§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ £389,000, Control Establishments, Wages, &c.
§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTsaid, that considering that to be one of the most if not the most important Vote in the whole of the Army Estimates, he wished to make it the subject of a few remarks. They should be brief, as he feared to do more would be a mere waste of time, as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office did not appear inclined to make any alteration in the department, about which so many complaints were made, nor did he seem disposed to allow the country to know what was its precise working. He (Major Arbuthnot) felt it his duty to protest on this and every other occasion against things being allowed to remain in their present unsatisfactory condition. Two years ago, he gave Notice of a Resolution on the subject. At that time, preparations were in progress for the Autumn Manœuvres of 1871, and he determined not to move in the matter at the time, as he wished to give the Department the fairest possible trial, and that determination had met with general approval, the principal organs of the Press admitting that he had hit upon a branch of the military service which was a weak point in that service, for which the Government was responsible. Indeed, The Times newspaper in an article dealing with military questions, at the close of the Session expressed its approval of the course he took, adding, that "the postponement of his Motion would afford reasonable time for the mature deliberation of the Government, and at the same time enable the subject to be thoroughly discussed." How had that been fulfilled? The Government might have maturely considered the question, but they had made no changes, and there certainly had been no discussion on the subject. Last year, when he made a Motion for inquiry, and notwithstanding the difficulties which were in his way, owing to the late period at which he was enabled to come on, he was told by seine of his Friends who heard him that he had made out an unanswerable case; but, however that might be, it certainly had not been answered, The right hon. 1252 Gentleman the Surveyor General of the Ordnance made some observations, to the effect that the Control department was formed on the recommendation of Lord Strathnairn's Committee. In reply he would only say that he had Lord Strathnairn's personal assurance that his reason for objecting so much to the Control department was, because it violates what he considered vital principles laid down by the Committee over which he presided. Then the right hon. Gentleman supported the principle of interchangeability among subordinates; in fact, he openly and avowedly advocated the theory that one day a Control officer might have charge of bread and beef, at another time of complicated military stores, and at another time have under him men and horses and be administering military law and discipline. If that principle were acted on we need hardly seek further for a sufficient cause of total inefficiency. The right hon. Gentleman also said that General Officers had reported favourably of the system. Now, he had never yet found a general officer who praised the Control department as it at present existed, and he did not know that he had ever heard one defend it. After a debate on this subject, also in "another place." He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could fall back upon the reports of General Officers for the defence of the department, for the Government had refused to produce the reports of the General Officers respecting it at the Manœuvres, on the ground that they would produce bad blood. The illustrious Duke who made that statement added that not a word could be said against individuals; and he (Major Arbuthnot) was ready to endorse that statement, because from all quarters it appeared that the Control officers had worked with the greatest zeal and energy. What then could have been the tenor of their reports except a condemnation of the system. There were two points on which he wished to say a few words, because they involved great questions of principle. Those points were, the absence of any reserve of any system for the expansion of the Control department, especially the transport, and the non-existence of any system of utilizing local resources. To prove the first point, he need only refer to the Returns which had been recently circu- 1253 lated, which showed that after having brought in detachments from every part of England and Ireland, and after calling on the Artillery to perform the duties which ordinarily devolved upon the Control at Aldershot, Dublin, and all the principal garrisons, they were able to place in the field only 680 Control horses and 714 Control drivers, whilst the combatant branches furnished 641 horses for transport purposes, and 743 drivers. Besides those, there were 273 hired horses and 137 hired drivers, and 2,030 horses were bought and subsequently sold. That showed that after several months' preparation, the transport service was equal to moving only about one-half of the Army placed in the field for the campaign, or in other words; a force of something like 15,000 men, and even then, it must be remembered, too, that not more than one-half the duties which would devolve upon the department during war had to be performed during the Manœuvres. The supply of the munitions of war did not enter into the question at all, and, as regarded the supply of food even to the Army, the strain upon the department was not very great. Much of the work that would devolve on this department in war was performed by contractors, while the regiments were, to a large extent, supplied with food by means of the canteens, and most of the officers provided themselves privately. These facts led him to believe that these Manœuvres, if they were intended to be a rehearsal of what would be done in time of war, or to test the capability of the transport department, showed that that department fell very far short of the mark, and that the expenditure was almost an unnecessary one. It was absurd to suppose that in time of war we could break up the artillery depot, the only means, miserable as it was, of expanding our field artillery we possessed; nor could we take men and horses from our attenuated regiments, and battalions for that purpose. The system now pursued was merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. It was a policy of makeshifts which General Trochu had denounced before the Franco-German War, and which probably accounted for much of the disorganization then existing in the French Army. Then, as to the question of the utilization of local resources, he was of opinion that in a 1254 sound system of transport and supply the resources of every district of the country, as regarded food and the means of transport, should be so well-known and organized that they could be utilized at the shortest notice. That was not the case at the Autumn Manœuvres. With regard to the contracts for rice, flour, bran, hay, and other articles, the prices, to him, were unaccountable when compared with the current prices in the metropolis and many of the principal towns throughout the country. [The hon. Member here quoted from a recent Parliamentary Return.] It would be interesting to know on what principle and by whom these contracts were made. There was one other matter upon which he wanted some explanation. Not long ago a battery of artillery, quartered at Sheffield, and having 12-pounder guns, was to be supplied with 16-pounder equipment, and received orders to march to Hilsea. The Control department was communicated with, and arrangements were entered into for the transport of the guns. Notwithstanding that the battery had to pass near Woolwich, the 16-pounder guns were sent down, and the 12-pounders brought back, and the battery horses, many of them four-year olds had to draw the far heavier equipment the whole way from Sheffield to Hilsea. It might be said that this was owing to some mistake of an individual, but it showed that there was something faulty and wrong in the system. The first step to its improvement would be to institute an impartial inquiry into the existing state of things, and he warned the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and the Surveyor General, that if, as was sometimes said, the existence of the present Government was coeval with the existence of the Parliament, they would not find it pleasant, sitting in Opposition, to see all the faults and imperfections which if they were not now endeavouring to screen, they were at least wilfully shutting their eyes to, ruthlessly and mercilessly exposed by a searching inquiry.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid that, so far as his observation went, he was bound to say that the Control department was progressing in the right direction. Last year he called attention to certain defects which, in his opinion, existed in the department, and it was only right to say that during a consider- 1255 able encampment of Militia which had since taken place in his own county, those defects entirely disappeared, and the labours and operations of the department were attended with the utmost success. Moreover, had the hon. and gallant Officer seen what was done on Saturday last at Woolwich he would have had no cause of complaint. For his own part, he believed there was no department in the Army whose service was more entitled to praise than the Control and the system of transport now established.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, he had taken some interest in that subject, and moved for certain Returns to show how the system worked, but they had never been furnished. They must all know that, although the movement of troops was directed from the Horse Guards or some high military authority, the carrying out of the system lay with those whose efficiency was often of a very questionable character. In this case the Horse Guards and not the Control department were responsible.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, they had had plenty of Reports from general officers, but they had never yet had a Report from an officer in command of a marching regiment. Now, he had received a letter from an officer of a marching regiment in the late Manœuvres, in which the writer stated that the Control had broken down more than once; that the meat became tainted, and that the hired transport broke down upon the march. He also described the system as imposing too much work on the men, more than they were able to perform with justice to themselves or the service, and they were often compelled to remain without their dinner until 8 or 9 o'clock at night, and then dine on the worst possible fare.
