ARMY ESTIMATES—SUPPLY. (Hansard, 2 March 1855)

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he wished to know from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), whether there were any Supplementary Estimates for the Army forthcoming, in addition to those now produced, and he would particularly wish to be understood as referring to the Land Transport Service.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
None others, excepting the Commissariat.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he would take that occasion to ask whether the clothing of the army was still left to the colonels of regiments? On looking into the Estimates for 1853, he found that the clothing of the marines cost the country 17½ per cent less than the rest of the army, although the clothing of the marines was of a superior quality.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, the colonels had superintended the clothing for the ensuing year, but that after this year the Government intended to take upon itself the clothing of the army.

§ MR. PHINN
said, he wished to inquire whether the Government had issued any general warrant regulating the promotion of general officers; and, if so, whether it contained a provision that any officer who had served six years as equerry to the Sovereign should be entitled to the rank of a general officer?

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, that the warrant referred to had been in the hands of hon. Members for some time. The hon. and learned Gentleman, how- 64 ever, mistook its effect. Any lieutenant colonel having served six years as equerry was to be promoted to the rank of colonel.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the list of officers receiving half-pay. He found there were in it 108 cornets and ensigns, 788 lieutenants, 754 captains, and 178 majors. No officer ought to be allowed to go on half-pay with a low rank; if he wished to retire from the service, he should be compelled to sell his commission; that would relieve the country from a charge of from 200,000l. to 300,000l.

§ MR. P. O'BRIEN
said, he believed this was not an improper occasion on which to complain of a practice that had of late been most invidiously exercised—namely, the bringing in gentlemen from off the half-pay list to fill up the regimental vacancies, to the prejudice of those who had served for considerable periods in the army. He himself knew of cases where the claims of officers who had fought gallantly on the fields of the Alma and Inkerman had been thus overlooked in favour of those who were long distant from those scenes. He believed arrangements of that kind were most ill-considered.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), said, that the half-pay list had been fully looked into at the Horse Guards, and that every officer capable of doing duty had been called on to accept of service in the East. He believed the consequent reductions in the list amongst the subalterns and captains amounted to 200.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he thought the Horse Guards were perfectly right in adopting that course. But the fact was, many officers had been placed upon the half-pay list in consequence of the difficulty of finding regiments for them. It followed, therefore, that the authorities at the Horse Guards had acted most wisely and considerately, under the circumstances.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that not having had an opportunity of addressing the House last night on the discussion relative to the sale of commissions, he would wish now to observe, that if officers were to be deprived of the power of selling their commissions, the country would be saddled 65 with a very considerable expense. His objection to the proposal of last night was, that it went to deprive men who had done good service to the State, of the power of retiring from the army, and maintaining themselves and their families at no expense to the country. The fact was, the moment a non-commissioned officer rose to the rank of captain, he immediately began to consider how he could raise a sum sufficient for the support of his family, and he therefore very properly decided on selling his commission, and making place for a younger man. Nor did the country suffer because a respectable non-commissioned officer realised a sum of 1,800l. or 2,000l., as it might be; yet, by his vote of last night, the hon. Member for Lambeth would prevent such a man from rendering his family comfortable, and would place additional burdens upon the country.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he was not so unjust as to suppose that any man who had paid for his commission should not have his money back again.

CAPTAIN STUART KNOX
said, that the hon. Member for Lambeth had shown his ignorance of the service by the observations he had made. If the hon. Member admitted the justice of an officer being allowed to sell his commission, surely he must also allow persons to buy commissions.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that undoubtedly if one officer sells, another must buy, but the officer who sells does not, in such case, come upon the half-pay list, and, therefore, does not burden the public.

