SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 8 June 1857)

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, that the hon. and gallant Member would have an opportunity of making any observations he thought proper with respect to the Vote in question on the bringing up of the Report.

§ MR. RICH
wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the sons of men who were not officers were charged for their education at the Royal Military College at the rate of £125 per annum; there being additional charges by which that sum was raised to £150 per annum. Now, the State had undertaken to provide for the education, to a certain extent, of the sons of deceased officers at that institution, but, instead of doing that, they had in reality laid the burden of payment upon civilians who sent their sons to be educated to the college, and the consequence was that the system operated as a direct tax upon education. It appeared probable that a great change was about to be made in the education of the army, and he trusted the Government would consider the hardship he had just pointed out.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he had the same complaint to make of this as of the Vote discussed on Friday night, for distinct and separate items were so lumped together 1344 that it was not possible to discuss them without a cross debate and a good deal of confusion. The Vote comprehended items for the education of the army, for the Hibernian and Chelsea Asylums, and for the Ordnance survey of Scotland, which some people pretended was a very ugly job, and other matters, which it was impossible to discuss in one Vote. There was another matter to which he also wished to call the attention of the Committee. The hon. and gallant Member for Calne (Sir W. F. Williams) made an assertion the other night which, considering the large sums our army had cost the country, was not very satisfactory. That hon. and gallant Member said that if a Russian or a French general wrote a despatch to a brother general he could accompany it with a military sketch of the ground to which it related, but that an English general had no one attached to his staff who could do that service for him. That statement came from a military man of no small reputation; and if it were true, considering the many millions we spent upon our army, he thought we could hardly be said to get our money's worth for our money. This statement was made during the debate on Aldershot, and he had consulted the usual sources of information the following morning, to see whether he had correctly understood the hon. and gallant General. Sometimes Members were not able to catch across the table what was said, but he found on looking to the papers that he had taken a right impression of what the hon. and gallant General had said. All he could find in this Vote towards remedying this defect was a small item towards the expenses of fifteen gentlemen studying at the Royal Military College. It would be well that the deficiency in question should be provided for in some way or other. He trusted that his suggestion relative to the better classification of the Votes might meet with the consideration of the Under Secretary for War, for by the present form hon. Members were not afforded a fair opportunity of raising a question on a particular item, which they might think objectionable, though mixed up with other votes which they wished to see granted.

§ MR. BLACK
called the attention of the Government to the Scottish Military Academy, which, he said, had a claim on their consideration. It was founded by private individuals, for the purpose of providing a course of instruction for the sons of officers in the army, and had hitherto been entirely 1345 carried on at their own expense. He believed the instruction given at it was superior to that which could be obtained at other military schools in the kingdom. It had sent forth 1,000 officers—many of whom had distinguished themselves; 100 of them were in the Crimea; and Major Nasmyth, one of the defenders of Silistria, had been educated at the school. He did not ask the Government to make any grant of money to the institution, but to give it a proper standing in the country, by enabling the managers to certify that those who passed the periodical examinations were properly qualified for posts in the army. The Academy did not care how stringent the examinations were made, so that the pupils got a share of the commissions annually given away by Government.

§ MR. G. D. WARBURTON
said, it appeared that a vehement competition for staff appointments took place in other countries, and that this emulation was followed by the best possible results. In our Army there was a remarkable contrast to this state of things. Out of 216 who had obtained certificates in the senior department at Sandhurst, only fifteen were employed on the staff during the late war. A system of appointment and promotion by purchase, seniority, and interest would not be very successful in other professions, and no one would think of adopting it in the Senate, on the Bench, or at the Bar. There were certain appointments upon the general staff which he thought might be thrown open to competition among officers of a rank to qualify them for such appointments, and he believed that the emulation and energy thus developed would tend greatly to elevate the character of the profession. It might be urged that the system of high military instruction for officers had not always produced the best effect—that the principle of competition which had been adopted for the last year-and-a-half had not led to unalloyed success—and that, in the competition for commissions in the Royal Artillery and Engineers, already more than one successful candidate had shrunk from the chilling atmosphere of a higher social grade than that to which he had been accustomed. But in a competition for staff appointments the same difficulty would not arise, because the candidates would all be of the same social rank. He would impress on the attention of the Government that the principle of competition ought to be introduced 1346 in some shape into this service. It would tend to raise the intellectual standard of all officers who entered the British army, and would remove from a gallant profession the odious reproach to which it had hitherto been exposed; namely, that it presented the only sphere, in an eminently industrious and energetic country, in which indolence suffered no rebuke and genius or ability could lay claim to no reward.

MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)
said, he did not intend to move, as he had done on a previous occasion, for any reduction of the Estimates. Last year he had stated his objections to the extravagant mode in which the Ordinance survey in Scotland was being conducted, but the House had declined on a division to accede to his views. He very well understood that the Government was all but opposed to this mode, but the gentlemen in a certain Governmental Department were very much actuated in the matter, and it was the plan of these gentlemen which the House had backed up. Each proprietor was to be furnished with an accurate survey of his own estate on the 25-inch scale; but it was obvious that a map of that kind, to be of any use, would require to be revised every two years. They had been promised that this survey would be finished within the time originally contemplated for executing a map of Scotland on a smaller scale. The Committee which sat on this subject reported that the survey for Scotland could be completed in ten years, and they recommended a Vote of £50,000 per annum for its execution. The Vote had, however, been reduced to £36,000—a breach of bargain of which the people of Scotland had a right to complain. But as the nation had been saddled with the extravagant plan, it ought now to be prosecuted with at least sufficient despatch to enable hon. Gentlemen to have a map of the country during their lives. The survey for Ireland had been completed—that for England also was all but complete; while in Scotland the survey proceeded at the tardiest pace, because of the absurdly large scale on which it was framed. In the aggregate the expenditure already charged against the country was £963,000; which was £46,000 in excess of the sum that the Committee stated was necessary last year to complete the survey. If the 1-inch scale—that of England—had been adopted for Scotland, a map could have been obtained for £250,000; but the House had preferred the plan which 1347 would cost one million. The enormous scale—that of six inches—on which the wildest districts of Scotland were to be surveyed, was perfectly monstrous; and when the whole was completed, not only would the high estimate abovenamed, in his opinion, be exceeded, but they would be landed in the colossal scheme advocated by Sir C. Trevelyan, by which England and Ireland, as well as Scotland, would be surveyed on the 25-inch scale, at an estimated cost of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 sterling. Moreover, Sir C. Trevelyan's plan would necessitate the creation of a new Governmental Department, with a costly permanent staff of surveyors to revise the Ordnance maps every few years. The present rate of progress made in Scotland might be judged of from the fact that last year only 407,000, out of an aggregate of 20,000,000 acres were completed.

SIR WILLIAM WILLIAMS
said, with regard to some observations which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley), in which he had referred to a statement made by him (Sir W. Williams) the other night, that there were no doubt officers in the British army quite able to make plans. There were always such persons to be found on the head Quartermaster General's Staff; but there was not attached to our army, as there was to the foreign services, a topographical corps, who might be detached with any Major General or Brigadier General. In foreign armies, wherever officers equivalent to our Major Generals or Brigadier Generals were stationed, they were always attended by an officer who was constantly surveying the ground, and who made an elaborate report of the same, accompanied by a plan, without which no mere verbal or written description could be intelligible. He only hoped that upon the reconstruction of the army, a bonâ fide staff corps would be appointed, and that each member of it would attend one year with the artillery, one year with the cavalry, and one year with the infantry, so that officers of one arm of the service might be better acquainted with the duties belonging to others. He quite agreed in the opinion that had been expressed, that soldiers in camp at Aldershot ought to be employed on field works without extra pay, which only led to drunkenness and insubordination, and that they should be made conversant with the method of making fascines, with sapping, and other matters of field fortification. It was his earnest wish 1348 that every one of the soldiers might be there made conversant with everything relating to war, and he was perfectly sure that if this course were adopted, England would never regret a single shilling that had been laid out at Aldershot.

