§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £132,000, Army Reserve Force Pay and Allowances.
§ CONONEL MUREcalled the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that in those branches of the Service in which the longest time was required to make a soldier the Reserves were weakest. In the Artillery, for instance, there were almost no reserves at all; so, also, in the Cavalry; while a large portion of the Infantry were not of an age fit for service abroad. He knew a regiment about 900 strong, in which there were 500 young fellows, a vast number of whom were not more than 17 or 18 years of age, so that if it became necessary to send that regiment abroad it would be found that at least 25 per cent of the men were in consequence of their youth unfit for foreign service. The same state of things would recur which happened during the Crimean War, when, as Lord Raglan said, vast numbers of young men were sent out to fill our ranks, who died off like flies. He hoped the matter would be carefully and honestly looked into. He admitted that the class of recruits had improved physically, educationally, and morally. They were a fine class of young men, but they were not fit to go into arduous foreign service.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, that to non-military men this question of Reserves was one of the great questions of the day. The schemes of Lord Cardwell had ended in disappointment, as he at the time the Bill for the Abolition of Purchase was before the House prophesied would be the case. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the Volunteer Force, the Vote for which had been the subject of discussion on a former occasion, when—
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in alluding to 831 a question which was not within the scope of the present Vote.
§ MR. WHALLEYnext referred to the official Report recently made to the War Office respecting the Volunteers at the Easter Review.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was speaking about the Reserves, by which he meant that military force that the country had at its command in case of emergency—namely, the Volunteers. ["Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Vote before the Committee was not for the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces, but for the Army Reserve Force.
§ MR. WHALLEYpresumed he might ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposed to take in compliance with the official Report already alluded to in order to render the Reserve Forces more efficient?
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTrose to Order, asking whether the hon. Member was not now for the third time pursuing a discussion which the Chairman had ruled was outside the Question before the Committee, and whether the Committee would not empower the Chairman to put the Vote notwithstanding that the hon. Member was on his legs?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, there was no doubt the hon. Member's remarks were still outside the Question; but he felt sure that after the intimation which had been given the hon. Member would not persist in that course.
§ MR. WHALLEYremarked that he was extremely obliged to the Chairman for his courtesy, and could assure the Committee that he did him no more than justice in assuming that he had no desire to travel beyond the limits of the Question. He really felt totally unable, however, to discharge according to his conscience the duty that was required of him in the exigency of the case if he was not allowed to make these references in connection with the Reserve.
§ MR. J. HOLMSdid think the Committee and the country were entitled to know clearly and specifically the expectations of the War Office as to the bringing up of the Reserve Forces. According to the Vote, the number would be 15,000 a-year.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was afraid the hon. and gallant Mem- 832 ber (Colonel Mure) and the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) were not in the House when, on a former occasion, he went into the subjects to which they had referred. It was fully expected at the War Office that more men would be passed into the Reserves than had been anticipated. It was a matter of necessity that the regiments mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be pretty full of recruits; but it was certainly not intended to send young inexperienced men abroad. Only fit men would be sent out. He had entered fully into that question on a previous evening. As to men going into the Reserves, he was not able to force them to enter at the desired age. There were between 60,000 and 80,000 who were engaged to enter in their turn; he could not compel them to enter; but he was endeavouring, through the commanding officers, to induce men to join the Reserves earlier than they would otherwise do.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £374,800, Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments.
§ In reply to Mr. GOURLEY,
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there was nothing extraordinary in the item for the cost of watching the dockyards and various establishments—a duty which was undertaken by the Metropolitan Police, but of course had to be paid for by the Government.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSK,referring to the item of £4,940 for police employed under the Contagious Diseases Prevention Act, asked how many policemen were so employed?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYcould not give the number at that moment, but said they were employed at all the places—and there were a good many—where the Act was enforced, and they were necessarily picked men.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £2,986,000, Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services.
§ CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEcomplained of certain charges which unduly fell upon the Cavalry officers with respect to forage, and he suggested that a more liberal allowance should be made to them in reference to their horses.
