§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ MR. CHILDERSMr. Playfair, before I make the Statement which it is my duty to address to the Committee, with reference to the Army Estimates, I must explain that to-night I shall only ask for the Votes for the Men and their Pay, and that we propose to resume the consideration of the Army Estimates at an early day; so far as I can judge, on the first day after the Easter Recess. We will not allow any matter of legislation to interfere with our taking the Estimates on that day, nor do I anticipate any other impediment; but, should any unforeseen impediment arise, we will devote to the Army Estimates the first day afterwards that circumstances may permit.
To come to the business in hand, I would ask the House to observe that the form of the Army Estimates, as presented this year, is somewhat different in one important respect from that adopted hitherto; and this change extends to the Navy Estimates also. The Estimates as we have presented them to the House give the net expenditure for Army Services which will form the charge upon the taxpayer. In former years the Estimates have been presented in gross, certain sums which form what are commonly called Extra Receipts, whether of the Army, Navy, or Civil Service, going into the Exchequer, and constituting a portion of the Miscellaneous Revenue. 828 That form of Statement, to which, I confess, I have always entertained an objection, and which I did my best, when at the Treasury in 1865 and 1866, and also as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the two following years, to change, is now, I am happy to say, changed with the assent of all parties interested. I may say that this beneficial reform is greatly due to the exertions of my noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who has devoted great attention to the subject. The Committee, therefore, as I have said, will be asked to vote for the Army and other Services the real charge upon the taxpayer for those Services; and the Extra Receipts connected with the Army and Navy will no longer swell the Miscellaneous Revenue.
I would ask the Committee now to allow me to give a rough comparison, on that basis of the net charge, between the Army Estimates of the present year and those for a few past years. The Estimates for the year 1882–3 amount to about £15,500,000; last year—and the actual expenditure will pretty nearly correspond—they were £16,000,000; for the year 1880–1, the expenditure for which we were responsible, though the Estimates were drawn by our Predecessors, was £15,100,000; and for the two preceding years, 1879–80 and 1878–9, when the sums expended were considerably swollen by special War Charges, the amount was in each case £17,900,000. For the purposes of comparison, the last two years must be regarded as exceptional; but I thought it convenient that the Committee should see the net expenditure of the past five years. Now, coming to the particulars of the expenditure as estimated for the year 1882–3, I would refer the Committee to an explanatory statement which appears in the Paper called "Variation of Numbers and Explanation of Differences" accompanying the Estimates, and which is also printed at page 3 of the Estimate itself. That statement I thought it would be convenient to place in the fore-front of the Estimates, in order that the Committee may not be led into confusion by the difficulty of comparing the Estimate of this year, which is net, with the Estimate of last year, which was gross. I have also given that explanation for another reason. In several Votes, it has been 829 necessary to make a certain amount of re-arrangement, in consequence of our having, as recommended so frequently, shown the total of their pay, called "consolidated pay," in the case of all military officers employed at the "War Office or on the Staff. The Committee will thus be able to see in one of the salaries received by these officers on the new basis, instead of having to refer to two different Votes. That re-arrangement interferes with several Votes, and, therefore, if hon. Members will be good enough to keep this explanatory statement in their hands, they will be able to tell at a glance what the difference is between the present Estimates and those of last year, without having to go tediously through the items themselves; and they will also see that there are only some dozen cases in which there is any considerable alteration.
Keeping this explanation in view, I would ask hon. Members to notice the following changes, which are the only ones of importance in the present Estimates, as compared with those of the previous year. In the first place, it will be seen that the Estimates for the present year no longer include a charge for special expenditure in South Africa, which amounted last year to £1,066,000. On the other hand, there are certain special items of increase. The first of these is the additional provision for naval guns and projectiles. Owing to the great advance of artillery science during the last few years, we are engaged in carrying on a gradual re-armament of the Navy which had been commenced by the late Government. The Estimates for 1880–1, prepared by my Predecessor, provided £303,000 for this purpose; those of 1881–2, for which we were responsible, provided £369,000, and those for 1882–3 provide £616,000, showing an increase of £247,000 over last year, and of £313,000 over the Estimates of the previous year. Guns ranging from 43 tons downwards have been for some months under trial with satisfactory results; but so many points of detail arise, not only as to guns, but as to carriages, projectiles, and stores, that progress must be gradual. In addition to the re-armament of the ships themselves, we have to supply reserves both at our arsenals and depots at home and abroad. This item is a very important one, as accounting for half the 830 increase in the Army Votes. I will say no more upon this point, because my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan), in moving the Navy Estimates, will go in great detail into the policy of the Admiralty in re-arming our ships.
The next item to which I need refer is that which relates to the additional pay of non-commissioned officers, amounting to £15,000. We provided in last year's Estimates for increase during only three quarters of the year, and this year we have also to provide for the fourth quarter. Last year we also somewhat reduced the numbers of the Cavalry, and, therefore, it was not necessary to provide so large a Vote for purchasing horses; but this year that source of economy will no longer exist, and we have provided £20,000 more for the purpose of keeping up the full establishment of horses. The next items of increase are £16,000 for the Militia Service, £22,000 for the Volunteers, and £10,000 for the Army Reserve, the details of which I propose to give further on. We then take £30,000 for what are popularly call ed the Autumn ManŒuvres, which, after an interval of some years, we propose to have again this year; and on that Vote it will be my duty, on another occasion, to give some detailed information. All I need say now is that both the Militia and Volunteers will take some share in those ManŒuvres, in which also the Artillery and Engineers will bear a more prominent part.
The next item of increase is that for Forage and Fuel, caused by higher prices; and the following one for the Movement of Troops in Ireland. The increase in Non-Effective Charges amounts to £70,000, which may appear in excess of the increase as shown in the Estimates; but the difference is accounted for by a saving having been effected in the Purchase Vote of about £50,000, leaving only an apparent increase on the amount of the Non-Effective Votes of £20,000.
The last item of increase is one of £10,500 for Huts, £17,500 being taken as against £7,000 provided last year. We have determined to proceed vigorously with the re-construction of the camps at Aldershot, the Curragh, and Shorncliffe, and those who have seen them will agree that this measure is of urgent necessity.
831 There is one Vote to which I ought to refer, and it is the last. That is the apparent increase in the Vote for the War Office. It would appear on the face of the Estimates, and the circumstance has been commented upon, that there is to be an expenditure of £16,000 more on the Establishment in Pall Mall and its branches. That is not the case. The fact is that £13,200, or thereabouts, is an increase in this Vote and a decrease in others, being due to the fact that the whole consolidated pay is charged upon this Vote. The usual annual increments of salary amount to £5,500. That makes a total of £18,700; but, in point of fact, we have made reductions in the Establishment to the extent of £2,700, resulting in the apparent increase of £16,000, as shown in the Estimates.
The Civil Establishment of the War Office has lately been revised, and it is not my present intention to undertake again that critical and disagreeable task; but the Head Quarters Staff has not been revised for some time, and I am in a position to state that the revision which is now being undertaken will end—though it is not yet formally concluded—in a reduction of two General Officers, at least, on that Staff. These reductions will take place as vacancies occur in the list of Staff officers.
These, Sir, are all the figures with which I propose to trouble the Committee as to the detail of the present Estimates; but, before leaving the mere financial question, I think it may be convenient to make some comparison between the charges for this and the sister Service at the present time and in past years. I take the liberty of making that comparison, because it has been my lot in former years to be responsible for placing before the House, not only the Civil Estimates, as Secretary to the Treasury many years ago, but also during two years the Navy Estimates. I may, therefore, without unduly taking up the time of the Committee, say a few words as to the relative total charges for the great Services.
I have always held the same language in preparing and moving Estimates, that our object should be that, where new charges occur in one direction, we should seek economies in other directions. When abnormal charges have to be met, we should postpone, if possible, others which, though desirable, are not 832 absolutely necessary; and the time for these will come when the special expenditure ceases. The Estimates of this and last year illustrate this principle. While, therefore, I think that, whoever occupies my place ought to do his utmost to keep down unnecessary military expenditure, I do not consider that it is any the less incumbent upon him, from time to time, to see what relation that expenditure bears to the progress of the country and its Revenue, so that he may be in a position to meet some of those allegations as to inordinate or extravagant Estimates which are often made here and elsewhere.
