§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Mr. MASSEYin the Chair.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £690,159 be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charge of Barracks at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEremarked that much had been said by a Member of Her Majesty's Government of the great expense which they were incurring, and the Committee would do well to consider the Vote before them, inasmuch as one item for the erection of buildings of a more permanent character at Aldershot, which involved a very large expenditure. It could not be said that the parsimony of Parliament had ever interfered with military expenditure; on the contrary, it seemed to be an established dogma in the House that whatever lavish expenditure the Minister called for on the army should be granted sub silentio. We were surrounded by "the pride, pomp, and circumstance of war" on every side—cast-iron forts on the shoals at Spithead, Volunteers camps at Shorncliffe, Colchester, and the Curragh; and, lastly, this monument of extravagance, the camp at Aldershot. The original Vote for Aldershot was asked for in February, 1854, on the express understanding that it was to be a camp where certain bodies of troops should be assembled for periodical exercise in the summer months. But it had since been converted into a permanent barrack. He had no wish now to go into the policy of bringing a large body of troops together during the whole year, though he believed it had a tendency to demoralize the men, and certainly not to improve the morals of the neighbourhood. The original sum contemplated for the purchase of land was £100,000, and in 1854 the Government announced that they had purchased 7,000 acres, at an expenditure of £156,000,. or about £20 an acre—a capital bargain, as it was said to be; though he held it to be 1587 the dearest purchase the Government ever made. The first mistake in that unhappy business was the selection of the site. Part of it was a swamp, which had to be drained with great difficulty and great expense. Then there was no supply of water to be got. The Royal Engineers were set to work, and a pretty mess they made of it. They dug holes in all directions only to fill them up again. He was sorry not see the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) in his place, for he knew something about the business. But it was not very strange that he was not there, seeing how impossible it was for anybody to know when o the Army Estimates were likely to come on. Then Mr. Simpson, a civil engineer, was set to work, and at an expense of £26,568 he succeeded in getting water two miles off. People in the Metropolis had to pay pretty heavily for water rates, but £26,000 for getting water two miles off was a nice nut for the financial reformers to crack—if any there were either in the House or out of it. Then the ground was so bad that the camp had to be gravelled at an expense of £12,800, an expense which was entirely owing to the improper selection of a site. Then came the most extraordinary business of all—the erection of the temporary huts. In the Estimates of 1854–5 there was a sum of £175,000 taken for the erection of temporary buildings or huts. In the return which he had moved for it was said that no special estimate was made of the cost of the huts, because it was not determined how many men would have to be provided for, but, however, £175,000 was the sum taken. The sum was granted, of course, and then the matter was forgotten; but he hoped that the return he had moved for would have the effect of inducing hon. Members to look more narrowly into such matters, and to follow up their history. The huts were found to be not only bad in design, but infamous in construction. They were neither watertight nor airtight. The Government then entered into a contract to cover the huts with patent felt at an expense of £14,000; but then even they were found not to be watertight, and another contract was entered into to tar them over. Certainly those who had constructed them ought not only to be tarred, but feathered; at any rate, they had feathered their nests well. The whole expense of erecting these huts for Aldershot and other stations had been £796,100—at Aldershot alone they had cost £496,000—and yet 1588 they were now in a state of utter rottenness and decay. He should very much like to hear what the Government intended to do with these huts now. After the construction of the huts it was determined to erect permanent barracks for 6,000 men at an expense of £250,000; but then the wise engineers employed, instead of selecting a site which would have allowed room for expansion, went to the very verge of the boundary of the 7,000 acres, and fixed on a site in a hollow, which was very difficult to drain, and which formed a very bad site altogether. Then they found they had omitted a hospital, and, there being no suit able site, they were obliged to give £2,000 for a couple of acres to build one upon; whereas, if the land had been purchased in the first instance, it might have been bought for £20 an acre. And now, through building these permanent barracks on the very verge of the boundary, a town had sprung up on the private property adjoining, which contained every element of demoralization. Great as was the reputation of this country for blundering, there had never been such a succession of blunders made as in the Aldershot business. The public had now got what many people imagined a very splendid site, and a very splendid pile of barracks. But he was informed, by persons competent to form an opinion, that the barracks, though constructed on an expensive system, were very defective. He believed that in May they were nearly burnt down, owing to the flues being made of half brick, and many of them resting on wood. At all events, he could say that the authorities had been in a great hurry to provide the barracks with fire escapes. Then the cooking houses were stuck right under the barracks, and expensive lifts were made—on the model, he supposed, of those at the Carlton and Reform, in order to send up the men's dinners. These lifts had never been used at all. It had been found also that the cooking houses were in the wrong place; they ought to have been detached, instead of being so placed as to roast the soldiers in summer as well as in winter. But this was not all. When the Aldershot Camp was first established iron stoves were provided for 20,000 men. What happened? They were condemned, and were sold as old iron. Captain Grant, a very able Artillery officer, then set up a most effective cooking apparatus for 50,000 men, which had beta in use for six years. He had since been informed that Captain Grant's 1589 apparatus was to be knocked on the head, and a new office had now been created—the office of Instructor of Military Cookery. Mr. Warrener had superseded Captain Grant, and had set up a cooking apparatus as an experiment—an expensive one, no doubt, as most of these experiments were. Next, there was a system of ventilating barrack grates. Three thousand of these were put up, costing £3 10s. a piece. They were, of course, admirable for every purpose except that for which they were intended, and fifty tons of them had been sold for old iron. It was necessary to put up others in their place, and altogether that experiment had cost not less than £25,000. It would be curious to know the total cost of the barrack stores which had been applied for and condemned at Aldershot. The Vote, which commenced as a temporary encampment, and amounted to £100,000, had swollen to £1,500,000; and he thought he had stated enough to show that it was time to put a stop to such a system. If the blundering at Aldershot had occurred in the sister country, the thing would have been stamped for ever; but, happening in England, he supposed it would only be pointed to as an instance of the solid good sense of John Bull. He hoped that if there was any solid sense in John Bull, and if there was any regard for the public purse in that House, that Aldershot would be looked upon as an example to be shunned, and that the House would not, year after year, be content to vote enormous sums without being persuaded that they got value for their money, and that they were not paying through the nose for that very expensive article—a standing army.