§ Viscount Howicksaid, that, except in one or two points, the present estimates were precisely the same as those of the last two years. In the effective force there was this year an increase to the amount of 27,875l., but, in the non-effective force there was a diminution to the amount of 38,182l., so that there was, in fact, a decrease this year, as compared with the last, amounting to 10,307l. The increase in the effective force arose partly from the circumstance, that last year a regiment being on its passage home from India, was for half a year in the pay of the East India Company, whereas, in the present year, the whole of its pay had fallen on the public. This had caused an increase of 13,700l. The price of provisions and forage was this year higher than it was last year, and this had caused a considerable increase. The most important cause of increase was, the alteration which had taken place in regard to the increase of pay, and the pensions of the army. Formerly every soldier, at the expiration of a service of fourteen years, whether his conduct had been good or bad, was entitled 779 to receive an increase of pay to the amount of 2d. a-day. During the debate on the Mutiny Bill last Session, a strong desire was manifested by many hon. Members, that increased facilities should be afforded for holding out rewards to soldiers, as an incentive to good conduct—and a recommendation to that effect was made by the Committee on military punishments. Considering the subject as a most important one, he (Lord Howick) had, in the course of last Session, in concert with the Commander-in-chief, drawn up a warrant, which afterwards received his Majesty's sanction, and was dated the 1st of September, by which it was declared, that no soldier who should enlist after that period should be entitled to an increase of pay, merely on account of length of service; but that, on the other hand, every soldier who should have served seven years, and whose name for two years of that time had never appeared on the defaulter's book, should receive a mark of distinction, and a penny per day additional pay; that at the end of fourteen years' service, on similar conditions, he should receive a second mark of distinction, and another penny additional pay, and that at the expiration of a period of twenty-one years, he should be entitled to receive a third mark of distinction, and to have another penny per day added to his pay; and further, that when pensioned, he should have his pension increased in proportion to the increase of pay which he had received for five years. Thus, if for five years he had received an additional penny per day, and for two years, an additional twopence, he should be entitled to have three halfpence per day added to his pension. He thought that those regulations would tend greatly to the improvement of the army, by holding out a been to well-conducted soldiers. To meet the probable expense arising from this warrant, an additional sum of 9,800l. was inserted in the estimates this year, to which he was confident no objection could be made. As he had said before, deducting the increase of 27,875l. on the effective force from the decrease on the non-effective force of 38,182l. (owing to the falling-in of pensions and other causes), there remained on the whole, even taking into account the additional expense incurred by the late brevet, amounting to 8,468l., a decrease this year of more than 10,000l. With regard to the brevet, as it would, he 780 believed, be brought separately tinder the consideration of the House, he would make no remarks at present. He begged to move, that the sum of 3,111,152l. 1s. 10d. be granted to defray the expenses of his Majesty's land forces in Great Britain, and on foreign stations, from the 1st of April, 1837, to the 31st March, 1838.
§ Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he for one should make no objection to the increase of expense which had been incurred in consequence of the new warrant, as he believed the system of rewards which it established, would be one great step in advance towards the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, of which, except in time of war, he entirely disapproved.