I have, with some pains, undertaken an examination of the Army and Navy expenditure in past years, and compared it with the expenditure at the present time, comparing, also, the population and certain features of the Revenue at the same dates. I will take, for the purposes of comparison, two years in addition to the present year, both of which are reasonable Years for that purpose. I will take 1858–9, which was the year of lowest expenditure between the Crimean War and the increase of charge which arose subsequently in Lord Palmerston's second Administration, and 1865–6, which was the year of Lord Russell's Government, when the high Estimates of Lord Palmerston's Administration reached their lowest point, and just before the great increase in Lord Derby's Government. I find that, whereas in 1858–9 the net Army and Navy expenditure amounted to £21,300,000, or at the rate of 15s. per head of the then population, and in 1865–6 to £22,700,000, or at the rate of 15s. 2d. per head, the net expenditure for the Army and Navy, as shown under the present Estimate of £25,940,000, is only 14s. 8d. per head of the present population of the country.
I have also made a comparison between the net Army and Navy expenditure and the Revenue arising from one or two principal sources of receipt. Now, it is a remarkable circumstance that, over a long series of years, from which I omit years of war or military expeditions, the Army and Navy expenditure al ways exceeded by a measurable amount, although not very large, the total amount of duties received on fermented and spirituous liquors—that is to say, spirits, wine, and beer. For instance, in 1858–9 833 the duties received from these sources amounted to £18,500,000, and the net Army and Navy expenditure to £21,300,000. In 1865–6 the duties amounted to £21,600,000, while the net Army and Navy expenditure was £22,700,000. Later on, however, this race between these duties and the Army and Navy expenditure was won by the duties; and, at the present moment, the Army and Navy expenditure, amounting to close upon £26,000,000, falls more than £2,000,000 below the amount of the duties on spirits, wine, and beer, which are over £28,000,000. Again, if you make a comparison between the expenditure for the Army and Navy and what will be produced by the Income Tax, you have this interesting result. In the early days of the Income Tax, and even after it was extended to Ireland, the Army and Navy expenditure amounted to an Income Tax of just 1s. 6d. in the pound. It has gradually fallen till, in the Estimates of this year, the Army and Navy expenditure is just equal to 1s. 2d. in the pound, or 4d. in the pound less than it amounted to for many years. These figures, I think, afford some food for reflection.
Passing from matters of finance, I now come to strictly military questions. Some of the matters to which I am about to refer are such as cannot be traced in the Votes themselves; and I am not, therefore, surprised that those who have cursorily criticized the Estimates have not discovered them there. I will, therefore, give the Committee some explanations on these questions without referring in detail to the items of the Estimates. First of all, I should like to explain what has been the result of that change which I proposed last year; and to which, I confess, I attach almost higher importance than to any other change in our military arrangements; I mean what I proposed to do in order to meet, as far as we could, the want of preparedness for small wars about which so much has been said, and which, to a certain extent, must be admitted to have existed during previous years. It is quite true that when we had, in the August of the year in which we first took Office, very suddenly to send out a considerable force to India after the battle of Maiwand, and, again, when in the early part of the following year we had to send out a considerable force to South Africa, we succeeded in despatching both those 834 bodies of men without incurring the remarks and the censures which had been made on former occasions; but I am bound to admit that we succeeded at the expense of a serious dislocation of our Roster; and that measure of success did not warrant me in abstaining from submitting to Parliament such changes as I thought should be effected in order that we might be always able to send to distant parts, if necessary, a sufficient force for one of these minor wars without the dislocation which we had experienced. And I proposed to effect this by adding nearly 3,000 men to the Infantry, by which means the regiments at the top of the Roster might be so strengthened as to give us always a complete Army Corps ready for service.
The Committee will remember that when we took up this question last year we were warned that the moment was not a propitious one, looking at the number of battalions then on foreign service; but, nevertheless, we did undertake the task, and I will now state how we executed it. Previously there stood first for foreign service 6 battalions, each numbering 800 rank and file, followed by 6 other battalions, each numbering 720 rank and file, the battalions in the Mediterranean only numbering 600. What we proposed was to raise the first 12 battalions to 950 rank and file, 8 of these with large depots of 150 each, and to raise the battalions in the Mediterranean and the Colonies to 800; and in this way we expected to have 18 Line battalions always ready for service, with 3 battalions of the Guards and the proper complement of Artillery and Cavalry. I do not pretend to possess a wizard's wand, or to be able to convert a battalion of 720 men into one of 950 at a stroke of the pen. You can only do this in one or two ways, either by adding to each battalion a certain number of recruits, or by transferring to it a certain number of men from other regiments. There are objections to either course, and we had to be very careful to steer between the difficulties which we should have brought upon us by using either method too freely.
I think the Committee will be interested to hear what is the result which we have attained. As far as the 6 battalions in the Mediterranean are concerned the operation has been successful; they have been raised to 800 men each of fair service. As far as the 12 bat- 835 talions at home are concerned, we had to bring them up to 950 men each, or a total of 11,400 men. I am happy to tell the Committee that on Friday last, while of those 12 battalions some were a little over strength and some a little under, as against the 11,400 to which it was necessary to raise them, they contained 11,264 rank and file. Therefore, in a few days we shall have completed in point of numbers the operation designed. Of these 12 battalions at home 8 are in camp—6 at Aldershot and 2 at the Curragh; and 4 are still in barracks, some of them I hope soon to be transferred to camps, where they will get the greatest benefit in drill and training. The depôts, which, on the average, are about 20 under strength, are also increasing from day to day. Therefore, as regards numbers, we have succeeded in our operation; but it is only right that I should say that there is still much to be done before these battalions can be considered in a thoroughly satisfactory state. There is still a larger proportion of younger troops than one could wish; but in that respect every month will show improvement. For instance, the battalions going abroad next year will not be depleted this year by drafts to other battalions abroad; and, therefore, they will daily contain an increasing proportion of seasoned troops and a diminishing proportion of recruits.
And now let me state to the Committee what are the facts as to the necessary number of recruits in the ranks. I showed last year that the Army could not be recruited except under short service; and though I raised that service from six to seven or eight years, it still necessarily involved a very large annual enlistment; and at the present time, roughly speaking, the number of Infantry recruits is something over 19,000 per annum. The number of Infantry battalions at home may be taken as 71, and, with few exceptions, all recruits go to them, generally through the depots in the first instance. If you divide the number of Infantry recruits by the number of battalions at home, it follows that there will be in each of the battalions at home, on the average, nearly 270 recruits; and as the average strength of the home battalions is just under 600, it follows that nine-twentieths, or, allowing for the depots, two-fifths of the rank and file of the battalions at home must con- 836 sist of recruits in any circumstances. Of course, the proportion will not be the same in all battalions; but if there are fewer recruits proportionately in some, as, for instance, in the 1st Army Corps when fully built up and in its normal state, there must be more in others; and those who see a series of regiments in the various home garrisons, with what appears to be a disproportionate number of young soldiers, must remember that this is the case because, as a rule, no recruits are sent abroad, it being our policy to maintain in India, our Colonies, and the 1st Army Corps efficient battalions always fit for service.
Here, Sir, I ought to say something about the practice of calling for volunteers from one regiment to another. I have explained that we hoped to reduce this to a minimum, and, at any rate, not to employ it for filling up the ranks of regiments leaving on foreign service. I am happy to say that in this we have been successful. Although to build up the battalions in the 1st Army Corps it has been thought best to use this means to a certain extent, and not to increase their numbers solely by recruits, I am in a position to say that no volunteers went to any of the Infantry battalions which proceeded this season to relieve others on foreign service, and also that the drafts to this date and up to the end of the season will have contained no volunteers. I may add that the battalions going abroad as reliefs next year are also full, and will require no volunteers from other regiments. I trust, Sir, that this statement will be satisfactory to the House, and will relieve the minds of those who have doubted whether we should be able to fulfil the promises about the 1st Army Corps which we made last year.
This, Sir, brings me to the system of relieving Infantry battalions abroad, which I explained to the Committee last year. We have most carefully discussed the proper details of the arrangements for this purpose, and there are now in the War Office exact rules under which it is laid down of what men each draft is to be composed. By that means we shall be enabled to keep the promise we have made to India, that every man sent there will have a prospect of serving six years. Some will serve a little longer, but the average service will be six years.