§ SIR DENHAM NORREYS
said, that, as the attention of the Committee had been drawn away from the Ordnance Survey of Scotland to a totally different subject, and it was his wish to confine himself to the question of the Ordnance Survey, he would at once resume his seat if any hon. and gallant Gentleman desired to continue the subject adverted to by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir W. F. Williams). The noble Lord below him (Lord Elcho) complained of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. E. Ellice) for having introduced a question which had been definitely settled by the House—namely, the Ordnance Survey of Scotland; but he (Sir D. Norreys) denied that the House had ever had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon that question, nor did he think that it was then prepared to do so. As he did not think it was fair to make any Motion upon that subject without notice, he would reserve his observations until the bringing up of the Report, when he intended to raise the whole question of the 25 inch Ordnance Survey, in order that the opinion of the House might be finally taken upon it.

§ MR. WEGUELIN
said, he wished to direct the attention of the Under Secretary for War to the engraving department of the Ordnance Office, which required the appointment of a practical engineer to prevent the mistakes and alterations which were constantly made under the present system. Great expense was caused to the country in consequence of the engraving of the maps being intrusted to persons who were not regular engravers.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, that he declined to make any reply to the observations on the Ordnance Survey of Scotland until the subject was brought before the House on the Report, in pursuance of the notice just given by the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys). The Vote, however, had better be taken pro formâ at once, subject to the final decision of the House on bringing up the Report. He assured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire that the instruction of staff officers in military drawing had engaged the most careful attention of the Government. By 1349 one of the general orders recently issued by the Horse Guards, it was laid down that after the 1st of January next no officer was to be appointed on the staff who was not able to pass an examination, and who was not well qualified in the different branches of military knowledge which were requisite for a proper discharge of a staff officer's duties. Practical instruction of that nature was being given at the present moment at Aldershot. An artillery officer went down there for several days in the week, and took about with him a class of officers to instruct them in the principles of military sketching, &c.; and so great was the anxiety to obtain instruction that that officer could not attend to all the applications that were made to him.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
regretted that the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) did not think that the present was an opportune moment for the discussion of the question as to the Ordnance Survey of Scotland. It had been said that that was not a Scotch but a national question, but he (Mr. Williams) denied that that was so, because the Ordnance Surveys of England and Ireland had been settled. It appeared that the Survey of Scot land had been proceeded with, to a great extent, upon three distinct scales—a 1-inch scale in some counties, a 6-inch scale in other places, and a 25-inch scale elsewhere, He wished to know whether it was intended to persevere with these three surveys upon different scales? Ail the cost of these surveys would have to be paid for out of the taxes of the people, and he had a right to complain that, whereas the surveys of England and Ireland had cost only about £250,000 each, it was intended to expend £1,000,000 upon the survey of Scotland. What was intended to be done with the Vote of £36,000 now asked for? Was it to be expended in continuing the 25-inch scale survey, or was it intended that the public money should be perpetually expended in surveying Scotland on one scale, and then surveying it on another?

§ LORD ELCHO
suggested the advisability of following the course recommended by the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys), and of having a thorough discussion on this subject upon bringing up the Report.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
was of opinion that no fair debate could take place upon the mere bringing up of the Report, and that the Committee ought to have some explanation before they agreed to the Vote.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
(in reply to Mr. Williams's previous question) said, that nearly all the cultivated districts south of the Forth and the Clyde were now surveyed on the 25-inch scale, and they were now proceeding with the survey of the cultivated districts only upon this scale.

SIR HARRY VERSEY
expressed himself strongly against the unsystematic manner in which the survey of the country had been carried on. They had been promised a uniform survey on the 8-inch scale, which would have served for all the railways and other great public works. That plan was rejected, and no less than £2,500,000 had been spent on surveys for the purposes of the Tithe Commissioners. He protested against the 25-inch scale as unnecessary and extravagant. He thought that the Vote should either undergo discussion or be postponed.

