§ House in Committee of Supply, Mr. FITZ ROY in the Chair.
§ £121,977, to complete the sum for Departments of the Secretary for War and the Commander in Chief.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the Estimates for these departments were scattered through so many heads, that it was with difficulty he could follow them. He thought they ought to have a distinct and clear statement laid before them at one view of the expenses of each department. He could not understand what the Commander in Chief required with one Secretary and three Assistants, when even the Secretary for War, whose duties were so much more onerous, was content with only three. But even the Secretary for that department thought the staff was too numerous. There was the Director of Stores and clothing, with a salary of £1,200 a year, and an Assistant Director, with a salary of £800 a year. There was also a Chaplain General with a salary of £950 a year. He wanted to know what were his duties? He could understand a Chaplain being sent out with a regiment that was going abroad, but what were the duties of a Chaplain General? Were they similar to those of a Bishop in the Establishment?
Colonel KNOXsaid, that without attributing any blame to the right hon. and gallant General at the head of the War Department, he might remind the Committee that when that department was reorganized, a pledge was given to Parliament that as soon as the Crimean war was concluded, the duties of the department should be clearly defined, and that a statement of its cost should be laid before the House. That had not yet been done, but he hoped that the House would insist on the promise being fulfilled. If the vote for the present departments of the Secretary for War and the General Commander in Chief were compared with the old votes for the War Office, the department of the 372 Commander in Chief, and the Ordnance Office, it would be found that under the new system the expenditure for clerks had been trebled, while he doubted whether the service was more efficiently performed. He thought that a revision of this portion of the Estimates was most desirable. With regard to the clothing departments, he believed that many of the officers who had been appointed to conduct it, although they might be clever enough at pen and ink, were wholly unqualified for the duties they were required to discharge. He hoped that a Commission or a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the departments to which this Vote related, wail a view to their revision. Sir Thomas Trowbridge had been appointed head of the Clothing Board; afterwards a change was made, and a gentleman was appointed whose only recommendation appeared to be that he knew nothing of the requirements of that department. The War Department was now under the control of the right hon. and gallant Member (General Peel), a military man, and he had no doubt there would be entire control and unity of action between the General Commanding in Chief and the present Secretary for War; but he thought that considerable difficulty might arise if a civilian should be placed at the head of the War Department, for he did not believe any civilian could deal satisfactorily with the various questions brought under the cognizance of the Secretary for War.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHremarked, that he could state from his own knowledge that it was quite impossible that the duties of the Ordnance and War Departments could he carried on with a smaller staff than was at present maintained.
§ SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he would refer to the small number of hon. Members present (twenty-five) as evidence of the culpable apathy of Parliament on matters of national expenditure. He doubted whether there was a proper method of doing business at the War Office. He had occasion lately to make some inquiry relative to the property left by a certain soldier of a certain regiment, and he received a reply relative to some soldier of a different name and regiment; and even then a delay of six months had occurred before the matter was settled. This was highly discreditable to the management of the Department. The most lavish expenditure was incurred in the movement of troops owing to the want of system and 373 good management. He did not blame the right hon. and gallant General now at the head of the department for this wasteful expenditure.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that nothing could surpass the civility and attention of the clerks in the War Department, so far as his dealings with them had been concerned. He had frequent occasion to make such applications as those of the hon. Gentleman, and found the greatest promptitude in attending to such applications. He knew by his own experience, that an admirable record was kept at the War Office, by which, in five minutes, the name of any deceased soldier and the property, if any, left by him could be ascertained,
GENERAL COORINGTONsaid, probably the case to which the Hon. Member (Sir D. Norreys) alluded took place during the Crimean war.
§ SIR D. NORREYSsaid, such was not the case.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsuggested, whether a good deal of the expense of clerks might not be saved by using mani-folding machines?
§ COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, instead of the War Department being too large, it was much too small for the work it had to do. The house had insisted on amalgamating the three departments of War, the Commissariat, and the Ordnance into one; and he would now show what they had gained by the change. At the Weedon establishment alone between one and two millions of money had been spent by the amalgamated department during the last two years and a half, and the accounts had not been audited up to that hour. So much had the work fallen into arrears that they had lately been obliged to send down twenty additional clerks to bring them up. To show the house what they had gained by the amalgamation, he might mention that in 1850 the number of soldiers voted amounted to 113,697; and in 1851, to 113,200; and the three departments being then in existence, the expense in each year amounted to about £9,000,000. In 1852–3, the number of men was 120,000, and the expense was £9,300,000. In the present year the number of men was only 10,000 more, and yet the expense was £11,500,000. These were the advantages the country had got by the amalgamation. It appeared that the accounts were framed on a wrong principle, for the staff was insufficient properly to conduct the business of the department, and he be 374 lieved that it would be necessary to add another million to the Estimates.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he could not but admit that the complaint of the hon. Member for Lambeth as to the complexity of the accounts was correct, and if it were his fortune to remain at the War Department for another year he would endeavour to remedy that defect. As to the number of people in his office, he did not believe there were too many. He thought there was need for more, and he could confirm the statement of the hon. and gallant Officer behind him, that they were all most anxious to afford any information in their power. He would make inquiries relative to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawney).
Mr. W. WILLIAMSwished to know whether the Commander in Chief required four public Secretaries and one private Secretary.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that the only answer he could give was that the amount of correspondence at the Horse Guards was enormous, and that all those officers were fully employed.
GENERAL CODRINGTONobserved, he could bear testimony to the magnitude of the correspondence of the Military Secretary to the Commander in Chief. He had to transact business connected with promotions wherever the British army was stationed.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he thought that by good arrangements they might dispense with many of the persons engaged in the establishment at, Weedon.
COLONEL NORTHremarked, that he did not believe that there was one officer too many in the Commander in Chief's office.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £233,000, to complete the sum for Manufacturing Establishments, &c.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was with great satisfaction he rose to ask for information on one or two points of this Vote from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of War, because he knew that that right hon. Gentleman was not actuated by any feelings of hostility towards the arms trade. He knew that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would believe that he was actuated by no sinister motive with respect to the question he was about to bring before the House. It had been an irksome task with him hitherto to bring forward this question, because he was suspected either of an undue jealousy 375 against others or of wishing to perpetrate a job, while it so happened that he and those whom he represented had no interest whatever in bringing the question before the House, but a desire to obtain a just Comparison between their productions and those of the Enfield establishment. He was sure the House would make all due al-allowance for any weaknesses to which they supposed him liable. He wished the House to remember that the expenses of the Enfield establishment this year had considerably increased. Last year it amounted to between £58,000 and £59,000, but this year it had reached the extent of £97,000. That was a great increase, and he hoped the right hon. and gallant General would state the exact proportion of the different items of the expense. But before going into that portion of the question, he wished to call the attention of the House to the concluding portion of a Report of the Committee on small arms which sat in 1854, and which, in order that Parliament might ascertain the success of the Government factory, in an economical point of view, recommended that an accurate debtor and creditor account, so far as the profit and loss of the establishment was concerned, should be fairly made out and published. He had long been in hope that this account would be produced, and, in fact, he had numerous assurances that it would be produced; for, besides its own intrinsic value, it would form a precedent to be followed with respect to the other Departments, from which, if he might judge from the reports he had heard tonight, seemed to be much wanted. At present the items relating to these Departments were scattered up and down the Estimates, so that it was impossible to find them. He found, for instance, that items relating to Enfield were mentioned at page 60, page 79, and several other pages of these Estimates. It was very hard upon hon. Members that they should be required to compile those accounts for themselves. They ought to have the amounts of the different establishments placed under separate heads, so that they might judge at one view of the expense of each. He did not understand the principle on which these Estimates were framed. He supposed there must be some reason for them, but as their object was professedly to give information, and as they did not, he thought there ought to be some change. Referring back to the Enfield Estimate, he found that not only