837 I may say, also, that we have not neglected the other arrangements necessary for the despatch of an Army Corps in case of emergency; an Army Corps comprising not only Infantry and Cavalry, but Engineers, Artillery, Ammunition Reserves, Commissariat, and Siege Train. We are now in such a position that, if it were necessary to despatch abroad an Army Corps with all its equipment, it could be despatched as soon as the transports were prepared.
The Committee will also be glad to know to what extent, in point of men, we are prepared for an expedition requiring more than a single Army Corps. In the event of our being engaged in a great war, it would be necessary, in the first instance, to fall back upon our Reserves, and I think the Committee would wish to be informed of the present condition of the most important of those Reserves—I mean the First Army Reserve. This Reserve has made great progress during the last year. The Committee will remember that early in the year we invited a certain number of men to volunteer from the Reserve to join the Colours in South Africa, and many of these joined in April and May. This, of course, chocked the progress of the Reserve. But, starting from the 1st of May and down to the 1st of the present month of March, a period of 10 months, I find that there went to the Reserve from the Army 7,126 men; that, on the other hand, 2,266 were discharged from the Reserve; so that there was a net increase to the Reserve of 4,860 men, or nearly 500 a-month—that is to say, at the rate of 6,000 a-year. And I must remind the Committee that up to the present time, in consequence of the short-service system in the Artillery and Cavalry commencing later than in the Infantry, and the short service itself in those arms having been somewhat longer, we have as yet no considerable number of men in the Reserve from these two sources. They will begin to join the Reserve in greater numbers next year, and we may then anticipate that the Reserve will be increased more rapidly. And perhaps I may say that since the 1st of July we have added to the Reserve, out of the number of men that I have stated, about 2,300 who were allowed, under the arrangements of last year, to join it before completing their six years' Army service. The 838 present strength of the Reserve is 25,121 men. These would make up 71 battalions, the ordinary number of Infantry battalions at home, to 1,000 men, without calling on the depôts or on the Militia Reserve. I do not say that this is the exact way in which they would be employed; but it shows how rapidly the ranks could be filled up on an emergency.
Before I pass from the Military Establishments I will state one or two proposals which are indicated in the present Estimates, and as to some of which Papers will be distributed to-morrow. It may be remembered that last year we proposed that the 12 battalions of 950 men should be followed in the Roster by 4 battalions of 850 men each; 4 of 650 men each; 8 of 500, and 43 of 480. We have made a change of some importance in this scale. It was practically found that the jumps from 500 to 650 and from 650 to 850 were inconveniently large. We have, therefore, altered the Establishment by making no jump of more than 100 men, so that, instead of the numbers as I have given them, we shall have 4 battalions of 850 men each, 4 of 750, 4 of 650, 4 of 550, 7 of 500, and 37 of 450. The result is that as four battalions go abroad every year, each battalion, after it reaches the 550 strength, will annually be increased by 100 men, until by a gradual ascent it reaches the number of 950 men.
With regard to the Cavalry, we have had to consider how we should meet the inevitable effect of short service, which begins to operate this year, or will do so, at any rate, next year. The result of that change will be that a larger number of recruits will be required to keep up the Cavalry strength. There are several ways by which we might secure this. We might leave the present system intact, but with larger depôts; and, therefore, an increase in the number of men. Or, secondly, we might leave the present organization and numbers, but attach to regiments at home the depôts for regiments abroad. Or we might divide the Cavalry into brigades of three regiments, one for service abroad, one in readiness for service, and one devoted to purposes of recruiting and training. Or, fourthly, we might reduce the number of regiments. To the first and last plans I was most reluctant to assent; and we accordingly appointed a strong Committee, 839 consisting of Generals Wardlaw, Fraser, Bulwer, Sir F. Fitz Wygram, and Mr. Knox, to examine the two other plans. We have considered their Report, which was unanimously in favour of the brigade plan; but the subject is beset with so much difficulty that I think an opportunity should be given for further consideration, especially as it is not absolutely necessary to make any change this year. Next year, however, it will be necessary for us to make some proposal to Parliament.
With respect to the Artillery, it has been necessary to act without delay. There are several concurring causes which have compelled us to consider seriously the question of Artillery organization. The first is that the introduction of short service necessitates a larger number of recruits; the second is the absence of localization; and the third is the decision of the Government of India considerably to reduce the force of Artillery in that country. I appointed a very strong Committee to investigate this question also. On their Report we have arranged that there shall be 11 fixed Artillery depots in the military districts of the United Kingdom, chiefly at or near the coast, and, if possible, at the same stations as the head-quarters of a regiment of Artillery Militia. They will be assisted in recruiting by the Infantry depots of the district. All recruits will be retained a short time at the depots and taught dismounted duties. The field and garrison batteries will be divided into groups, some batteries at home and some abroad, and designated after their district. Recruits will be supplied from the district depôts. The batteries abroad will be supplied by drafts from home, and ultimately be relieved precisely in the same manner as in the Infantry. Batteries in the 1st Army Corps will not supply drafts to the batteries abroad. Thus, although in name enlisted for the whole regiment, so far as possible, men will be kept in their own district batteries. The Militia Artillery will become Royal, and, as in the Infantry, be the junior brigades of the Artillery of their district, their recruits being trained with those of the Regular Force. The Horse Artillery will not be localized, but remain, as now, with a double depot at Woolwich. I hope, Sir, that the new ties and associations thus formed will unite to their 840 common benefit the Royal and Militia Artillery, and will enable us to secure what is so much wanted—a full and satisfactory supply of recruits.
I will pass now from these questions of organization to one or two others connected with the changes of last year. In the first place, the Committee will remember that we greatly improved the condition and prospects of the non-commissioned officers of the Army. The result of this change has already been eminently satisfactory. I called at Christmas for Reports as to the effect of our measures, both on existing non-commissioned officers, as regards their willingness to extend their service, and on the men as to their desire to become noncommissioned officers. About one-third of the general officers and commanding officers consulted have reported that good results in both respects were already apparent; while, in other cases, sufficient time had not elapsed to enable a judgment to be formed. In no ease were the Reports unfavourable.
I wish to refer to another matter—that of the employment in the Civil Service of non-commissioned officers—a subject which was considered by a Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman during two Sessions of the last Parliament, and with respect to which I was pressed a good deal last Session to state the intention of the Government. We have made some progress. The matter is now under consideration of other Departments; and I hope, before the end of the Session, to be able to tell the House what will be done.
In reference to the condition of recruiting, I was extremely sorry to be unable to place the last Report of the Inspector General in the hands of hon. Members this evening; but I hope it will be in their possession to-morrow. I will, however, refer to the principal features of last year's recruiting. It must be remembered that in July we raised the minimum age from 18 to 19, and the length of service fron six to seven or eight years. More recruits were raised in purely regimental districts than were ever known before, 51 per cent being appointed to the territorial regiments; and this in spite of the changes in the Roster and re-linking. A larger number has also come from the Militia than during the last three years, 841 and, though there have been some, there have been fewer cases of men passed carelessly. As to the condition of the recruits, there is admitted, on all sides, to be a great improvement, both in physique and in intelligence. General Torrens says he considers the class of recruits who have joined in his district (Cork) from January to December have been satisfactory both in intelligence and physique; in many cases they have had to make long marches in very bad weather, and the percentage that have fallen out is almost nil. General Bulwer, in the Report, says—
Intelligent and educated young men are beginning to think that the Army holds out a good opening for them, and that many are joining with the hope and intention of becoming non-commissioned officers.The waste of the Army was 2,000 less than in the preceding year, and the net loss from desertion 724 less. The number of invalids discharged in the year was 287 against 339 in 1880. I may say that, in the machinery of recruiting, we hope shortly to establish a better system than the present one, and already a better system of remuneration has been introduced; but we do not propose to make any other changes this year. I confess I should have liked to have raised, as we almost might have done, the minimum age from 19 to 19½; and I hope we may be able, before long, to raise it to 20 years. That I look upon as one of the most important of all reforms; but it would be a great mistake to carry it out till we are quite certain of success, and I do not think that at the present time we could safely do it. We have, however, been able to introduce one improvement—namely, to require, in certain cases, evidence of character; and this, I believe, will have a beneficial effect. In the Militia the quality of the recruits has greatly improved, the number of absentees fallen off, and the waste diminished.I pass now from this subject to another very important matter—I mean the recent changes as to the number, the pay, and the retirement of officers. The general features of what I proposed to Parliament last year were a reduction in the number of regimental officers, the almost entire abolition of compulsory retirement at the age of 40, its operation virtually commencing at 55, and a reduction in the number of general officers. 842 The additional cost of this change, as estimated last year, has not been reached. The Estimate was a full one, and it is satisfactory to know that we shall not quite spend the whole of the Vote. The change involves an extremely difficult and complicated operation, one of the most difficult, all things considered, that can be undertaken; but there have been comparatively very few complaints, and many of these will be met by the modification of the Warrant of June last, which received the Queen's approval a few weeks ago. The number of general officers on June 30th of last year, not including Indian Officers and Marines, was 343, and it is proposed to reduce them ultimately to 119, or if the late Indian Artillery and Engineers (which are in progress of amalgamation with the British List) be included, there were 397, to be ultimately reduced to 140. The present number is 170, and the reduced number will be very nearly reached about the end of the financial year 1883–4. The number of regimental officers on June 30th of last year was about 5,600, and ultimately there will be only 5,150; at present they number 5,350. We did not discontinue the entry of officers; but only diminished it, and so spread the whole of the reduction over several years till it will be complete in the financial year 1884–5.