Mr. E.ELLICE (St. Andrew's)
, said, the hon. Baronet had not exactly stated the present position of the survey in Scotland, because in four or five of the more important counties where it had been completed on the one-inch and the six-inch scale it would have to be entirely recommenced, according to the system now in progress, upon the 25-inch scale.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
wished to understand whether it was the intention of the Committee to discuss this question now? Hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget that the subject had been most fully discussed before. Not only was it debated previously to last year, but a Select Committee then sat upon it, which pronounced in favour of the plan proposed, while a large majority in that House came to the same decision.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
did not wish to discuss the scale upon which the survey should be conducted, but thought the Government were proceeding without system in this matter. Even in Scotland no system had been adopted which would ultimately secure a good survey, while in England they were wholly neglecting that which it would be but common sense to do. There were populous districts in this country which possessed only the most incorrect map possible upon the 1-inch scale, and the survey for which was made at a very early period. Now, if a new survey of these districts were made, he believed, upon the authority of scientific men, that the sale of maps would be so great as to be perfectly remunerative. But, instead 1351 of doing this, they were proceeding with surveys for which there was no demand, and the greater part of which would be useless.

§ LORD ELCHO
observed that the course adopted in Scotland was not that which the hon. Baronet had stated. At the present moment the Scotch survey was proceeding on a regular system, and it was in consequence of the many changes which had taken place, of the Motions for Select Committees, and the speeches made in this House, if doubt and uncertainty existed on the subject. He felt confident that much of the misunderstanding prevalent throughout the country arose from the want of a thorough discussion of this question. Before such a discussion took place he hoped that hon. Gentlemen, notwithstanding their horror of blue-books, would read over, however cursorily, the correspondence respecting the scale for the Ordnance survey published in 1854, and the Report of the Select Committee, dated May 6, 1856, upon the Ordnance survey of Scotland.

§ MR. WYLD
suggested that these surveys should be made useful as a great scientific school for the instruction of our officers. In other countries officers were allowed to pass a certain portion of their time in making these surveys, the consequence of which was that upon every occasion where such officers were employed in making reconnaissances they were found capable of doing so satisfactorily. During the late Crimean campaign, however, it was well known that the authorities were indebted to railway engineers for a really good, scientific, and accurate plan of the ground before Sebastopol. He thought that if officers in all branches of the service were allowed to volunteer for a short time, and engage in this work of surveying, their expenses being included in the costs of the surveys, the experience they would thus acquire would prove invaluable to the country at some future period.

SIR FREDERICK SMITH
For the purpose of making a good and useful survey experienced surveyors were required, not youths. Where youths had been employed, as was the case with the Ordnance survey of Cornwall, re-surveys had been subsequently found necessary, and the work had been done over again. He thought, therefore, that no good result would follow the sending officers to this survey.

§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTON
said, 1352 he thought that as affording a means for cultivating accuracy of observation there could be no possible objection to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld). With respect to his observation, however, that the army before Sebastopol had been indebted to those engineers who went out to construct the railway, for the survey of the ground, he thought that the hon. Gentleman was in error, for he remembered a very excellent and very accurate plan having been made by an officer of the 93rd Regiment, who was then on the Quarter Master General's staff. No doubt the more education that could be given both to staff officers and to officers of the army, in order to qualify for the staff, the better; but in contrasting the education of officers abroad with the system pursued in England, it must be remembered that abroad officers were separately educated for the staff—that they were instructed at a separate establishment, at a separate cost, and that they were taken away from all regimental duties; and that the system in this country would have to be entirely altered probably if the staff were to be taken exclusively from one set of officers. With regard to the topographical question there was no doubt that if a general officer wished to send home a plan with his despatch, he had the Quartermaster General's Department to assist him; but the officers of that department had very important duties to perform, independently of map drawing; they bad to do with the moving and quartering of the troops, to look to the general features of the country, and to make a general view upon paper of the position. The topographical department would be able to put in proper language, as it were, those conceptions of the Quartermaster General's Department, and it would, no doubt, prove a very useful addition to any military staff.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he understood that it was the intention of the Government to allow the Military Commission now sitting to investigate the whole question of Military Education, and, as it was a subject in which every one must feel deeply interested, he should like to know from the Under Secretary for War when public attention was to be called to it through the instrumentality of the Government.

