ARMY—NUMERICAL TITLES OF LINE REGIMENTS—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 25 June 1877)

§ COLONEL NAGHTEN
rose to speak to a Resolution of which he had given Notice, but which he was prevented by the Rules of the House from moving, namely— That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to adopt the recommendations of the Militia Committee as far as regards the discontinuance of numerical titles for regiments. The hon. and gallant Member appealed to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms), as he had already spoken for an hour and three-quarters, not to move his Amendment, as it might lead to a long discussion, and the Government was anxious to get some Votes in Supply. He impressed upon the House that anything to lessen esprit de corps was to be deprecated, and called attention to what he considered would be most unpopular—for any Government to take away the numbers of such regiments as the 42nd, 79th, and other distinguished regiments, and warned the authorities not to trifle with cherished regimental distinctions. He said that if Lord Cardwell's scheme was carried out in its entirety, such a regiment as the Rifle Brigade which recruited chiefly in the Seven Dials and Tower Hamlets districts, would have to be called the "Seven Dials Regiments," and the officers would have to be selected from those localities. He would conclude by quoting what he said his hon. Friends opposite would agree with him were good Conservative remarks—namely, an answer given before the Committee by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief (No. 8,621, p. 316.)— I think that in these things it is better to leave well alone. We have done very well as we are; anything in the way of a change is objectionable. What is the advantage of it? If there there is no advantage, leave things alone, I should say.

§ MR. STANLEY
observed that when the Report of the Military Forces Localization Committee was under discussion there was no manifestation of the feeling against the change to which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Colonel Naghten) had adverted, but he was bound to admit that it gave rise to considerable discussion in the public Press, and that many regiments protested against being linked with other regiments. When his right hon. Friend came into office as Secretary of State for War he had found the Military Forces Localization Scheme fairly started. Out of the £3,500,000 which, after a prolonged discussion, Parliament had granted, on the strength of Lord Cardwell's scheme, it was found that a sum of £176,000 had been already expended, and that liabilities had been contracted amounting to £1,500,000. A number of Brigade Depots had also been established, and various contracts had been entered into. The Secretary of State for War, even if he had been so minded, could not have stopped the scheme, but though he could not stop it, he was bound to satisfy himself as to the details which were propounded in it. In July, 1875, a Committee was therefore appointed to inquire into and report upon the working of the Brigade Depots, and that Committee was subsequently merged in the Militia Committee. As had already been remarked, the double battalion system was one of the points upon which Lord Cardwell laid stress in bringing the localization scheme before Parliament. There were few countries which clung to the single battalion system so long as ourselves. The plural battalion system had previously been adopted with evident advantage by other countries, and it was when the changed conditions of service rendered it necessary to have battalions of low strength at home and of high strength abroad that Lord Cardwell resolved upon the change. It was not usual to appeal to the personnel of a Committee; but he could do so with confidence in the present case, and he denied most positively that they were men who were insensible to the importance of preserving the esprit de corps of regiments or the advantages of territorial associations. They felt, however, that the double battalion system had become a necessity. The ques- 253 tion they had to ask themselves was whether we had so many men that we could dispense with the means of making the most of them? Almost everything had to be sacrificed to organization, and grave and serious as were the changes recommended, the Committee felt that they would not be performing their duty if they did not make the recommendations specified in their Report. They thought the connection should be closer between the Line and the Militia regiments, and that a territorial designation should be selected. It was proposed to do away with the sub-district numbers, and to designate the sub-district brigade by the name of its head quarters.

§ EARL PERCY
rose to call attention to the pay and allowances of majors of the Royal Artillery, who had been promised by the late Secretary of State for War (Lord Cardwell) that they should be placed on an equality with majors of the Line, and were still paid only 14s. 6d. a-day instead of 16s. A major in the Line received forage allowance always, but a major in the Royal Artillery received it only when actually performing mounted duty. In one case, of which he had the details, an officer of the Royal Artillery had, in the course of 5 years and 10 months' nine changes from duty in which he received that allowance to duty in which he did not receive it. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to hold out some hope that a promise which had been given by a Secretary of State and sanctioned by Parliament should be adhered to in its entirety.

MR. PRICE
also rose to call attention to the case of Militia Quartermasters with reference to their retiring allowances. His object was to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration whether it was not desirable to get rid of the old and worn-out Quartermasters who were still serving, and who could not be expected to retire on the present allowances, and introduce new ones as rapidly as possible, but not on the present scale of pensions, because it would be unfair to those who would have to retire. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not offer the older Quartermasters some inducement to retire. They would be content with a very small addition to the existing allowance of 4s. a-day.

COLONEL KLNGSCOTE
urged the same view, adding that it would be a great advantage to the Service if those officers could retire.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the question of the Quartermasters had been under consideration, and an arrangement had been practically made by which an improvement would be effected with regard to them. The details were not yet settled; but he hoped to be able soon to communicate them to the House. As the pay of Majors of the Royal Artillery had been taken by the House into its own hands, it would not be necessary for him to make any remarks on the subject.

§ CAPTAIN O'BEIRNE
called attention to the injustice of compelling officers to buy and forage, at their own expense, horses they were compelled to keep for the public services.

§ LORD EUSTACE CECIL
believed that in the English Service the pay of Cavalry officers was greater than that given in other countries, and that no good reason had been shown for an increase of allowance for forage or for buying horses. Since the year 1810 the forage had been almost entirely supplied by the Commissariat, and it had always been customary for officers to buy their own horses. He did not believe they had any cause to complain of injustice under the present arrangement.