Some remarks were made last year as to the supposed unnecessary first expenditure in connection with so large a scheme for the retirement of officers, and I met the objections then by saying that I had had similar experience in the Naval Promotion and Retirement Scheme of 1870, and that, in that case, though there was an immediate increase of expenditure, great economy would result in the long run. I have obtained, by the kindness of my noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook), an accurate account of the result of that operation up to the present time. I find that in 1869, the year before the change was made, there were 3,383 executive and navigating officers on the Active List, and 1,589 on the Retired List, making altogether 4,972 officers, whose pay, half-pay, and retirement amounted to £963,000. At the present time the Active List contains 2,218, and the Retired List 1,575, allowing for officers who have commuted, making altogether 3,793 officers; and 843 the annual cost is £895,000, so that there is already an annual saving of £68.000, and when the number of retired officers is normal, it will amount to from £150,000 to £200,000. But while this saving has been effected on the one hand, the change has been of great advantage to the officers themselves on the other; because, while in 1869 the average pay or retired pay of the officers was £194, it is now £236, or an increase of £42 per annum. I give this to the Committee as an illustration of the ultimate effect of carrying out a plan very similar in general outline to that which we adopted last year with respect to the Army.
In connection with this subject, there have been some complaints made as to the super session of officers of Artillery and Engineers, under the "Warrant of June 1881. I inquired into the case with much care, and I was satisfied that there were some grounds for those complaints, but not for the considerable remedy proposed, which would have been unfair to many Line officers. I have, however, made two changes in the Corrigenda Warrant, one making captains of Artillery majors in the Army after 20 years' service, having regard to the 20 years' rule about Engineers; and the other giving the Army rank of lieutenant-colonel after seven years' regimental service to majors of Artillery and of Engineers who reached that rank before October 1877. These two changes will practically meet the grievance that we have in connection with the Artillery and the Engineers.
I have now gone through all the principal changes which I explained to the House last year, and given the Committee the result of those changes. There are a few other matters about which I wish to give some information—questions which have arisen since last year, and about which we are engaged at the present time.
As far as officers are concerned, we have under consideration at this moment, but not completed, improvements in connection with entrance into the Army, bringing into greater harmony the entrance by Sandhurst and by Woolwich, and through the Militia, both as to age and examinations. We have not completed those changes; but before the end of the Session I hope to be able to announce them.
844 We have given very careful attention to a subject of considerable public interest—I mean the expense of regimental messes. The attention of general officers and officers commanding regiments has been called to the necessity of regulating the mess charges to officers with a view to economy, and in order that those who have not large private means may be able to live within the limits of their income. This refers not only to ordinary mess charges, as to which officers should be able to have their three daily meals for 4s., but to incidental expenses and subscriptions. Reports on this subject will be received from every general and commanding officer next month.
We have also appointed a Committee, under Sir Garnet Wolseley, to inquire whether the expenses of officers might not be reduced by furniture and mess property being found by the public, as in the Navy—officers, of course, being charged a percentage. At present, except a table and two chairs, an officer's quarter is bare; and he is bound to carry about with him portable furniture, often of a very expensive kind, beds, chairs, baths, chests of drawers, wash-hand-stands, &c. This is not only burdensome to officers, but entails great expense on the public, every officer being allowed many hundredweights of baggage, from 9 cwt. to a subaltern upwards. So also every mess has to transport plate, crockery, glass, and all the details of an establishment at great cost to Government and the mess itself. All this employs men on fatigue duties, and is a hindrance to quick movements. The chief objection to change is the first cost; but the Committee will, it is hoped, propose a reasonable system.
So far as the men are concerned, the first important change which we have introduced relates to canteens. Formerly canteens were often let to contractors; but some years ago they were generally handed over to regimental charge, the profits being devoted to the amusements and comforts of the men and their families. Recreation rooms and coffee bars have also been generally established, and shops where groceries and other articles can be got. There have been great varieties in practice; but the shops, and often the recreation rooms, have usually been connected with the canteens. It is proposed to separate 845 altogether the shops and recreation rooms from the canteens and attach the coffee bars to the former. The canteen will be almost exclusively used for the sale of beer at a moderate profit, the coffee bar and the shop being merely self-supporting. There will be a committee of three in every battalion, one junior officer supervising the conduct of the canteen; another that of the coffee bar, shop, and recreation room; and a superior officer exercising general supervision. This has been strongly recommended in many quarters, and the arrangement will be very beneficial to the men.
Another matter we have had to consider is the effect of short service on the marriage of men, and on the provision for children and for pensioners. Short service has already produced considerable changes in these respects, and we have thought it right to prepare for still greater changes to come. With this object, we have appointed a Committee to examine into the two pensioner hospitals at Chelsea and Kilmainham, and the Duke of York's School at Chelsea and the Hibernian School; and they will consider the effect of the great diminutions in the calls on these institutions, which must inevitably come before long. With respect to marriage, I hope, when short service becomes universal, that it will not be necessary to provide for the marriage of any considerable number of men, except non-commissioned officers. In point of expense, I believe the probable reduction in the percentage of married men will save the country, in transport and other charges, something like £50,000 a-year. To this subject we are giving our best attention.
Great inconvenience and expense to both officers and men have hitherto been caused by what appears to us the unnecessary frequency in the movement of troops from one station to another. Of course, there are circumstances in Ireland and elsewhere for which no precise rule can be laid down; but we have arrived at the conclusion that where these circumstances do not exist, regiments or battalions ought not to be moved oftener than every two years.
With regard to the efforts for the improvement of the shooting of the Army, we appointed a Committee last year to inquire into the matter; and although a great deal of the Report of that Com- 846 mittee was necessarily confidential, and, therefore, I could not lay it upon the Table, yet we have been able to adopt certain of the recommendations it contained—a proceeding that will, of course, involve some additional charge.
I was asked to-day by the hon. and gallant Member for East Suffolk (Colonel Barne) what had been done with regard to the very important subject of an improved uniform for the Army when on active service, which he has frequently brought forward during the last few years. The first element of the question was to decide whether any change should be made in the colour of the present uniform, and whether that which was the least conspicuous should be selected for general use on active service. We have appointed a Committee to consider the subject, among the Members of which are Professor Stokes and Professor Abel, and they are now making the necessary inquiries with regard to it.
Turning to the Auxiliary Forces, we propose that a portion of the Militia Reserve should be trained this year with the Line battalions of their territorial regiments. We are also going to do what will be hailed with satisfaction by the Militia—namely, to issue to them, for the first time, between 80,000 and 90,000 Martini-Henry rifles, as we have now a sufficient number of those weapons in store. We were pressed to do the same for the Volunteers; but we must begin, in the first place, with the Militia.
We have made a new arrangement with regard to the Militia recruits. Where the Militia quarters are at the depot centre, the recruits are to go there to be trained at once on enrolment, instead of having to wait until the usual time when their regiments are called out. We hope that this will not only bring more recruits to the Militia, but also strengthen the union with the Line, and bring more men to the Line also. We expect to be able to arrange for six or eight battalions of the Militia joining in the Autumn ManŒuvres this year, and we propose to establish two Militia submarine mining companies at Plymouth and Chatham similar to those at Portsmouth.