was the Estimate in general 376 increased, but there were some remarkable additions in some of the separate items. Thus, the Committee of 1854 was told that the machinery at Enfield was calculated to supersede skilled labour, and upon that understanding the House consented to try the experiment to an extent which was promised not to exceed from £34,000 to £35,000. But the actual expense, far from being confined to that sum, had gone up as high as £150,000. This was said to be owing to the pressure of the war; but the important circumstance was, that notwithstanding all this expense, there had been, as he was informed, not a single musket produced during the war. But the expense of the establishment did not stop there. He had not been able to make out an accurate list of the expenditure, but it appeared to have amounted, from its first establishment till now, to between £600,000 and £700,000. Now, the House never contemplated an expenditure of that kind, and that, he thought, was an additional reason for reverting to the recommendation of the Committee of 1854, and insisting that the House should be furnished with a debtor and creditor account of the expenses of the establishment. The expense for the wages of artificers and operatives had increased from £39,000 last year to £86,000. He called the particular attention of the Committee to this item, because they were told, as the main reason for the establishment of this factory, that it would supersede the necessity of employing skilled labour, and would enable them to substitute unskilled labour at a cheap rate. Last year £39,000 had been voted for labour, and he believed there were about 1000 workmen employed. The original estimate of Mr. Anderson, who was the original proprietor of the Enfield factory, was that the establishment with that amount of labour — namely, 1000 workmen—would produce 150,000 muskets a year, at the rate of about 21s. per week each man, or £33,000 men per annum, But what had been the result?—that more than double the sum estimated by Mr. Anderson had been expended on the erection of the factory, more than £300,000; while the annual payment for wages amounted to the sum of between £84,000 and £85,000 a years, being at the rate of about 32s. a week for each labourer. He (Mr. Newdegate) had been told—and he hoped it was true—that the factory had produced 50,000 muskets—a quantity equal to only one-third 377 of the number promised. He doubted whether even that quantity had been turned out. He cited this to show that the House ought to regard this question as prudent conservators of a private establishment would do, they ought to take stock and ascertain what they were about. The House never contemplated making the experiment on such a scale as that, for the sum voted on the recommendation of the Committee on Small Arms was only from £30,000 to £40,000, and it was plain from the rate of wages they were paying that skilled labour was largely employed; whereas one of the promises most distinctly held out by Mr. Anderson was, that no large amount of skilled labour would be required if his plan were accepted. He knew that this produced great detriment to the small-arms trace in Birmingham. He did not say that the Government had no right to employ skilled labour if they required it; but Mr. Anderson had totally failed in avoiding the necessity for it, and he knew that the Government deprived the small-arms trade of their best workmen. The expectations which were entertained from that factory had been disappointed. He would not now enter further upon the controversy which had arisen on that subject. He had formerly taken occasion to refute in the newspapers the aspersions upon the small-arms trade, which he believed emanated from persons employed at Enfield, and he only referred to them now to express a hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would use his influence to prevent injurious and unfounded reflections being thrown out on semi-official authority to the injury of those who were engaged in the small-arms trade, and which, when circulated by the press, produced that result, not in this country only, but in foreign countries. There was, however, a serious ground of complaint which he wished to refer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. This was, that the manufacturers of small arms were subjected to the inspection, supervision, and guidance of the same officer who was at the head of the Enfield establishment, which placed them in a position which exposed them to serious injury. It was the intention of the House, when the new Enfield factory was established, that by competition in production it should be a cheek upon the prices and production of the trade; but it must be obvious that if they wanted a fair trial they should not set one competitor to judge another. The head 378 of the Enfield established was naturally interested in the success of that establishment, and all that the trade asked was to be judged by the Secretary for War, by the Commander in Chief, or by some officer appointed by these authorities for that purpose, but not by any person connected with the Enfield establishment with which they competed. That in his opinion was but a fair and reasonable demand. The trade believed that the arms they produced were of more solid workmanship than those produced at Enfield, although they admitted that the latter were very neat. He could have, no object but the public good in bringing forward this question. All that he wished was the establishment of a fair test, and a trial before independent judges; it was most desirable that jealousy and suspicion should be removed from the minds of the trade, who had served their country so well in the hour of need, by the manufacture of the rifles used at Inkerman and in the Russian war, when no arms were forth-coming from Enfield or foreign countries to which orders had been sent. They truly served their country in an emergency, and it was but just now when they compete with the Government establishment, that the fairest possible trial would be accorded to them.