§ MR. OTWAY
said, he believed nothing to be more just than that, when an officer had become incapacitated by wounds or disease, he should be allowed to retire on half-pay. If the rule laid down with regard to retiring upon half-pay were adhered to, he did not think that any one could object to the half-pay list.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, he must congratulate the army upon the accession of so powerful and able a supporter of the system of purchase and sale as the hon. Member for Lambeth. It was delightful to see, notwithstanding what had occurred on previous occasions, with what vigour the hon. Gentleman now supported the purchase and sale of commissions, and it would be very hard if Gentlemen who sat upon the same side of the House with him should oppose his views.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the War Department, if commis- 66 sions had lately been sold by the Government, and, if so, what it was proposed to do with the money so received.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, that in consequence of the augmentation which had taken place in the army, a number of ensigncies had been created, and a certain portion of them had been sold by the Government with the intention of investing the money, he believed, in Exchequer bills, for the purpose of reducing the half-pay list.

COLONEL NORTH
said, he must complain of a statement made on a previous occasion by the hon. Member for Lambeth. That hon. Gentleman had referred to a case of punishment in the 26th Regiment, and he had averred that the younger officers of that regiment, being on oath, had, in order not to displease their seniors, agreed to the sentence, which was afterwards carried into effect. Now, he would just state what were the facts of the case. The man was not tried by regimental court martial at all, but by district court martial, so that the officers of the 26th Regiment had nothing to do with the sentence. The crime for which the severest punishments were inflicted in the army was theft from a comrade, and this man had been not only guilty of that crime, but also of desertion. There was no extra severity used towards the man. When he was in the Prussian army, the captain of a company there was empowered, without court martial, but solely by his own free will, to inflict fifty lashes upon a soldier. There were other punishments practised in that army which would not be tolerated in this country. What he found fault with was this—the hon. Member for Lambeth was in the habit of inflicting the cruellest attacks upon the honour and character of officers, without previously making inquiries as to the truth of his impressions.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he was always opposed to flogging under any circumstances. He denied, however, having cast any imputations upon officers. He had only read a statement respecting them out of a newspaper.

§ MR. BELLEW
said, that corporal punishment had been virtually abolished in the army, except for certain crimes which were looked upon as disgraceful, and he could not believe that the retention of this punishment, to the limited extent in which it was at present made use of, was at all likely to be injurious to the service or to society.

§ COLONEL GILPIN
said, he wished to inquire of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) whether the system of selling commissions on the part of the Government, which, so far as he knew, was an entirely novel system, was to be continued?

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, that the sale referred to took place before he had entered upon his present office, but it certainly was not intended to continue it, because it had exclusive connection with the recent augmentation in the army.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he hoped it was not to be avowed as a principle in our army that the commissions arising from an increase of the army were to be sold. On the part of the army, he thought the practice a most objectionable one, and if it were repeated he should certainly bring the question before the House.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to inquire in whose hands the proceeds of the sale of these commissions were to be placed, and to the credit of what account they were to be brought?

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, he had previously stated that the sum received had been invested in Exchequer bills, and, it was at present understood, would be held for the purpose of reducing the charge on the half-pay list, which otherwise would be considerably swollen when the number of commissions now in existence were reduced upon the termination of the war.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, his question had not been answered. He wished to know in what office this money was—whether in that of the Secretary for War, or of the Commander in Chief?

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, he imagined it would be in the office of the General Commanding in Chief. Who the parties were in whose name the money was invested he could not state without inquiry.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he had not the slightest objection to make to this Vote, but he could not understand what reason there was why the widow and orphans of a soldier in the ranks should not be as much the object of consideration to the State, to which he had given his services and for which he had shed his blood, as the widow and orphans of an officer. If they wished to promote enlistment into the army, they were bound to hold out every 68 reasonable inducement for that purpose. He was one of those who had done everything in his power to promote the success of the Patriotic Fund, which he thought honourable to the humane and beneficent spirit of the nation. At the same time, he thought the necessity of such a fund was a circumstance discreditable to our institutions and military system. Suppose we received in a few days news of 3,000 men more being killed and wounded, what was to become of their widows and orphans under the present system?

