal Commission had reported, and the House had decided upon their Report, it would be impossible to make any fresh survey, or to continue the survey over any new area of country.