§ MR. MONSELLremarked that the hon. Gentleman, who complained of the increased expenditure for the Enfield establishment in this year, would, if he had looked at the return on the table, have seen that the Enfield establishment, not having been finished until this year, manufactured between 52,000 and 60,000 muskets during the present year against 20,000 in the last year; and of course a larger amount of wages and material had to be provided for. The hon. Gentleman seemed to throw doubt on the success of the Enfield establishment, but the cost of the Enfield rifle was somewhere wider £3, whereas the Birmingham rifle cost about £3 6s. He had been informed that trials made with respect to the two rifles had in every instance resulted to the advantage of the Enfield rifle as to shooting. Witnesses had been brought from Birmingham to state that it was utterly impossible that rifles could be so accurately made by machinery that the different parts would correspond with each other. That prophecy made by the Birmingham people experience had proved to be utterly erroneous, as the different parts of the rifles made at En- 379 field perfectly corresponded together; and it was impossible for the trade at Birmingham to manufacture bayonets similar to those made at Enfield for 4s. or 4s. 6d. a piece for less than 9s. or 10s. a piece. Therefore he considered that the experiment at Enfield had been entirely successful. He fully concurred in the praise that had been bestowed on the great exertions made by the Birmingham trade during the Crimean war, and he thought that on that account the country owed them a great deal of gratitude; but he did not conceive that the Enfield establishment would harm them in the slightest degree, and he understood that a company at Birmingham was making arrangements to imitate Enfield, and were preparing machinery to manufacture muskets.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that he could not allow the observations of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Newdegate) to go unanswered. He was sure that his hon. Friend would do him the justice to say that, he had done everything in his power to promote the interests of the Birmingham manufacturers since his accession to office. There was plenty of work both for Enfield and Birmingham, and he thought that the competition between them was of the greatest possible service. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would allow the dispute between those places to come to an end. On looking over the returns furnished to him he saw that the cost of the Enfield rifle was put down at £2 6s. 10½d., but he remarked that that was not a fair calculation, for the interest of the money expended in plant had not been taken into account. The amount of capital expended in the establishment at Enfield was £352,580, and taking the interest at £10 per cent. he found that the cost of the Enfield rifles was only £2 11s. 6¾d., while those produced by the trade cost £2 18s. 3½d. It was also alleged that the various parts of the rifles manufactured by the trade did not fit so well one with another as those which were made by the Government, and therefore they could not go into the stores and make up the rifles with such facility. He was informed, however, that the manufacturers of Birmingham had volunteered to set up machinery to effect that object, and he assured the hon. Member for Warwickshire that he should not have the slightest objection on the part of the Government, to give them a trial, there being no less than 100,000 rifles on order for India at present.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that some of the muskets which were sent from Birmingham and tried at the Tower very nearly interchanged with each other, so excellent was the work, although they were not intended to do so. He also wished to explain that the evidence given by the best manufacturers with regard to the use of machinery in making rifles was, not that a system of interchangeability could not be established, but that they did not think that the work would be welded together so closely, or that it would be so durable, as that performed by hand labour. With regard to the difference of price, he could only say that the Americans, who made very cheap gulls, had not succeeded in making guns so cheaply as the Enfield rifles were said to be made, and before acceding completely to the statement that the Enfield rifle could be made at so much cheaper a rate than the trade rifle, he must have the opportunity of examining the accounts thoroughly with the aid of the manufacturers, whose intellects would naturally be sharpened by self-interest. As to the merits of the two arms, what the manufacturers desired was that these should be tested by a comparison of two pieces taken indifferently out of the stock supplied by Enfield and the stock supplied by the trade. In previous trials there was a doubt that the samples from Enfield had been specially finished for the purposes of comparison.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the Birmingham gun trade continued to make guns by hand, whereas at Enfold they were made by machinery, which had been obtained by a great outlay of capital, and this produced the difference in price. Every encouragement was given by the Government to the private trade, with a view to their erecting machinery, so as to keep the Enfield establishment up to the mark by competition.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the manufacturers also use machinery. The only point in which there appeared to be a difference was the use of machinery for the cutting out of the stocks.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwas willing to assume that the difference between the cost of weapons made in the Government establishment and by private individuals was correct. That was not the usual result, but the hon. Gentleman who spoke last explained the reason. He regretted to see, however, that there were still items for muskets made at Leige, St. Etienne, 381 and other foreign places. He should like to know the cause of this.