§ LORD ELCHObelieved with his noble Friend the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil), that more duties were imposed on the men in the Control department than they could perform, and that was a practice which he trusted his right hon. Friend would put an end to as soon as possible. That was the cause of the disasters which befell the French Army in the Franco-German War. Moreover, as our Control system did not rest upon the precedents of France, Prussia, or Russia, nor upon the recommendation of Lord Strathnairn's Com- 1256 mittee, he regarded it as tentative and experimental. The Report of His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief upon the Autumn Manœuvres showed an improvement this year over last; but it was said that the Report published was not that which His Royal Highness first wrote, but an amended Report; and it was also said that Reports of the Generals in command were not favourable to the Control Department, showing its serious shortcomings. The production of those Reports had been refused. Parliament should insist upon seeing these Reports, as upon the proper working of this important department the House ought to be supplied with every information as soon as possible, and the best time to furnish it was not during a war, but in time of peace.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, he would touch on one or two points which had been referred to in the course of the discussion. His hon. and gallant Friend had talked of the number of Control officers at the Autumn Manœuvres; but he should recollect that we had those Manœuvres for the purpose of instruction, and of giving officers an opportunity of seeing what practice in the field was. Then as to horses. He (Sir Henry Storks) had said the other night that cavalry was a mere question of expense. If the House wished to vote a largo number of horses and men, as a military man he might be glad to see it; but that, in his opinion, would be a great mistake, and what we should aim at, was having such a nucleus of a force of instructed men as would be capable of easy expansion. As to local resources, there was the most accurate knowledge on the part of the department. They knew everything connected with the railways and their plant, and he did not hesitate to say that if it were required to send a force from one end of England to the other it could be done at the shortest notice. Moreover, in a great emergency, power had been given by Parliament to take the railways and employ them in the service of the State. As to the supply of food during the Autumn Manœuvres, looking at the weather, the distance, and the difficulties, he thought the service was, on the whole, admirably conducted. His noble Friend the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) read a letter from a regimental officer, complaining 1257 that the men had been kept for a long time without their dinners, and that the meat arrived late. But he would ask his noble Friend, who knew something about those things, whether he thought it right to come down to the House and read the letter merely of an individual officer in a regiment bringing such a charge against a department? With regard to contracts, there was a variation in prices no doubt, and such a variation there must be, and anyone who read the headings would find that prices varied according to the places of delivery. If a contractor had to deliver hay, flour, or other things at different places, he would require a higher or lower price according to the distance. He believed, however, the contracts were made with the greatest regard to economy, after the fullest examination, and with the utmost desire to do justice to the country. With respect to the constitution of the Control department, the object was to consolidate antagonistic departments, and to define duties and to fix responsibilities. No matter how many officers you might have employed, you must still have a superior officer in the field to whom all stores must be addressed, for without that you could have no security. He could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that there was no one who appreciated his remarks better than he did, or who was more willing to give them due weight than he was.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he concurred in the remark of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the City of Hereford (Major Arbuthnot), that the Vote was a very important one, for, having regard to an army in the field, there was no doubt the Control department deserved the most serious consideration. He was not one of those who would ask that the confidential Reports of general officers should be laid on the Table of the House; but when his right hon. Friend opposite (the Surveyor General of Ordnance) found fault with his noble Friend the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) for reaching the letter of an individual officer, and sheltered himself behind the Reports of general officers, he would ask that, if the substance of these Reports should not be laid on the Table, it should at least be stated by his right hon. Friend. Nothing would give more confidence or more satisfaction to the public, than 1258 that the right hon. Gentleman should get up and state that, if the Reports of the general officers were confidential, those officers were of opinion that the Control department was as satisfactory as we had a right to expect or as they wished. It must be remembered that we could not make requisitions in this country, as could be done in Prussia. The Prussian system would not be tolerated here for one moment. The two things were not to be mentioned in the same day. Therefore, we must on that account make great allowance for the Control department. If the Reports of the general officers were favourable, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would get up and say so.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he must put it to the Committee whether what was now asked of him was not most extraordinary. Either a document ought to be produced or it ought not. If a document ought not to be produced nothing should be said of it. His Royal Highness, after full consideration, on a review of all the Autumn Manœuvres, had placed the results of those Papers before the House in the form which he had decided.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he had certainly not given the name of the officer whose letter he had mentioned, for it also was a confidential communication; but he should be happy, with his permission, to give his name when the right hon. Gentleman produced the Reports of the general officers.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he objected to the title of Controller as an ill-chosen one. He would have called the controllers purveyors, and thought they should be placed under the officer in command. Whatever might be thought of the department, however, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without offering one word of praise to his right hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance. Every one who had the pleasure of seeing that most magnificent review on Woolwich Common on Saturday must agree that the service of the Control department was most efficient and satisfactory in furnishing those excellent waggons which made admirable stands; and he ventured to suggest that if they were handed over to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, they would be found very useful on occasions of public meetings in the Parks.
§ MR. SALTthought it most important that the troops, and especially the Militia and the Volunteers, should not be exposed to greater hardships or inconvenience in the way of supplies than were absolutely unavoidable. In fact, he believed that such a course would do much to stop recruiting. There might be difficulties in furnishing supplies, but they must be overcome. That was a subject on which a civilian had a right to speak. He did not blame any one, and spoke as a complete outsider; but it appeared to him that a soldier marching a whole day should have supplied to him, or carry with him, at least one good meal.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that extra provision had been made for the supply of the troops during the Autumn Manœuvres, each man being furnished with a bread and cheese ration. If the hon. Member would refer to the contracts he would find that there was a considerable contract for cheese at 62s. per cwt. It was an extra ration to be supplied between the early morning meal and the usual midday bread and meat ration.
§ MR. SALTunderstood that in some cases money was furnished to the troops instead of bread. It was almost impossible to get bread, and when they did get it, the money served out would not buy enough, in consequence of the exorbitant price charged.
§ LORD HENRY THYNNEmentioned the case of some troops who had marched very early in the morning and did not get to camp till 9.30, when the only food served out was a piece of junk, and the horses received no fodder at all till next morning. During the whole of the Manœuvres, the food supplied was very coarse, more especially the cheese, and gave great dissatisfaction to every one.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £1,980,700, Provisions, Forage, &c.
§ MR. O'REILLYpointed out, that while in all other cases, officers of the same relative rank received the same relative allowances, chaplains of the Forces did not receive the same allowances as other officers with whom they ranked.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that the matter was now under consideration.
§ MR. MELLORasked whether attention had been directed to the excess of 1260 expenditure for transport occasioned by railway companies charging soldiers more than other passengers. He was told that a soldier on furlough was charged 7s. 10d. for travelling from Manchester to Dublin; while any other person could travel the same distance for 7s. 2d.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, the department had been in communication with the railway companies on the subject of transport, and he was sorry to say that no satisfactory result had been arrived at. On certain occasions deductions were allowed, as they would be by the South Western Company on account of soldiers going to Windsor on Tuesday. The department avoided as much as possible sending soldiers by railway. Marching, when that was practicable, was good for the men, if only the difficulties of billetting could be overcome. In one instance an exchange of troops at Dublin had been effected by employing one of Her Majesty's troop-ships, and the saving on the whole transaction was £1,600.
§ COLONEL NORTHalso drew attention to the allegation just made that even a soldier on furlough was charged 8d. in excess of the ordinary fare.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that a soldier on furlough ought to travel on the same terms as a private individual, and, if he were not allowed to do so, it could only be hoped that the new regulations which the House was passing would remedy the grievance.
§ MR. WHITWELLcomplained of the insufficiency of the allowance of 4s. to Volunteers for attending battalion drills. He hoped that some better arrangements than those that existed at present would be made for the purpose of bringing Volunteers to the military centres.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the allowance had been increased some time ago to 5s., and he believed on the average it was sufficient.
§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTurged a complaint as to the withdrawal of forage allowance from Artillery field officers. Calling attention to the fact that many officers who had been receipt of forage allowance for years—in one case as much as 17 years—on account of rank conferred on them for service in the field, were now deprived of it on being made substantive majors. He did not believe so glaring an injustice could 1261 have been brought under the Secretary of State's own eye.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that the allowance which had been withdrawn was an irregularity which had escaped detection for a length of time. The complaint should, however, receive his careful attention.
§ MR. WHARTONsaid, the allowances to permanent Staff sergeants of Militia in lieu of food, fuel, and clothing were fixed some years ago, when food and fuel were much cheaper than they were now, and the consequence was that they were very insufficient.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped that something would be done to remedy the hardship of persons who had soldiers billeted upon them during the Autumn Manœuvres—because the amount of money paid at present was not sufficient to compensate them.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that it was proposed to give an additional 3½d. per billet beyond the sum mentioned in the Mutiny Act, and this regulation would apply to the Manœuvres of last year, as well as to those of the present.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, it was rumoured that horses were now being bought that were sold at the close of the last Manœuvres, and that we were, of course, paying for them the advance in the market price. Would it not be possible to save what was lost in sale and repurchase, by arranging with the farmers to keep them while they were not wanted? He wished also to ask whether the department could not introduce Australian moats, which were coming into such general use, and which he knew, from personal experience, was as good food as could be put before any one.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that all the horses purchased by the Government were marked, so that they would not be re-purchased by them. As to Australian meats, nothing would be more difficult than to make the British soldier eat what he had not been accustomed to; and until Australian meats came into more general use he should not like to try them in the Army.
§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTsaid, he should like a further explanation of the alleged irregularity with regard to the drawing of forage, because he had drawn it himself many years. He had always believed, and did so now, that he had drawn it on the authority of a Royal 1262 Warrant. If the allowance were to be regulated, as suggested by the Surveyor General, by the amount of mounted duty to be done, saving might be effected in the case of certain controllers who from considerations possibly of personal safety never mounted a horse. He suggested it would be beneficial to soldiers to use salt meat once a-week, for the simple reason that as the salt ration would cost less than the fresh, the balance might be expended on peas, suet, or anything else the men preferred. He believed if that was done, the men would raise no objection, but would rather approve the variation of diet. While recommending that course for adoption, however, he would strongly urge that salt meat should only be issued to the troops when living in barracks or standing camps, and under no circumstances to those engaged in moveable camps, as was the case during the Autumn Manœuvres of 1871 and 1872. He did that for two reasons—namely, that under the latter circumstances it could not conveniently be subjected to the necessary process of being well soaked before use; and secondly, because its issue, not requiring so much foresight and exertion as fresh meat in the matter of supply, would still further 'limit the very slight test to which the control department had been subjected during the late military exercises.
§ COLONEL STUART KNOX,in pursuance of the Question put by the hon. Member below the gangway (Mr. Mellor), wished to know whether some steps could not be taken to enable the soldiers on furlough to travel by railways at the ordinary military rates, in the same manner as officers were permitted to do?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that every effort had been made by the Government to obtain justice for the soldier in this respect; but the matter was in the hands of the railway companies, and not in those of the Government.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £743,100, for Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYinquired why tailors in regiments were not employed to make their comrades' clothes. He was of opinion that a large proportion of the men's clothes might be made in the regiment.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSreplied that it would be altogether impossible to carry out the proposition of the hon. Baronet as regarded the Infantry. The tailors in regiments made alterations as to the fitting of the clothing, and the Cavalry did make their own clothing.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILthought that fatigue clothes should be supplied to the men engaged in the Autumn Manœuvres, in order to prevent their best clothes from being destroyed on those occasions, as they were under the present system.