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, the hon. and gallant Member had brought the subject forward with great fairness and great accuracy, and he wished, in addition, to call attention to a statement made two or three years ago by the Commander-in-Chief with regard to barracks. His Royal Highness stated that he constantly visited different barracks in this country and always found that many things were wanted, but as he did not hold the purse-strings of the nation he could only represent the facts to the Government; that he had represented this accordingly, but he was met by the answer that, though the improvements suggested might be all very well and desirable, the Government had no money. That statement of the Commander-in-Chief was denied in "another place," very much 1590 to the surprise of officers of high rank in the service. There was no doubt that many of the improvements introduced into the army had been at the cost of barrack accomodation. Libraries and reading-rooms, for instance, had been formed out of what would otherwise have afforded barrack room; and the men had been crowded into their apartments in order to meet the feeling of the age. The hon. and gallant Member had referred to the manner in which repairs were done in barracks, and the enormous expense attending the minor details of such repairs. The difficulties officers had to contend with as to barrack repairs was illustrated by a case that occurred in London, and which was of such a nature that he could not believe it till he went to the barracks and ascertained that it was true. Some of the stoves in the Regents' Park Barracks were out of order, and an order was made that they should be repaired. They were taken out of their places for the purpose, repaired, and brought back. When they were brought back, and shown to the quartermaster, he approved of them and directed that they should be refixed. But it appeared that the word, "refix" was not in the order, and it took from the 26th of November to the 6th of December to get that defect in the order supplied; and in the meantime the stoves not being refixed they could have no fires, and great inconvenience was experienced. If such a thing could occur in the heart of London, in the barracks of the Guards, what might not happen in distant colonies? In 1855 he had himself brought forward a proposal for putting up an apparatus for drying soldiers' clothing at Aldershot. The Reports of the Barrack Committee and Sanitary Commissioners showed that much of the disease in the army was caused by the soldiers having no means of drying their clothes. An apparatus had been invented by Mr. Huthnance, fully carrying out the recommendations of these bodies. That invention he brought under the notice of the Secretary for War; it-was ordered to be reported on, and the Report was against the apparatus. He found on inquiry that the officer who reported against it did not even see it. He then requested that an officer should be sent to Chipping Norton, where the apparatus was at work, to report on it again. That report was most favourable to it, but no notice was taken of the invention till General Peel became Secretary for War. 1591 He ordered it to be put up at Aldershot, and General Knollys spoke very favourably of it. As the cost of the apparatus itself was only £40, he was surprised to find the whole cost of the drying-room put down at £394; of this sum it appeared £40 was paid for the apparatus, and £30 for the expenses of the inventor for attendance at different times. The remainder of the sum, £324, was the cost of building the drying-room, though it was only 19ft. 7½in. long, and 16ft. wide, and 13ft. high, a bare room, not even plastered, but whitewashed. From the difficulties he had to contend with about this apparatus, any one might have supposed he was himself the inventor of it, or had some percentage or profit on the transaction. The apparatus was afterwards put up in a drying-room in the Tower, and anything so scandalously done he had never seen. On asking the inventor how he could have allowed it, he explained that every suggestion he made was overruled by the clerk of the works. At the Kingston-on-Thames "Workhouse the improved drying-room he had referred to was to be seen in operation. It dried 3,400 articles a-week, the cost of the coal from the Monday morning to the Saturday night being only 4s. 5d., and the whole outlay for the building and apparatus £110. The Laundry Establishment at Chatham was said to have cost £900, but he believed that £1,800 was nearer the mark, and yet the hot closet was capable of drying only 192 shirts in 8 hours, with a consumption of 15 bushels of coal. The improved drying-room dried 308 shirts in 2½ hours, with a consumption of 70lb. of coal in the 24 hours. It was utterly impossible that the Report which had been laid on the Table could be correct, and he trusted that the Government would consent to a thorough investigation of the subject.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, he trusted that the very useful improvements which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North) had described would be introduced into the military service. With reference to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, he maintained that the purchase of land at Aldershot was a very cheap bargain. It had been bought at the rate of £20 an acre. It was true that a further outlay was afterwards necessary for drainage and other improvements; but he (Mr. Monsell) believed that if the land had been in a condition which would not have required that outlay it would have 1592 been idle to expect that it could have been purchased for the very moderate sum of £20 an acre; and he felt persuaded that if the troops were removed and the land put to sale it would bring a much larger price than the whole outlay for the purchase of land, and drainage, and other works. No doubt, it was originally intended for a camp; but it was very fortunate that it was capable of being used as barracks when the necessity arose. Since the peace of 1815 it had unfortunately been the habit to dispose of many of the buildings which during the great war had been used for the accommodation of troops; and on the breaking out of the Crimean war, when the army was increased and the militia embodied, it was found that we had an enormous number of men unprovided with proper barracks. The military authorities deemed it advisable to erect a large number of huts at Aldershot, the Curragh of Kildare, Shorncliffe, Colchester, and other places. The first were erected at Aldershot, those which were erected at Shorncliffe were better, and those at the Curragh were best of all. Those at Aldershot wore erected under great pressure, and it was absolutely necessary to erect them quickly. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the barracks should not have been erected in the corner of the land. He certainly never could understand the expediency of that, but the highest military authorities were of opinion that that should be the site of the building. With that single exception he believed those barracks were very successful, and that they had been erected at a smaller cost per man than any barracks that had been erected elsewhere. The first intention of Lord Hardinge was to have barracks built according to the Belgian system, but in deference to other military authorities first-class barracks were substituted. That accounted for the difference between the first estimate and the actual expenditure.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, that as one of the officers who had been first stationed at Aldershot, he could bear his testimony to the pressure which was made to get the huts up, and he believed that was the cause of their inefficiency, as they were consequently commenced during a frost, and had no brick foundations. With regard to the permanent barracks, they were most admirably constructed, and were altogether most efficient. If barracks were more costly than formerly, it was in consequence of the recommendation of the 1593 Select Committee that greater space should be given to the men, and especially to the married soldiers. His object in rising, however, was to call attention to an item in the Vote of £50,000 for sanitary purposes. It was very well to have a sanitary commission for one year, but he thought the House would hardly sanction the perpetuation of it. There was one item included in that £50,000 which he hoped even financial reformers would assist him in dividing the Committee upon. He alluded to an allowance of three guineas a day to a civilian medical officer. Now, seeing that they were paying over £62,000 a year for a medical staff at home, it was hardly necessary to appoint a civil medical officer to such a post. Under these circumstances, he should move the reduction of the £50,000 by £1,150, the amount of the salary of the civil officer.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the item of £50,000 for the 'Sanitary Vote,' be reduced by the amount of £1,150."