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that these were contracts made during the war, which were not yet completed. In one instance 12,000 muskets had been delivered, and 10,000 in another, but all had not been yet delivered.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROthought it would be more convenient to the Committee if the whole of the Estimate for small arms was placed before them at once, and not a single item for a particular establishment, Two years ago Mr. Whitworth, the first manufacturer in the kingdom, and Mr. Richards, a well-known gun maker of Birmingham, were commissioned by the Government to see if they could construct rifles superior to the Enfield rifles. They set their wits to work and produced a rifle called the Whitworth rifle, which went down to Hythe to the school for teaching the soldiers the use of the rifle. It was said at one time, "old Brown Bess does her duty very well," but on trial it was found that at a range of 500 yards only one shot in 3000 struck the target; the proportion of balls thrown by the Enfield which struck was 25 per cent.; but the Whitworth rifle, at a range of 800 yards, beat the Enfield at 500. The range of the Whitworth rifle also was 2,000 yards, while that of the Enfield was 1,100 yards only. This rifle was afterwards sent to Woolwich to be tested, but although it was sent a year ago no report had yet been made. He thought it was very desirable that the question as to rifle superiority should be settled, because if it was afterwards found that this rifle was vastly superior to the Enfield, a great deal of money would have been wasted.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that he was the President of the Committee to whom the testing of small arms a as entrusted. They agreed to make various experiments: but it was necessary to make them with great accuracy and minuteness, so as to decide various questions—such as the range, the amount of precision, and the applicability of the arm to a soldier's sight. Last year they had not time to do more in testing this rifle than to settle the question of range. It was a question whether this Committee should be reappointed this year; but on making communication to the right hon. and gallant General he found that it was considered better that there should be a permanent Committee of officers, who should devote all their time and attention to these experiments. There 382 could be no question whatever of the very great value of these experiments, and he might add that there was no question whatever of the very great value of the Whitworth rifle. They had, after repeated trials, fixed the range at such a distance that they could not obtain a sufficient number of successful shots to form an average at all with the Enfield rifle, whereas there was no difficulty at all in doing so with the Whitworth, which showed that, at all events, with respect to range, it possessed an undoubted superiority. The other essential qualities were now being tested, but he did not think that any disadvantage would result from the delay, inasmuch as it was impossible at the present moment to change the small arms of the whole of the service. He was fully impressed with the value of the Whitworth rifle, and hoped that the experiments would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask whether any alteration was in contemplation with reference to the amount allowed to officers on the staff in lieu of servants. Formerly they were allowed to take servants from the staff, but now that was done away with, and they were allowed only 1s. a day in lieu of them. He would put it to the Committee whether it was possible that they could get any kind of servant at the rate of 1s. a day.
§ LORD ELCHOinquired of General Codrington whether the superiority in point of range of the Whitworth rifle was not to be attributed to the fact that it had a smaller bore than the Enfield, and that a harder material was employed for the balls, which gave them a greater power of penetration.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that the experiments at Woolwich were carried on, not to try the absolute merits of Mr. Whitworth's gun, but to test it in comparison with the Enfield. They were, therefore, tried with the same weight and description of ball, and the same charges. Not only had the Whitworth a greater range than the Enfield, but the line taken by the ball was more direct, insuring greater accuracy. If the barrels of the Whitworth rifle, however, were formed of so hard a substance that they could propel bullets made of iron, that would be a still greater recommendation. One of the principal characteristics of the Whitworth rifle was that it contained more turns or grooves in the barrel.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that so far as the 383 experiments had as yet gone there could be no question of the superiority of the Whitworth rifle. Moreover, every encouragement would be given by the Government to bringing out its merits, as a Board of officers would shortly be appointed to continue and complete the comparison between the two arms. In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Colonel North), he had the satisfaction to inform him that the matter had been taken into consideration at the Horse Guards, and that the allowance to the officers in lieu of servants would be increased.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid that from what he had gathered as the result of the present conversation it seemed to him very likely that process of time the Enfield rifle would be superseded by the Whitworth. Under those circumstances he must express his conviction that it was highly imprudent for the Government to expend so enormous an amount of money upon machinery for the manufacture of small arms, when in consequence of the improvements which had been made, a large portion of the expenditure would become useless. He thought it impossible that the Government could continue for any length of time to manufacture cheaper and better small arms than private traders.
