HC Deb 16 February 1858 vol 148 cc1545-51
CAPTAIN ANNESLEY

said, he wished to move an address for a copy of the Report of the Medical Officers of the Foot Guards which stated the average mortality in that brigade. He anticipated that the document in question would show results different from those contained in the recently published Report of the Commission.

COLONEL TAYLOR

seconded the Motion.

Motion made and Question proposed,— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Report of the Medical Officers of the Foot Guards which states the average Mortality in that Brigade.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

I shall not detain the House at this late hour, but I was unfortunately absent when the gallant Officer opposite made his observations the other night, which I regret the more because, from the report of what he said, I think he and his brother officers are labouring under some misapprehension as to the statements of the Commission and the object with which they were made. If the gallant Officer would read the Report of the Commission he would see that we have not attempted to cast blame or throw imputations upon any person whatever, We have merely stated facts which came under our cognizance. The hon. and gallant Member, however, probably feels sore at some imputations which have been thrown anonymously upon the officers of the Guards. All I can say with reference to that matter is, that it is not the business of the officers of the army to administer the affairs of the army; they have only to obey the regulations issued by other parties and conduct their duties accordingly. They ought not, therefore, to be held in any manner responsible for things which are under the care of those who administer the affairs of the army. It happens, in the present case, that the Government are aware of the necessity of doing something, or they would not have appointed a Commission, and I am bound to state that Lord Panmure since that Commission reported has shown the greatest anxiety to carry out the improvements recommended, and has selected a committee of gentlemen for the purpose of putting our suggestions into workable shape. An impression appears to prevail in some quarters in regard to the mortality in the Guards that the Commission acted unfairly in stopping at 1853. I wish to state why it was that we did not bring down our returns below that year. Let me say, in the first place, that the Commissioners are not responsible for the statistics themselves. We used only published, authentic, official documents, and the statements we have made respecting the mortality in the army, including the Guards, were derived from Reports which have been presented to Parliament. These Reports, I understand, were prepared from returns made by the colonels of regiments themselves, and forwarded to the Adjutant General or some of the other authorities at the Horse Guards. Therefore we are not responsible for the statistics, if they are in error. But it seems to be thought that we have made an unfair selection. Now, one thing is clear with regard to statistics—if you take single years or single periods you are almost certain to be misled, because those years or periods may be exceptional; and therefore the only way to arrive at accurate results is to extend your examination over lengthened periods. The Commissioners took fifteen years, and the reason we stopped at 1853 was that the war with Russia then broke out, and to argue about the mortality of our troops at home during the time they were engaged in operations in the Crimea, which were most destructive to human life, would have been manifestly absurd. I believe the gallant Officer opposite founds his belief that the Guards can now show better rates of mortality than those mentioned in our Report upon the fact that during the last twenty months there has been a great decrease in the number of deaths. I am not surprised at that. The old brigade was almost destroyed in the Crimea; a new brigade has taken its place; that brigade is composed of young men, and a young life is better than an old one. Morever, when the Guards came home they underwent a considerable reduction, and the men who were discharged were the weak and sickly; that left the brigade as young, as healthy, and as strong as it is possible to conceive an equal number of men to be, and no wonder in these circumstances that the rates of mortality show a decrease. But I contend that it would be wrong to place the mortality of the last twenty months before the public, and say "The Guards are in such a healthy condition that there is no need for improving their barracks or carrying out any of the recommendations of the Commissioners." We must recollect, also, that the last two years have been singularly healthy, and that they have witnessed a diminution of the general mortality.

CAPTAIN ANNES LEY

I did not refer to the last two years at all. The Reports which have led me to different conclusions from those stated by the Commissioners are those for the ten years immediately preceding 1853.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

Has the gallant Officer any objection to take not ten, but fifteen years, and thus embrace the whole period upon which we have founded our calculations?

CAPTAIN ANNESLEY

The Report for which I have asked refers to a period of fifteen years previous to 1853.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

If the last two years are included I propose to add a return of the number of non-commissioned officers and men discharged from the Foot Guards during the same period, distinguishing those discharged on reduction as being under height, those discharged upon the recommendation of the medical officers, and those invalided. We shall thus, I think, bring out the real facts of the case. I wish to repeat that this Report is a great weapon in the hands of the army, and of those who are its well-wishers, who desire to put an end to evils of which, to my certain knowledge, there have been loud and long complaints. I know that during the investigation we have received from no quarter more ready or fuller information than from the officers of the Guards, than whom I am certain there are none more anxious to improve the condition of their men. I say this, because some unfair and undeserved attacks have been made. I may add that the sole object of myself and of those who acted with me in this investigation was to improve the condition of the army, and I trust that we have discharged our duty in a manner that will lead to the attainment of that end.

Amendment proposed,— At the end of the Question, to add the words, "from the year 1839 to 1853, both inclusive: Returns of the number of Non-commissioned Officers and Men discharged from the Foot Guards during the same period, distinguishing, 1. Those discharged on reduction as being Under Height; 2. Those discharged on reduction by recommendation of the Medical Officers; and, 3. Those Invalided from the 1st day of June, 1856, to the 1st day of February, 1858: And, of the Ages and Years of Service of the whole strength of the Brigade, stating separately the Non-commissioned Officers and Men so discharged and invalided, and those who have died, during the same period, according to certain tabular forms;

[Here follow the tabular forms.]