§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had nothing to do with the design of the huts at Aldershot, which were most miserable erections. They were totally unfit for soldiers or any other persons to live in, as the ventilation was two or three feet below the heads of the occupants, consequently they had to breathe a deleterious atmosphere. The great mistake that was made at Aldershot was the omission to construct the camp on a permanent and comprehensive plan. But he was bound to say that the Aldershot barracks were the best and cost the least of any that he was acquainted with. He did not think the cost of gravelling and draining and preparing the ground at all extravagant.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as the reduction of an item in the Vote had been moved the debate must be confined to that question until it was disposed of.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, at least, until the Under Secretary for War had replied to the statement of the hon. Member for Liskeard.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that he should have an opportunity of renewing it, when he should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the question to which it had reference.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
Mr. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he was willing to admit that he had the honour of entering the House as a financial reformer, and he considered himself an independent Member; but when the present, or any other Government proposed anything which might be necessary for the defence of the country, they should have his warm support; while, on the other hand, he should most unquestionably oppose anything like extravagant expenditure. It appeared to him that no answer had been given to the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard, who stated that many mistakes had been made in the construction of the Aldershot barracks; and that gave rise to the serious inquiry whether civil or military engineers should be employed in the construction of such barracks for the future? He believed that the corps of Royal Engineers, ably and excellently officered as it was, had been obliged to call in a civil engineer, Mr. Simpson, to aid in finding that indispensable requisite—water. If that were so, the gravest question arose for the future whether such operations were to be carried out solely by the corps of Royal Engineers, or whether civil engineers ought to be also employed so as to create a kind of mixed commission. At present, they were to look the fact in the face, that an establishment for £25,000 men had cost the country £1,500,000. If the Committee were prepared for such an expenditure it was useless to say anything. Financial reformers would never be wanting in granting ample means for the public service; all they required was, that the funds entrusted to the Executive should be faithfully, honestly, and judiciously administered; but they did not like a wasteful expenditure of that money which was so often and so cheerfully contributed by the country. He had, therefore, risen to protest against this costly expenditure. He thought that when experiments were to be made they should be carried out upon a moderate system, rather than upon that costly and excessive scale upon which they had, hitherto, been conducted.
§ MR. HASSARDsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Under Secretary for War to the imperfect mode in which the lighting of the barracks was carried out in many places, and especially at Waterford.
CAPTAIN JEEVISsaid, there was a great deal of complaint about the expense in- 1595 curred at Aldershot which he thought to be very unfounded. He knew that the cost per head of erecting one of the cheapest asylums for lunatics—that in Hampshire, was £150, while the cost for providing accommodation for the soldier in the same county was only £60 per head.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that while money had been expended on barracks sufficient to provide every soldier in the British army with a comfortable cottage, the accommodation was still described by medical men as insufficient, and in many instances disgraceful. He should like to hear some explanation of the item of £60,000 for the purchase of lands and erecting rifle-range huts at Gravesend.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he would move the reduction of the Tote by £7,000, part of the sum of £40,000 for stabling of a more permanent character in the Camp at Aldershot. A great deal had been said about the improvements in barracks and about the sanitary arrangements in the new buildings erected for troops, but his quarters as an ensign twenty-five years ago were as comfortable as those which he enjoyed at the present time. As to Aldershot he looked upon that camp as one of the greatest sinks of corruption and iniquity. It was quite melancholy to think of it. He spoke from an experience of twelve months in that camp, where he said that it was perfectly horrible to witness the scenes which went on, owing to so many troops being quartered in the camp, and to their having nothing but riot and debauchery for amusement. Hon. Gentlemen who had not had personal experience of it might judge of its state from the paragraphs which from time to time appeared in the newspapers, They showed that every crime short of murder was committed there. It had a very bad effect on the condition of a soldier who had served ten or fifteen years in the colonies to send him to one of these monstrous camps, in which there was nothing but idleness and debauchery. He did not mean to say that the principle of forming camps was a bad one. On the contrary, he thought it would be a great advantage to the army to collect troops for two or three months in camp every summer to learn the arts of actual warfare; but the camp at Aldershot had been turned into an enormous barrack, in which the soldiers had nothing to do. Everything was brought to them as regularly as if they 1596 were in a barrack, and they learned nothing whatever. Hon. Members might hear great accounts of what was done at Aldershot; but he could assure them that it Was a great sham. In respect of drill the fact was by taking raw recruits to one of those camps they interfered with their discipline and prevented them from acquiring that steadiness which was so essential to a soldier. He ventured to say that a young recruit was deteriorated after spending some time there. Another argument in favour of those camps was that they would teach our generals. There was a great outcry against our generals during the Crimean war. A more heartless calumny was never uttered than that made use of against those officers at that time; but if our generals wanted teaching were they taught at Aldershot? One officer was kept there for a very long time. General Knollys, for instance, had commanded for a very considerable time. Again, the General officer who commanded the camp lived eight miles from it, the adjutant-general five, and the quartermaster-general four. What was the consequence? Why, if an orderly went to the camp at night he did not know what officer to go to. Again, why should a brigadier be placed there for five years? Every officer commanding a regiment ought to have the chance of commanding a brigade sometimes, and every brigadier ought to have his chance of commanding a division. The General in command and the other superior officers were sufficient in the discharge of their duties. What he complained of was the system of turning those camps into permanent quarters of large masses of men; and as he looked upon the stabling as of a permanent character, he now moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £7,000.
GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, there was a good deal of truth in what his hon. and gallant Friend had advanced, although his statements were, he thought, somewhat exaggerated. He would admit that Aldershot might have been made of greater advantage as a place of instruction, and that the arrangements might have been better. At the same time it must be recollected that it had grown by degrees, and its utility was still being gradually developed. In the first place, the General in command lived several miles from the camp. It would have been better if the Government had provided a residence for the General in the immediate proximity 1597 of the camp; but, as they had not done so, it could not be expected that an officer who held such a command for five years would live in a small hut. Still, when his hon. and learned Friend said that an orderly arriving at ten o'clock at night did not know to whom to deliver a message, he must have forgotten that there was at all times a general of the week, to whom all reports were made in the absence of the General commanding, and whose business it was not to leave the camp during the evening. He considered that the country was not aware of how much they owed to that General (General Knollys), who had at first no ordinary difficulty to encounter, and whose time had been over occupied by an enormous correspondence, consequent upon the anomalous position of the War Department and the Horse Guards. In regard to drill he must say that, of his own experience, Aldershot was of immense advantage to the army. Before the camp at Chobham was established there was hardly a brigade ever found together, except at Dublin. He had heard, indeed, old officers say that they were unable to command a brigade for want of experience. He agreed that it would have been better if there had been more opportunities of interchanging commands. He would also admit that the camp might be made too much of a permanent camp, and that it was a disadvantage to keep the whole force all the winter in such a place. It was an advantage to the men when they first arrived, and an improvement both to officers and men in regard to drill, but after a Certain time the advantage was lost, and the place became irksome. Opportunities are given for instruction there which are not to be found elsewhere, and there cannot be a doubt that gradually it will become more and more of service to the country. If it were possible during the winter months to quarter the greater part of the men in other directions it would be better. On the whole, however, as a camp of military instruction, Aldershot had been of great service both to officers and men, but particularly to officers, in respect to the regiments being quartered together in brigades. The men gained, too, in being taken away from sentry and night duty and in living in a healthy situation. The Government, however, had made a great mistake in permitting the erection, within 100 yards of the but barracks, of a line of houses of a description to which he need not more 1598 particularly allude, over which the Government had no control, and which exercised a demoralizing effect on the troops. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) that £20 an acre was very cheap for common land of that description.
THE CHAIRMANintimated to the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick that though the Estimate for Stabling was £40,000, the Vote now asked for was only £7,000; so that his Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of disallowing the whole of the Vote for the present year.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he was glad to find that his hon. and gallant Friend (General Lindsay) had endorsed everything he had said about Aldershot. He objected to the camp being made of a permanent character, and he, therefore, moved the omission of the whole of the sum proposed to be voted for this year.
GENERAL LINDSAYdenied that he endorsed the statement of the gallant Member for Limerick who gave no credit at all, and who had exaggerated every defect.