§ GENERAL WINDHAM
said, he should be sorry if it were to go forth to the public that there had been no officers at head 1353 quarters in the Crimea who could make a good map. He remembered to have seen two charts, one made by an engineer officer and another by an officer in the Quartermaster General's Department, and he believed that the latter was by far the best plan that had been made.

§ MR. WYLD
explained that what he had suggested was that officers of the British army should be allowed the advantage of acquiring a good knowledge of ground and of mapping, which these Ordnance Surveys would afford. He did not say that officers of the army were not generally well educated, but it was notorious that in topographical knowledge they were inferior to the officers of France, Russia, Austria, or Prussia, and that if they were sent to make a reconnaissance, and to bring it back to the Commander in Chief, they would not be able to do so.

§ GENERAL WINDHAM
admitted that there was much truth in what the hon. Gentleman said, and added that many officers who drew well as boys lost the art from want of practice. He repeated his unwillingness, however, that it should be supposed that there had been no persons employed at head quarters at Sebastopol who were capable of making a map.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
, in answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), stated that the whole question of military education had for a long time engaged, and did still engage, the most serious attention of the Government, who were fully aware of its great importance, The first recommendation of the Commissioners upon the subject, and one on which they laid the greatest stress of all, was, that a Board or Council should be appointed to consider the whole question. That step had already been taken by the Government, A Council had been appointed, and their duties were to draw up a general scheme of military education, giving more particularly their opinion as to what should be the examination to which gentlemen should be subjected when candidates for their first commission in the army; also, as to what examination officers should have to pass through upon promotion through the different steps up to the grade of captain; and, also, as to what should be the qualifications required of staff officers. That Council had only recently been appointed; those were the duties which its Members had to perform, and when they should have 1354 drawn up their scheme of education, that scheme would be submitted to Parliament before being adopted.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
again urged the postponement of the Vote, or, at all events, of that, portion of it which related to the survey.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, he hoped that the Committee would not postpone the Vote, although there appeared to be a general desire to discuss the question of the Ordnance Survey on the bringing up of the Report. It should be remembered that a Committee which sat last year had fully inquired into the subject, and that the present expenditure was merely for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of that Committee.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he begged to call attention to the manner in which pensions for wounds were awarded. In some cases officers were desperately wounded, but unless their wounds were considered equivalent to the loss of a limb, they were not considered eligible for pensions. He thought there ought to be some other sort of classification. In some of the regiments which recently left for the China war, officers were obliged to leave the service on account of their wounds, although those wounds had not resulted in the loss of a limb. He thought the manner in which the future prospects of an officer were affected by a wound should be more considered than whether the wound was equivalent to the loss of a limb.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he must complain that it was almost impossible to keep pace with the Votes from the manner in which they were arranged. He had wished to make some observations on the last Vote, but, in consequence of the vast mass of matter contained in each of the Votes, he had been unable to tell what Vote the Committee were upon. He trusted, when the Estimates were next brought forward, that a number would be put to each Vote and named by the Chairman, so that hon. Members might be able readily to find it and follow it up.

§ LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPEST
, in reference to the wounds of officers, said that many officers were so severely wounded in the Crimea that they were obliged to leave the service. They could not, however, get a pension, because their wounds were not equivalent to the loss of a limb. This was not a principle on which a great country like this ought to act. He wished to know from the hon. Baronet whether the Government would make any alteration.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said the noble Lord must be aware that this was a most difficult and complicated question. If they once passed the line which had necessarily been adopted, it would be almost impossible to know exactly where the granting of a pension should stop. He was afraid it would be out of his power to give any answer to the questions of the noble Lord or to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire. The regulations under which the Government acted had been in force for a great number of years, and they were originally taken from the Admiralty regulations, which would require to be altogether revised if the subject were disturbed.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he had not expected any answer at the moment. He merely mentioned the matter that the attention of the Government might be directed to it.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, the line which had been laid down was a very bad line. It was true that inquiry should be made into the cases of officers severely wounded. There were other wounds besides the loss of a limb, which might vitally affect a man's prospects for life. The hon. Baronet had said that he followed the example of the Admiralty—it was a very bad example. The Order in Council empowered the Crown to give pensions for wounds whenever the case seemed to deserve it. This was never carried out, and it was high time that inquiry was made. The officers of both services had served their country well, and deserved more consideration. An officer might be struck, and all the difference as to his pension would depend whether he was struck, in the leg, for instance, a few inches higher or lower.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that nothing could be more desirable than that the Government should have the means of laying down rules which would be attended 1356 with the effect of rewarding officers who suffered severely in the service; but, on the other hand, nothing was more essential than that the regulations appertaining to the matter should be such as to exempt the individual was duty it was to administer the pension from the charge of partiality or injustice. Now, unless the regulation was such as to admit of a clear distinction between several cases, he was afraid it would be impossible to give satisfaction to the service. He himself knew something of the matter from the offices he had once occupied. As long as a pension was to be given for the loss of a limb, or a wound equally prejudicial, there was clear ground to stand on; but if they went beyond that, and undertook to measure the injury to the constitution caused by different wounds, it would be impossible to lay down a line satisfactory to every one. Again, what difference could they draw between incapacity arising from wounds, and incapacity arising from disease? An officer might be incapable of service if his regiment were ordered abroad, but quite capable if it remain at home; so that there might be two officers suffering from wounds of a similar character, while their pensions would depend on the contingency of their regiment being ordered abroad; that was, that if the regiment of the one was ordered abroad, that officer would receive a pension as having been incapacitated for service; while the other officer, suffering from a similar wound, would not receive a pension because his regiment was at home. Unless some line was laid down the War Department would be accused of partiality in every case in which a pension might be refused.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, that the Queen's regulations specified that Her Majesty reserved to herself the right of conferring a pension on account of wounds and services. Now, the noble Lord talked of a fixed rule; but if there were to be a fixed rule, and that rule was that no one should have a pension who had not lost a limb, that power of granting pensions ought not to be retained by Her Majesty, because it was only holding out false colours.

MAJOR STUART WORTLEY
suggested that the close of a severe war, like the war with Russia, was a very fitting opportunity for a Government to take the matter into consideration.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that in many instances the officer was incapacitated for 1357 service both at home and abroad; but unless their wounds were considered equivalent to the loss of a limb they did not receive the reward to which they were entitled. It was to these cases he referred.

§ LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPEST
said, that there was great injustice in the present system; and he hoped that the noble Lord would consider whether some modification of it was not practicable. A friend of his was wounded at the Alma; he was very much attached to his regiment, but he was obliged to leave it at a very great sacrifice, being totally incapacitated from remaining. That officer received a pension at present, but he was in a great state of doubt and uncertainty as to its continuance, because he had not lost a limb.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
thought the evil arose from adhering too much to a preconceived rule. Instead of judging by that, they ought to take each case into consideration, and decide on its merits. Suppose a man were shot in the lungs, and another lost an arm—well the man who lost an arm would receive a pension, although lie could still perform his duty, while the man who was shot in the lungs, although unable to do anything, was not entitled to a pension. The army had done its duty nobly, and he appealed to the House not to act towards it in a niggardly spirit.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he considered that an officer who had been incapacitated by wounds from the performance of his duty, either at home or abroad, was a fit subject for a pension, even although be might not have suffered the loss of a limb.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, each case was considered on its individual merits, as suggested by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck), but then their merits were measured by the predetermined regulations. If it were not so, and the matter were left to his noble Friend at the head of the War Department without any reference to a fixed standard, he was sure a clamour would be raised in every case where a pension was refused, which would be exceedingly prejudicial to the service. There was no mode of dealing with the matter except by fixing some standard. In any case, such as that put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, where an officer had been so badly wounded as to be incapacitated for service, either at home or abroad, he should 1358 suppose the report would be that the wound was fully equivalent to the loss of a limb, and consequently a pension would be granted. It appeared that the officer to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel North) opposite alluded was in the receipt of a pension, and certainly if a pension were once granted it was not likely to be withdrawn.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he considered that if the rule was a bad one it ought to be altered, without any regard to clamour which might be raised in individual canes. The standard of the loss of a limb did not appear to him to be a reasonable standard, because the loss of one limb might be more severe than the loss of another, while a wound without loss of limb might be more likely to render a man unfit for service than the actual loss of a limb.