§ GENERAL SHUTEwas certain the great mass of the Cavalry officers preferred to be on the present footing. If their horses were provided by the country they would only get one each, but under the present arrangement, paying 8½d. a-day for forage, and getting good stable accommodation for their chargers, they usually kept three or four, and this was at once an advantage to themselves and to the country—to themselves, because it enabled them to hunt, giving them an "eye to country," and improving their horsemanship, both qualifications so necessary to Cavalry officers; but if they had only one each, and that a Government horse, they would not be allowed to hunt, and would not be granted stable room or forage for more—to the country, because each Cavalry officer had now two or three broken chargers ready on shortest notice for field service. Cavalry officers had a grievance, however, when it was considered that the Horse Artillery officers paid only 6d. a-day for forage, whilst they were charged 8½d. The mounted officers of Infantry, also, had a grievance in connection with the allowance they received in lieu of forage, for they were actually out of pocket. He hoped these matters would be considered by the War Office.
§ MR. MELLORcalled attention to the difference between the charges made by the Railway Companies for civilians and for soldiers—the difference being something like 33 per cent against the soldier—a state of things which he thought required to be remedied as speedily as possible, as the result would greatly reduce the cost of the Transport Service.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he felt with the hon. Member that the War Department was rather hardly used by the Railway Companies with respect to these charges. The terms for soldiers were fixed at an early period; since then the charges for third-class Parliamentary passengers had been reduced, while the some advantage had not been extended to soldiers, who therefore paid more than Parliamentary passengers—which he thought was a great hardship. The Select Committee which sat on the subject of the Railway Passenger Duty called attention to this distinction in favour of the War Department, but did not make any recommendation, thinking 834 it rather outside the question which had been referred to them. He confessed he thought that considering what the State got from the railways they should also have looked to what the railways got from the State. With regard to the question of forage, the War Office had considered some suggestions on the subject, and the proposal he favourably entertained was that the forage allowance should be fixed, not at a precise sum, but according to locality and the price of forage in the place. He proposed, by next year, to make some additional allowance for the "first stall" in the stable, because officers lost 6d. if they took only one stall. At the same time, he could not promise to make the change which had been recommended with respect to Artillery officers, although they in every way deserved the consideration of the War Office. The present Vote could not be altered to meet the object in view.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £805,600, Clothing Establishments, Services and Supplies.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURexpressed a hope that the Committee would be made acquainted with the amount of stores now actually available. A Supplementary Estimate for £200,000 had been voted by the House, in order to lay in a spare stock of woollens in readiness for any unusual demands. He had fully approved of this prudent precaution; but it was only fair that the House should have the means of knowing that this extra stock had been laid in, and was year by year maintained, and not used to make a diminution of the Army expenditure in some future year.
§ CONONEL MUREasked what was the nature of the new helmets for the Infantry?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not state precisely, but they might be described as blue helmets with brass band and brass spike.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £1,120,000, Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to know from his noble Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, what number of Martini-Henry rifles were in stock, and whether it was in- 835 tended to arm all the Reserve Forces at once, as well as the Militia, with that rifle?
§ LORD EUSTACE CECIL,in reply, said, the total number of breechloading arms in store was 856,578, of which 377,558 were Martini-Henry, and 169,000 Snider rifles; and there were 310,000 Snider rifles in the hands of the Reserve Forces. It was intended to arm the Cavalry with the Martini-Henry carbine, but at present the pattern of the lock had not been decided upon. The whole Reserve would in time be armed with the Martini-Henry rifle. The carbines now in the hands of the Cavalry would, when the new carbines were ready, be distributed to the Yeomanry Cavalry.
§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCKwould move that the item for the Martini-Henry carbine be struck out, unless he received an assurance that in point of range it would be equal to the rifles carried by the Infantry.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILreplied that the Martini-Henry carbine would not come into use this year at all. The question with regard to the lock had not yet been settled.
§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the question he wanted to raise had no reference to the lock, but to the length of range. What he desired was that the carbine should be in all respects a long-range arm.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYassured the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the pattern of the Martini-Henry carbine had not yet been submitted to him. There was no Vote for it taken in the present Estimates, and in assenting to the Vote before them the Committee would in no way be bound to the adoption of that particular weapon in the future. He might add that he was quite as convinced as the hon. and gallant Gentleman of the importance of a long-range.