§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTsuggested that the surplus of the canteen fund should be applied towards purchasing the fatigue clothes referred to by the noble Lord.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that any canteen fund surplus ought to go in reduction of the prices charged in the canteen, and not to the purchase of clothes.
§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTsaid, he had always kept up the price of the beer sold in the canteen in the interest of the health of the men. It was difficult to prevent a large canteen surplus from accumulating, and equally difficult to know how to spend the surplus allowed by regulation.
§ LORD ELCHOdrew attention to the untidy and useless leggings supplied to the soldiers; they were a perfect scandal to the British Army. Neither sportsmen nor Volunteers would think of wearing such uncomfortable articles. He hoped that leggings of some better pattern would be supplied to the Army, because it was of the utmost importance that the men's feet and legs should be comfortable when on the march.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSadmitted that nothing could be more unsightly than the leggings, and the matter was under consideration. In reply to the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil), he could not pledge himself to furnish the soldiers with fatigue dresses, but arrangements were in contemplation to allow the soldiers to wear their old clothes, so that that they might keep their good suit to appear in on parade.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,070,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1873 to the 31st day of March 1874, inclusive.
§ MR. GREGORYdrew attention to a new and cheaper system of rifling old cast-iron ordnance in such a way as to permit lead-coated projectiles to be used. It was well known that they had a large stock of those warlike stores that might be made available. The question was a technical one, and he felt some difficulty in speaking upon it; but, looking at the high price charged per gun, he considered the matter was one deserving the attentive consideration of the Committee. Evidence on the subject had been taken before the Select Committee on Ordnance which sat in 1863, and the tendency of that given by Colonel Lefroy, Captain Scott, and other officers, went to show that, both as regarded efficiency and safety, the Britten gun was superior to the Armstrong and the Palliser, carrying, as it did, a distance of 3½ miles, with a mean deviati0on of 8.9. The experiments were conducted with the powder hitherto used, which was violently explosive, and likely to increase the recoil; but, with the non-explosive pebble-powder, the experiments would probably be still more favourable to the Britten gun. Further trials should be made before incurring additional expense under the new system, and he ventured to think that a lesser sum would answer all practical purposes for the present, than the one under consideration. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100,000.
§ MR. HICKseconded the Amendment, which he thought was one of great interest, and required the serious attention of the Committee. His attention was more particularly attracted to the subject by a paper of Mr. Bashley Britten, which had been brought before the Institution of Civil Engineers in April last, of which Institution he (Mr. Hick) was a member. The author of that paper grappled with the question in a most masterly manner, evincing a thorough knowledge of the whole subject, and using arguments in support of his view which he (Mr. Hick) considered unanswerable. The broad issue raised was this—could they, if the knowledge they now possessed were rightly applied, reduce the present enormous cost of their ordnance without lowering the standard of its efficiency, so that the country might be better armed, and at the same time be relieved of a heavy burden. And he thought that 1265 now, when they had instruments which tested with accuracy not only the pressure of the powder upon the chamber of a gun, but also the velocity of the shot as it left the muzzle, there could not be any difficulty in doing so. Those instruments had been introduced into America long before we had adopted them, and by their use the manufacturer of guns would be able to measure their strength according to the pressure they would have to bear. That pressure-gauge must be to ordnance designers just as important an instrument as the analogous pressure-gauge was to the engineer who schemed a steam engine; that was to say, if an engineer had to construct a boiler, and knew what pressure it would have to bear, he could apportion its strength to the pressure; but if he were not aware of what the pressure was, all he had to do was to make it strong enough not to burst under any pressure. In one case he could, by adapting means to ends, with intelligence, construct a scientific instrument; in the other, he could only make a very clumsy machine, needlessly expensive and needlessly strong. He might point to the large boiler that could not burst, and ask you to admire the great skill with which he had made it so thick, so sound, and so perfect that nothing could burst it. If he did so, he would be only calling attention to a mere monument of his ignorance and folly. Just in the same way, if the ordnance engineer knew the pressure his gun would have to bear, he could make it of sufficient strength; but if he did not know the extent of the pressure, he had to make his gun strong enough not to burst under any pressure. Where a gun was made stronger than it was practically required to be, it was so much money thrown away. Mr. Britten therefore asked why, with the knowledge we had acquired from the use of these instruments, we should go on blundering in the dark, instead of making weapons properly designed according to that knowledge, and representing economy of science? Beyond that, the new pressure gauge had introduced a partial revolution, for it had informed them that the powder they were using was unnecessarily violent, and so strong, in fact, that it rapidly destroyed the insides of their guns, and rendered them completely unserviceable after a few rounds. The conse- 1266 quence was that they had now introduced pebble powder largely into the service, whereas hitherto they had only used it by way of experiment. Pebble powder, as most hon. Members were aware, consisted of large grains, from ½ to ⅝ths of an inch square, and was much slower in burning than ordinary powder. From a table compiled from the preliminary report of the Committee on explosives, it was found that the maximum pressure upon a gun 126 inches long, and with an 8-inch bore, when pebble powder was used, was one-half less than when the ordinary powder was used, and such powder propelled the ball with far greater velocity, it being in the one case 1,380 feet per second, as against 1,320. The pebble powder burned slower than the common powder, and although at the moment of ignition its pressure was only one-fifth that of the ordinary powder, being as six tons on the square inch to 30, yet it expanded with a greater volume when the ball advanced about six inches in the barrel, and the result was that the projectile was discharged with greater force than that effected by the more highly explosive powder; the maximum pressure of which upon the interior surface of the gun was just double that of the other. Mr. Britten therefore said, and in doing so, he opened up the whole question, that if the ordinary powder were to be continued in use there would still be the necessity for constructing the guns of greater strength than was sufficient to bear its strain; but if the pebble powder, which was at present only used by way of experiment, were to be employed, that strength might be reduced one-half, and the cost of the guns would be proportionately diminished. Although it was the custom to boast of our Woolwich guns as being infinitely superior to all others, because of their strength, yet the foreigner simply said that his guns were strong enough for the purpose required and would be no better if made ten times stronger as regarded material. That seemed to him (Mr. Hick) so clear, that it required a proper answer before the Vote was passed. Mr. Britten had not only pointed all that out but had suggested a remedy, and had proved that in designing ordnance, if due attention was paid to the economical employment of all the forces set to work, instead of making weapons as they now did, wholly of very costly material, they 1267 might with perfect safety rely largely on cast iron which was so much cheaper. He was aware that the authorities at Woolwich were constantly pestered with the schemes of inventors, but Mr. Bashley Britten's was one which had stood the test of strict inquiry, having been extensively applied in America, and the country ought to have an answer about it. He would now call attention to one or two suggestive facts as to the waste of money incurred in producing guns of an inordinate strength, and would quote Mr. Britten. From those facts, which were open to correction, it would appear in the case of a 6½-ton gun, which had been most severely tried at Woolwich in testing samples of powder, and which though nominally of 7-inch calibre, carrying a 115 lb. shot, yet in reality, was of 8-inch calibre, and carried a shot of 180 lbs., the charges were full battering charges of 35 lbs. of powder of all kinds, mild as well as violent, and yet this bored-out gun had endured some 1,400 or 1,500 rounds. It must be borne in mind, that as an 8-inch gun, it ought to weigh 9 tons, and the thickness of its walls should be 13½-inches, whereas the fact was, that as a 7-inch 6½-ton gun, its walls were only 11¾inches thick. Yet that 11¾-inches of wrought iron proved amply strong enough to resist a pressure of over 30-tons to the inch, considerably more than fell on the 35-ton 700-pounders firing service charges, where the pressure was only 24-tons per inch, and to stand which the monster gun was built up with walls of no less than 22-inches of metal. Mr. Britten, therefore, fairly asked, why should not half of that metal, on the outside, be of cast iron? It was only required to withstand the recoil, and was not required for strength; in fact, it could not give it, for the simple reason that a very large proportion of the mass laid far beyond the range of elasticity of any metal whatever. For himself he believed that a considerable proportion of our wrought-iron guns, and the most expensive parts of our large guns—namely, the outside shell which carried the trunnions—might be made of cast-iron. Those large guns, which he would admit were beautiful specimens of workmanship, now cost from £2,000 to £3,000; and he thought they might be reduced some 30 to 40 per cent in cost without being rendered a bit less efficient. He asked them why the use of 1268 cast-iron had been abolished. The objection to its use came from the Report of the late Ordnance Select Committee, which he had seen, and found one clear fact in—namely, that it admitted that the cast-iron rifled guns which Mr. Britten tried, bore every test, and gave satisfactory results, but that similar guns on the Armstrong shunt system of rifling, and some others fired with rigid projectiles had all failed, but that was from no fault of the material, but from the absurd system of rifling adopted. Mr. Britten's plan, however, of coating the shells with lead effectually prevented the gun from bursting. But although the Britten guns succeeded, they were not adopted because the shunt guns failed. Yet, after that, the shunt system was adopted for the service, several hundreds of wrought-iron guns being so made, although it was remarkable that these would not stand, and that the plan had ultimately to be given up, several having burst explosively, while in many the interior was frequently found to split. A peculiarity of that system of rifling was contained in the grooves which varied at different parts of the gun, for instance, at the point of discharge, and up to 24-inches of the muzzle, they were deep, admitting of easy passage to the shot, but at that distance they culminated in an incline, up which it had to travel, thereby compressing the studs on its surface .005 of an inch. In fact, the shot was gripped tightly and perfectly centred, just when it left the muzzle at the moment of its greatest velocity. Besides that, these projections were of cast-iron faced