COLONEL NORTH

expressed a hope that the House would have some opportunity of making remarks upon the Report, as the public press had attributed blame to the officers of the army owing to the manner in which that Report was worded. In one newspaper it had been asked how it was that Prince Albert, the Duke of Cambridge, and Lord Strafford had allowed their soldiers to become in such a condition; but those who knew anything of the army must be well aware that as regimental officers those individuals had no power to interfere. The whole power rested with the House of Commons, which could grant or refuse the means of effecting improvements. He thought it was a curious circumstance that for the last ten days the Report had been commented upon in the various newspapers, while it was only on that very evening that the Report itself had been laid before that House. He did not complain of information being given to the press, but the course which had been followed had led to erroneous views as to the power of the regimental officers of the army to interfere with the evils which were complained of. The Report contained much valuable matter, and he hoped it would lead to the adoption of; better means for promoting the health of the men.

SIR JOHN RAMSDEN

said, that at the close of the last Session the Report was in a state that induced the Government, to expect it would he laid before Parliament immediately upon its reassembling. He therefore presented a paper intended to represent that Report, in order that the document itself might be distributed to hon.; Members as soon as it was ready. The Report, however, had not been concluded so early as was anticipated, and could not be distributed until that day. He did not offer any opposition to the returns moved for, nor to the additions proposed by the j right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sidney Herbert), as it was most desirable that every possible information should be given. The subject was one in which the Government took a great interest, and he would mention the steps that were taken by the noble Lord at the head of the War Department. The Report contained no reflection upon regimental officers, because all responsibility rested with the administrative department of the army. In the course of last autumn it became known to the War Minister that the Com- mission had received information which showed the state of the barracks to be-very unsatisfactory. He considered it his duty not to wait until the Report had been presented, but to deal with the matter at once, and appointed a Committee to report upon the state of each barrack, and in order to avoid delay he gave that Committee power to expend a certain sum in repairs of the barrack without the necessity of first communicating with head-quarters. That Committee consisted of two medical officers, an engineer officer, and was presided over by the right hon. Member for Wilts (Mr. Sidney Herbert), and when he mentioned that that right hon. Gentleman had personally visited each barrack as far as the inquiry had gone the House would be quite satisfied that the duties intrusted to the Committee would be efficiently performed.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

thought the army had every reason to be grateful to the Commissioners for the valuable information they had acquired and embodied in their Report. He thought, however, that some explanation was required upon one point. The returns of mortality from the medical officers of the Guards for the fifteen years showed an average of only about fifteen per 1,000, while the return in the Report showed twenty or twenty-one. That difference required explanation,—whether the returns to the War Office included deaths from accidents, while the medical officers of the Guards returned only deaths from disease. He hoped the House would rely upon the authentic returns which would be laid before them and disregard all anonymous writers. The Commission, which had so well performed the duty intrusted to it, would enable the public to form a correct judgment upon the matter. He was glad to find that no blame was attached to any of the regimental officers of the army in consequence of the disclosures contained in the Report, for he could say that none were more anxious to improve the condition of the private soldier than those officers, but their recommendations had been little heeded. In 1849 he had himself written a letter to the authorities calling attention to the condition of the non-commissioned officers' mess room at St. George's Barracks, underground and badly drained, but upon visiting a day or two back he found it in the same condition.

COLONEL KNOX

said, he could confirm the statement that it was not the fault of the regimental officers that no improvements had been made in the condition of the army. He, himself, had every Session called the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory state of the barrack accommodation in the Metropolis, but hitherto without avail. He thought, therefore, the service was much indebted to the right hon. Member for Wilts for his labours on behalf of the army, and for the Report which had at last aroused public attention to the wants and necessities of the British soldier.

COLONEL PENNANT

said, he could bear testimony to the ill-ventilated and crowded state of the barracks for the Guards. He had himself, when an officer in the Guards many years ago, seen the men in one of the barracks sleeping in tiers one above another, as sailors do on board ship. It must be remembered, however, that the expenditure necessary for the substitution of new barracks, which were now complained of, was then objected to on the plea that it was proposed to build gorgeous palaces for the troops.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Report of the Medical Officers of the Foot Guards which states the average Mortality in that Brigade, from the year 1839 to 1853, both inclusive: Returns of the number of Non-commissioned Officers and Men discharged from the Foot Guards during the same period, distinguishing, 1. Those discharged on reduction as being Under Height; 2. Those discharged on reduction by recommendation of the Medical Officers; and, 3. Those Invalided from the 1st day of June, 1856, to the 1st day of February, 1858: And, of the Ages and Years of Service of the "whole strength of the Brigade, stating separately the Non-commissioned Officers and Men so discharged and invalided, and those who have died during the same period, according to certain tabular forms:—

[Here follow the tabular forms.]