MR. H. B. JOHNSTONEsaid, that having himself been at Aldershot, he could bear the strongest testimony to the need of better accommodation for horses. "When he was there the horses all had sore throats, and the discomfort could not be described. He was astonished, therefore, at hearing his hon. and gallant Friend object to the Vote of £7,000, for no money could be better laid out than in improving the stabling at Aldershot.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he was glad the Committee had heard the testimony of two officers who had been at Aldershot. He trusted that after the discussion which had taken place they were not now of opinion that there had been, as was alleged, any misrepresentation from the beginning, or that the House had expected to Vote £100,000 and no more. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Hear!] If the House had been asked merely to buy land for a site upon which to build the barracks there would have been no reason for asking for so large a sum. He would ask the Committee whether the mere demand for such a sum for the purchase of land did not involve an additional outlay for huts and other expenses which were necessary for a camp of exercise? It had been said that the whole thing had been entered upon without opposition or criticism. But there had been constant discussions on the sub- 1599 ject. He could himself recollect an Amendment moved by Captain Vivian, who he regretted was not now a Member of the House, which raised the very same point with that debated that night, as to the permanence of the camp. The question had been thoroughly discussed, and among those who voted against the reduction of the Vote moved by Captain Vernon was the hon. and gallant Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne). With respect to the suggestion that some improvement might be made in respect to the supervision of barrack expenditure, and the employment of civil engineers, he had to state that a Committee had been appointed to consider the question. In reference to the actual Vote, the reduction of which was moved by the hon. and gallant Officer, he believed that there was nothing which would attract the observation of any hon. Member who visited Aldershot more than the state of the cavalry stables; and for the preservation of the horses in the south camp, all of which probably would be burnt in the event of a fire breaking out, it was essential that some improvement should be made in them. The £7,000 was to be applied to the erection of permanent stables for the horses of a battery of Horse Artillery, and the remainder of the whole sum required would stand over for subsequent consideration, none of it being expended without the previous consent of the House of Commons. The cost of the permanent barracks at Aldershot was, as the Committee had been informed by the hon. Member for Coventry, less than the cost of other barracks. With regard to the grates mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Liskeard, he did not believe that any ventilating grates had been introduced into Aldershot at all, and certainly doubted the accuracy of the statement that grates had been introduced and afterwards sold for old iron. The drying machinery introduced at Aldershot and Chatham had been alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North), and the Committee might rest satisfied that every attention would be given to the introduction of the very best drying apparatus into the different camps and barracks. He would also make inquiries as to the adoption of gas in barracks.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, that he should support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote, because the permanent barracks at Aldershot were growing to such a mag- 1600 nitude that the Committee ought to know where the expenditure was to stop. He did not believe that any benefit would be derived from this Vote for the increase of the cavalry barracks, for they were at present sufficiently extensive, and he strongly deprecated spending any more money on the permanent barracks. With regard to the new barracks in London, in Portland Street, he wished to ask a question—
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must request the hon. and gallant Member to confine his observations to Aldershot.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, of course he would bow to the Chair; but he wanted to know how the authorities were going to deal with the huts at Aldershot? They were in a state to require repairs or rebuilding, and he wished to know whether the Government had come to the determination of doing one or the other? Were they going to make them permanent, or merely to repair them? His question also applied to the barracks at Colchester and other places.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThis discussion has, I think, taken a much wider range than the Vote under our consideration justifies. We have been debating whether it was originally expedient to buy a large tract of land for the purpose of assembling these troops to be instructed in general movements; whether it was right to have erected permanent works on that land; whether we ought to use huts in lieu of barracks; whether the command at Aldershot should be confined to one officer, or whether a number of officers in succession should be so employed? Now these are, no doubt, very proper subjects for discussion. They are all questions of great interest; but then I would humbly submit that they do not exactly belong to the Vote which is now under our consideration. That Vote is the moderate sum of £7,000 for the purpose of providing stabling for barracks which are already built. The argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) and some hon. Gentlemen who followed would, if acted upon, naturally lead us to break up the whole thing, to sell the land, and have no encampment at Aldershot at all. He would have us pull down the huts and, I suppose, convert them into firewood; in short, he would have the establishment altogether discontinued. Now, if he were to make that proposal in direct terms there would be a practical question for our consideration; 1601 but that is not the point at issue, and I trust, therefore, the Committee will waive these general expressions of opinion to which we have been listening, and Vote the sum which we believe to be necessary—and which a gallant Officer on the other side of the House, who has had some experience at Aldershot, states to be necessary—in order to render the works at pre-Bent there available for the purposes for which they were intended. So far as the general question is concerned, I must say I am somewhat astonished that the hon. and gallant Member for Liskeard, or any other hon. Gentleman possessing military knowledge, should appear to doubt the advantage of having an extensive piece of ground like that at Aldershot for the purpose of military instruction. The scheme of having such an encampment was taken from the practice adopted by the French Government, who used to have a camp at Boulogne, and who, when they found what We had done in the same direction, bought a much larger extent of ground at Chalons; the expense of the camp there being much greater than that which we incurred. It is, however, contended that the barracks at Aldershot are a source of demoralization, owing to the population which has sprung up in the neighbourhood, and that we ought to buy up everything in its vicinity with the view of preventing such a state of things. But what, let me ask, is the condition of barracks elsewhere? Are we to purchase up all the ground in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth and Plymouth and other towns attached to which there are barracks, with the view of driving away that particular description of population to which allusion has been made? Are we to have barracks nowhere except in perfect solitudes, so that the men might be cut off from all communication of that character? Why, Sir, it has been strongly objected to Aldershot in the course of this long discussion that it was not near a town, and that there was not, as a consequence, due provision made for what is called amusement for the men. These arguments, it will be at once seen, destroy one another, while the charge made against Aldershot on the score of morality applies with infinitely greater force to those barracks which are situated in large and populous towns. With respect to the expense of the ground purchased there, I would simply ask whether if we had proposed to buy 9,000 acres of enclosed land we should have made a more economical outlay? What I 1602 should like to know would be the cost of those 9,000 acres, on which it would have become necessary to throw down all the fences, to destroy all the cultivation, for the purpose of reducing it to an open space on which military manœuvres might be executed? Why, it is obvious that land of that description would have cost a much larger sum than we paid for Aldershot, and I maintain that the purchase of the land there was, after all, a very economical arrangement. The expediency of having an encampment of this kind, however, for the purposes of military instruction, does not bear upon the Vote under our notice, and I trust the House will not hesitate to Vote the sum of £7,000 for which we ask, and which is required in order to render the barracks at Aldershot available for the objects for which they are intended.