with zinc, and when compressed at the muzzle of the gun as they were, he thought that if anyone had wished to destroy them he could not have resorted to a more ingenious plan for the purpose. He would now allude to one more fact. They had still in service many thousands of cast-iron guns; what pressure did they bear when they were fired? That had been ascertained, as he believed, at Mr. Britten's suggestion, as followed:—The service charge for a 68-pounder east-iron gun was, as it had always been, 16 lbs. of what was called poudre brutale, and it had been found that that caused a pressure of from 17 to 18 tons per square inch, while the full battering charge for a rifled wrought-iron gun of the same calibre was 35 lbs. of the new pebble powder, causing a 1269 pressure of from only 13 to 16 tons per square inch. The cast-iron gun weighed only 4¾ tons, yet it had to stand more than the wrought-iron 9-ton gun. But that was not all, for these cast-iron guns had been proved with charges of 28 lbs. of the old violent powder, thereby subjecting them to a strain even more severe than fell on the 35-ton gun firing the full service charge of the new powder, a fact more astounding when it was recollected that the thickness of the cast-iron was only about 9-inches, against 22 of wrought-iron and steel combined. Not 2 per cent of the 68-pounders supplied by the best contractors ever failed under that enormous proof. Was that evidence of its weakness or uncertainty? His experience, as he believed was that of all other civil engineers, was, that when well made and properly handled, it was quite as certain as any other iron, and that, in fact, in large masses, it was less liable to vary under manipulation than wrought-iron or steel. The fact was, that if care had been observed, and pebble powder employed, some of the breech-loading guns which had been given up might have been used at the present time. Although we had lately been selling many of our cast-iron guns, still we had many more in the service; and he contended that they might be made fit for a great deal of work by simple rifling, which could be done at a trifling cost with the machinery we had at Woolwich. A very important question hinged upon the present Motion. It was whether that House was to have the control of these large sums of money or not? The House had a right to know why they were spent. He had no doubt the money was honestly spent, but was it wisely spent? No establishment in the world could be managed with greater care, greater precision, and greater regard to economy than the Arsenal at Woolwich was. During the last five years, however, we had spent something like £2,500,000 upon guns which were now utterly useless, and although "the Woolwich Infants" were admirable guns, he maintained they were needlessly strong, and was of opinion they cost more than was really necessary. In fact, in the last 15 years we had spent £10,000,000 on our ordnance, and what had we got for the money? Had we had value for it? If not, why not? We knew from the Report of the Committee that £2,500,000 1270 went in Armstrong guns, which were now thrown aside. How much more of what we voted was wasted, we did not know. There had been breech-loaders, shunt guns, wedge guns, Palliser guns, and now we had what was significantly called "the Woolwich system;" but what greater right had we to say it was correct, than when Armstrong guns were being made by thousands. It might be supposed that a necessary consequence of these improvements would be that some alterations would have been adopted for reducing the excessive cost of these weapons; but the models and patterns settled and sealed eight or ten years ago, remained the models for to-day and tomorrow, and there did not appear any chance of the slightest change being entertained. The designs were fixed, and right or wrong, were to be persevered with. Such conduct, however, was simply absurd, for if the country was to hold its power among nations, it could only do so, by at least keeping pace with them in the application of science to the art of war. In order to do that, invention must be stimulated, not depressed, and there ought to be a general confidence that anyone, who by study or genius was able to suggest an idea which might be worked out for the public good, would receive from the Government fair consideration. In fact, the gun of the period, for the future, must be the highest embodiment of the scientific principles on which its success depended. They still required an enormous number of rifled guns. Scarcely one of their fortifications was properly armed with them, and in their dependencies they had hardly anything save the antiquated smooth-bore. Their gun factories had been busy; but with their present plans could not furnish what they wanted, nor could they afford to pay for it. There was plenty to do in making the monster ordnance needed for their ships and coast defences. Those were special service weapons, and they required comparatively few. As to utilizing our cast-iron guns, he believed many of them might be used in checking the landing of troops, and that they might be rendered very serviceable in our dependencies. They would be thoroughly effective at a mile if they were only rifled, and they might be rifled in their places at a very trifling cost, without bringing them home. In conclusion, he might say, he scarcely 1271 expected the Motion would be carried; indeed, he hoped it would not, for he trusted that the occasion for it would be removed by the Government giving them an assurance that the question should be fairly tried, and that the money voted for ordnance should not only be honestly, but wisely spent.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £970,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1873 to the 31st day of March 1874, inclusive."—(Mr. Gregory.)
MAJOR BEAUMONT,though sympathizing with the object of the Amendment, could not agree with all the arguments adduced in its support. The question raised was whether the introduction of pebble powder had not rendered it possible to utilize cast-iron guns which before were unserviceable. Pebble powder resembled a push rather than a blow, it was slower in its action than ordinary gunpowder, and accumulated its power, thereby putting less strain on the gun. In fact, it was just the reverse of dynamite, gun-cotton, and violent explosives of that kind. When the system of Mr. Bashley Britten was first proposed, pebble powder was hardly known. With all deference to the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hick), his (Major Beaumont's) own opinion was that cast-iron was decidedly unreliable, and practically there was no way of proving the real endurance of cast-iron guns except by proving each individual gun. The Lancaster gun, for instance, used at the siege of Sebastopol gave extremely satisfactory results, but such results had never been again obtained. One argument brought forward in the course of this debate was, that if a gun was strong enough, there could be no object in making it stronger.Cæteris paribus, this argument was unanswerable, but in reality it was impossible to make guns strong enough, as a perfect gun ought to be able to go on firing for ever. Although his individual opinion was that cast-iron was not a fit material for the construction of our ordnance, yet, as many hon. Members of that House, along with many members of the Institute of Engineers, differed in opinion from him, he suggested that the Government should allow some of 1272 the cast-iron guns in stock to be tested with pebble powder, in order that the question might be set at rest. A few guns might be given up to be experimented upon, and the Government need not commit themselves any further. He trusted such a trial would not be deemed unworthy of consideration by Her Majesty's Government, for although the gun we now had was second to none in Europe, and the opportunities which he had had of seeing what was being done abroad had confirmed him in that opinion, yet he still thought they should not in any way relax their exertions to keep the advantage they now possess.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that he had heard the speech of the hon. Member for East Sussex in favour of Mr. Bashley Britten's claims with great interest, for he well remembered the meritorious efforts of Mr. Britten to introduce rifled ordnance—indeed that gentleman was one of the earliest advocates of rifling, and his system had been tried in India. He therefore deserved well of the country, and if any reward could be given Mr. Bashley Britten for his labours, he (Sir George Balfour) would be glad to see that reward bestowed. Nevertheless, he listened with apprehension to the opening up of the whole question of rifling old smooth-bore guns made of cast iron. He did not desire a renewal of such experiments as had been made during the last 12 years, for if they looked back over them they would find their cost could be counted by millions of money. No doubt the scientific knowledge of the hon. Member for Bolton had been ably applied in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Sussex; but this advocacy depended on the accuracy of calculations as to the strain on guns by the use of pebble powder, and on the endurance of cast-iron in sustaining the strain throughout a long firing. The experiment recommended by the last speaker might perhaps be conceded; but he should look upon it with reluctance, because he feared it would derange the existing system, and prevent that uniformity in regard to guns which it was so desirable to have in the service. At present the natures of rifled cast-iron ordnance were but few in number, whereas the system advocated would introduce many natures, for the conversion of all our cast-iron guns would 1273 be effected, thereby introducing not only many calibres but an innumerable number of different kinds of projectiles, than which nothing could be more objectionable. He regarded the introduction of cast-iron ordnance into the service as an extremely doubtful experiment, and if such guns were adopted, they should be placed in a very subordinate position; for under any view these converted guns were second-rate pieces. This he could confidently state—that the service were very unwilling to receive them. The result of the highest class of guns only being introduced would give the greatest satisfaction to all branches of the service, and it was neither wisdom nor economy to rely upon any other but the best description of ordnance.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, there could be no doubt whatever of the great importance of the question introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). The invention or plan of Mr. Bashley Britten had been long and often before the War Department. The system had been carefully examined by eminent persons, and every desire existed to give effect to the system if it were possible to do so. His hon. Friend had relied upon the Report of the Ordnance Committee of 1863, which was no doubt in favour of Mr. Britten's system as compared with eight other systems, but the Report went on to say that the question remained to be answered whether any of the plans were suitable for adoption. The Committee, besides, avowed considerable mistrust of cast-iron guns, unless the restrictions adopted as to charge with respect to howitzers were observed in firing them. While the Committee were considering those various plans, another plan was submitted by Major Palliser, and he held in his hand detailed Reports of experiments made with the Palliser gun and the Britten gun, which he would be ready to lay on the Table of the House if they were moved for. They had, in fact, very little confidence in cast-iron guns. The untrustworthiness of the material was shown by the fact, that after full trial in America it was given up. Cast-iron guns were fairly tested in the -United States, but it appeared from the Report made in 1867 by a Committee on Ordnance which sat at Washington, that no more cast-iron rifled 1274 guns should be mounted on fortifications or on ship-board, until such improvements were made in them as would render them reliable, for that so far they were unworthy of confidence. The treacherous character of cast-iron, as testified by the Reports from America, was borne out by our own experience in this country, for at Woolwich 14 out of 17 cast-iron mortars had burst, and a great many others, both of the 10-inch and the 13-inch were pronounced unserviceable. The tendency of these Reports went to prove that in most cases, cast-iron guns had burst when subjected to anything like a severe trial, and it was determined in consequence by the War Department, that they should be given up. They were prepared at the same time to give the suggestions of Mr. Bashley Britten the most serious consideration, although on the whole, it was impossible the War Department could embark in a series of experiments which were sure to be expensive and probably useless, unless a very strong necessity compelled them to do so. They had now got a gun which he believed to be the best in the world, and which had the confidence both of the Army and of the Navy; and that being so, he did not think it was desirable, in the interest either of economy or efficiency, to take the course which had been proposed.