§ GENERAL SHUTEsaid, that so far as he could judge, Cavalry officers were quite satisfied with the carbine which it was proposed to give them, though it might not be of the full range of the Infantry. Its range was 1,000 yards, which was sufficient for nearly every practical purpose, and longer range would not compensate for the great inconvenience of having to carry a longer rifle on horseback. But the Lancers 836 ought to have a good rifle given to them, which would be a far more useful weapon than the lance.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the Army Estimates were swelled year by year by reason of the excessive demands made by the Navy for guns and ammunition and carriages. By what accident was it that £80,000 was included in the Naval Estimates as a sum to be given to the Navy for torpedoes? If the Navy required them, the Secretary of State should have laid in a stock. Charges of the same kind should not appear in different Estimates, and yet the charges in the Army Estimates for torpedoes were large in amount. The mistake was made in extending the liability of the War Office to supply the Navy with torpedoes, in addition to guns and ammunition. This new weapon of war should have been a special charge on the Navy and included in the Estimates of the Admiralty. The War Office would have continued the manufacture or purchase of these weapons if the Admiralty desired, but only as agents, and not with any degree of responsibility. The best plan would be to let the Admiralty manage for all material.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the Treasury practically regulated the mode in which the accounts were presented, and this item had had the assent of the Treasury. Representatives of the Admiralty witnessed the experiments at Spezia, and the Department thought it expedient to procure a supply of torpedoes from Italy instead of manufacturing them at Woolwich. The War Department would be glad to relieve their Estimates of these large sums.
§ CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEthought that to keep Cavalry waiting for orders while under long-range Infantry fire would have a demoralizing effect on them. He agreed with the opinion which had been expressed that the lance should be abolished.
§ MR. GOURLEYwished to know whether the torpedoes charged for were for the Navy or the Army Service, and as to the number of boats for transport.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that the torpedoes were of a new kind, but it was not necessary to explain them. The boats were required for transporting stores; one had to be built to convey the 80-ton gun. He did not, however, know their number.
§ MR. GOURLEYsuggested that vessels should be borrowed from the Navy Department.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that the War Office should have nothing to do with the ships of the Admiralty. That Board would charge more than anybody else, and supply the condemned and useless vessels of the Navy as quite good enough for the soldiers. The vessels sent out during the war with China would neither sink, sail, nor swim.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £828,700, Superintending Establishment of and Expenditure for Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he wished to ask one or two questions respecting the site of the Knightsbridge Barracks and the conditions on which it was proposed to re-erect them. It had always been understood that the ground occupied by the barracks was to be used for buildings. The road was to be widened, and then the architect would have to face the problem of erecting a proper barracks on an insufficient site. He could not think the present state of things satisfactory, and he had not approved the scheme from the outset; but he now acquiesced in it, thinking it better to spend £120,000 on new barracks than to waste £100,000 in vainly ornamenting the old building.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied that the architect had fully considered the widening of the road, and had made his plans accordingly. The shifting of the officers' quarters had become necessary. The riding school was to be brought to the men's quarters, which would be an improvement on the plan originally contemplated, and the officers' quarters would be shifted upwards; but would not be placed at the extreme west end of the barracks, where a lofty building would intercept the view from the houses in the Knightsbridge Road. As the Guards would still have in front of the barracks the ordinary green sward in which they had been accustomed to exercise, they did not require a large court-yard.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (7.) £154,400, Establishments for Military Education, agreed to.
838§ (8.) £31,000, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
§ MR. HAYTERsaid, that a new military attaché was appointed. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform him where he was to be sent?
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (9.) £249,100, Administration of the Army.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcomplained of the obscure manner in which the military accounts were kept, so that it was impossible to ascertain what the expenses of the Indian Army were as compared with that at home. For the first time they had large sums deducted from the Estimates of the Home Army, because India employed officers and men belonging to that Home Army; but there was no information supplied to the House of Commons as to the numbers and grades so employed, excepting as regarded the regimental strengths. No doubt those numbers could be furnished; and as the details of the entire charge of £1,000,000, which the Estimates stated would be paid by India, could be supplied, he hoped that the Secretary of State for War would in future furnish the information, not only for the present year, but for previous as well as for future years as they come on. This charge of £1,000,000 was indeed heavy, considering that the pay of the regimental men and officers was borne by the Indian Estimates and not shown in the Home Estimates.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENcalled attention to the establishment of a Staff College and a Staff Corps some 10 or 12 years ago, and he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to a continuance of the Returns he had obtained for the last five years, showing the appointments made and the names of the officers appointed?