§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTON
said, there was in each case a separate consideration under the Medical Board. But what he felt most was the rigidity by which the authorities were bound not only by the mere Regulation, but by the habits of England, which bound down the Government to particular rules for fear of giving them irresponsibility over one sixpence, and thus rendering them afraid of exercising any discretion. The evil referred to was felt not only in granting pensions of this sort, but extended to other matters. This jealousy of Executive Officers took away from the Government the responsibility due to them.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
wished the law to remain as it was, if it were only carried out. The Government reserved a right to give pension to officers whose services and wounds entitled them to it; and he wished to see that discretion carried into practice.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
observed that he was desirous of knowing what were the precise instructions under which the Medical Board acted. At present he was wholly unable to discover upon what principle its officers decided the amount of pension which was granted as compensation for the loss of a limb. It must be borne in recollection that the effects of many wounds were more serious than even a disabled body or mutilation, when they resulted in mental derangement. As the system was now administered, a considerable degree of distrust and dissatisfaction very justly prevailed among members of 1359 the naval and military professions. He, therefore, on every account trusted that the existing regulations would be communicated to the House.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, the regulations under which the Medical Board acted were to be found in the War Office Regulations, at page 185.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
asked whether the loss of an arm and the loss of a leg meant the same thing at the War Office? The words "loss of a limb" were a mere phrase; it might mean an arm or a leg, but they were different injuries.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, it was impossible to estimate particular injuries. The loss of a leg or an arm was a severe injury; yet the severity depended on circumstances; and both affected the constitution. It was not only that there was a bodily loss to the officer, but that the necessity for assistance was entailed upon him thereby. But he hoped the Committee would not expect him to catalogue particular injuries.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
wished the Government to judge each case by itself.

§ LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPEST
said, pensions were granted for one year, and at the end of it the officer was ordered to present himself to the Board. The whole system of pensions was so exceedingly uncertain, that officers did not know whether they were entitled to a pension or not, and he hoped the Government would reconsider the subject, or that some nonmilitary Member would move for a Committee to do that which the Government refused to do.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, the cases alluded to were of a doubtful description, and the officer was presented with a gratuity of one year's pay, and ordered to come up again at the end of the year. If the injury were then permanent a pension was granted, but if not, the country was not burdened with a pension.

§ SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTON
said, the question was one of very great difficulty. He felt that instead of limiting the Executive Government to a certain rule the House ought to give them a certain discretional power to be lodged in the Head of the War Department, and a power of reference also to the Medical Board. That would be a great advantage.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
asked, whether the major at Chelsea Hospital, who received a salary of £360, and the adjutant, who received £210 per annum, were also in receipt of their half-pay.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, he was not prepared to answer the question then, but would make inquiry upon the subject.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
complained that the charge for Kilmainham amounted to over £6,000, in addition to £4,000, which latter sum was, he perceived from the Estimates, not then under discussion, also to be laid out on the erection of buildings connected with that hospital. The total expenditure, therefore, for the present year would be over £10,000, while the number of the inmates appeared to be not more than 142, out of which number forty-three were officers and servants of the establishment. These in-pensioners cost the country £100 a man, and if they had half that amount, and were allowed to live with their friends, they would be more comfortable.

COLONEL NORTH
said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams) seemed to assume that these poor pensioners were not comfortable. Now, he (Colonel North) had the honour of being acquainted with the officer who was at the head of this establishment, and he might safely say, therefore, that they were as comfortable as they could be. If the men were not comfortable, they could leave the establishment; and at the same time he begged to remind the hon. Gentleman, that as long as one-half of the army was composed of Irishmen, it was not too much to maintain an asylum in that country for our superannuated soldiery,

MR. W. WILLIAMS
repudiated the notion that he had complained of these pensioners not being comfortable. What he had stated was, that if each of them was paid over the £100 which they individually cost the country, they could be maintained with much more comfort amongst their own friends than at present.