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he was at one time favourable to the introduction of the American cast-iron gun, but the experiments which had taken place showed that it was anything but efficient. He objected to handing over 10 or 20 guns to Mr. Bashley Britten to be experimented on, although the suggestion was, he admitted, very taking. The only result would be to unsettle the whole question and to throw difficulties and doubts in the way of the Government; and he for one would not, he confessed, after the evidence which had been just referred to by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance, showing that in the American War great loss of life had been occasioned by the bursting of cast-iron guns, have the moral courage to put cast-iron guns into the hands of our Artillery. Let him take the case of small-arms. With the improved powder, the pressure could be so reduced as to produce—without any great pressure on any part—a very great initial velocity; 1275 but would any hon. Member like to use a cast-iron sporting gun instead of the ordinary gun made in coils? He believed not; yet that was what the Secretary for War was now asked to do in the case of big guns. The question of breech-loaders was also very important. It was the fashion to say that big guns should not be breech-loaders; but France and Prussia used breech-loading guns, and a muzzle-loading gun was in these days an anachronism. In a mechanical country like that a good breech-loader ought not to be regarded as hopeless, and if the Government would offer a good prize, as was done in regard to a breech-loading small-arm, he believed that a good breech-loading heavy gun would be forthcoming. He should like to know the number of 35-ton guns at present made, and what trial or test as to endurance they had undergone.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, the War Office regarded the breech-loading system to be inferior for heavy guns in point of power, in point of simplicity, and in point of rapidity of loading. In each of those respects the muzzle-loading gun was superior to the breech-loader. The breech-loading system weakened a gun precisely at that point where it ought to be strengthened. The muzzle-loading plan had been adopted, at all events partially, by most of the nations of Europe and of the East. The present Russian gun was an 11-inch one, throwing 515 lbs.; we had a 12-inch gun, throwing 520 lbs., and one throwing a projectile of 700 lbs. The Navy had been supplied with all the 35-ton guns it required to the number of 13, and with regard to the land guns, 18 in number, it was intended to lengthen them three feet, which would add another ton to their weight, and they would in future be described as 36-ton guns. As to the exposure to which the men were subjected who had to load the muzzle-loading guns, a most ingenious arrange-men thad been invented by Sir William Armstrong. By that plan the gun was run back, the muzzle depressed, and the gun sponged out and loaded by a hydraulic machine. That was now under consideration. If this invention appeared to be worthy of adoption it would get rid of the difficulty of breech-loading, which question the War Office was disinclined to re-open. Speaking generally, the authorities considered that we had 1276 the very best guns in the world, and to re-open the question would lead to experiments of a very costly character which were not considered necessary.
MAJOR BEAUMONTsaid, that the opinion of artillery officers would be unanimous as to the desirability of having breech-loaders for heavy guns, provided mechanical men could produce one which would burn a sufficient quantity of powder to give the requisite initial velocity to the projectile.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTWhat is the cost of one of these 35-ton guns?
§ SIR HENRY STORKSEach costs £2,156 5s. 0d.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, millions of money had been wasted in the manufacture of guns which had turned out useless. The Committee therefore must not accept the dictum of the Ordnance authorities, and he was not satisfied that Mr. Bashley Britten's plan for utilizing our old cast iron guns had received proper attention. What was asked was that the Government should allow such a series of experiments as would satisfy the public that the plan for testing these guns, and for effecting thereby a great economy, had been fairly tried with the new powder and under new conditions previously unknown.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, if it could be shown that these guns could be safely used, the War Office would be the first to adopt any safe method of using them; but he could hold out no hope that the War Office would allow the use of cast-iron guns because some of them might be used without bursting, in defiance of all the experiments made here and in foreign countries showing that cast-iron guns could not be used safely.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTwished to ask, before the Vote was put, whether the machinery at Enfield had been converted for the manufacture of Martini-Henry rifles; whether those rifles were being issued to the troops; and, if so, what number had been ordered; whether the Martini-Henry adopted, if adopted at all, was the long or short rifle; and whether the bayonet to be used with it was the old-fashioned bayonet or the new-fangled modern sword bayonet?
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he had heard many unfavourable reports of the Martini-Henry rifle, and even general offi- 1277 cers had told him that it was a thoroughly unsatisfactory weapon; that the troops did not like it; that it recoiled so much that they were afraid to use it; that the spiral-spring failed; that there was no similarity in the pull between different rifles—in fact that the nation, after long inquiry and a large expenditure, had got a gun which had proved a failure, and with which it would be unwise to persevere. He had gone into the Committee which sat upon the subject as an opponent of the Martini-Henry rifle; but he was bound to say that he left that Committee as a convert to it. As to the recoil, he had tested the Martini-Henry rifle with Mr. Ross, firing it slowly and firing it quickly, and they did not feel the recoil in the least. It had also been tested by several men belonging to the Rifle Brigade, who happened to be on guard at the Arsenal at Woolwich, and they agreed that the recoil was less than that of the first pattern Martini-Henry, which was heavier, and even less than the Snider which they were in the habit of using. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance would be able to assure them that the reports to which he had referred were unfounded.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, that with reference to the question of his hon. and gallant Friend opposite the Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) he had to state that during the year ending 31st March last 62,000 Martini-Henry rifles had been turned out at Enfield. The department at Enfield was now capable of producing 1,500 rifles a-week, at ordinary hours of labour, and steps were being taken to increase the power of the factory, so that 3,000 could be produced in a week. They were substituting to a great extent machinery for hand labour, and that would be the means of leading to greater rapidity and accuracy of production. During the year 1873 they proposed to make 40,000 Martini-Henry rifles at Enfield and 38,000 by private manufacturers. He was happy to say that he could give the most favourable report regarding the weapon. Much had been said of the recoil of this rifle, but he held in his hand a large number of reports from officers, and the great majority of them stated that the recoil was not excessive. There were complaints when the weapon was first issued of miss-firing, but the 1278 reports stated that the main springs had been strengthened, and that miss-firing had now practically ceased. The Committee which had been appointed to investigate this subject reported that in their opinion the Martini-Henry was superior in range and precision to the Snider and to the Chassepôt. They had not as yet received any specimens of the new Imperial German rifle. The reports of the commanding officers of regiments also spoke most highly of the Martini-Henry rifle. He had written to Earl Ducie on the subject of the arm, and his Lordship stated that the 60 riflemen who had used it in shooting for the last stage of the Queen's Prize had expressed a strong feeling of approval of the Martini-Henry, and a hope that it might soon become the weapon of the Volunteer Force.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (5.) £778,000, Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTcomplained of the neglected state of the barracks at Glasgow.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that was one of the properties which having fallen into Chancery had become an eyesore. The contractor failed to do his duty, and that led to suits in Chancery. The litigation, however, had now come to an end, and arrangements were being made for a new contract. It was proposed to place a squadron of cavalry at Glasgow.
§ MR. WHEELHOUSEwanted to know what measures were being taken for the improvement of the barracks at Leeds?
§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTurged upon the Government the desirability of furnishing barrack rooms for officers.
§ COLONEL NORTHasked why should not officers in the Army be placed in a similar position to officers in the Navy with regard to the furnishing of their rooms, the Government to provide the furniture and the officers to pay a percentage for its use? About the close of the Crimean War he called attention to this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War at the time highly approved his proposal, and so did the Commander-in-Chief, and yet, after the lapse of so many years, nothing had been done.
§ SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, the subject had been under consideration, but there were found to be great diffi- 1279 culties in the way. Officers embarked on board ship for three years, took the furniture that was provided for them, and paid a percentage. But in the case of a regiment of the Line, it might get the route to-day and have to march to-morrow, and then it would be necessary to have damages assessed, which, of course, should be done at the expense of the officers, and would give rise to great difficulties.
§ COLONEL NORTHcould not see the slightest difficulty in the matter. When soldiers were leaving, damages were charged to them; why could not the same be done in the case of officers, who were used to being charged, and charged exorbitantly?
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that at present the Government supplied a table and two chairs; why not go a little further and let the officers have a bedstead, chest of drawers, and a few other articles? It would be a great saving to the officers and no great expense to the country. He was glad to find from the Vote that the few remarks which he had made last year in reference to works at Bermuda had been productive of a certain amount of good result. It seemed that black labour, which was very costly, had been done away with, that a permanent fort had been abolished, and some of the contractors' charges had been considerably reduced. He hoped what had been done there would be done in other outlying stations, and that without going to large expense for permanent works which would be unnecessary, we should have economy and efficiency at the same time.