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask one question of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War. A case had been brought before him of the horses of the Blues having been put into stables at Aldershot last year which had been previously occupied by horses afflicted with that horrible disease the glanders. It was impossible to conceive anything more absurd than such an arrangement, and he wished to know whether the Vote would have any tendency to prevent a repetition of such conduct?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the Vote would certainly have such an effect as it would provide increased accommodation for the horses there.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEBefore we go to a division I may be allowed to question the doctrine which has just been laid down, that in discussing a Vote such as that before us we are not entitled to enter into the general subject of the expediency of maintaining the encampment at Aldershot as a permanent establishment. On a former occasion, when I took up that subject, I was told that it was not the proper time to do so, and now that we are dealing with a Vote in connection with it I am met with a similar objection. I am not surprised to find that the noble Lord at the head of the Government is partial to Aldershot, because it is his own child, and he acknowledged himself to be its father in 1857, on the occasion of the Motion made by Captain Vivian. Now, the Under Secretary for War has twitted me with voting in the majority on that occasion in obedience to my commander; but 1603 I was at the time a subordinate Member of the Government, and the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that
Sufferance is the badge of all our tribe.I would remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that I never voted in favour of the permanent system at Aldershot—nay, more, that I was always opposed to it. But to return to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, I find that on June 5, 1857, when Captain Vivian moved the reduction of the sum to be expended for permanent barracks from £100,000 to £50,000, he spoke as follows:—I thought, Sir, I had explained that permanent barracks are to be built at Aldershot for 4,000 infantry, 1,500 cavalry, and a few batteries of artillery, and that it is not intended to build barracks for a larger number of men than that. Troops are to be be collected together there in a larger number during the spring and summer months for the purposes of exercise; but it is not intended to make it a winter camp." [3 Hansard, cxlv. 1264.]Now, that is the very thing which I have been urging on the Committee. I do not object to troops being collected at Aldershot during the summer months. What I am opposed to is the policy of making it a permanent barrack, and there is not, I contend, a single position which I have laid down to-night which has been contravened, although my statements have been nibbled at by the noble Lord and the hon. Under Secretary for War. An hon. Member from the sister country, who represents the cavalry, told us that if the Government had not brought forward this Vote he would have insisted upon it, because his horses had very sore throats.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEI certainly understood the hon. Member to say that his horses had sore throats, and that, therefore, he thought the Vote a proper one. If the hon. Member can read, he may see on referring to the Estimates that the sum of £7,000 is intended to provide permanent stables for artillery horses; it has nothing whatever to do with officers' horses. I am so satisfied that it is bad policy to make permanent encampments that I hope the Committee will be asked to divide against the Vote.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThe hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that I denied his right to discuss the general ques- 1604 tion of Aldershot, and maintained that he ought to confine himself to the stables. I said exactly the contrary. I admitted that it was competent for him or anybody else to discuss the general question, but added that the Vote before us related merely to the stables. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I must say, has excited my deepest compassion. He has most pathetically described the extreme sufferings he endured when he was in office, and was called upon to assent to the Vote for Aldershot. It is a lamentable thing that he should have undergone so much pain; but, on the other hand, it is some consolation to know that in his present position he has fully indemnified himself for his former privations. The free expression of opinion in which he has indulged this evening can he compared with nothing but the thawing of Baron Munchausen's horn, when all those notes, whether harmonious or discordant, which had been frozen up so long at last found vent into the open air, and either astonished or delighted the audience by whom they were heard. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not suppose that I have been merely nibbling at his argument, or that I have not contradicted anything he has said. I contradict every opinion he has uttered, and challenge him to prove his statements.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEIt has been my misfortune to-night to fall foul of two Irish Gentlemen—the hon. Member opposite and the noble Lord who has just sat down. I think, however, it is a little unfair in the noble Lord to fire off at my expense the old jest about Baron Munchausen's horn, which, for the benefit of younger Members of the House, I may state I heard him six years ago apply to another Member. We have a much more serious matter before us than the venerable joke which the noble Lord has revived. Is the House of Commons prepared to sanction the expenditure of somewhere about £1,500,000 upon the camp at Aldershot? The noble Lord says he contradicts everything I have said, but I have quoted a passage from Hansard which cannot be disputed. In 1857 the noble Lord stated that it was not intended to make a permanent encampment at Aldershot; but now, availing himself of his acquaintance with the pages of our most ancient jester, he wants the Committee to give its assent to a different policy.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThe hon. Gentleman has quoted from Hansard the 1605 amount of permanent barrack accommodation which I stated in 1857 was intended to be established at Aldershot. I believe he will find the amount of permanent barrack accommodation which actually exists at the present moment does not exceed that which I stated in 1857.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he apprehended that the £7,000 now asked for was only the first instalment of a much larger sum.
COLONEL DICKSONstated that the permanent barracks had got plenty of good stabling attached to them. He would divide the Committee against the Vote.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That the item of £7,000, for Stabling of a more permanent character than that at present existing in the Camp at Aldershot, be omitted from the proposed Vote.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 147: Majority 97.
