SUPPLY. REPORT. (Hansard, 7 March 1859)

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
asked the Secretary of State for War whether in the number of 122,000 land forces were included the officers and men of the twelve batteries which were destined to embark for India; and, if they were not included, how the gallant General intended to provide the means for their payment while they remained in England?

GENERAL PEEL
said, that those batteries were at present included in the number of men voted in the British Establishment, and they therefore would be paid, up to the time of their embarkation, by the British Government. As soon as they embarked for India it was intended to raise an equal number of artillery to replace them.
First Resolution read 2^o, and amended by inserting before the word "exclusive" the words "exclusive of 15,005 men, being the Depôts of Regiments in India stationed in Great Britain, and—"

§ COLONEL FREESTUN
said, he wished to call attention to the pay of the subalterns in the army which was so miserable as to burden them with debts. There were no officers paid so badly in proportion to their expenses as the subalterns of the British army. There was very bad inducement for young gentlemen to mike the army a profession. An officer whose pay amounted to £95 a year had to incur no less than £157 in necessary expenses. This left him a loser to the extent of £64 a year. The present scale of pay was granted upwards of a century ago. The pay of subalterns in continental armies would perhaps be referred to as a justification of the pay of subalterns in the British army, but the continental subalterns could 1402 not be placed in the same category, because allowances were made to them in addition to their pay. He would ask the House and the right hon. General the Secretary for War to take the case of these officers into attentive consideration. He merely asked for 2s. a day additional. The right hon. General had already done much to entitle him to the thanks of the army and of the public; and he (Colonel Freestun) felt convinced that public opinion would sanction the increase which he now asked for.

§ SIR ANDREW AGNEW
said, there was a still greater hardship inflicted upon subaltern cavalry officers. They had to provide themselves with two horses; and although it was stated that forage would be found for those horses, and that the officers would receive so much pay, yet no less than 8d. a day was deducted for each horse, being in the case of subalterns 16d. a day, and in the case of captains 2s. a day from their pay. That was a shabby proceeding on the part of the Government, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into consideration. He understood that at this moment there was a great difficulty in filling up cornetcies. That was not a very creditable state of things, considering that the service ought to be an object of ambition.

GENERAL CODRINGTON
said, the officers' rooms were generally devoid of the commonest necessaries in furniture, and if they could be provided with certain articles, it would be the greatest comfort to the officers, and it would certainly be a very great kindness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that in this country no young man could get into any profession or respectable business without paying a large sum as a premium—much larger than was paid by ensigns—and then for sonic years those young men obtained no pay whatever. It should be remembered that the subalterns were merely learning their business. When they had done that they ought to be well paid; but while they were more learners they should be placed in the same position as young men engaged in every other business or profession.

GENERAL PEEL
said, he was as anxious as any man could be to do something for the subalterns. He should be happy to recommend that their pay should be raised, if he thought that could be done consistently with a due regard for the public funds and for the other branches of the 1403 service. He thought the army was all underpaid, from the colonel down, and it was utterly impossible to touch the pay of any one class of officers without going through the whole. But the House was always complaining of the Army Estimates, while it was from Members of the House that suggestions like the one now under discussion always came. With regard to the point urged by his hon. Friend (Sir Andrew Agnew) concerning the cavalry officers, when his hon. Friend saw the correspondence that had passed between him and the Treasury on that subject he would perceive that he (General Peel) had not neglected to urge the claims of the cavalry officers, and learn the grounds upon which that claim had been refused.

§ MR. MONSELL
would renew the questions he had asked on a former evening, as there had been some misapprehension with respect to it. There were on the staff of the army more than 200 officers; of these more than 100 were not on the regimental, but the general staff. Among those 100 were included all the higher appointments made from the staff—generals of districts in England, Ireland, and the Colonies; he wished to ask why the Artillery and Engineers were, as it seemed, systematically excluded from all the advantages of such appointments? in other countries they were not so excluded. His second question was this—three General officers were very properly appointed Inspectors of Cavalry, of Infantry, and of the Guards. It was perfectly obvious, if inspectors were necessary for these corps, an inspector was still more necessary for the Artillery; why was it, then, there was no Inspector of Artillery? Up to the present year there had always been in the Estimates a Vote for a Director General of Artillery; he was a most important officer; he had under his charge all the fortresses of the kingdom and in the Colonies; the Director Generalship was looked forward to by the officers as the highest rank in the corps. The third question he wished to ask, therefore, was, why that post had been dispensed with this year?

GENERAL PEEL
The hon. Gentleman had asked why no general officers of the Artillery were appointed to command on the staff. He had a list of those general officers, from which it appeared there were only three who were less than sixty-eight years of age; the ages of all the officers of that rank varied from eighty six to sixty-eight. All those who were less than 1404 sixty-eight had received appointments. [MR. MONSELL: There are the colonels.] He was afraid the colonels were in much the same predicament. The reason why a Director General of Artillery was not included in the Votes for this year was this—it was intended to make an alteration in the duties of the post, according to the recommendation of the Committee of 1857; the civil would be separated from the military duties, and the latter placed entirely under the Commander in Chief. The hon. Gentleman might be assured those duties would not be less efficiently performed by being in future intrusted to officers from the scientific branches of the service, who would also be younger men.