§ MR. WHITWELLsuggested a better classification of the various details of the Vote, and remarked that the charge for architects and superintendence was something like 11½ per cent, which was a very large sum.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, that there were some fine old trees at Portsmouth which in the progress of the works there he found, to his horror, it was intended to cut down, in order to get some ground for building stores of some kind. He ventured to enter a protest against the proceeding; steps had been taken in consequence, and the trees had been spared. Engineers should take counsel, so that the appearance of a place should be consulted a little, as well as the gaining of ground. He saw no mention 1280 in the Vote of any repairs going on at the Hilsea lines. He should like to know what sum had been expended in repairing that fortification?
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYsuggested that the Government should consider the question of supplying officers with moss plate, subject to their paying interest on the outlay.
§ MR. CARDWELL,in reply to the hon. Members for Oxfordshire and Buckingham (Colonel North and Sir Harry Verney), said, that he would be delighted to furnish all the barracks of the country, not only with plate but furniture, but it would involve a very large outlay, and the length of time which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire had been labouring in the cause showed that other Governments besides the present had felt the difficulties in the way. He was aware that the state of the cavalry barracks at Leeds was not satisfactory, but at present there was no money asked for repairing them.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £133,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1873 to the 31st day of March 1874, inclusive.
§ CAPTAIN ARCHDALLcalled attention to the state of new Sandhurst, stating that while the old College was self-supporting, the present one cost the country a large suns of money, and was not viewed by the students with the same affection and respect, for the cadets of old Sandhurst looked back to it with something like the feelings of pride and veneration with which Eton and Harrow were regarded by those who had had the privilege of being educated there. But the system pursued at new Sandhurst was very different. Under the present system young officers, after passing through the inhuman and unjust ordeal of a competitive examination, or having taken an University degree, joined their regiment for a year, and were then sent back to Sandhurst at the age of 21 or 22; they were then placed under school discipline, and exposed to a system of irritating espionage; placed under arrest for the most frivolous causes, kept in their rooms and punished for several 1281 days. He believed, too, that system had been carried out illegally. Instead of continuous instruction, the year was broken up by their vacations. On Friday and Saturday there were no studies after 1 o'clock, and as there was no society in the neighbourhood, unless the officers were of a very studious turn they could only amuse themselves by drinking brandy and water on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. He had put a Motion on the Paper to call attention to the Sandhurst scandal, but in deference to the wishes of the parents of the young officers, who had done nothing, he was assured, unbecoming the character of gentlemen, he did not press it on the notice of the House. Owing to the system which was carried on, the College was in a state bordering on mutiny; disgust and discontent prevailed among the officers, who hated it most cordially. He did not think that under these circumstances the disestablishment of Sandhurst could be accompanied with the slightest inconvenience, and, therefore, he had no hesitation in moving that the vote be reduced by the sum of £16,989, the sum requisite for its maintenance.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £116,911, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1873 to the 31st day of March 1874, inclusive."—(Captain Archdall.)
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILobserved that two months ago a Question was asked on this subject, to which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave a very meagre response. His object now was to ascertain a little more of the truth of the story than his right hon. Friend had then vouchsafed to give, so that the Committee might see who was in fault. He had not been able to make very minute inquiries into the scandal, but there was no doubt a very serious spirit of insubordination among a certain number of young officers. As he understood the answer of his right hon. Friend, it seemed to throw a little more blame on those officers than they deserved. He, however, did not stand up to defend their conduct; he thought it insubordinate, to say the least of it. He thought it bad taste, and it might be something worse. He believed his old friend Sir Duncan Cameron had done everything in his power; but he was not 1282 sure that the same judiciousness in the mode of dealing with the young men had been shown by other authorities on the occasion. As far as he could find out, the history of the scandal at Sandhurst was very much the same as that which occurred at Woolwich some years ago. There had been a system of petty, vexatious annoyance—treating student officers like schoolboys. That system was very much to be deplored, for it tended to make young men break out and commit schoolboy acts, which in their cooler moments they were sorry for. These young men of 18, 19, and 20, it seemed, were not allowed to have soda-water and brandy when they asked for it at breakfast. The cadets, after having previously enjoyed the liberty of the regimental mess, were subject to certain sumptuary laws as to what they should "eat, drink, and avoid," which it was probable that even boys at Eton would have rebelled against. Certainly, it was too much to subject young men who had attended a regimental mess for some months to this new Spartan discipline. Some years ago, when he called attention to the grave faults of the Sandhurst system, a Royal Commission was appointed, and it devised a scheme of re-construction. After an interregnum, some one in the War Office devised this new scheme, which was founded on the German model; but the difference between the German and the English systems was that in Germany a young man served as a soldier in a regiment, and in England he joined a regiment as an officer, and was admitted to all the advantages of the mess. Of course, he would feel much more being sent back to school again than a young man who had undergone discipline in the ranks. That had been very much felt by officers who had been sent to Sandhurst; they had complained very much of the system of treatment there, and they had rebelled against it. He said that much, in order to induce the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to state what he knew, in order that they might judge who was to blame, whether the young men or the system. At the same time, he trusted that, after the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman, the reduction of the Vote would not be persisted in. He wished to ask how far the recommendations of the Commission had been carried out at Woolwich also, be- 1283 cause it was unwise on general grounds to allow the labour of any Commission to be thrown away?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, there were few Commissions that had had more of their suggestions carried out than that on Military Education; but Commissioners seldom looked at the cost their recommendations would involve, in the way the Government were bound to look at it. A good deal of money, however, had been spent usefully in pursuance of the recommendations of the Commission. There had been established a system of garrison instruction, which was serving extremely well. Great improvements had been made in the system of educating privates in the Army; and the last Report of the Director of Military Education contained a surprising account of those improvements. In compliance with the recommendation of the Commission, buildings had also been erected at Shoeburyness and Chatham, and no Member of the Commission, therefore, need be sorry for the labour he had bestowed upon it. The Government had not incurred all the expenditure that was recommended at Woolwich, because in their judgment other claims had precedence. The noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) could hardly expect him to give a recital of what had occurred at Sandhurst; it was the last thing he should like to do. It was fortunate the Vote did not come on two months ago, because nothing could be more agreeable than what had occurred during those two months, and everything was now going on satisfactorily. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Archdall) had spoken of the inhuman ordeal of a competitive examination; but there was no ordeal at Sandhurst which was more inhuman than all were subjected to, or than he was subjected to in that House. Of course, it was impossible to encourage the drinking of brandy and soda-water in a morning before breakfast; but, having heard from that able, intelligent, and excellent officer, Sir Duncan Cameron, what was actually done at Sandhurst, he must say that he found the discipline at Oxford, with all the liberty they had, much more strict than at Sandhurst. Indeed, Sir Duncan Cameron assured him that these young gentlemen were treated exactly as they would be if they were with their regi- 1284 ments. What was intended, and what he believed was valued was, that these officers should have the opportunity of gaining that sort of education that was gained by officers in Germany; and he knew that the distinguished foreign officers who were here in 1871 expressed great approbation of the training which was given at Sandhurst. After these explanations he trusted the Amendment would be withdrawn.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYapproved of the removal of the Duke of York's Schools into the country, where the boys might be employed in agriculture, with great benefit to their health.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, he did not intend to support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Archdall), for reducing the amount of the Vote by the sum appropriated to the support of Sandhurst College, because he thought it was most important that the education of our officers should be secured; but, at the same time, he felt that it was scarcely right that while £3,981 was spent in the government of the College, £2,000 for staff-sergeants and the band, £4,200 for clerks and servants, and £2,500 for the Governor's salary, only £3,800 should be spent on the instruction of the students in military fortifications and tactics. The average salary of the Professors did not exceed £350 a-year.
§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTwished to know why the office of garrison instructor was allowed to be held by cavalry and infantry officers on half-pay, and by an officer of the engineers on full-pay, but not by artillery officers.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILexplained that his view was that these young gentlemen should be sent in the first place to Sandhurst and then to their regiments, and not first to their regiments and then to Sandhurst. The salaries of the Sandhurst Professors were fixed by the Royal Commission.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in spite of recent occurrences at Sandhurst, Sir Duncan Cameron was strongly in favour of the present system.
§ CAPTAIN ARCHDALLintimated that he did not intend to insist on taking the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,having heard a rumour on the subject, wished clearly to understand from the right hon. 1285 Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, whether it was his intention to remove the Duke of York's School from Chelsea into the country, and to remove the Household Troops from Knightsbridge Barracks to the building so left vacant by the removal of the school? He saw no reason for expending a large sum of money upon removing the troops from their present barracks, which were excellently situated in the event of the troops being required on an emergency. He could not agree with the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) that it was desirable to remove the Duke of York's School into the country, where they might become good agriculturists. They had better remain where they were now and become good soldiers.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he feared he could not give an answer which would be satisfactory to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington); but this much he might say—the Royal Commission recommended that the Duke of York's School had better be removed into the country, and with that recommendation he was inclined to agree, but as yet he had arrived at no fixed plan or mature view on the subject. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the boys ought to be made into soldiers and not into agriculturists, as it was of great importance to us to have our non-commissioned officers educated at this school, and he was happy to state that, so far, 80 per cent of them went direct into the Army. He had no fixed plan for the removal of the Knightsbridge Barracks to the present site of the school, but he might say that instead of such a removal entailing loss to the public, it would result in a considerable gain, in consequence of the great value of the land on which the barracks now stood. The real point, however, was, did a legitimate desire exist for the proposed removal of the barracks? Not only did he desire it, but he should be glad to lend a hand to accomplish that object. He was doubtful, however, whether the site of the Duke of York's School would be sufficiently large for the erection of the barracks on it.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYthought that if the boys were brought up in the country, they would make better soldiers than if brought up in town. He was of 1286 opinion that it would be an unwise step to sanction the removal of the Knightsbridge Barracks. Haying taken part in the suppression of riotous mobs, he had seen the great advantage of being able to march the heavy cavalry out from that situation, from which it could so readily be brought to bear on any part of London.