With regard to the Volunteers, there are two or three improvements contemplated, which I will now explain. First, we propose to increase the camp allow- 847 ance by £10,000, so as to allow some 20,000 more men to go into camp; and, secondly, we propose to increase the capitation grant for officers passing in tactics from 50s. to 60s. We intend also to invite 15,000 men to join the ManŒuvres; and although we are unable to issue the Martini-Henry rifle to the Force generally, we propose to grant 4,500 instead of 3,000 for match shooting. We are unable to recommend the issue of greatcoats generally to the Volunteers; but we propose that, as regards capes, they may obtain them by payments spread over three years.
It will be remembered that last year the regiments of Infantry Militia were made 3rd and 4th battalions of the territorial regiments, and we took power, under the Army Act of last Session, to make similar arrangements as regards the Volunteers. We do not propose to make any change in the character of the Force, except that, instead of being inerely described as located in the territorial districts, the Rifle Corps will become Volunteer battalions of the territorial regiments; and we propose that the officers of their permanent Staff should, as far as possible, be drawn from the regiments to which they will belong.
If I had time—and, at half-past 2 in the morning, I am sure the Committee is tired—I should like to say something about one suggestion in connection with the Volunteers, which we do not propose to adopt at present, but which we should like the different corps to consider. At present the Volunteer is called efficient if he shoots away 60 rounds, and his corps receives its capitation grant accordingly. What we should like to do would be to carry out an arrangement, under which the test of efficiency would not be merely shooting away so many rounds, but obtaining certain points in marksmanship. We do not wish to save anything in the amount of the capitation grant; but I think we may, in the way suggested, greatly improve the efficiency of the Volunteers.
I have now gone through the different heads of the Estimates. I have shown the effect of past proposals, what changes we have determined to propose to Parliament, and what subjects we have under consideration. I fear I may have unduly detained the Committee at this latehour; but the interests at stake are so 848 vast that they justify a full explanation by the Minister. I hope the Committee will accept what I have said as showing a sincere desire on our part to do all we can for the efficiency of Her Majesty's Forces, and will believe that, if we fail in any respect, it will not be from want of will; and for myself I may truly say that it will be my earnest duty, so long as I hold my present Office, to promote the strength, efficiency, and popularity of the Army, Militia, and Volunteers.
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 132,905, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain find Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."—(Mr. Childers.)
§ SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he thought it would not be possible for the Committee now to go into the complicated, though clear, Statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but he wished to ascertain the position in which hon. Members would be placed with reference to the future discussion of this Statement. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to inform the Committee on what early occasion they would have an opportunity of going into the Statement. Of course, when the first Votes were taken, £4,000,000 would be at the command of the right hon. Gentleman; and then, to a certain extent, the House would be at the mercy of the Government for the rest of the Session, and so they might not get a discussion until a very late day.
§ MR. CHILDERSI may repeat what I said at the very commencement of my Statement. What I said was that we proposed to resume the discussion of the Army Estimates in such a way that every point I have mentioned, and all other points and suggestions, may be fully discussed, so far as we are concerned, on the first day after the Easter Recess; and that we would not allow any legislative matter to interfere with our taking the discussion then, and we do not anticipate any other impediment; but if any unforeseen impediment should arise, we will take the first day after that the circumstances will permit. The exact day cannot be stated until we know when the Easter Recess will be. Taking the first Vote will not preclude the full dis- 849 cussion of any questions arising on the whole Estimates.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he felt very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's Statement removed the difficulty. He was quite certain that the Secretary of State for War was perfectly loyal; but he had not stated upon what any discussion would be taken. When the Committee had voted the Money Vote, they would have put it out of their power, unless the Chairman should rule otherwise, to discuss Army questions. If the right hon. Gentleman would show them out of the difficulty, then it would be for them to consider whether they could accept his proposal. He himself should be happy to accept any proposal; but he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should now take a portion of the Vote on Account—say £2,000,000, or any other sum he liked—and then the Committee could have a discussion upon what remained to be voted. He thought that would be in Order, and in accordance with the traditions of the House; but he would appeal to the Chairman for a ruling.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had been a good many years in the House, and he remembered many occasions on which, with respect to both the Army and the Navy Votes, it was distinctly understood that the taking of the 1st Vote did not preclude the discussion of any question affecting it. Although Vote I was for Pay, there were the Votes for Provisions, Transport Stores, and Auxiliary Forces, on which every question of organization could be raised. With respect to taking a Vote on Account, he could not imagine a Minister who would not naturally be very much tempted by the idea; but he hoped the House would not recognize the adoption of that course on any occasion. The effect would be to lead a Minister to come to Parliament early in the Session, and say—"Give me a Vote on Account, and we will discuss the Estimates generally later on;" and in that way there would never be any security as to the time when the entire policy of the Army Estimates would be brought forward by the Minister. He had distinctly promised an early day for this discussion, and that, he thought, would give the Committee the fullest opportunity of discussing the 850 Estimates. He strongly deprecated any introduction of the system of voting money on account for either the Army or the Navy.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought there was so much objection felt in the House to taking Votes on Account that there would be little likelihood of a future Minister of War adopting such a system; but he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, on his own showing, his comprehensive Statement could be answered except upon this Vote for Men? There was no security that the whole of the other Votes would be taken at the time proposed; and, therefore, hon. Gentlemen would be in a position of great difficulty in regard to answering the right hon. Gentleman's Statement. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated the taking of a Vote on Account; but was not this Vote of £4,000,000 practically treated as a Vote on Account for six months' service? In point of fact, as far as the Committee were concerned, the Army Service could be carried on for that period without any further Vote; and, therefore, if the Government desired the discussion to take place without prejudice, they would take a Vote of £2,000,000 now, and complete the Vote on the first day after Easter. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would acquiesce in that.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the Navy as a subject which might bear upon this question; but last year, as a special permission, the general discussion was postponed for Vote 2, only on the ground that the Victuals Vote would enable a discussion to be raised. With regard to the Navy Votes, that course was also entirely forbidden, and was only allowed in consequence of a special application, which was assented to by the House.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTremarked, that the Secretary of State for War had begun speaking at 10 minutes to 1, and no opportunity could possibly be given to Members of the Committee to make any observations on his interesting and able Statement, upon many new points of which they had not, till then, had any intimation whatever. It would be the most unfair thing in the world to press the Committee to give this Vote of £4,000,000. Never before had the Estimates been brought on at such a 851 time in the morning. He therefore appealed to the Prime Minister to allow, in this instance, a Vote on Account to be taken. Last year the Government got the same Vote for the Army, and then the whole discussion was driven off to the end of the Session, till the month of August, and that was a thing that ought not to be allowed. There was one thing he should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer, and it was a subject of deep interest to the country—namely, the Army Corps, which the right hon. Gentleman had stated was now in an efficient state, nine-twentieths of that Army Corps being recruits of one years' service. That the right hon. Gentleman had stated to be the fact. Nine-twentieths of the men to be sent abroad in a great emergency would be recruits of one year's service. That was a statement which he should like to hear contradicted at once if it was not true. If it was true, the fact would take away all the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the fitness of the Army Corps for immediate service.
§ MR. CHILDERSWhat I stated was that in some regiments there were more, and in some less.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILwished for the ruling of the Chairman. If the Committee passed this Vote, and voted the number of men and the money, would it be possible to raise a general discussion on Vote 2?
THE CHAIRMANThe noble Lord is quite right in his statement that it is the usual practice in Committee to discuss the Statement of the Secretary of State for War on the 1st Vote, and not on subsequent Votes. One or two exceptions to this general practice have been admitted. Thus, in the Navy Estimates, where a like rule prevails, the general discussion has exceptionally been taken, not on the 1st Vote, but upon that for "Victuals," and, I think, upon the Shipbuilding Vote. But in these exceptions a single general discussion only has been allowed. If circumstances do not allow a general discussion on the 1st Vote to-night, it would be possible, at the next meeting of Committee on Army Estimates, to bring forward as the first question a general Vote, such as that on "Provisions," and take the general discussion on that Vote. But it must be borne in mind that only one general discussion is permissible, 852 and that it ought to be, unless under exceptional circumstances, on the 1st Vote.
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) appeals to me. I believe it to be a practice totally unknown to Parliament to take a Vote on Account in regard to the Army Estimates; and the only occasions on which it has been assented to has been when there has been a Dissolution of Parliament, or a change of Government in prospect. That constitutes a state of things wholly exceptional, and then the whole of the House of Commons, it may be, has not been in a position to discuss the policy, because it was not known what Government would deal with the Estimates of the year. The case of the Civil Service Estimates is totally and absolutely different, because we have now introduced a principle under which all balances must be repaid to the Exchequer on the 31st of March. The Miscellaneous Estimates are presented at the beginning of the Session, and there is no means of going forward unless you can vote your Miscellaneous Estimates before Easter, except by Votes on Account. But with regard to the Army and Navy Estimates, that would be an innovation. I do not deny the inconvenience—I suppose it is inconvenient to all of us; and, indeed, it may be called a public mischief—that statements of this kind cannot be made at an early hour in the evening, when Gentlemen are in the full force of their strength, but should have to be made after midnight; but that is part of the general condition to which we are reduced, and which we are about to endeavour to remedy so far as it may be in our power. But you, Sir, have ruled that there is a precedent for discussing the whole forces of the Navy on the Victuals Vote, and some practice of that kind will be adopted in this case.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, the Chairman had decided that a general discussion could be raised upon the Vote for Provisions. The Secretary of State for War had offered a fair compromise, and that was to bring up the Provision Vote either on the first or second day after the Easter Recess, and that would enable the whole question to be discussed at length.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Prime Minister had told the Committee he was averse to any course which should 853 partake of the character of an innovation; but he suggested that they should first of all vote the money and discuss it afterwards. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not know whether that course was in accordance with Parliamentary precedent; but if it was it appeared to him it was a course which had better be postponed as soon as possible. If there was any difficulty in the present situation, the Government alone were responsible. They had up till now occupied the time of the House with Business which, no doubt, appeared to them to be very important, but which did not strike the rest of the House in the same light; and now the Committee were invited to vote not only the number of men for the Army without discussion, but also to vote away millions of money for one of the most important branches of the Public Services. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had said there was no precedent for voting millions of money away at this hour of the morning; but he thought the hon. and gallant Baronet must have forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War did last year precisely what he was doing now—that was to say, he tried to induce the House to vote away almost blindly over £3,500,000. He opposed, as long as he could, the object of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion; and he should feel bound to go into the Lobby with any hon. Gentleman who invited the Committee to divide this evening against this Vote. There could be nothing more improper than to vote away millions of public money in the small hours of the morning, because it was impossible that the questions involved could be adequately discussed, or that anything like justice could be done to the subjects. The Prime Minister said they could very properly discuss anything connected with the Army on subsequent Votes. It appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that as a matter of Order that contention could not be maintained. That a discussion had always taken place on Vote 1 in previous years was due to the fact that the Vote provided for the pay of so many different branches of the Military Service, and that there was scarcely a topic that could not be touched upon under the Vote. He was inclined to ask how, if the Vote was passed now, it would be possible to reduce it? If sub- 854 sequent discussion showed that the Vote was unduly large, how were they to rescind their Vote? He knew it was not a very common thing for a Vote submitted by Government to be reduced; but he recollected that the year before last he was enabled to secure the reduction of one of the Votes submitted by Her Majesty's Government, though he believed he was one of the very small number of Members who had ever succeeded in that endeavour. But having succeeded once, he was not without hope he might succeed again. There were many things in this Vote which required discussing. For instance, he should be inclined to contest the utility of spending so much money on the Riding Establishment at Woolwich; there was, in his opinion, a great deal too much money wasted upon that establishment. On the Vote, too, would naturally arise a very important discussion as to the propriety of framing the Estimates in the way in which they had been framed this year. For instance, the extra receipts taken in aid had been so arranged that it would enable the Department to evade the proper Parliamentary control; it would enable the Departmental authorities to spend more money than Parliament had ever been asked to sanction. These were questions which naturally arose on Vote 1; and he did not see why they should be asked—and, indeed, almost peremptorily ordered—to vote away public money whether they would or not. He did not think it was necessary to vote the money; he doubted whether it was really necessary even to vote the men to-night. It was perfectly true that the Vote for Men must be taken and agreed to by this House and "another place" before the 5th of April; but there was abundant time for doing everything necessary between now and then. With regard to the Vote for Pay, he was convinced it was not necessary to take it to-night. The War Office had a large available balance—he believed it amounted to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000—with which it was quite able to carry on without any further Vote by the Committee at present. If the War Office obtained this Vote they would be in a position to dispense with any further Votes until the end of August. Under these circumstances, he decidedly objected to the Vote for Pay being taken to-night; and he did not think it was 855 at all fair that the House of Commons should be called upon, in the small hours of the morning, to pass the Vote even for men.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not understand, after what had fallen from the Prime Minister, why a Vote on Account should not be taken.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he had heard no argument whatever against taking a Vote on Account, except the Prime Minister's statement that it was against all precedent. He ventured to say it was against all precedent to bring in Army Estimates at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. He did not think the Prime Minister, in his experience of 40 years, ever knew of the Army Estimates being brought on at such a time of night. They had heard from the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who had had considerable experience in the matter, that there was no difficulty in postponing the Votes. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) did not believe there was any difficulty in the matter; but that a great and principal objection was the Prime Minister's own will. He repeated that he believed firmly that it was nothing else but the Prime Minister's will that stood between them and progress to-night. They had occasion to observe earlier in the evening the temper and animus which the right hon. Gentleman had shown. They ought to have better arguments adduced than they had heard to-night against taking a Vote on Account. He was perfectly willing to be reasonable in the matter; he was quite willing to fall in with any reasonable compromise the right hon. Gentleman might suggest; but when a proposition of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman suggested was brought forward without any argument whatever, and especially when it was opposed to the practice of the House, they had a right to resist it.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he really must object to the noble Lord's personal remarks. He did not wish, rising at 3 o'clock in the morning, to detain the Committee with a lengthened statement. He stated that it was totally without precedent, in his belief, to apply the system of Votes on Account to the great Military and Naval Services of the country; and the noble Lord, under those circumstances, rose and said it was nothing 856 but his (Mr. Gladstone's) personal will, or, in other words, his obstinacy and dictatorial spirit.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILI did not say that.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the noble Lord's meaning was obvious. The noble Lord said he was there to impose his will between the House of Commons and the progress of Business without reason; the true meaning of that was that his obstinacy and dictatorial spirit was the only obstacle in the way of the course which the noble Lord wished to see taken. The noble Lord then went on to say that he (Mr. Gladstone) had that night shown temper and animus, which justified him in putting an unfavourable construction upon the present proceeding. If the noble Lord referred to what took place early in the evening, he had no right to do so; the proper time for the noble Lord to have made his observations in relation to the matter was when the offence was committed. The noble Lord might indulge whatever feelings he thought fit; he would only make a respectful protest against the application of any personal remarks in matters of this kind. If the noble Lord would allow him to have an opinion, he would say that to introduce the practice of taking Votes on Account for the great Military and Naval Services would be a most mischievous and even dangerous innovation. They tolerated Votes on Account in the case of the Civil Service, because they were absolutely necessary; they never tolerated them except in cases of absolute necessity. If they were to allow Votes on Account to apply to the Military and Naval Services the consequence would be that a large portion of that expenditure would be sanctioned by the House of Commons at the beginning of the year without discussion. The scale of expenditure was fixed, and large portions of it were actually made without any discussion. That was the meaning of taking a Vote on Account. Could there possibly be anything more dangerous?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHThat would be the effect of passing Vote 1.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not admit that at all. No doubt Vote 1 was to be applied to certain portions of the military expenditure; but to pass Votes on Account gave the sanction of the House for a certain portion of the year to the entire scale of expenses in all its 857 parts and particulars. It appeared to him it was most objectionable to introduce a practice of that kind. It would greatly tend to relax the control of the House of Commons, and it would be the greatest possible inducement to a Government to put forward other Business and take as many Votes on Account as it could get. To take a discussion upon general subjects upon the Victualling or Clothing Votes would be a very small deviation from the general practice; but, excepting in cases of political crises, to take Votes on Account for the large Services of the country was, in his opinion, a very important innovation, and an innovation touching in principle not only the relations between the House and the Government, but the relations between the House and the finances of the country. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would adopt that which had already been recognized by some of those who sat on the opposite Benches as the most convenient mode of proceeding under the circumstances. He begged the Committee to recognize that he was not proposing any deviation. The hon. Gentleman said the Estimates had been delayed through the fault of the Government. [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] That might be the opinion of the two illustrious Gentlemen (Mr. Warton and Mr. Arthur O'Connor); but that was not now the question before the Committee. That mode of proceeding was part of the extremity of circumstances to which they were driven. They ought, if they could, to find a mode of relief to the position they were in; but let them not find that mode of relief by adopting a change in principle so objectionable as that proposed.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made his argument open to considerable criticism. When Vote 1 of the Navy was agreed to without discussion it was considered that there was no objection to any of the items coming under it, or, at any rate, none that could not be considered under Vote 6 or 10, with regard to shipbuilding and stores. Here, however, it was said that there was a great deal of objection taken to Vote 1; and it would be impossible on, say, Vote 5, to go back and consider that which should have been discussed under Vote 1. It appeared to him that the Government was asking them to give up Vote 1 entirely, with no prospect of 858 being able to challenge the items that were to be decided in it. The Committee, he thought, should follow the course suggested by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater Booth).
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not see any reason why Vote 1 should not be treated as the Government suggested. As a matter of practice, there were many things discussed under Vote 1, which did not come under that Vote—in fact, it was a matter of custom to discuss under it all Army questions, and others would do just as well. An hon. Member had said it would be impossible to propose a reduction of horses. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I spoke of the pay of the officers.] The question of horses could be discussed under the Vote for Forage. As to the necessity of taking a Vote at all, there had been years in which there had been available money to a certain extent; but that was not the case now. The Government could not, after the 1st April, spend any money except out of Votes taken to-night.
EARL PERCYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that they could propose a reduction in the number of men on the Forage Vote, an hon. Member having taken exception to the passing of a Vote on which the Committee might wish to discuss a proposal for the reduction of the force. He (Earl Percy) did not think such a course would be regular. But he rose to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman as to a statement he had made with reference to the course the Government intended to pursue in regard to Public Business. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that no Legislative Business would interfere with his taking the Estimates as soon as possible after Easter. He (Earl Percy) should like to know whether the discussion on the Rules of the House would come under the head of Legislative Business?
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that illustrious statesman the Prime Minister—["Oh!"] Well, he was only following the style of phraseology adopted by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The manner in which the Prime Minister had spoken of hon. Members opposite to him was calculated to inspire the suspicion that the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) was not so far astray when he spoke of the right hon. Gentleman's temper and animus. It was to be hoped no hon. 859 Gentleman would follow up the line of argument adopted by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal amounted to their taking this Vote as a Vote on Account, the policy of the expenditure to be discussed at some indefinite period of the future. The Secretary of State for War said this debate was to be taken up on the first Monday after Easter, and that no legislative proposals were to interfere with it. How on earth was the right hon. Gentleman to guarantee that the first Monday after Easter would be entirely devoted to a discussion of the Army Estimates? Why not take advantage of the present time, and go on with the Army Estimates at convenient periods during the next week or fortnight? How did they know what might take place after Easter? There might be an Irish crisis, or an Eastern crisis. It was highly inconvenient to follow this system of interlarding or interleaving one kind of Business with another, from day to day, and from week to week. As he understood the proposal of the Government, they were to hurry through this important Vote now, and go at similar high speed through equally important Votes in connection with the Navy on Thursday, and then lay aside the Estimates, and plunge into all the black letter law of Procedure in debate; then, having pumped up all the precedents on the Procedure of the House on the first Monday after Easter, they were to come back and discuss the Army Estimates in some curious way on the Vote for Provisions. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) seemingly wished to manger la soupe avant de se battre. No doubt victuals made the British soldier; but it was a curious way to consider the condition of the Army to bring on the discussion apropos of the Provision Vote. He was not sure, if the New Rules were passed in the meantime, that it would not be the duty of the presiding officer to declare such discussion dangerously irrelevant. It was proposed that the Government should take a sum on account, and every legitimate opportunity should be given to them to do so; and the discussion could then be taken properly when the Committee was in the humour for it and time suited. It would be much better to consider the Estimates by themselves and the Procedure of the House by itself than to give a day to the Estimates, then 860 a day to Procedure, then hark back to the Estimates, and so on, following a system that would of necessity cause a great deal of repetition, because a large amount of that which was said one day would be forgotten a week or two after, when the debate was resumed.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) had asked him whether the discussion as to the New Rules would be taken on the first Monday after Easter. He (Mr. Childers) was able to say distinctly that it would not be taken on that day.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it was now the 14th March. On the 14th March last year the Premier came down to the House, supported by a large number of his friends, and told them it was important that he should have "Urgency" to pass a large number of Votes at once. The Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) took a different view of the situation, and maintained that it was not important that Urgency should be declared for the Estimates; and it was demonstrated that the right hon. Baronet's view was correct. The Prime Minister now told them that it was necessary, as a matter of law, that the Vote before the Committee should be agreed to. But the law did not require it. He would, therefore, move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Warton,)—put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,162,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883.
§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he had listened with great attention to the explanation given by the Government as to the difference between taking a Vote on Account in the manner proposed and passing the Vote as it stood. He confessed himself unable—though, perhaps, it was through his stupidity—to see any difference. It appeared to him that what the Prime Minister had put was a distinction without a difference; 861 and as it was necessary, not only for himself, but for other hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, to have some time to think over the difference between taking a Vote on Account and passing the whole Vote, he begged leave to move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Viscount Folkestone.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped the Committee would not waste time in discussing this Vote. At the same time he intended to vote for reporting Progress, because he did not think that, so far as the law was concerned, it was necessary to pass the Vote to-night. There were plenty of means for passing the Vote after to-night. He should have been very glad to have voted for £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on account if he had had the opportunity.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 69: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that, without distrusting in any way the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he would like to remind the Committee that the precedent of last year, with regard to this matter, was not by any means encouraging. The right hon. Gentleman made last year, as he had made that night, a very long and very interesting speech; and at the conclusion of that speech he entered into an engagement to take care that there should be a full opportunity of discussing everything he had referred to in his speech. The House waited patiently until after Easter, and again until after Whitsuntide, and then towards the end of June what happened? The Government gave them a Morning Sitting, when the right hon. Gentleman made a longer speech than he had made on the previous occasion, and left about three-quarters of an hour or an hour for all the criticisms that hon. Members desired to pass upon the Army Estimates. Many hon. Members who were extremely anxious to speak upon the subject wore precluded from addressing 862 the House, and, in the end, there was no real discussion at all. He thought the House ought, if possible, to avoid anything of the same kind taking place again; and he would therefore move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Colonel Alexander.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 69: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 46.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that towards the end of last Session he asked the Prime Minister to try and bring on the Estimates at an earlier period this Session, so that the House might be able to devote to them a full and fair discussion. He had asked the same thing in previous Sessions, and with precisely the same result. He did not think it was fair on the part of Her Majesty's Government to expect the House to vote £4,500,000 without discussion, and then go home quietly to bed. The Vote was only a portion of the entire sum required for the service of the Army—£4,000,000 out of £15,000,000—and therefore the compromise which had been offered was an extremely fair one—namely, that in regard to this particular Vote the Government should take a Vote on Account. The Committee were perfectly ready to grant a Vote on Account, and then to retire, on the understanding that the discussion should be taken on the remaining portion of the Vote. But the Government declined to accept such a compromise, and insisted upon having the whole of the Vote. He did not think that was a fair way of taking the Estimates. The subject was one in which, personally, he took a deep interest, and he objected to vote the money of the country in this loose and inconsiderate manner. He begged, therefore, as a protest against the proceeding, to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Captain Aylmer.)
§ SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYsaid, a protest had been now made—and 863 in his opinion properly made—against proceeding with the discussion of the Estimates at that hour of the morning (half-past 3). If the Government had been inclined to give way, they might have had a full discussion of these Estimates on Monday; but the Leader of the House refused to permit that course to be taken. Under these circumstances, if it was not possible for them to have a discussion on Monday, the proposal which had been made by the Secretary of State for War seemed to give them the next best opportunity for obtaining a full discussion of the Estimates. No doubt, it would have been more convenient to have had that discussion earlier; but circumstances seemed to prevent the possibility of that course being taken, and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was that they should agree to the present Vote, and reserve the full discussion until they reached Vote 12. It therefore seemed to him that the object they desired would be attained by that means, and on an early day—the first day after the Easter Recess, he understood—they were to have the discussion which they demanded. Under these circumstances, he hoped that, having made a protest against the course taken by the Government, the Committee would agree with him that it was scarcely desirable to proceed any further with these divisions.
MR. GLADSTONEI wish to correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He says that I have refused to go on with these Estimates on Monday. That is not the case. It is necessary on Monday that these particular Votes should be reported in order to enable us to meet certain provisions required by law. I confess that it is with some astonishment that I have heard hon. Gentlemen, who cannot possess the means we have of appreciating the necessities of the time, dispute that assertion; and I am the more astonished that the contradiction should come from the other side of the House. We are the persons who are responsible, and I repeat that, in order to enable us to fulfil the provisions of the law, it is necessary that we should have these Votes reported on Monday next. Even then it will be necessary to ask the House of Lords to sit at an unusual hour on the Monday following in 864 order to secure that full effect shall be given to the Votes.
EARL PERCYsaid, he wished to point out that in 1872 the 1st Vote on the Army Estimates was not taken until the 23rd of March. If his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) went to a division he should certainly vote with him; but, at the same time, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) that they had now made all the protest they could, and there was no reason why they should all be kept out of their beds any longer. He thought the use the Prime Minister had made on this occasion of the majority he had fully justified the remarks which had been made by the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench (Lord Eustace Cecil). The Prime Minister, backed up by his majority, without the least consideration for the wishes of the minority of the House, was himself forcing on a contest of an unseemly and undignified character. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have acted more gracefully if he had studied the wishes of the minority.
MR. GLADSTONETo appreciate the strictures of the noble Lord it must be borne in mind that the moment he chooses for making them is immediately after I have stated, with a full knowledge of all the facts, that I find the law compels us to have these Votes reported on Monday next in order that we may obey the provisions of the law. The noble Lord chooses that moment to tell me that he does not believe me—to tell me, in fact, that he disbelieves the assertion I have made, and that it is my will, and not the reason of the case nor the necessity of the case, that encourages the Government to persevere. I hope the noble Lord will understand the effect of what I state. He has told me fairly that he disbelieves my assertion. That is the kind of connection which the noble Lord, in the position he holds, thinks fit to establish between one Member of this House and another.
EARL PERCYPerhaps the Committee will allow me to correct what the right hon. Gentleman has erroneously attributed to me—namely, that I meant to doubt his veracity. ["No, no!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary says "No." I have often heard the right hon. and 865 learned Gentleman tell the House that he himself was the best judge of what he meant. I have made a certain statement, and I am the best judge of what I meant when I made it. I say that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has erroneously understood what I meant. What I meant—and I regret extremely if I did not express it—what I meant to say was this:—The right hon. Gentleman states that, in his opinion, it is necessary, in the interests of Public Business, that Supply should be taken by a certain date. ["No!"] If I understood the Prime Minister rightly, that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. I believed—and I confess that I am still inclined to believe—that the Prime Minister—and it is no uncommon thing, allow me to say, with all those who have the conduct of important Public Business—was of opinion that what he regarded as the best course in the interests of Public Business was, in itself, an absolute necessity; and therefore it was that I expressed the opinion, to which I still adhere, that although it was the Prime Minister's opinion that, in his view of the public situation, it was necessary to have these Votes reported on Monday, I have not yet heard any reason assigned why it was necessary to take the Report on Monday. I also called attention to the fact that, in 1872, the 1st Vote in the Army Estimates was not taken until March the 23rd. I might have added that, in 1874, the Army Estimates were not taken until March the 25th; but as there was a General Election in that year, perhaps the analogy will not be considered to hold good.
MR. GLADSTONEI accept at once the statement of the noble Lord that he did not mean to convey the idea which his words appeared to me to imply. I had not completed all I desired to say when I was interrupted by the noble Lord. I was about to answer a question he had put; but I thought he rose to intercept something I was then saying, and therefore I resumed my seat in order to allow him to explain. The answer to the noble Lord's question is quite obvious. I have no doubt that the 23rd of March would amply suffice for the introduction of the first Votes in the Army Estimates under ordinary circumstances; but on this occasion Her Majesty is about to leave Windsor, and the 866 fact that Her Majesty will be abroad when the Votes are passed makes all the difference. Upon the best computation we are able to make, it will be necessary, in order to comply with the requirements of the law, that these Votes should be reported on Monday next.
EARL PERCYsaid, he should like to state that if he had in the smallest degree offended the right hon. Gentleman he begged most sincerely to apologize, and to assure the Committee that, whatever might have been the expressions made use of in the heat of debate, so far as his personal feeling went he had never intended to say anything distasteful to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILalso expressed his regret if anything he had said should have hurt the right hon. Gentleman's feelings. But he had risen for another purpose. They had just heard that in consequence of Her Majesty's visit to Mentone it was necessary that this Vote should be reported on Monday. Under those circumstances, he thought he might appeal to his hon. and gallant Friend behind him to consider the propriety of withdrawing his Motion for reporting Progress. He believed that every Member in the House would wish to consult the convenience of Her Majesty; and after the Prime Minister had alluded to that as a reason for passing the Vote, he felt sure that hon. Gentlemen upon those Benches would desire not to pursue the conversation further.
CAPTAIN AYLMERthought the course taken by the Government on that occasion had been most extraordinary. Great pressure had been used in order to get the Vote passed; but it was only at 4 o'clock in the morning that the real cause of this was made known. If the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had been made before he should certainly not have offered the slightest opposition to the passage of the Vote; and with the permission of the Committee he would now withdraw his Motion to report Progress.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was glad to see the reconciliation that was taking place. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told the Committee that the Vote must be taken that night, otherwise the law would be broken. But, he 867 asked the right hon. Gentleman, what did that matter—did he not break the law many times a day in Ireland? He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the seizures of Irish newspapers without warning, and other matters which had occurred in the Post Office in Ireland, were just as much breaches of the law as the act which he was now so anxious to avoid. It was a remarkable thing to say that because Her Majesty was at Mentone the Vote must be passed that night. He did not see the necessity at all, because, if she liked, Her Majesty could come back from Mentone for the purpose of the Vote. As the Fourth Party had already retired, and the Conservative Party were so loyal on that occasion that they felt it their duty to give in, he supposed Irish Members were expected to do so likewise.
§ MR. WARTONremarked, that the Prime Minister had said that, when he had stated the law, he was not contradicted by any Member sitting upon that Bide of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was in error; he (Mr. Warton) had contradicted him, stating that the question was not one of law, but one of fact.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he supposed that he, also, should preface the observations he had to make by the statement that if he had offended any body he was sincerely sorry. He thought it was to be regretted that the Prime Minister had not reminded the Committee earlier of the fact alluded to by him as the reason for pressing forward the Vote. The Committee having been kept in ignorance of the real cause of the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to pass the Vote, many hon. Members had attributed it to other reasons than the visit of Her Majesty to Mentone. He should not oppose the withdrawal of the Motion before the Committee; but as soon as it was withdrawn he should move the reduction of the Vote by an amount representing the cost of that portion of the British Army which was engaged in the work of coercion in Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to point out to the Committee the singular effect of the Prime Minister's words upon hon. Members sitting opposite him. The right hon. Gentleman said that Her Majesty was on the point of leaving for Mentone, and the Conservative Party immediately left the House. 868 The Prime Minister had also said that the Vote should be reported next Monday; but he would venture to point out that this was no reason why they should necessarily pass the Vote that night. It could be taken on Friday, or even on Thursday; and he failed to see that there was anything unreasonable in asking that it should be taken on one of those days when hon. Members would have an opportunity of fully discussing it. He saw no reason why they should consent to the Vote passing at that hour (3.50), when they had not been able even to appreciate the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; and under the circumstances, although Irish Members on that occasion formed a numerically small body, he trusted they would stand to their guns and resist the withdrawal of the Motion to report Progress.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. O'DONNELLbegged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000,000, which, he believed, would about represent the cost of that portion of the British Army engaged in evicting tenants in Ireland. As far as he could ascertain, something between one-third and one-fourth of the total Forces of the Crown were at that time engaged in assisting at evictions in Ireland. There was nothing to justify the use of any portion of the Army for such a purpose; and he regarded its employment in the manner alluded to as a violation of the Constitution, and a sin against humanity. Those who should be regarded as the defenders of the hearths and homes of the people were now actually engaged in the work of breaking them up. The House had, on various occasions during the Session, discussed the Irish question; and it would, doubtless, be called upon to do so again during the remainder of the Session. He would, therefore, not trouble the Committee at that late hour by going into any details, but would merely move the reduction of the Vote by the sum named.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,162,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course
869
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 72: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
§ Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.