§ Original Question again proposed,
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished some explanation of the proposed Vote of £10,000 for Colchester Barracks. The total estimate had been £60,000, including the purchase of land. £35,000 had been previously voted, leaving £25,000 to be voted in subsequent years. But now, after having spent £33,000, the £27,000 was increased to £60,000. He understood that part was for cavalry barracks. But they already had cavalry barracks at Norwich and Ipswich, and he supposed it was the intention of the authorities to remove them to Colchester. If they did that, what did they propose to do with the barracks at Norwich and Ipswich? If he was rightly informed, they could not sell these latter, because they could not give a good title to the land, and, therefore, they would be obliged to retain them. He wished also to ask whether the sum of £60,000 was the whole sum which they would be called upon to vote for barracks at Colohester? for it was rumoured that it was only part of a great scheme to spend something like £200,000. He thought the Estimates ought to show in the first column what was really the total sum to be spent.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that there was a vast increase on the Vote without any reason assigned. He thought the Under Secretary for War was bound to tell the Committee why such an increase had taken place. He also wished 1606 to know what they wanted with an enormous establishment at Gravesend, costing £60,000, while they had Chatham within seven or eight miles, where there were ample means of teaching soldiers to fire ball cartridge? 'With regard to Colchester he thought the increase was quite uncalled for. The Government were wasting money in the erection of barracks. He had been at Dovor on the previous day and had seen the barracks erecting there, which were to cost £29,000, and accommodate only thirty officers—nearly £1,000 for each officer. The buildings were of a magnificent external character, with cut stone, but not a jot was added by them to the comfort of the officers. Such extravagant expenditure ought to be discouraged.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that with reference to Colchester the Estimates were perfectly clear. The Committee was asked to vote £16,000, part of £60,000 for the erection of cavalry barracks. The reason of these being erected was that the lease of the barracks at Norwich would fall in in a few years, and those at Ipswich were in a very bad state. He had no information of any such extensive plan respecting the camp at Colchester as that alluded to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers). With respect to the purchase of land at Gravesend, that was only for the completion of a service which had already been approved, and part of the cost of which had been previously voted. The addition to the Estimate for Woolwich Hospital was to supply accommodation for an increased number of patients.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEasked for an explanation of the proposed Vote of £20,000 for the purchase of the Euston Hotel, Fleetwood, for rifle ranges and butts. £20,000 had already been granted for that purpose, and, besides the Vote now asked for, a further demand of £20,000 would be required to complete the work, making £60,000 in all. That was an enormous sum, and to raise the question he would move that £10,000 be deducted from the Vote.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, he did not think the hon. Under Secretary for War's explanation respecting Woolwich Hospital at all satisfactory. The outlay upon that establishment was objected to last year, when a distinct assurance was given that the expense would not exceed £120,000. Instead of that, however, the Estimate had now risen to £200,000. Again, with respect to the construction of the barracks 1607 at the Royal Military Academy, there had been a distinct understanding when the works commenced that there should be a separate room for every cadet; but up to that time, as he was informed, two, and even three, cadets had to live in the same room, without having any place to retire to for studying.
§ MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he wished to call attention to the item of £15,000 for increasing the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, so as to accommodate 500 cadets. That was the first instalment of a scheme for entirely changing the mode of preparing officers for the army. Every young gentleman, it appeared, before entering the service, was to be required to pass a year at the Military College in acquiring the rudiments of his profession. All monopolies were highly objectionable, but a monopoly of education such as that proposed was, perhaps, the most objectionable of all. A special training like that would, he believed, not be advantageous to the army. It would be better if every officer entering the service were required to possess a liberal education, wherever that education might have been obtained. What security was there that an establishment for 500 cadets would be conducted in such a manner as to afford the education it professed to provide, and at the same time to keep up the high tone which had hitherto distinguished the British officer?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the object of purchasing the Euston Hotel at Fleetwood was to afford the means of instruction in rifle shooting in the north of England, instead of requiring officers to travel from distant parts of the country to the establishment at Hythe.
GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee the subject of Captain Grant's cooking kitchens, which were now established in all the larger barracks and encampments. Before 1855 the cooking system in the army was very indifferent, but in that year Captain Grant was directed by Viscount Hardinge to investigate the subject, the result of which was the establishment of a new system of cooking at Aldershot. Captain Grant had not only originally established the present system by which great economy and increased efficiency had been obtained, but it was found so successful at Aldershot, that it was in consequence of that success established at Shorncliffe, the Curragh, Colchester, Woolwich, and other 1608 places; he, therefore, has the merit of having established the first improvements, and he is deserving of consideration for his success, and it is not fair now to turn round upon him and say that others had subsequently improved upon him, but he ought to have credit for the five years conduct of a system which has been proved to be so advantageous to the service. Under the old system the consumption of fuel was about 3⅞lb. per man per day, but Captain Grant's improvement reduced it to about 5lb. per man per week, thus effecting a great saving of expense, as well as an addition to the comforts of the soldiers. When this subject was brought forward last year the noble Lord the Secretary for War observed that Captain Grant's system was only one of many that had been submitted to the Government, but, although others had lately been brought under notice, yet, as before stated, Captain Grant was the original inventor. The noble Lord also objected that Captain Grant's system was not original, that it had been tried and had not succeeded at the London Tavern; but subsequent inquiries led him (General Lindsay) to believe that that was a mistake; and, even if it were so, he has the merit of having applied it to soldiers. Other objections had been raised which for the most part had been got rid of by recent improvements by him, and the fact remained that Captain Grant had introduced a system which for a long time had been the only system of cooking in use at large camps. He thought that officer had a right to expect sympathy and encouragement from the Government, but, instead of that, those whose business it was to carry out the details had rather acted in opposition to him. Captain Grant had received £500 as compensation for his outlay, but not as a recognition of the merits of his invention. That sum was far less than he had expended, he having paid upwards of £750 out of his own pocket. One of Captain Grant's kitchens has been altered to carry out a system under the countenance of the War Department—and without reference to Captain Grant—the alterations have already cost £700. It is small encouragement to gentlemen to improve systems for the Army when they find themselves neglected, and treated without deference. I trust the Government will consider this question with reference to some compensation to Captain Grant, both for his success and for his exertions.
§
Motion made, and Question,
That the item of £20,000, for Purchase of the Euston Hotel, Fleetwood, Land for Rifle Ranges, and Erecting Huts, be reduced by the sum of £10,000.