§ Mr. Humewould shortly state the objections which he felt to the keeping up of the large military establishment which at present existed in the country. Since the war, the national resources bad been lavished on an immense military force, without any regard to the privations which heavy taxation inflicted on the community, He said "privations," for seventy per cent. of the whole amount of taxation levied in this country, fell upon the poorer, the working classes.—In consequence of enormous expenses which were incurred by our large military force, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as in the instance of soap last night, the duty on which pressed on every individual, but most heavily upon the working classes, was unable to give them any relief from taxation. In 1792, the number of men employed in the army was 45,242; in the navy, 16,000; in the ordnance, 4,000; making a total of 65,242. Yet in those times France was hostile to us, and the Spanish fleet, then considerable, opposed us. Now, when there was not a single naval force in Europe, except that of France, which could bear comparison with ours, in a state of profound peace we bad 33,700 marines and seamen, 81,319 soldiers, and 8,255 men in the ordnance and engineer department—in all, no less than 123,274 men; and this, let it be recollected, was our efficient establishment. In addition to this, we had 48,113 yeomanry, besides militia available, as well as the armed police of Ireland, amounting to 7,367, and the new police, numbering 3,300. The entire force amounted to 182,000, exclusive of the troops in India, which amounted to 19,000 more. What was the reason for keeping up such a force as that? 781 Taking the average of the years 182'2, 1823, and 1824, they had only an army of 72,200 men; and, taking the average of 1835, 1836, and 1837, the army amounted to 81,257 men. What was the need of this large force? Were the Ministers afraid of an invasion? Or were they going to send out troops to carry on a war abroad? He hoped the day for that was gone by; and on the part of the people he protested against the continuance of this extravagant system. What he had to propose was, that the estimate be reduced by the whole amount of the allowance for twenty thousand men. There were at this day nearly that number of men more than in the times of the Tories. He knew that the noble Lord, the Secretary at war was not altogether to blame in that matter. The noble Lord had his master of the Horse-guards—a thing which was perfectly ridiculous. He knew, indeed, that it was the opinion of some Gentlemen that the Commander-in-chief should be under no control, but that of the King in person, and that the Secretary at War ought not to be allowed to interfere with that officer. But he contended that such doctrine was against the constitution. The King could do nothing but through his Ministers; and orders issued to the Commander-in-chief must be signed by the Secretary at War. The noble Lord's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Dundee, had found himself mastered by the Commander-in-chief, so much so, that he was obliged to confess to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could not prepare such estimates as he would feel justified in submitting to the House of Commons; and thus were the Ministers baffled by a person openly opposed to them and to the majority of that House. He hoped that Ministers would not consent to go on in that way. It was said that their interference with the Commander-in-chief would be unconstitutional. But it was the existence of a standing army in time of peace that really violated the constitution. The control of the army by the ministers of the Crown was required by the same principle of the constitution by which they were responsible for the acts of the Crown. It was dastardly of them to allow the command of the army to be vested in a man who was openly opposed to them. When the members of the present government sat upon the other side of the House, they were loud in their com- 782 plaints of the expensiveness of the standing army, and they were continually badgering the Tories on the score of extravagance. Why, then, did they increase the force from 69,144 men, as it was under the Tory Government in 1822 10 81,319? What was there in the state of this country or of Europe which rendered such an increase necessary? The army cost seven millions a-year, without the commissariat or the ordnance. That was an immense sum. But before the French war the expenditure on the same account was little more than two millions. He could not account for the apathy which was evinced in the House on the subject of the present enormous cost of the army, whilst there was on all sides so much complaint of the amount of oppressiveness and taxation, and almost every Gentleman was calling for the reduction of one tax or other. Some Gentlemen called for the repeal of the tax upon cotton. Well, let them cut off 10,000 men from the standing army, and the cotton tax could be spared. Although, in strictness, the expense of the army was the subject before the Committee; yet he had brought forward also the numerical state of the navy, in order that the Gentlemen might have the whole expense of our warlike force by land and sea at one view. And surely when the whole expense was looked at, it was not surprising that the working classes were, to a great extent, unable to obtain the means of subsistence, as had been fully made out before a Committee which was recently appointed. Every thing they consumed was taxed nearly in the rate of seventy per cent. Before he sat down he must observe that the estimates were brought forward in a very improper and unsatisfactory manner. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer bring forward his estimates in the same clear and satisfactory manner in which such propositions were brought before the Parliaments of other countries? Why did he not give an explanation of the purposes for which those forces were to be maintained at so great an excess above those of 1822 and 1823? The regiments of the guards seemed to be kept for nothing but show. On some occasions they had been useful in preserving the peace. But of late years the metropolis had been free from disturbances and riot; and especially since the establishment of the police, there had been no occasion whatever for the guards. The 783 right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might depend upon it, that before long it would become a question, whether the expensiveness of the existing form of government in this country was compensated by its utility. For his part, he (Mr. Hume) was desirous of preserving the present form of government; but every thing connected with the expenditure of the public money at present, was calculated to produce dissatisfaction in the minds of the people; a large portion of whom were almost deprived of the means of subsistence by the effects of taxation. It was the duty of the Government to curtail every expense as much as possible; and they could very well afford a considerable reduction in the present item. There need be no fear that England would not be at all times able to defend herself from foreign aggression. In the mean time, whilst this country was at peace with all the world, it ought not to be burthened with the support of so large an army. To bring the question in a tangible shape before the Committee, he should move as an amendment that the proposed sum of 3,111,652l., 1s. 10d. should be reduced by 500,000l. which would require the reduction of 10,000 from the troops of the most expensive class; in which there had been an increase of 6,600 men since 1822. Perhaps some Gentlemen might not be aware of the difference of expensiveness amongst different classes of regiments; but he held in his hand a return signed by Lord Palmerston, from which it appeared that the cost of maintaining a private in the Life Guards was 74l. per annum in the Dragoon Guards 56l. per annum, and in the Foot Guards 34l. per annum, the cost of a private of infantry being 21l. Although the guards were not very numerous, yet they were numerous at present in comparison with former periods. With the reduction of 500,000l., or the allowance for ten thousand men, he would propose a reduction of 120,000l. from the estimates for the ordnance and commissariat; which sums, taken together, would be equal to the whole of the soap duty; with which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not dispense at present. But he (Mr. Hume) was quite satisfied that the reduction which he proposed could be made with perfect safety, and the soap tax accordingly might be repealed. The hon. Member concluded by 784 moving, as an amendment, that the sum of 2,611,652l. 1s. 10d. be inserted in the resolution instead of 3,111,652l. 1s. l0d., as proposed by the noble Lord.
§ Viscount Howickobserved, that the hon. Member for Middlesex had called upon him to show some grounds for maintaining the amount of the force which it was proposed to keep up, and had asked, "Why not return to the amount of force kept up in 1792; or why not, at all events, comedown to the force maintained by a Tory Government in the years 1822 and 1823?" With respect to the comparison between the year 1792 and the present time, he wished to call the hon. Member's attention to this fact, that since the year 1792 the colonial possessions of this country had been very greatly extended. The amount of force required for garrisoning the colonies which this country held previous to the year 1792 did not at this moment materially differ from the amount of force required for garrisoning those colonies at that period. There certainly had been a large increase in the garrisons in New South Wales; but when the increase of the number of convicts, and the extent of territory over which those desperate men were dispersed, were considered, the absolute necessity for maintaining a large military force for the safety of the colonists must be apparent to every one. In fact, very recently only a necessity existed for sending an additional regiment to New South Wales. When he had the honour of being Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, on one occasion a very serious alarm existed in that colony from the difficulty of maintaining the peace in consequence of the disorderly conduct of the convicts. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the object of the Government in maintaining such a large military force was for the purpose of overawing the people both at home and in the colonies. If that really had been the object, he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that he should not have been the person to frame the estimates, or to bring them forward. He begged to tell the hon. Gentleman that it was for no such purpose that the present vote was proposed. The hon. Gentleman had also been pleased to say that the Government had no voice or control over this matter. This, also, he begged to deny. If he had not possessed the means of ascertaining the reasons for which it 785 was proposed to keep up this force, he should not have been the person to submit such a vote to the House. At the same time, he admitted that a period might arrive when a considerable diminution of the force now required in some of the colonies might take place. He believed, that after the lapse of a few years, this country would reap the advantage of that great measure of justice which was adopted in the year 1833, by the emancipation of the slaves, and that it would become practicable very considerably to reduce the garrisons in those colonies where it was the hardest upon the troops to remain in garrison, and where necessarily the largest amount of expense to this country was incurred. The comparison between the year 1792 and the present period being thus completely disposed of, he would advert to another part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the amount of the household troops had been greatly increased; but the hon. Member had fallen into an error in reckoning those called dragoon guards among the household troops. On the contrary, they were entirely upon a level with the other regiments of cavalry, and were liable to the same kind of service. There certainly had been an increase since the year 1792 in the number of the household troops; but that increase in rank and file in the cavalry was only about 379 men, and in the foot guards about 800 men. Now, considering that for the protection of the metropolis the Government had no other than these troops, and considering the enormous augmentation of the population since 1792, he could not say that this did appear to him, as compared with the force in the year 1792, to be a very disproportionate increase. But the hon. Member had also said, that the proportion of the number of officers to the number of men was enormously large, and that this large proportion was kept up merely for the purpose of finding employment and providing emoluments for the aristocracy. It would be as well if the hon. Gentleman would attend a little to what was the state of things in the year 1792, and what at the present moment; if he had, he would have found that in 1792 the number of officers to the men was in the proportion of one to twelve; and that in the present year the proportion was no more than as one to twenty-eight. The hon. Gentleman 786 next referred to the military establishment for the year 1821 and 1822, when the amount of force was reduced to 69,144 men, whereas now the amount of force was 81,000 men; making a difference not of 20,000 men as the hon. Gentleman had stated, but of about 12,000 men. Now, he was inclined to believe, that the reduction which took place in the year 1821–2 was one not of very great economy, and his reason for believing so was this:—In the course of the year 1822 a great number of soldiers who were perfectly fit for service were discharged, and in the following year, 1823, it was found that the military force of the country had been too much reduced, and it became necessary to raise six additional regiments. The effect of the previous reduction, consequently, was, that in the course of a few months after the reduction had been made the country had to pay for the whole previous amount of force, as well as to pay pensions to a very considerable number of men who had been discharged before there was any necessity for discharging them. The hon. Gentleman had further said, that his Majesty's Ministers, when sitting on the opposition side of the House, used to concur with him in his motions for the reduction of the army estimates. He must correct the hon. Gentleman in that respect. He had the honour of sitting on the opposition side of the House for four Sessions with the hon. Member; and he had the most distinct recollection, that in the course of that period he never voted for a reduction in the amount of the force to be kept up, because he did not think, that with the demand upon the army for colonial service, they could prudently reduce the force below the amount then maintained. Before the House agreed to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, it became them to consider what was the demand upon the army for colonial service. That demand had arisen, not as the hon. Gentleman had said, for the purpose of overawing the people, but for the necessity of protecting the different fortifications and manning the garrisons of the various colonies which this country possessed. Out of the 103 battalions of the line of which the whole force was now composed, it was required that there should be continually abroad eighty-two battalions; leaving at home, out of the whole force, only twenty-one battalions. The effect of this was, that 787 when the regiments, after a very long period of foreign service, were brought home, they could scarcely be kept at home for four year, when it would become their turn again to go abroad. In consequence of this demand for affording relief to regiments coming home, it was necessary that seven battalions should go out from this country in the present year. Now the period during which these seven battalions, by being sent abroad again in the order in which they came home, could possibly remain in England, would not in any case exceed four years. One of these battalions returned to England in September, 1833, after a service of twenty years in New South Wales and India. Another came home in the year 1834, after a service of ten years in the West Indies. He could assure the House, that he had taken some pains to look into the manner in which the colonial service pressed upon the British troops at the present moment; and in concert with the Commander-in-chief he had also endeavoured, as far as was practicable, to decrease that pressure without making an increase of the force necessary; and in consequence of this an arrangement had been made which he trusted would be productive of very considerable alleviations of some of the worst parts of that pressure upon the troops. Since he had had the honour of filling the office of Secretary at War he had caused to be made a very detailed and elaborate examination of all the returns that had been obtained from the medical departments of the service; and he found from those returns that a prolonged tropical service was attended with most seriously injurious effects upon the troops. The system had hitherto been, that a regiment should pass ten years in the West Indies. Although it would be impracticable without an augmentation of the forces to make any diminution in the period for which a regiment was sent abroad, yet an arrangement was in contemplation by which the period so passed abroad would be divided into different climates. A regiment instead of having to pass the whole of the ten years in the West Indies, a prospect which appalled the minds of the men and deprived them of the courage to keep up against the influence of a climate that always materially affected their health, for the future would pass the earlier portion of the period during which they were 788 absent from this country in the different garrisons in the Mediterranean. They would thence proceed to the West Indies; and from the West Indies they would proceed before they came home to Canada. Thus the whole period of their foreign service would be divided among those three climates, thereby giving to the different regiments a fairer proportion of service in good and bad climates than the system which had been hitherto pursued allotted to them. At the same time an arrangement was about to be made with the Treasury for improving the food, provisions, and comforts of the troops in the tropical climates. He found that in the West Indies it was the practice for the troops to receive only two days' fresh provisions in a week; and he learned from an examination of the returns of the medical men that this was exceedingly prejudicial to their health. An arrangement was about to be made that for the future the troops should always receive five days' fresh provisions in a week; and in some particular colonies which were peculiarly unhealthy—as, for instance, in Jamaica—they would receive fresh provisions every day. He mentioned this to show that the Government had done all that lay in its power to diminish the heavy burthen on the troops sent to the colonies, and he apprehended that hon. Gentlemen would not destroy all these arrangements by making a large reduction in the force; for, if this were to take place, it would be utterly impossible to afford the relief he had alluded to with regard to the station of the troops. He was quite convinced that the House would not pursue such a course. He would only further state, in answer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman respecting the management of the army, that it involved matters of such importance and delicacy that the subject should be reserved for a distinct discussion. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman in the view that he had taken of the subject: far from it. He thought that the hon. Member was ill-informed on the subject; but, at the same time, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there must be some important changes in the management of the army. The grounds of this opinion were stated in the Report of the Commissioners, which was on the Table; and, as that was a document which must come under discussion, be should reserve what 789 he had to say on that point until the subject was regularly before the House. He only made this observation with a view to protest against being supposed to agree with the hon. Member for Middlesex.
Mr. W. Williamsexpressed his determination to vote in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend, and he must say that the noble Lord had not made out any case why so large a military force should exist in this country. The noble Lord had entirely failed to show any solid reason why the present amount of force should be larger than that which existed in 1792. The police of Ireland and of London performed duties which, before the establishment of those forces, were required from the military; and with the police force in the metropolis, it did appear to him that so large an armed force was not only unnecessary, but monstrous and unconstitutional. It appeared that a Reformed Parliament was more extravagant in its expenditure than the unreformed, and particularly with regard to a branch of the public service which was most obnoxious to the principles of public liberty. The maintenance of such a force after twenty-two years of peace was wholly uncalled for, and was a proposition which the Representatives of the people in the House of Commons ought not to sanction.
Mr. BarlowHay thought that no person who considered the hardships endured by the British soldiers during a long and dreary exile in unhealthy climates could wish to see them aggravated by a diminution of the military force. He wished to direct the noble Lard's attention to the present state of the transport service, which he thought ought to be placed under the immediate care of Government, and on the same footing as the navy. This he considered as a matter of deep importance when they recollected the time the soldiers would now pass on board ship in the passage from colony to colony. He entirely approved of the change proposed by the noble Lord as regarded increasing the comforts of the troops in the colonies. There was one regulation which he should like to see altered, as be thought it unjust to the troops of the line. The household troops held rank superior to the rest of the army, and they were allowed to exchange into the line with that full benefit of the rank. He had no objection to their holding a 790 superior rank, but he thought the privilege of conducting exchanges in this way gave them an unfair advantage.
Mr. Richardsobserved that the noble Lord had referred to the hardships endured by regiments on foreign service, but he had not said a word as to the services of the troops at home. He considered 20,000 men not too large a force, in order to ensure peace and good order in England, Scotland, and Ireland? The noble Lord had enumerated with just applause the valuable services of the army abroad; but he had forgotten their valuable services in keeping the peace at home. And he would put it to the common sense of the hon. Member for Middlesex, whether for the preservation of the peace in England, Ireland and Scotland, the present military force was more than sufficient. If an increase had been proposed, he certainly should have voted for it in preference to supporting a vote for reducing the number.
§ Mr. Humewas as sensible as the hon. Member for Knaresborough of the necessity of preserving the peace at home. The best way to keep the peace would, in his view of the question, be to reduce the enormous standing army kept up in time of peace, despite of the continually expressed dissatisfaction of the public at every meeting throughout the country. He should have preferred obtaining the returns he had asked from the noble Lord. If he would not grant them he must use such as he could procure hereafter. From all that had transpired he should feel himself wanting in his duty to the public, were he not to press the question of a reduction to a division.
General Sharpscontended that the present number of troops was no more than was sufficient for the protection, not of the peace, for that he knew was hardly ever in danger, owing to the efficiency of the civil power, but of property in cases of sudden commotion.
§ Mr. Humeremarked that every great town had now a well-organized police, which rendered the military less necessary than hitherto.
§ Captain Chetwyndhad been fifteen years in the Blues, and risen to the rank of captain, with the cheering prospect of being captain these ten years to come. Was not this an answer to the hon. Member for Middlesex's assertion, that 791 the household troops were, as respected promotion of their officers, too partially regarded at the Horse Guards?
§ Mr. Ruthvenbelieved, that if the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill were agreed to by the Legislature, a great portion of the military force now required in Ireland, might be altogether dispensed with.
§ The Committee divided—on the Amendment. Ayes 11; Noes 48: Majority 37.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Thompson Colonel |
| Bridgman, H. | Tulk, C. A. |
| Brotherton, J. | Warburton, H. |
| Browne, R. D. | Wood, Alderman |
| Ewart, W. | TELLERS. |
| Leader, I. T. | Hume, J |
| Ruthven, E. | Williams, W. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Bagshaw, John | Hoy, James Barlow |
| Balfour, T. | Johnston, Andrew |
| Barnard, E. G. | Lambton, Hedworth |
| Boldero, Henry G. | Morpeth, Vise. |
| Bulwer, Edw. L. | Murray, J. A. |
| Butler, Hon. P. | O'Conner Don |
| Chalmers, P. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Chapman, A. | Palmerston, Visc. |
| Chetwynd, Capt. | Parker, John |
| Cowper, Hon. W. F. | Philips, G. B. |
| Dalbiac, Sir C. | Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Richards, R. |
| Dick, Q. | Robinson, G. R. |
| Dundas, J. D. | Russell, C. |
| Elley, Sir J. | Sharpe, General |
| Etwall, Ralph | Stanley, Edward |
| Fergusson, R. C. | Strangways, Hon. J. |
| Forster, C. S. | Thornley, T. |
| Goring, H. D. | Troubridge, Sir T. |
| Goulburn, H. | Ward, H. G. |
| Grey, Sir G. | Wood, C. |
| Hall, B. | Young, G. F. |
| Hay, Sir And. Leith | |
| Hobhouse, Sir J. C. | TELLERS. |
| Howard, P. H. | Gordon, Robert |
| Howick, Viscount | Stanley, E. J. |
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the question that 56,917l. for the allowances to the principal officers in the public departments, their deputies, clerks and contingent expenses, be granted.
§ Mr. Humeasked whether it was the intention of Government to act upon the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the civil service of the army?
§ Viscount Howicksaid, the recommendations contained in the Report could be carried into effect only by an Act of Parliament. The Session was now too far advanced to introduce any measure upon the subject.
§ Mr. Humethought, that Ministers ought to bring in a Bill even in the present Session, if it were only for the purpose of showing that they were sincere.
§ Viscount Howicksaid, that the Commissioners had drawn up the plan of reform which they were prepared to recommend; but before a Bill could be got ready there were many details and difficulties to be considered. It was not intended that the Report should be left a dead letter. He would allow himself deserving of the hon. Member's censure if, before the lapse of another Session, some measure, founded on the Report, should not be proposed, or some satisfactory reason given for not doing so. It was desirable that the country should first have an opportunity of seeing the Report. Ministers were anxious to get on with the public business, but the portion of time allowed them for this purpose was very inconsiderable.
§ Mr. Humesaid, the subject had been two or three years under consideration. The charge in this item for the Commander-in-chief's office was enormous. There could be no hope of a better administration of this department unless the present Commander-in-chief was turned out of office, and some person placed in his situation who would act upon the principles of the present Liberal Government. If Ministers found they could not get on with Lord Hill, let them get another in his place. He meant no personal imputation on the gallant officer, but was it not enough to make the country doubt the sincerity of Ministers, when they retained in so important an office a man who had not the confidence of that House, or of the country? The Government by such shilly-shally conduct were not doing justice to themselves or to the country. The charge for the Commander-in-chief's office was out of all reason, particularly when it was considered that the duties of it were almost exclusively confined to the army at home.
§ Viscount Howickwould admit that the charge was too great if the staff of the Commander-in-chief had nothing to do with the army abroad; but in this respect the hon. Member was completely misinformed. In fact there was as much laborious duty connected with the army abroad as with that at home. There were no men whose time was more fully occupied than that of the staff of the Commander-in-chief, Under the head of 793 public departments there was a reduction, in consequence of the reduction of the Deputy Quarter-Master-General's office. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that if Government saw any want of co-operation on the part of the Commander-in-chief, they would feel it their duty to recommend to his Majesty to substitute another officer in his room,
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergussoncomplained, that the Commander-in-chief and the noble Lord, the Military Secretary, were the constant objects of attack from the hon. Member. He did not know upon what ground the hon. Member was always bringing such charges against the Commander-in-chief and the Military Secretary. It was impossible that any men could receive more general testimony to their conduct.
§ Sir Charles Dalbiacsaid, that a great deal of heavy duty was thrown upon the Horse Guards by the troops on foreign stations.
§ Captain Chetwyndsaid, that all military men were perfectly satisfied with the conduct of the Commander-in-chief. The slowness of promotion in the army might, in his opinion, be remedied by permitting certain classes of officers to sell out after a certain period of service, allowing their names to remain on a reserved list for a specified time, with permission to re-purchase, if they should desire to do so.
§ Mr. Humemeant no personal reflection on Lord Hill, but he would not give him his confidence, for the same reason that he would not give it to Sir Robert Peel or the hon. Gentlemen opposite, though as hon. men as any in the House. The charge against the Government was, that they allowed Lord Hill to employ the patronage of his office against the views and interests of the Liberal party. Nothing was now more necessary to get promotion in the army than to have Tory interest. Would the Tories, if they came into power, allow a Whig to remain in such an office? The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Fergusson) was now a Colleague of Lord Hill's, and therefore it was that he stood up to defend him.
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergussondid not know of a single instance in which political opinions had influenced the conduct of Lord Hill with regard to the patronage of the army.
§ Mr. Thomas Duncombedid not doubt 794 Lord Hill's military capacity; but that nobleman had political functions to discharge, and they would of course be used against the present Government. He advised the Government no longer, to attempt to conciliate their enemies; and said, that the whole influence of the Horse-Guards was exerted against the existing Liberal Administration.
§ Viscount Howickwould admit, that the Commander-in-chief, if he had political functions to perform, should be a person entertaining the same political opinions as the Members of the Government; but he maintained that the duties which devolved on Lord Hill were only of an administrative and executive nature. The hon. Member for Middlesex differed from him in opinion on this point, and it was his duty, therefore, not to seize an opportunity for making an incidental attack on Lord Hill, but to move an address to the Crown for the removal of that nobleman from the office he at present held.
§ Mr. Ewartcontended, that subordinates ought always to co-operate with the Government under which they acted.
§ Mr. Leaderinquired how it came to pass, that the Judge-Advocate under the last Administration, the right hon. Member for Leeds, who was admitted he believed to be a very good Judge-Advocate, was removed when the present Ministry came into office? The Commander-in-chief ought to concur in opinion with the Executive Government. Lord Hill might not bestow his patronage in an improper manner, but it was believed in the country that he did, and the effect of that belief in the country generally, and in the army itself, was very injurious.
§ Mr. Goringobserved, that there was no man whose conduct had been so closely watched as Lord Hill's with regard to the appointments which he had made, and if there had been any ground for the charges which had been brought against him, such representations would have been made to the House, that it would have been impossible for him to continue in his office. Such appointments as had come to his (Mr. Goring's) knowledge, had been made on the most equitable principles.
§ Captain Boldero, with reference to the vote before the House, wished to remark, that he had obtained returns of the number of officers who had been killed and wounded, both from the Horse-Guards and the Ordnance Department; but when 795 he applied to the Admiralty for similar returns respecting the officers of Marines for the last fifteen years, that Board, which was so much of a pet with hon. Gentlemen opposite, being managed by Commissioners, was unable to give him the information he required, as no list was kept.
§ Mr. Humewished he had had the assistance of the hon. and gallant Officer when he moved, a short time ago, for returns of the services of a great number of officers belonging both to the army and navy, as his evidence would have been very valuable to him. His motion was met by an assurance from the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, that it would take at least three years to make up the returns which he had asked for. It appeared, however, that there would not have been so much time spent after all. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Officer said about the Admiralty, he thought he must be mistaken, because in Sir John Barrow's evidence it was stated that there were two books kept, which formed one of the most complete registers that was to be found in any department, and that it was only necessary for the admiral or any other officer requiring information to ring a bell, and in five minutes he would obtain all he wanted.
§ Viscount HowickThere was a list at the Horse-Guards, and a very full and correct list, of the services of officers who had been killed and wounded, but that would not enable him to get a statement made out of the services of officers who had neither been killed nor wounded.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On the question that the Sum of 105,407l. 6s. 8d. for the Volunteer Corps, be granted,
§ Mr. Humethought, this the most objectionable vote of the whole, as the keeping up of the yeomanry corps was most injurious to the peace of the country. He proposed, therefore, to negative this vote altogether.
§ The Committee divided, Ayes 42; Noes 16:—Majority 26.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Adam, Sir C. | Coote, Sir C. |
| Angerstein, John | Dalbiac, Sir C. |
| Balfour, T. | Dalmeny, Lord |
| Boldero, Capt. H. G. | Dick, Quintin |
| Bradshaw, James | Donkin, Sir R. |
| Brownrigg, S. | Dundas, J. D. |
| Chetwynd, Captain | Ellice, E. |
| Etwall, R. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Ferguson, R. | Palmerston, Visc. |
| Fitzroy, Lord C. | Parker, J. |
| Forster, C. S. | Ponsonby, J. |
| Goring, Harry Dent | Rice, rt. hon. T. S. |
| Goulburn, rt. hon. H. | Rolfe, Sir R. M. |
| Grey, Sir Geo., Bart. | Scott, Sir E. D. |
| Harcourt, G. S. | Sharpe, General |
| Hay, Sir A. L. Bart. | Smith, Robert V. |
| Hobhouse, Sir J. C. | Stanley, E. |
| Howard, P. H | Thomas, Colonel |
| Howick, Vise. | Wood, Charles |
| Hoy, J. B. | |
| Lefevre, Charles S. | TELLERS. |
| Morrison, J. | Gordon R. |
| Murray, J. A. | Troubridge, Sir T. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Lennox, Lord G. |
| Bridgman, Hewitt | Marjoribanks, S. |
| Brotherton, J. | Ruthven, E. |
| Chalmers, P. | Thornley, Thomas |
| Divett, E. | Warburton, H. |
| Ewart, W. | Wood, Alderman |
| Humphery, John | |
| Hutt, Wm, | TELLERS. |
| Johnston, Andrew | Hume, J. |
| Leader, J. T. | Duncombe, T. |
§ Vote agreed to
§ Several other votes were agreed to, and the House resumed.