COLONEL NORTH
said, he quite agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), being unable to see the justice of providing for the widows and orphans of one class in the army and not for those of another. It was both mean and impolitic in a great nation like this, to send round a begging box, calling on the public to do that which he maintained the State was bound to do. They ought to have a statement made by some Member of the Government as to what was intended to be done with the sum collected from the public bounty. The disposition of the Patriotic Fund at the end of the last war had been very unsatisfactory, a surplus of something like 80,000l. having remained, which, he believed, eventually found its way to the National Debt Office. He could not resist bearing testimony on this occasion to the kindly sympathies and indefatigable zeal of Major Powys, who had provided for hundreds of women and children, who, but for his exertions and the liberality of the gentlemen associated with him, would now be starving in our streets, or pining their existence out in workhouses. He trusted Government would manage the fund in the most careful manner.

MR. SHAFTO ADAIR
said, that as a member of the Executive Committee of the Patriotic Fund, he fully concurred in the testimony paid by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire to the success which had attended Major Powys's exertions. With regard to what had been done by the Royal Commission, he could state that the Committee had, after much consideration, prepared a scale of relief for the warrant officers and sailors of the navy, and for the privates and non-commissioned officers of the army and the Marines, which would come into operation from the previous day—March 1. The Committee had been most anxious to meet the wishes of the donors, and with this 69 view had thought it their duty, in the first instance, to provide for the widows and orphans of the classes he had mentioned. There would, however, be doubtless many cases of urgent necessity arising amongst the widows and orphans of commissioned officers, which, if the terms of the warrant permitted, the Committee would gladly relieve; and he thought if it were generally known that the Royal Commissioners were prohibited by the terms of the warrant from so appropriating any portion of the money, the public would contribute to a special fund, to be devoted to that purpose. He was glad to see that so much sympathy existed in the objects of the fund, not merely in this country, but in all parts of the world almost. That morning the noble chairman of the Commission had reported a large contribution from a number of Chinese gentlemen who were engaged in the Singapore trade, and a considerable contribution from Mahomedan families in the East Indies. He could assure the Committee that in the distribution of the money, the utmost pains would be taken to carry out the intentions of the contributors, and that none but fitting objects would be relieved, regard being always had to the immediate wants of the applicants.

§ LORD ALFRED PAGET
said, he was desirous of knowing whether there was any intention that the widows and children of officers who died in the service should receive either the value of the commissions of those officers or any compensation in lieu of such value? It was said that there was not a colonel at Inkerman or Balaklava who had not from 8,000l. to 12,000l. hung round his neck. The meaning of this was, that if officers of that rank were killed in action those amounts would be sacrificed. The fact was, that an officer who gave the full price for his commission did not get more for his money than if he had invested it in London and North-Western Railway shares. He had a relative in the Guards in the Crimea, who was a widower with four children, who was present at Alma and Inkerman, and if he lost the value of his commission he would lose nearly all that he bad in the world. A brother of his was in command of a regiment of cavalry in the charge at Balaklava; had he been killed in that action his widow would only have had a very trifling sum left for her subsistence. He thought it could not be known that cases of this kind existed, or some compensation would be 70 given to the families of officers who died on service for the value of their commissions.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, he was most unwilling to say anything which might seem disparaging with respect to the claim of the private soldiers of our army to the gratitude of their country, but he must remind the Committee that during a time of war the compassionate feelings of the country were very deeply excited by the sacrifices and sufferings of our soldiers and officers, and that the Government were called upon to be liberal, and even profuse, in affording assistance to them and to their families. But if the Government yielded to this pressure, the consequence was, that at the termination of the war they were charged with being extravagant and forgetful of the economical interests of the country. It had been said that in this Vote there was a great anomaly, as it did not recognise the claims of the widows and orphans of private soldiers and non-commissioned officers, but that it recognised only the claims of widows and children of officers. Now, it should be recollected that no provision was made for the orphan children of officers, but that a liberal provision was made for the children of soldiers. The House had recently granted the sum of 23,367l. for the education and maintenance of the children of soldiers, and no less a number than between 800 or 900 boys were provided for. Hon. Members should remember that the subject was not so one-sided as they seemed to think. The principle of this Vote was, however, that of affording some compensation to the widows of officers who died in the service for the value of the commissions of such officers. If an officer sold out of the army he realised the value of his commission, and this Vote had been adopted in order that, when officers died in the service, their widows might receive some compensation in lieu of the value of their husbands' commissions.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said, he must remind the Committee that he had made a calculation of the loss sustained by the wives and families of officers who had died since May last, and he found that no less than 365,000l. had been lost to them by the war. It was therefore the duty of the Government to bring forward a liberal scale of compensation for the widows and children of officers. At present their means of living were severely scrutinised, with a view of cutting down the miserable pittance 71 which they were entitled to receive. He hoped the Parliament of England would provide some compensation for the losses which were sustained in the country's service.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he could not help feeling, as he was sure every man felt, that a very great hardship was inflicted upon the widows and children of officers who sacrificed their lives in the service of their country. If an officer disgraced himself, then his commission and the value of it ought to be forfeited; but when he fell in battle, then provision should be made by the country for his widow and children. He, for one, would deprecate most sincerely the view taken that the widows and children of officers were entitled to participate in the Patriotic Fund, as that fund was not subscribed for them, but for widows and children of the non-commissioned officers and privates of the army. The country would expect that the fund should be strictly limited to the purposes for which it was collected. But he felt that it was a case of desperate hardship upon the widows and children of officers killed in battle, that at the moment when they were deprived of husbands and fathers they should be also deprived of the means of living. He thought that Parliament was bound to consider this hardship, and provide a remedy.