§ MR. JOSEPH LOCKE
said, he wished to remind the House that his statement with reference to Netley Hospital, on Friday night, had passed quite unnoticed by 1361 either the noble Lord at the head of the Government or the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary at War. He did not complain of personal discourtesy, but the public interests were concerned, and he thought that some explanation ought to be given. He had asked for an explanation as to the discrepancy which had appeared in the different Estimates on account of this hospital. They had, in the first instance, been asked for a sum of £150,000 on account of the building of the hospital, and then they were afterwards told that the real estimate was £110,000 in excess of that, which would make the total outlay amount to £260,000, or at the rate of £260 per patient, as the hospital was to be built for the accommodation of only 1,000 men. For that sum a good house might be built for each of them, He had heard it stated, that it was the intention of the Government to discontinue the erection of this hospital—was this true? Above all, he should like to know the cause of so sensible a difference in the various estimates, as well as the name of the architect who was responsible for such discrepancies.

§ SIR JOHN RAMSDEN
said, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving him the opportunity of correcting an involuntary omission. The discussion on Friday night embraced a variety of subjects, and the questions put by the hon. Member were lost sight of. The discrepancy in the estimates of £110,000 arose from the circumstance that, when it was first intended to build the hospital for £1,000 patients an estimate of £150,000 was put into the Votes upon the usual computation of the cost of constructing an hospital upon the old plan, without the modern improvements. In the War Office £150 a bed was considered a proper estimate, and as soon as it was arranged that the building was to hold 1,000 men the sum of £150,000 was put down in the Votes. However, before any steps were taken to construct the hospital, a Committee of able medical and scientific men was appointed, who reported that great modifications were required in the original plan. There was no time before preparing the first estimate for the House of Commons to go into the elaborate detail and inquiry which had afterwards been made, and the result was, that a much larger estimate for the construction of the hospital was found necessary. The hon. Member appeared to think this an exorbitant charge. 1362 He could only say, that a grave representation had been stated to Lord Panmure relative to the improvements required, and that a Committee of scientific men, engineers and medical men, was appointed to consider that memorial The Committee made a Report, in consequence of which certain alterations and improvements were made in the plan, He would add, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the construction of the hospital.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
said, that, in reply to a question put on a late occasion, in reference to the defences of Woolwich, the noble Lord at the head of the Government observed very justly, that on the land side were hills of varying elevation incapable of a regular system of fortification, but tenable to a considerable extent by troops. On the water side, towards the river, the only possible defence which could be offered to the approach of an enemy must consist in the presence of block-ships and gun-boats. Now, at Woolwich upwards of 20,000 pieces of ordnance were collected besides material of war to the value at least of £20,000,000. It was, therefore, a subject deserving the most mature consideration to determine whether it was prudent to continue the present system of centralising stores of such magnitude and value in a position so exposed as Woolwich. Weedon was at a distance of from sixty to seventy miles from London, but it possessed the advantage of a railway and water-carriage by canal. In Portsmouth and Plymouth also, as possessing strong fortifications, might be established convenient depôts, He would, moreover, observe that the present number of ships, of the description to which the noble Lord had alluded, was quite insufficient to meet the demands which would be made upon them in the event of an emergency by ports of the highest national importance, He did not think that block-ships, such as we now employed, were adapted for this service, but he could entertain no doubt that scientific men would readily devise a floating battery equal to any fortification on shore, taking into account the extreme lowness of the land on either bank of the river. He would conclude with the hope that before the next Estimates were brought forward the Government would take the subject into their most serious consideration.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
suggested that the Government should reconsider the 1363 Estimate for the Hospital at Netley before the expenditure was incurred. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out some discrepancies between the cost of barrack accommodation at Cambridge, Dovor, and other stations. At Dovor Castle an extra sum was charged for the adoption of the midiæval style of architecture for the barracks.