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (10.) £33,500, Rewards for Distinguished Services, agreed to.
§ (11.) £53,600, Pay of General Officers.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he considered they were entitled on this 839 Vote to raise questions relating to the mode in which the military administration of India and the Home Government was carried on. They were entitled to raise the question as to how officers were appointed to the Staff in India, and how the influence of the Commander-in-Chief had been able to carry out certain military changes.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought the observations of the hon. Baronet were not relevant to the question before the Committee.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (12.) £420,200, Full Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers and Half Pay.
§ In reply to Mr. CHILDERS,
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he hoped to be able before the end of the Session to bring forward the subject of the Royal Warrant with reference to retirement in the Army. He was not aware that any changes in it would render it necessary to propose a Vote. But if it were necessary, it would be brought forward independently of these Estimates. He would in that case make a statement on the subject, with the view of eliciting the opinion of the House; but he could not submit the Royal Warrant to the consideration of Parliament, because that would be an interference with the Royal Prerogative.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLobserved that they had received a very clear statement of the conditions on which officers of the Navy were retired, and ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them with equal clearness on what conditions the officers of the Army were to retire. Were they liable after retirement to be called out for public service?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the question of the liability of officers who had retired on full pay was a question of law. The officers of the Navy, on retirement, had always been informed that they were liable to be called upon; but the officers of the Army had not been so informed, and, therefore, he could not at once answer the question of the hon. Baronet as to their exact liability, which, he repeated, was a question of law.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwas anxious to know, not whether his right hon. Friend hoped to be able to bring forward a retirement scheme, but whether he positively intended to do so?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought his hon. and gallant Friend was a little too exacting. It was not in his power to say absolutely whether he could do so or not. He was obliged to have the assent of two parties, and if he did not get their assent he could not bring it forward. If he could find time, it was his full intention to do so; and it was the intention of the Government to give the opportunity, if he could get the Warrant.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would support a liberal allowance for retiring officers provided they were ready to serve with the Auxiliary Forces; but he would oppose a large allowance if the officers would not remain available for the service of the country.
§ MR. WHALLEYcalled attention to the inadequacy of the pay of the skilled officers, and especially of medical men attached to the Militia and Reserve Forces. He suggested the employment of retired officers to promote the efficiency of the Volunteer Forces.
§ SIR PATEICK O'BRIENwarmly supported the suggestion of the hon. Member as well deserving the consideration of the Government, especially after the Report of General Stephenson that the Volunteers were inefficiently officered. He also urged that time would be saved if these Estimates as affecting India were settled by a joint Committee of the War Office and the India Office, so as to enable one Minister to give satisfactory explanations in Committee of Supply.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the question of utilizing retired officers had been raised by the recent Commission on Retirement and Promotion, and it would not be lost sight of. Indeed, the suggestion had been acted upon in officering the Reserves and the Militia; but it was more difficult to adopt it in the case of the Volunteers, with their local associations and their desire to select their own officers. Still, many retired officers had accepted commands and commissions in the Volunteer Forces.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked for some assurance that something would be done towards making officers 841 who retired under the Retirement Scheme liable for service if called upon.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that perhaps in a fortnight he would be able to give a better answer. With regard to the past, if officers were not at present liable, he could not make them liable; but the question as to the conditions of retirement in the future was different.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (13.) £123,500, Widows' Pensions, &c.
§ (14.) £16,700, Pensions for Wounds.
§ (15.) £35,000, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals (In-Pensions).
§ (16.) £1,005,200, Out-Pensions.
§ (17.) £165,000, Superannuation Allowances.
§ (18.) £42,100, Militia, Yeomany Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps, Non-Effective Services.
§ In reply to Mr. WHALLEY,
MR. GATHORNE HARDYstated that it was hoped what might be saved in expenditure upon small and inefficient regiments of Yeomanry would, when expended upon larger and more efficient ones, be productive of great benefit to the latter. This proposal was in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Report of the Yeomanry Committee.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (19.) £1,000,000, Regular Forces in India.
§ (20.) £400,000, to complete the sum for Army Purchase Commission.
§ Resolutions [2nd July] and Resolutions of this day to be reported Tomorrow, at Two of the clock;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.