COLONEL NORTH
said, with regard to expending the Patriotic Fund in the way stated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he might mention that Mr. Cunard gave 500l. upon the express condition that the widows of officers were to receive part. He felt that if any class ought to be benefited by the fund it was the widows and orphans of officers. He would do all in his power to press upon the Commissioners the necessity of giving some provision to the widows of officers.

§ MR. OTWAY
said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the late Colonel Moore, who had met his death in a transport vessel en route to the Crimea. That gallant officer, who refused to leave the burning ship while one of his men remained on board, had paid 14,000l. for his various steps; and yet the pension which his widow received was only 90l. a year. He would like to see the purchase-money of officers' commissions returned to their families, in case of their death in the service.

§ MR. BELLEW
said, he was willing to 72 provide for the widows of soldiers who had been killed in the service. At the same time he should like to see some measure for providing for the families of soldiers who died either in battle, or from disease, in the service of their country.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, that such a measure would be a very fitting subject for consideration.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he could mention the case of an officer not actually killed in action, but who died two or three days after receiving a wound in the trenches. Would not his widow and orphans have a fair claim to rank with those whose husbands and parents had died in action?

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, that the terms of the warrant would be relaxed to meet such cases.

§ CAPTAIN ARCHDALL
said, having served under the late gallant Colonel Moore, he wished to state that, although his widow would only be entitled to a pension of 90l. by the regulations of the service, yet, considering his distinguished bravery and the mode of his death, the Government had raised the pension to 200l., and the Queen had added another 100l. to that sum.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he must request the Committee to consider what had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of War. At the present moment, when operations were going on, and when the generous feelings of the public were excited by the gallant deeds of our officers and soldiers, the national impulse was to deal liberally and generously in all those matters that concerned the families of the officers and soldiers of the army. Pensions for wounds, for widows, and provisions for orphans, were liberally made. But on the return of peace, Committees were appointed to inquire into the amount of the Army Estimates, and Reports were made as to the great and heavy amount of the charge. Government was then urged to pare down and diminish the provisions made in the moment of liberality, and the allowances made were taken away on the plea of an economical prudence. The House of Commons ought, therefore, to preserve the greatest caution not to embark in grants which might be irksome to the country afterwards to maintain, and which they could not, in good faith or without causing serious disappointment, take away or diminish. That applied especially to the proposition made for pensions to the widows 73 of soldiers. What had just happened was an instance how these grants would increase. The first suggestion was to pension suitably the widows of soldiers killed in action. Then another Motion proposed that pensions ought to be given to the widows of all soldiers who died of disease in the service of their country, whether in time of war or of peace. He hoped these matters would be left to the discretion of the Government, because the Committee might feel sure that the Government shared in those feelings of gratitude for the services of officers and men which the country entertained. But it must be kept in mind that it was neither wise nor prudent—that it really was not conferring a benefit on any class—to grant one day what on a future day they would take away. In the last war there were a great many grants given, and afterwards narrowed and cut down by successive Committees and votes of that House. Of course that created great disappointment to the class to which it was applied. The grants to the upper classes might be so diminished, but if grants were made to the widows of soldiers, and not permanently maintained, great injury would be done to the service, and great disappointment would be created among those classes from which the army was recruited.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he trusted that, if an officer did that which caused him to lose his commission, he deserved to lose his position in society also. He was very happy when he saw an instance of a man expelled from a regiment when he had done that which deserved such expulsion. Such a course exalted them in the eyes of those whom they commanded.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, he was sorry to say that these commissions were given sometimes as a mere matter of patronage, while a fund might be created from such commissions wherewith to relieve the widows.