§ Put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again proposed,
§ LORD FERMOYobserved that a very important question had been raised as to providing a special military education for officers. It was impossible to enter into that subject that night, and he should, therefore, move that the Chairman report Progress.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the Committee would have an opportunity hereafter of discussing that question, and he trusted, therefore, the noble Lord would not persist in his Motion.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, he hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would agree to report Progress.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would allow them to go on with the Vote, which they had been engaged upon since nine o'clock. If they were to go on reporting Progress in that manner he did not know when the Session would he over.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress," put, and
§ Original Question again proposed,
§ MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he should move the omission of the item of £15,000 for increasing the Royal Military College at Sandhurst to hold 500 cadets.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the item of £15,000, for increasing the Royal Military College at Sandhurst to hold five hundred Cadets, be omitted from the proposed Vote.
MR. T. G. BARINGexplained that under the new system which was proposed officers previous to joining the army would have to go to a military college for a year, for the purpose of learning the theory and practice of their profession. The plan would not come into operation until the beginning of 1863. Further details would be given, and, therefore, he thought there was no reason for refusing the Vote. His noble Friend the Secretary for State had been in communication with the authorities of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, with regard to a suggestion that the universities should also be used for the purpose of military education.
§ In reply to Sir FREDERIC SMITH,
1610MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the £15,000 would enable the present building to be extended, but would not provide the whole accommodation necessary for 500 cadets.
COLONEL KNOXremarked that the Committee should have some data as to the system which the Government proposed. When they knew what the system was it would be time enough to vote money to enlarge the building.
§ LORD FERMOYsaid, they were asked to proceed, and yet the Government had not made up their mind as to the principle they intended to adopt. Why should Parliament grant buildings that might not be required? He thought the Vote ought to be postponed.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the plan had been explained in the evidence given by His Royal Highness, Commanding-in-Chief, before the Committee on military organization. He was anxious to get rid of all patronage connected with his office, and it was proposed that after the 1st of January, 1863, all direct admissions to the army should cease, with the exception of those given, to non-commissioned officers. All officers before entering the army would have to go through a course of one year at Sandhurst, passing a qualifying examination on going in, and another examination on leaving. The latter would include drill and military exercises. The present system would continue until January, 1863. With the exception of the commissions guaranteed by Act of Parliament to the sons of persons who have served in India, all commissions without purchase would be competed for by the cadets at Sandhurst.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to know in what manner candidates would be admitted to Sandhurst?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the names would be put down on a list as at present, and each candidate would take his turn.
§ MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the matter was one of such importance that he must press his Amendment for the omission of the item.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKmoved that the Committee report Progress.
§ Motion made and Question "That the Chairman do report Progress," put and negatived.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he thought that as no information had 1611 been laid before the Committee as to the system which was to be adopted, it would be better to postpone the item for the pre sent.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he also advocated postponement, as the item really belonged to the Educational Vote, which came next.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that if hon. Gentlemen would withdraw their opposition to the Vote, he would undertake that no expense should be incurred on account of it until the House had had an opportunity of giving an opinion on the scheme of education proposed.
§
Question put,
That the item of £15,000, for increasing the Royal Military College at Sandhurst to hold five hundred Cadets, he omitted from the proposed Vote,
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 54: Majority 5.
§ Original Question again proposed.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,150, paid to the Sanitary Commissioners.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the item of £50,000 for the 'Sanitary Vote,' be reduced by the amount of £1,150.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, Dr. Sutherland was the highest authority upon these questions, and the improvements which, under his superintendence, had been effected in the sanitary arrangements of barracks had tended materially to reduce the mortality in the army. The appointment was not a permanent one, and in the bourse of another year or so his employment would probably cease.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that as he believed that in the present state of the Committee reduction was not to be hoped for, he should move that the Chairman report Progress.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was sure the Committee would feel that nothing was more important than the preservation of the health of the army. Putting it on the lowest grounds, there was nothing so uneconomical and so prodigal as carelessness on this point. But in reality it stood on higher ground, because if men were enlisted for the service of the country the Government was bound to take due care of their lives. When a large number of persons were crowded together in barracks, pr in camp, there was until lately much ignorance as to the principles on which the preservation, of health depended. Dr. 1612 Sutherland was the first to examine into these principles. He had rendered invaluable service in the Crimea, as well as in the different hospitals and barracks of this country, and no money could be better laid out in guarding the health of the soldier from the influences to which it was subjected.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress," put, and
COLONEL GILPINsaid, the noble Lord had not convinced him that when so large a sum was paid to medical officers in the army, some of those gentlemen could not be employed to discharge the duties performed in this instance by a civilian.
§ Question put, "That the item of £50,000 for the 'Sanitary Vote,' be reduced by the amount of £1,150."
§ Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 78: Majority 68.
§ In reply to General LINDSAY,
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that a sum of money had been awarded to Captain Grant as remuneration, but he was not satisfied with it; since that time the question had not been raised. If an application were again made it would be fully considered. He could not undertake to say that Captain Grant should be paid out of the saving his kitchen had effected, there being differences of opinion as to its economy. There was no disposition to depreciate Captain Grant's services.
§ MR. CAVEsaid, that Captain Grant's kitchen had been of great service in the North West London Reformatory, and a large district school at Southwell. What he complained of was that some sinister influence was at work to prevent his plans being properly carried out. It was a great evil that, rightly or wrongly, the opinion was universal that the State was a hard taskmaster but a bad paymaster; and that a man could not expend his time and talents in a less profitable service than that of his country.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, there never was a more successful improvement introduced into the army than Captain Grant's kitchen. It was both healthy and economical. Captain Grant had expended £700 out of his own pocket, and he had received £500.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to;
§ House resumed. Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock,