HC Deb 17 April 1806 vol 6 cc777-92

Mr. Yorke, pursuant to notice, rose to bring forward his promised motion for the production of "Copies of all Military Opinions in writing as may have been given, in consequence of a requisition from his majesty's government, on the, subject of recruiting the Army in future, by enlisting for a term of years." He had, he said, flattered, himself with the expectation, that no objection would have been made by his majesty's ministers to the production of papers so indispensably ne- cessary to the information of the house, in order to enable them to discuss the principle proposed by the right hon. gent. for enlisting soldiers for limited periods, and consequently to determine on the propriety of its adoption. He understood now, however, that there were some objections for which he was at a loss to account, when he considered the repeated professions, made by his majesty's ministers, of their desire and readiness to give the house the fullest information upon every subject, and more especially upon one which involved the vital interests of the country, and perhaps the future existence of our army. However necessary he thought the production of those opinions, as documents for the better information of the house, he did not mean to say the house should be entirely guided by those opinions; but he did hope, that the house would not finally decide upon a question of such magnitude, without consulting the opinions of general officers, whose experience in the military service must render them competent to give the most important and necessary advice upon the subject. The only reason he had yet heard from his majesty's ministers, for the adoption of a principle so perfectly new to the British service, was, that the principle had been long adopted on other services on the continent of Europe; but he had good reason to believe, that there was no service in Europe where limited enlistments prevailed, without preserving also some principle of conscription; and that it was the uniform custom of those services, at the expiration of such terms of enlistment, not to discharge a man until the completion of the army to its full complement was ascertained. On this fact he had the authority of the late British quarter-master-general, in whose hands he saw a very long detailed document of the principle pursued in the Austrian armies upon this head. Whether this document would be laid before the house or not, he was unable to tell; but surely the house ought at least to be furnished with the opinions of the officers of our army, which were the best authorities parliament could resort to. Such opinions, he understood, had been given to his majesty's ministers, and surely they ought to be laid before the house. In those opinions he understood there was some difference; some were in favour of, and others opposed to, the principle of limited enlistments; how the balance preponderated he could not tell but, if the opinions of eminent military men were thus at variance, it was still stronger argument to prove the necessity of extreme caution on the part of the house, how, at a moment like the present, it should be induced to adopt the principle which must change the whole constitution of our army, for the sake of an unnecessary experiment, which must be extremely hazardous to the interests of the service, and pregnant with the greatest danger to the country. He understood the objections against his motions were, that the documents for which he intended to move, were considered as confidential communications which ministers could not disclose without a breach of their duty. The same kind of answer might be opposed to any other motion for documents, the correspondence of an ambassador, the terms of a treaty, or, in short, any other paper parliament might deem necessary for its information. But if his majesty's ministers did not chuse to communicate the information he required in the form he proposed, he should hope it would be laid before the house in some other shape; suppose that of a report, or that they would not object to the examination of those officers at the bar of the house. For surely it was of high importance, when the house was called on to enact a principle so revolting to the established usage of the army, to have for its guidance the opinions of military men who had themselves commanded regiments; who had lived amongst their soldiers; who consequently knew their habits, their sentiments, and feelings, and were therefore competent to advise what was best to be done; instead of taking the opinions of young generals, who had not an experience of similar intimacy with the soldiers; and who, though no doubt, at a future day, they might contribute, by their prowess, to the honour of the service, and the glory of their country, had not yet sufficient experience to render their opinions very decisive on a subject of this delicate and important nature. Though the opinions of many general officers were given on the subject, there were others of great experience, whose opinions, if they were asked, by some accident were not communicated. Among them were, lord Cathcart, lord Hutchinson, and general Prescott. But he hoped, the right hon. gent. would not think of proceeding to the conclusion of his plan, without taking the opinions of all military officers of experi- ence in the kingdom. The right hon. gent. concluded by moving, for "Copies of all Military Opinions in writing as may have been given, in consequence of a requisition from his majesty's government, on the subject of recruiting the army in future, by enlisting for a term of years."

General Walpole

said, there was a short answer to the argument of the right hon. gent., that the principle of enlisting soldiers, in general and even colonial service, for limited and short periods, was new to the British service. On the contrary, so far from being new, it was neither unusual nor unfrequent. It had been done in the seven-years war; it had been done in the American war, when men were enlisted for a term of only 3 years, and the number of men raised after the adoption of this measure, far exceeded what had been raised prior to it. He could not therefore see what necessity there existed for calling for opinions on a subject, the merits of which had been already decided by experience.

Mr. Secretary Windham

observed, that the impatience of the right hon. gent. that night for the production of the papers which he moved for, was pretty much of a piece with. the eagerness which had prevailed on other points, with a view to anticipate the premature discussion of subjects not before the house. The question to which the motion and the argument of the right hon. gent. that night were directed, was not before the house; and when it should be brought forward, the house should certainly have the full benefit of those opinions to which the right hon. gent. had alluded. He was, however, a little surprised that the right hon. gent., in his speech on the subject, had not been able to anticipate some part of the objections likely to be urged against his motion: and, considering the tenacity of gentlemen on the other side of the house, on the subject of producing papers moved for, when they were in office, the endeavour to press the production of those documents moved for that night, was rather an unfair attempt to place his majesty's ministers in a very awkward and unpleasant situation. The right hon. gent. must certainly admit, that however it might be the wish of ministers to comply with the motion of any member for the production of documents in their possession, in order to the fullest information of the house, yet, that there were often papers which those in office must feel it their duty to keep back; and though the inference drawn by the right hon. gent. on the present occasion was not a just one, yet it might be, that the papers now to be withheld, were so withheld against the inclination and wishes of his majesty's ministers. For his own part, however, he would candidly own, he made no such sacrifice, having no wish on the subject, one way or the other. But though, for the reasons he should hereafter state, he might deem it necessary to withhold those papers from the right hon. gent., he could assure him, so far from being decisive in favour of his ideas, that, in point of number and authority, they were so much at variance, and the balance so evenly poised, that it was difficult to decide which way the preponderance prevailed; but, upon the whole, he thought it rather in favour of the principle of limited enlistment. There were received the opinions of 14 military officers; 6 were rather in favour of the right hon. gent.'s opinion; 7 decidedly in favour of his own; and one might be held disputable: but he thought the claim for authority lay on his own side. These opinions were applied to three distinct points, as to the probable operation of the principle: 1st, as to its effect on enlistments; 2dly, as to its effect on discipline; and 3dly, as to its effect on colonial service. Now, 3 out of the 6 who favoured the opinion of the right hon. gent. thought the principle would have no injurious effect on the service, and that it certainly must operate to increase recruits: others said, it was impossible but it should produce some advantages, and must certainly give to the army a better order of men: some, again, said it was inexpedient; and others, that it should not be tried in time of war. This, then, being the state of opinions on each side, the house would judge whether his majesty's ministers could have any other possible motive for withholding those documents, than a sense of duty; besides, what advantage could they have in withholding them? or of what use could they be to the house if they were promulgated? for they could only prove that military men, equally respectable in authority, differed in opinion on the subject. It was not a very pleasant thing for ministers to be called on publicly to communicate the confidential opinions of military officers, privately given for the information and guidance of the commander in chief, as to the best probable means of increasing the public force; and though certainly great occasions might occur in which such a delicacy might be overruled by the urgent necessity of the case, yet he did not conceive the present an occasion that called for such a communication nor would it be the most candid or delicate treatment of those military officers, to publish to parliament and to the country, without their consent, or any information to them of such purpose, the private and confidential opinions so given. Such a procedure might have a very serious effect upon the future communication between military officers and their commander in chief, on other occasions, and might be productive of very disagreeable consequences, and was certainly not desirable for adoption, when not absolutely necessary. Beside, even if the letters were laid before the house, it would only lead to a comparison of opinions and authorities, extremely unpleasant to gentlemen on both sides; neither would it give the house a single fact or opinion, that it did not know already, and which had not already been urged on both sides of the question. Was it, then, worth while, for the sake of any advantages the house could possibly hope to derive from the production of those papers, to forego such obvious objections as he had stated? The same objections would apply to the project of calling military men to be examined at the bar of the house; every gentleman who might have a favourite general, upon whose talents he built his own reliance, would start up in his place, reject all other authority, and ask why HE was not consulted? The right hon. gent. had made some allusion to young and unexperienced military commanders: he knew not whether he had any particular individual in his eye; but certainly it was not upon the opinion of one, two, or three general officers, that the measure was founded, but upon the broad principle of general consultation, and no preference given to individuals, as if to artisans who had served their apprenticeships to the art and mystery of recruiting. But, if there were no other reason than the difference of opinion which had already been evinced by military men, those reasons were sufficient to justify him in opposing the motion. As to the general principle of the measure, it was not now before the house, and it would be time enough to discuss that another day. He could not avoid remarking something very whimsical in the right hon. gent.'s alluding to a document, as an authority on this occasion, which was, in fact, no authority at all; namely, a detail of arrangements in the Austrian service. Hoping, however, that he had convinced the house of the inutility, as well as the impropriety of a compliance with the motion, he should now conclude by voting against it.

Mr. Yorke ,

in explanation, said, that the only reason why he alluded to the document respecting the Austrian service was, because the usages of continental service had been pleaded by the right hon. gent. in support of his plan.

General Tarleton

was ready to acknowledge, that the principle of the right hon. gent.'s plan in theory, appeared fascinating; but he was of opinion that it was totally impracticable as to any useful effect: more especially for colonial service. The right hon. gent. had stated, that the opinions of eminent military men were at variance upon the question, and that 6 thought one way, and 7 the other. It was extremely necessary, however, for the house to know what were the nature and form of the questions proposed to these officers. The right hon. gent. admitted, the questions were privately put, and that the answers also were private and confidential; but it was extremely necessary to scan those opinions, and to compare them with the questions in answer to which they were given. For, when the right hon. gent. said that officers disagreed, he wished to know the mode of the questions put, as statesmen sometimes put questions to military men in a way to elicit an answer applicable to their own purposes. The right hon. gent. said, the answers were confidential, and that the promulgation of them to the house would excite jealousies. To this he would reply, then examine those officers at the bar; and if it was imagined by any man they were afraid or unwilling to have their opinions known, he must know little of that emulation which pervaded the breast of every military commander, and which was the life avid soul of the army. But, with respect to the questions put to those officers, he shrewdly suspected they did not proceed from the horse-guards, as from the, authority of the commander in chief, but from some of those civil-military gentlemen who had of late assumed the management of the army. With respect to the argument of delicacy in communicating the opinions received, he thought it superseded by a paramount duty to the house and the occasion. He was willing to admit what had been said by an hon. general early in the debate, that recruits were enlisted towards the close of the American war for 3 years, or during the war; and he had no objection to take as many recruits as could now be raised upon the same principle; but from what he knew of the spirit of this country, he was convinced that not 1000 men extraordinary would be produced in 12 months, by enlistment for limited periods.

Mr. Secretary Fox

observed, that the questions put to those military officers, and which produced those opinions, were not propounded by his majesty's present ministers, as insinuated by the hon. gent.; they had been put by the commander in chief during the continuance of the last administration, and the balance of opinion reflected great honour on that illustrious personage, as it shewed that he was desirous of obtaining fair and impartial information on the subject.

Lord Castlereagh

said, he remembered some of those questions had been put during the administration of his right hon. friend; but he did not recollect that the answers communicated to them were given in such a way, generally at least, as to imply any thing secret. Two or three of them might, he said, have been marked on the covers confidential;" and though he was ready to admit that great delicacy ought to be observed with respect to secret and confidential communications, if its should appear, upon a view of the contents of such communications, that they were of that nature, yet there was no other consideration in the present case which could justify the refusal of their production. Some few of those letters might have been written in a manner which shewed the writers never apprehended they would be made public: but the rest were written in a regular official form, as if intended to meet any purpose to which government should think it necessary to apply them. He should therefore advise, that those letters of a contrary description should be sent back to the officers who wrote them, in order for such correction as they might deem necessary, with a view to prepare them as documents for the public eye, if circumstances should render it necessary; and he also thought it would not be advisable to lay any of those letters before the house, contrary to the wishes of the officers Who wrote them. But he thought, however, it was necessary that their opinions should be laid before parliament, as well with a view to the satisfaction of the house, as for the vindication of his majesty's late ministers, by shewing than they had omitted no consideration, nor neglected any part of their duty, with respect to the great purpose of national defence. If they had not consulted a variety of authorities, and seen the various views in which the subject was considered by men of talents and experience, they could not have been enabled to form decisive judgment upon a topic so extensive and complicated. But from what he had been able to observe, on a comparison of those different opinions upon the two distinct branches of service, local and general, he should deduce the preponderance of opinion quite different from what it had been stated by the right hon. gentleman. The noble lord considered the measure of enlistment proposed, as one of the most delicate and important that ever that house was called upon to decide; and he conjured the house to proceed with the utmost caution, in the novel situation in which his majesty's ministers now attempted to place it, by calling upon it to depart from the long-established principles upon which our army was constituted, and to dictate to, and restrict the crown, in the exercise of that prerogative, which constitutionally belonged to it, in the mode and management of recruiting the regular army.

Lord Henry Petty

said, he felt a right to regard with some surprise the declaration of the noble lord, that he could see no objection to the production of the papers now moved for, when during 3 years past that this subject had so frequently been a topic of discussion, he had never thought the production of them necessary to enlighten the understanding, or guide the deliberations of parliament. An hon. general (Tarleton) had evinced much anxiety to learn in what form the questions were put, to produce those opinions: whatever it was, was not now very material; and from what had that night fallen in the course of debate, the house would see that the question did not arise out of any measure or proceeding now proposed. But whatever answers might have been produced, and however necessary the house might deem the opinions of military men, towards its own general information upon a topic of this sort, it was not probable it would so far depart from the dignity of its own character, as to be guided implicitly and entirely by such opinions, as to what measures it should ultimately adopt; or that, surrendering or abandoning its own judgment, it would put the enacting question, aye, or no? to any military officer who might be examined at its bar, as to what measure that house might deem proper to enact. The noble lord seemed to think that the house of commons, in legislating regulations for the army, or limiting the duration of enlistments, assumed a power extremely new, and trenched unconstitutionally on the prerogative of the crown. But if ever there was a question on which the house could more properly, or ought more effectually to consider and legislate, it was this. Did the noble lord forget, that the power not only was not new or uncommon for the house of commons to exercise, but that it did actually, and of constitutional right assume and exercise it every year, in the passing of a mutiny bill? by which bill the army, for whatever length. of time it might have been enlisted by the crown, could only exist from year to year, and must, de facto, be disbanded at the end of each year, if that bill was not renewed; and therefore the house in legislating for the army on this occasion, acted upon a constitutional rights, which no man could now question. However necessary it might be thought to consult military opinions upon an arrangement like that proposed by his right hon. friend, he thought that the house, instead of being guided by those documents now called for, would act in a manner more becoming its own dignity, and more effectual for the public service, by exercising the judgment of its own members, taking the opinions, in a parliamentary way, of military men on both sides of the house, and consulting without doors the opinions of military officers in the circle of their acquaintance, and coming prepared, with the best information they could obtain, to discuss the subject fully.

Mr. Canning ,

in reply to what had fallen from the noble lord, said, that his friend, the late chancellor of the exchequer, had indeed; at one time, expressed himself in favour of limited service; but that he had afterwards satisfied his mind, that it was not expedient to bring forward such a measure, and, on that account, none of the opinions that he had caused to be collected were laid before the house. In the present case, he should ask, was it not a proper course, in order to form a sound judgment on the subject, for the house to obtain the best information from persons, whose practical knowledge of the army rendered them better able to judge, than those whose opinions could only be formed on speculative grounds? He conjured the house to pause, before they sanctioned what would amount to a complete revolution in the military system, or adopted a measure from which if it should fail, there would be no retreat. He could not frame to himself any valid objection to the present motion. All that was asked was, merely the possession of those means of information on which the hon. gentleman had founded his plan. Let the authorities and opinions be as numerous as was consistent with convenience, but let not the house be called on to decide before they have the means of forming a judgment. If it should appear, that the opinions of military men were nearly equally balanced on the subject, he should consider this as a sufficient reason for rejecting this new plan, and remaining as we were. It was dangerous to alter what was already well, and particularly by the adoption of a new project, the consequences of which it was impossible to foresee. It was amusing, he said, to compare the professions of ministers with their practice. The right hon. gent. concluded, by saying, that a story had been related by one of his majesty's ministers(lord H. Petty), on producing the budget, of an old Roman moralist, who had wished to build his house in such a style of architecture, that every person might see into it. Like this man's house, the transactions of the present ministers were to be; but he was inclined to believe, that the architecture of the house was not Roman but Gothic, and that it was only remarkable for its huge windows excluding the light, and for its narrow passages that led to nothing.

Lord De Blaquiere

said, that every thing was of moment which branched out of this important subject, or he should have thought the present discussion scarce worthy of notice. It was with concern he differed with so many of his friends, but upon a point which had engaged his attention for the best years of his life, he could make a compliment of his understanding (slender as it might be) to no person whatsoever. It had been stated, that with a limited service, the army could not be supported: but he was of opinion, that, without it they could not obtain an efficient force. The plan, as proposed, was treated as novel and hazardous; but it was no such thing. In 1759, he was employed to raise the 17th light dragoons, and as he saw no law against raising men for a limited time, he raised them for 3 years. In 1762, their time was out, and he then enlisted the whole regiment, which was quartered at Coventry, with the exception of two men, for a bounty of two guineas each. He afterwards enlisted them a third time, when they went to America, and fought like lions. Upon the great principle of the thing, it was his misfortune to differ entirely from what had generally been laid down. Training men to arms, putting them in array, and leading them to battle, was the province of the military man. In all movements of the army, in all projects for annoyance or defence, it was to the generals of the army you ought to defer, but for the purpose of finding men to create that army, was by no means the province of the military officer, it was as he conceived of that resort, which called especially for the interference and assistance of those who were most acquainted with the statistical powers of the country, those who were best acquainted with the means from whence these sources could be derived, it was the province not of the soldier, but the statesman; not of the counsel of war, but the counsel of state; which was that house. It had been said, that to attempt at such an innovation (to enlist men for a limited term) in time of war, might be fatal to the empire. Now, how was that? The farmer's son, or his servant, goes to my right hon. friend, perhaps in a fit a frenzy, or disappointment, and offers to enlist for his life. He is met on the way and told, his services are only desired for 7 years; will he refuse to enlist? and shall this be called a military and a dangerous revolution, a plan which tends only, but much more than any other which has yet been devised, to add strength to your ranks, to cement a nearer friendship and connection between the soldier and his officer, and to make the situation of the former, a state of comparative happiness and comfort. The noble lord concluded by saying, that there were some parts of the bill which he did not admire, particularly the crooked 6d. at the end of the week.

Sir James Pulteney

wished, as the subject was almost new to the house, and to the country, to see the opinion's of persons conversant with military affairs laid before the house. He had thought much on the subject, and yet he was convinced he should derive much information from their communications. The practice of enlisting for a term of years had indeed been partially introduced into the army, but it had produced so little effect, as not to give much encouragement for its general application. Besides, though the practice was not new, yet there was a great difference between that partial enlisting for time that had already been tried, and a general enlisting for the whole army on the same principle.

Mr. W. Dundas

was sorry to differ on this occasion from those gentlemen with whom he usually acted; but he could not consider the opinions that had been moved for, as proper for the public inspection. They had not been written for the purpose, or with the design of being communicated to the public. They were of a private and confidential nature; and besides that the publication of them might wound the feelings of individuals, the public service might suffer detriment from such a measure. Much might transpire, that might be calculated to do public mischief. But though he deprecated their being laid before the house in their present form, they might yet perhaps be revised by those who had originally given them in, and in that state, with their consent,submitted to parliament.

Mr. Yorke

said, he had no objection, with the permission of the house, to withdraw his motion, provided his majesty's ministers would give the house to understand, that they would take the opinion of high military authorities, for the purpose of laying them before the house.

Mr Secretary Fox

stated, that this was quite another question from the one that had been before under discussion, and required time to consider how far it might be proper to assent to it. There was not a single instance that he was aware of, in which parliament had resorted to military authorities, except with a view to retrospective measures. If they were once to sanction the principle of calling for communications from officers to their commander in chief, it would cause a greater revolution in the army than the measure proposed by his right hon. friend. Much had been said of altering the condition of the soldier; but this would alter, in a very extraordinary way, the character of officers if their opinions confidentially communicated to their commander in chief, were afterwards found to be called for by the house. He did not know Whether it was contrary to the practice of that house to resort to military authorities for information, but he wished to know what had been the usage in former cases. Such a principle would place that house in a situation, different from that of the lords, who had 12 judges to consult; for it would give them 150 generals to refer to for information. He should vote against the motion, and if it should be brought forward in any other shape, he should then be ready to state his opinion with respect to it.

Mr. Yorke

contended, that when the subject of fortification, as planned by the duke of Richmond, was before the house, general officers had been consulted, and their opinions laid before the house.

Mr. Fox

replied, that there was a distinction between an opinion given by a board of officers, and that which was communicated individually. The case referred to had been of the former description, and, therefore, was no precedent for the measure now proposed.

Colonel Craufurd

contended, that the question respecting the fortifications of the country was a purely military one; whereas the question respecting the means of recruiting the army was not so. He thought it rather singular, that the measure of his right hon. friend should be represented as likely to cause a revolution in the state of the army, when the principle upon which it was founded, was that upon which the defence of the country rested. The first act of the administration, of which the hon. gent. who brought forward this motion was a member, was to call out the militia, to the number of 90,000; the next was for raising a force of 50,000 men for the army of reserve. These forces were raised for a limited term, and to them the country was to look for its defence. And yet they were now told that the application of the same principle to the mode of raising the regular force, inferior in number, would cause a revolution in the army.

Mr. Perceval

contended that the measures of the late administration had been eminently successful in supporting and increasing the military force of the country, and that there was no necessity for having recourse to new and untried experiments on a subject of so much importance. The new measure was of such a nature as called for the opinions of practical and experienced men; but the right hon. secretary seemed so fond of theory, that he wished to exclude practice altogether. It was rather extraordinary, that his right hon. friend, now no more, (Mr. Pitt) had seen reason to alter that inclination which he had felt for the principle of limited service, from the very same cause that had confirmed the right hon. secretary in his original opinion. They had both had recourse to the opinions of military men, and had come to very different conclusions from those opinions. This should induce the house to call for the sentiments of experienced men. If such opinions were withheld from the house, the natural conclusion would be, that they were upon the whole unfavourable to the measure.

Lord Temple

contended that the case of resorting to the authority of military men, when the duke of Richmond was at the head of the ordnance department in 1786, was not at all similar to the present. The noble lord read an extract from the journals, to shew that the information in that case laid before the house, was only an extract from a report made by a board of officers, appointed by his majesty, who were responsible for their opinions. It was unconstitutional to refer to opinions such as those communicated in the manner by which those that were the object of the preserve motion were given in, and as there was no precedent for examining officers at the bar of the house, on such subjects, be should object to that course of proceeding also.

Mr. Rose

thought, that the subject on which a communication had been made to the house, when the duke of Richmond had been at the head of the ordnance department, respecting the best mode of fortifying the dock-yards, was a more delicate question than the present, and argued that the papers ought to be granted.

Mr. Calcraft

contended, that there could have been no breach of delicacy, in laying before the house the report of officers appointed to draw up their opinions upon public opinion referred to them for consideration. The opinions under discussion stood upon different grounds, having been confidently communicated to the commander in chief, at his desire, to assist his own judgment. It had been said, that their opinions might be referred back to those who gave them, in order to their being produced in a more perfect form. But were they all in existence? Were they at hand? Or was it convenient to do so? No parliamentary ground had been laid for the motion, and he should therefore oppose it. —The question was then put on the motion, and negatived without a division.