§ MR. MAGUIRE
said, he regretted to find that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not fairly treated this matter. The noble Lord was afraid that if that House granted provision for the wife and child of the soldier, it would be cut down by the economists in that House. Now, he (Mr. Maguire) denied that any economist would cut down that which should be fairly given. The Under Secretary of War had remarked that the State did make a provision. Now, as far as he 74 could see, it was more a matter of sale and bargain than anything else. It was a subject of the greatest importance, forced as it now was upon the mind of the country, and deserved to be brought prominently before the House; and if no other Member brought it forward, he should do so himself on some occasion before the close of the Session.

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the War Department had stated that evening, in answer to a question which he had put to him, that the rate of pay, in the case of the clergymen of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic chaplains in the Crimea, was somewhat in proportion to the scale of living to which the clergymen of the two Churches were accustomed. Now, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman what his idea was of the scale of living of the Roman Catholic chaplain to Kilmainham Hospital, for whom last year a salary of 50l. had been provided, but for whom no allowance was set down in the Estimates this year?

§ MR. VANCE
said, he wished to know how it was that, while there was accommodation for 300 persons in Kilmainham Hospital, provision was made for only 144 persons?

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, he was not aware why there had been an omission in the Estimates this year with reference to the salary of the Roman Catholic chaplain at Kilmainham. If that clergyman continued to discharge the same duties as last year, he saw no reason why he should not receive the same amount of salary.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, that the duties of the Protestant clergyman at Kilmainham were of a much more onerous description than those of the Roman Catholic chaplain.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, that while the Protestant clergyman at Kilmainham had no other source of income than that which he derived from the discharge of the duties connected with his office there, the Roman Catholic chaplain had, besides his salary, certain parochial dues.

§ MR. BELLEW
said, that the voluntary contributions of parishioners depended very much on the amount of attention from the 75 clergyman, and the Roman Catholic chaplain of Kilmainham had very little time to give to external duties.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, he wished to know if the rumour that it was the intention of the Government to reduce the establishment at Kilmainham was correct? The warrant of 1845 ordered that there should be four resident captains, and 700 in-door pensioners, in that institution. The noble Lord the present Secretary of War had, however, undertaken, upon his own responsibility, to make a reduction in that number some years ago. That order of the noble Lord had, however, been rescinded by a Resolution of that House upon a Motion which he about two years since had had the honour to propose. But the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary at War had not acted in accordance with that Resolution, and the number of inmates in the hopital at Kilmainham had continued at the number to which it had been reduced by the order of Lord Panmure. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might be considered to have committed petty larceny in that respect, the original order having been little short of downright robbery. He wished, therefore, to learn what were the intentions of the Government upon the subject.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, that the present was a time at which, instead of reducing the establishment at Kilmainham, increased accommodation should be provided. It was perfectly clear that there would be, during the war, a great number of wounded soldiers for whom such accommodation would be found necessary.

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
said, that it was not the intention of Government to make any reduction in the establishment at Kilmainham at present.

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, that to give the Catholic chaplain at Kilmainham only one-fifth of the salary which was received by the Protestant clergyman, was not placing them in the same favourable position as that in which they stood in the Crimea, where their salary was one-half.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he would beg to ask, what was the meaning of the sum of 50l. on a former Vote if it was not for a Roman Catholic chaplain?

§ MR. FREDERICK PEEL
That was for the widow of the Protestant chaplain.