§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, he had also heard with regret the proposal of the War Office to remove those barracks.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, it was generally thought that it would be an improvement if young men were sent to Sandhurst before joining their regiments, instead of afterwards. As a father, he certainly protested against the use of brandy and soda forming a necessary part of the breakfast for these young men. He doubted the policy of abolishing the grade of ensign, as he thought the more steps there were in a regiment the better. It was well that men should have something to look forward to, and a change of rank supplied that prospect. For this reason, he thought it would be well if the rank of ensign had been retained and young men on first joining had become cadets, as in some foreign services.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (7.) £29,300, Miscellaneous Services.
§ MR. W. FOWLER,referring to the expenditure connected with the administration of the Contagious Diseases Acts, said, he did not wish to revive the disagreeable discussion they had lately had on that subject, but he felt it his duty to protest against the present position of affairs. They had created a new offence, making a thing punishable in one town which was not punishable in another, and he protested, when he was asked to vote the money requisite to carry out the arrangements which followed from that state of things. According to the latest statistics it appeared that out of 41,473 persons who had undergone an examination within a given period, only 3,484 were sent into hospitals. In other words, nearly 38,000 were compelled to submit to that examination, though their sanitary condition was good, to avoid the penalty of being treated as criminals by their refusal. That, he submitted, was a new offence, hitherto unknown to the law. In his 1287 opinion, if the system was so beneficial as was said, they ought either to abolish it altogether, or extend it to every town in the Empire.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYdefended the Acts. It was necessary to prevent the propagation of contagious diseases, alike for the health of the Army and the benefit of the objects of the Act. He, however, wished to see the system in question altered, not by applying it to every town in the kingdom, but by applying it equally to both sexes.
MR. HENLEYpointed out that this head of expenditure amounted altogether to nearly £16,000, and thought the Government, with their very economical views, would soon take on a regular corps of those particular articles and attach them to each regiment, and then their system would be complete. They would not be able to make a lower descent. That was not a very pleasant subject to discuss, but the course the authorities were pursuing would soon lead them to that, if not to something worse.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £200,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of the Army, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1873 to the 31st day of March 1874, inclusive.
§ MR. ANDERSONmoved the reduction of the Vote by £900, £300 of which sum was a proposed increase of the salary of the Military Secretary of the Commander-in-Chief, and £600, the salary of an Assistant Secretary—a totally new office. A few years ago that department had been examined by a Select Committee, and the result was, that it reported that the officers of the Staff referred to were very extravagantly paid. Thereupon the salary of the officer called the Military Secretary was reduced by £740—namely, from £2,240 to £1,500—and that was still, in the opinion of those who were acquainted with the facts, a very handsome salary for the duties performed. Now, however, there was a proposal to add £300, and provision was likewise made for paying £600 to an assistant secretary. He wished to know the reasons for those additions. Then there was an item of £1,200 for a new officer, called Deputy 1288 Adjutant General, but he had been informed that that officer was really the head of the Intelligence department; and as on the other hand, there had been struck off £1,000 for the office of Chief Clerk, he did not propose to object to this part of the Vote. As to the other items he had spoken of, he thought them very objectionable, and not only would move their omission, but would like to ask whether the Treasury had approved of them before they were brought before Parliament?
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £199,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of the Army, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1873 to the 31st day of March 1874, inclusive."—(Mr. Anderson.)
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYsupported the Vote. It was, he said, real economy to have an efficient staff, and the duties of the office in question were of great importance. He therefore hoped the Committee would not agree to the reduction at a time when it was more than ever necessary that the administration of the Army should be kept in a state of the highest efficiency at head-quarters. In the part of the Vote mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—the Intelligence department—he thought the increase was justified, on the ground that improvement was necessary, as evidenced by the fact that we lagged behind all other countries in that respect.
§ MR. CARDWELLunderstood the objection to this part of the Vote was not pressed. [Mr. ANDERSON: Only the £600 and the £300.] The simple justification of the creation of a new position in the Military Secretary's office was that of late the duties of the Military Secretary had been prodigiously increased by the changes which had taken place in the organization of the Army itself. Of late years a complete record had been kept of the services of every officer in the Army. That record was of an extremely confidential character, and it could only be entrusted to an officer of high standing. An assistant had therefore been found to be necessary, while the duties of the Military Secretary himself were of so confidential a character as to make it desirable to increase the salary, and so secure the services of an officer of high standing. The hon. Member for Glas- 1289 gow (Mr. Anderson) had asked if the Estimate had been approved of by the Treasury. The matter had not yet been finally disposed of by the Treasury, and they might be relied on to keep a watchful eye on any increase of expenditure. He (Mr. Cardwell) had simply done his duty in presenting the Vote to the House.
§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, he could bear testimony to the efficiency of the Military Secretary, and to the fact that the business of the office had been largely increased through the recent changes. He would like to ask what the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) considered to be the duties of the Military Secretary?
§ MR. ANDERSONdid not think it was his duty to state in detail what was the business of the Military Secretary—his object was to prevent unnecessary expenditure. He had informed himself, however, of what was his business at the time the Committee reported, and probably knew as much about it as the hon. and gallant Member who interrogated him. There were no public means of ascertaining what he had to do now, but he was told that he had been relieved of many of his duties by the abolition of purchase.
§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, the hon. Member bad been very much mis-informed, for the duties of the Military Secretary had been largely increased by the abolition of purchase. He hoped the Committee would not reduce the Vote.
§ MR. ANDERSONobjected to the introduction of the personal element. The matter was one connected with a particular office, and not in any way with the officer who happened to hold it. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the Treasury had not approved of the increase. He would like to know whether they had disapproved of it, or whether they had had it under discussion at all, and if so, what decision they came to regarding it?
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhad personally a high respect for Colonel Egerton, the Military Secretary, but he objected to these increases being made that had taken place within the last few years in the cost of the military staff of the Horse Guards, and therefore without some better reason than had yet been given, he would vote with 1290 the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He did not object to officers being paid good salaries. On the contrary, he thought one of the most objectionable features of the military system was the miserable salaries paid to officers, and the excessively large numbers employed. It was that large military staff now kept up for the small Army we maintained that caused the extravagance so much complained of in our military expenditure. It was time the Committee set about effecting a substantial reduction in the Estimates, instead of permitting the items to be increased, as had been done during the past three years. So far from any increase in the cost of the military staff being called for, he considered that on the amalgamation of that Staff with the War Office a large decrease in numbers and cost, instead of an increase, ought to have been made, and until this reform was effected no real decrease in the military expenditure could be looked for. And if any changes in salaries consequent on changes in duties were needed, the modifications ought to have been carried on by changes in the salaries of officers whose duties were lessened. He must add that he deeply regretted to see this proposed decrease brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) that none but military men had a right to criticize those Estimates. If that were so, the best thing to be done was that all the civilian Members should leave the House, and let those belonging to the military profession vote away the public money as they pleased. He did not think that it would become the Committee to divide on the question whether or not the holder of a high military office was to have an addition of £300 a-year made to his salary or not; but, at the same time, he thought that Her Majesty's Government were bound to give a sufficient reason for asking the House for this additional sum. If the right hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary for the efficiency of the public service that the increase in this officer's salary should be made, he should vote for that increase, and should throw the responsibility of the matter on the right hon. Gentleman. He was certainly sur- 1291 prised to hear that the duties of the Military Secretary had been increased, compared with what they were at the time of Lord Northbrook's Committee; for, if he recollected aright, General Foster, who then held the office, was such a glutton for work that he actually performed duties which belonged to the Commander-in-Chief. It was then resolved to confine him to his proper functions, and the salary was accordingly reduced. It was, however, now stated that the Military Secretary had to keep a record of the military services of each officer, as a guide for promotion by selection. Could it be stated that there had not always been preserved such a record? If so it did not matter for what reason it was preserved, although now it might be required to carry out the principle of selection—and could it be for a moment insisted that on this account the salary was to be raised? He protested against the reduction of salaries at a period of panic, when, as was here the case, Parliament was in a year or two afterwards called upon to increase them.
§ COLONEL NORTHinquired whether it was not the fact that the duties of the Military Secretary had not been greatly increased by the abolition of purchase?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the duties of that officer had been considerably increased.
§ MR. ANDERSONHas this matter ever been discussed by the Treasury, and what answer was given?
§ MR. CARDWELLIt has been under the consideration of the Treasury, and was not approved.
§ MR. ANDERSONWas it disapproved?
§ MR. CARDWELLIt was.
§ MR. ANDERSONYet in the face of that disapproval the right hon. Gentleman brought this increase before the House, and endeavoured to press it through the House, and to compel the Treasury to swallow it, whether they liked it or not. He thought he was quite warranted in taking the sense of the Committee upon it.
§ MR. CARDWELLobserved that inasmuch as the question was not finally and absolutely disposed of, in his opinion, it ought to be brought before the House.
§ MR. ANDERSONBut it was disapproved?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that he still hoped it might be approved, as he thought the refusal had been upon inadequate information.
§ LORD ELCHOentered his protest against the theory that when the head of a Department brought an increase before the House as necessary to the efficiency of his Department, he must necessarily be bound by the opinion of the Treasury. No Secretary of State worthy of his position would consent to do so, as he himself must be the best judge of what was required.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked that no estimate ought to be submitted to the House which had not been previously approved by the Treasury. This was a recognized principle which had been in force for many years.
§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, that nothing could be more straightforward than the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had put this matter before the House, and he considered that the House of Commons was the proper tribunal to determine it.
§ MR. DENISONasked if there was not a new appointment—that of Military Under Secretary—at a salary of £600?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that was so. The duties were of a very confidential character, and were, therefore, entrusted to an officer of high rank.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURin reply to the call as to whether the Treasury or the Secretary of State was most fitted to judge of the wants of the Army, admitted that the Treasury, under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the most inefficient Department in the State, and far less competent than the right hon. Gentleman to form an opinion upon the matter; but still it was the rule that no Estimate should be submitted to the House which was not approved of by the Treasury, and that rule ought to be acted upon.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the rule that governed the preparation of the Estimates was that no sum could be entered without the sanction of the Treasury; but they reserved to themselves, in the case of any establishment, the right to review that establishment afterwards.
§ MR. DICKINSONconsidered that no satisfactory reason had been assigned for this increase in the salary of the Military Secretary. If the duties were 1293 heavy now, they would in a few years hence be considerably reduced.
§ MR. CARDWELLobserved that the appointment was only for five years.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERheld that the right hon. Gentleman was a better judge of the requirements of his Department than even the Treasury, and therefore he would support him. He much regretted the disposition to cut down to the last sixpence the salaries of those who had important duties to perform.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary to the Treasury, and a Lord of the Treasury had a few moments previously all been standing at the Bar. It was observed that the Financial Secretary to the War Office left his seat to speak to them, and the Committee no doubt expected that those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, being thus informed of the difficulty, would have given the Committee some enlightenment. It must have been remarked, however, that they all disappeared suddenly, and thus the Committee were still left in a state of embarrassment. He was at a loss to understand in what position the Vote came before the Committee, or how they would stand if they passed it.
§ MR. CARDWELLadmitted that he had been placed in a difficulty. He had recommended an increase in the salary of the Military Secretary, the Treasury had withheld its approval, and the case was not finally closed. If, however, the Treasury persisted in objecting, the increase would not be given.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, that the question was, whether the Committee were prepared to Vote that increase of salary, contrary to the disapproval of the Treasury. Instead of coming in to help the Secretary of State for War on this Vote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had "bolted out" of the House as fast as he could. Under those circumstances, he must support the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).
§ MR. J. S. HARDYhoped that the Committee, on a question upon which it was now fully informed, would not, by striking out the Vote, make itself and the head of the Department the slaves of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Military Secretary, it appeared, had now certain records to keep, and if the Secretary of State for War thought that he ought to have a small increase of 1294 salary the Committee ought to vote it, irrespective of the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if that right hon. Gentleman still objected, it ought not to drive the Secretary of State to commit suicide.
§ MR. VERNON HARCOURTrepudiated the idea that they should pass Votes merely because they were asked for by a head of a Department; but at the same time he would suggest that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now in his seat, the Committee would hear from him why the Treasury disapproved the increase.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought the Committee was placed in a position of considerable difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War thought the salary of the Military Secretary should be increased by £300 a-year. The answer of the Treasury was, that they disapproved of the increase, upon which the Secretary at War was not disposed to submit to the decision of the Treasury, and made it a matter of remonstrance. The two right hon. Gentlemen should have taken care to have the matter settled before bringing it before the Committee. For himself, he would place the opinion of the Secretary of State upon such a question far before that of any Gentleman in the Treasury.
§ MR. O'REILLYsaid, that when the salaries of the officers in the War Department were re-arranged, they had been settled in relation to the relative standing of the several officers, and he disapproved of the violation of that principle. The simple fact of increase of duty did not constitute a claim for increase of salary. The House and the War Department ought to pause before recommending an increase of the salaries which had been fixed after an exhaustive departmental inquiry a few years ago.
§ COLONEL NORTHremarked that the salary of the Military Secretary was reduced, because his work would be reduced; but it seemed that his work had been increased.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it had not been entirely decided by the Treasury whether the salary of the Military Secretary should be increased by £300 a-year. As an objection had been taken, he thought it was more regular not to ask the Committee to vote the sum 1295 which had not been determined upon. Therefore, so far as that portion of the Vote was concerned, it would be withdrawn. The reason for withdrawing it was that the Government had not made up their minds that that was a charge which they ought to ask the Committee to sanction. If the Government arrived at the conclusion that the sum ought to be asked for, they would ask for it in a Supplemental Estimate.
§ MR. ANDERSONbelieved it wrong to bring forward Votes not approved of by the Treasury, because hon. Members on his side of the House looked very much to the Treasury for guidance in such matters. On the understanding that the Votes would be referred back to them, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the amount of the salary of the Assistant Military Secretary for India, which was paid out of the revenues of India?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was not aware of the precise amount, but he would inquire.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked, whether the same rule with reference to Staff appointments which prevailed in England, under which preference was given to those who had passed the Staff College, was in force in India?
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, the discretion as to Indian appointments was with the Commander-in-Chief in India.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to call attention to a matter which was of vital importance to the Army at large. Great discontent prevailed amongst officers respecting certain things connected with the abolition of purchase, and the other night two serious questions were brought before the House of Lords connected with the subject. When purchase was abolished, officers were assured by the Government that they would be placed in no worse position. That pledge had not been fulfilled. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not put an end to the discontent, by handing over to some disinterested and proper tribunal the case of those officers, in order that it might be ascertained whether there was or was not a real grievance? The desertions which had taken place during 1296 the last few years showed that there was also discontent among the privates. There was not one regiment in Ireland recruited up to its proper strength; and yet the House had been told that everything was going on satisfactorily. The question of the supersession of the colonels by the Indian colonels had not been definitely settled; and the same was to be said of the Lucknow and Kirwee prize-money question. These were details into which the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to enter; and yet they were grievances which were rankling in the minds of the officers and non-commissioned officers and men.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had yet to learn that he did not go minutely into details. He, at any rate, spared no pains, and did to the best of his ability. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot) had himself gone into details, he would have known that the question of the prize money was not unsettled, that it had not concerned him (Mr. Cardwell) to settle it, and that it had been settled by another Department some time ago. As to desertion, that belonged to a period of high wages in the labour market, and a period which followed great recruiting when the excitement which had led to the great recruiting had subsided. With regard to brevet, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that by promoting a certain portion of the officers who, as he had said, had been superseded by the Artillery and Engineers, he had admitted that they had a claim, and therefore he ought to have treated them all alike. He had, however, admitted nothing of the kind. The Committee which had reported in favour of improved promotion for the Artillery and Engineers had reported in substance that some of the officers of the Line must be superseded; and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) bequeathed to him the question as one of great importance and difficulty, he did so knowing perfectly well that when he had overcome those difficulties he must put Artillery and Engineer officers above officers of the Line. He had succeeded in obtaining a degree of promotion with which the House for a time was satisfied. The main object of the brevet was this. The abolition of purchase had enabled meritorious old officers who had been frequently purchased over to be promoted from the 1297 rank of Captain; but it was not possible to repair at once the result of years of purchase by the ordinary regimental promotion, and in order to give increased rapidity to the process this brevet had been given. As to the discontent respecting the abolition of purchase, he believed the whole of the remonstrances had not yet arrived at the War Office, and a large number were now undergoing examination. He hoped he would be able to give the result of that examination before long. He was not prepared to hold out vague and uncertain expectations. He must know what he was doing, and where he stood before he could give an answer on the subject. He had promised that no man should be in a worse position in respect to the commission he held on the day on which purchase was abolished; and he would be surprised if many cases were discovered in which it had been the case that that pledge had not been fulfilled. He wished at the same time to remind the Committee that the arm of Parliament was not shortened in this matter, and that already money had been voted to meet cases of officers where that had been deemed necessary.
§
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £200,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of the Army, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1873 to the 31st day of March 1874, inclusive."—(Mr. Secretary Cardwell.)
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ (9.) £35,400, Rewards for Distinguished Services.
§ (10.) £80,000, Pay of General Officers.
§ (11.) £527,900, Full-pay and Half-pay, Reduced and Retired Officers.
§ (12.) £147,300, Widows' Pensions, &c.
§ (13.) £16,400, Pensions for Wounds.
§ (14.) £36,660, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
§ (15.) £1,214,500, Out Pensions.
§ (16.) £172,100, Superannuation Allowances.
§ MR. WHITWELLnoticed that out of a list of 54 gentlemen who had retired from the service, six were under 35 years of age, and 12 were under 40, and suggested that there must be other situations in which these gentlemen could 1298 be usefully employed. He wished to have some explanation as to the manner in which these superannuation allowances were granted, and how it was that they were granted in some instances to persons not much above 30 years of age?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, acting upon the authority of an Order in Council, the Government did everything in their power to find employment in other offices for gentlemen who had been superannuated, but the situations at the disposal of the Government had not been considered good enough for them.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (17.) £20,200, Non-Effective Services for Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps.
§ MR. BARNETTasked under what authority the allowance was made to the yeomanry cavalry?
§ MR. CARDWELLUnder the Yeomanry Cavalry Regulations.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
§ Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.