GENERAL COLRINGTONsaid, he thought the manufacture of arms was an exception to the general rule, and that the result justified the experiment which had been made. It was a matter of experience that articles manufactured by contract were not always to be trusted, and it was of vital importance that the army should have weapons in which they could trust. The House would remember the case of the mortars made by contract during the Crimean war. At the very moment those mortars were wanted they burst, and they could not then be replaced.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, whatever might be the superior merits of the Whitworth rifle over the Enfield rifle, there was one satisfactory fact to be remembered, that very recently the Enfield rifle picked off 1,000 men, silenced a battery, and saved an enormous loss of life. Consequently, up to that time, it was proved that there was no weapon its equal. He trusted, however, that the Whitworth principle would be soon adopted. The fact was that the plan of the Enfield rifle was introduced by Mr. Westley Richards, and it 384 was an excellent move to associate the names of Whitworth and Richards together —the one being a celebrated gun-maker in Birmingham, and the other the largest manufacturer of small arms in the kingdom. The result was the production of the Whitworth rifle. Although there was great difficulty in changing the bore and stem of the musket throughout the army, the Whitworth principle could be adapted to cannon. The result of those improvements he believed to be this—that the six-pound artillery gun made on the Whitworth principle would be fully equal to the nine-pounder with increased range and without that improvement. He trusted that the Committee would not believe that because it might appear that the Government could manufacture those arms cheaper, that the trade would allow themselves to be beaten by a competition of that Sort. Individual enterprise would ever prove the best source of production on all occasions, and the country would make a great mistake if it ever countenanced any other principle.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that he did not intend to find fault with the Enfield muskets made last year at Birmingham. On the contrary, nothing could be better. They were most efficient, very light, and beautifully made.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that in the Estimates the store-keepers and barrack masters were in columns. He thought the duties of these Departments could be performed by one staff of officers.
§ Vote agreed to; as was also
§ (3.) £358,317 to complete the sums for Wages of Artificers, &c.
§ (4.) £460,460 to complete the sum for Clothing and Necessaries.
§ MR. MONSELLasked how it was that the charge for the clothing of the infantry of the line had risen from £174,000 last year to £264,000 this.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that £90,000 of the Vote went to supplying free kits to recruits. Therefore, as far as regarded the more clothing of the army went, there was no increase over the Vote of last year; the increase being wholly accounted for by the determination come to, that henceforth recruits should not be charged with the price of their kits.
MR. WILLIAMSsaid, he also thought the amount very large. At the same time he begged to congratulate the hon. and gallant General upon his having abandoned the proposed building at Rotherhithe, 385 which would have cost £300,000, and he hoped that its erection would not be proposed in another year.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he thought the system now adopted would prove the most expensive system every tried in this country, and he had no hesitation in saying that the soldier of the present day cost very nearly double that which a soldier under the old system cost. There did not appear in the Estimate the amount that stores wasted and lost cost the country, but under the present system, when stores were rejected, they were thrown upon the hands of the Government and sold for a song as old stores. Under the old regulation the "colonel-tailors," as they were designated, made such contracts with the clothiers as enabled them to throw the goods upon their hands if they turned out inferior in quality, and in his opinion the men were by no means as well clad now as under the old system.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he also must condemn the system adopted regarding the clothing of the army. He believed that the system adopted during the war with regard to the clothing of the militia was the most economical. Under that, patterns were sent down to the colonels, who could select what they most approved of, and the bill was not paid for some time after. Now, the clothing was purchased at once, and if afterwards found worthless, the whole loss fell upon the public.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROcomplained that the Vote did not show the net cost of clothing each regiment, and that in it necessaries were mixed up with clothing. He estimated that the clothing under the new system cost about £3 10s. per man, while formerly the allowance, including accoutrements and other matters not now provided for, was only £2 6s. per man. It was difficult to gather from the Estimates what the precise cost was as compared with the former periods, but he was satisfied if all the details connected with clothing could be collected in one account, that it would be found that the expense under the new system had very nearly doubled that of the old.
§ LORD ELCHOsuggested that the practice which had obtained in some cases of appropriating a great coat to each sentry-box in addition to the great coat which every soldier had should be universally adopted. He made this suggestion in consequence of having found, on a very cold day, that the sentries on duty at the 386 Castle in Edinburgh not only wore no great coats in the daytime, but had not the advantage of a coat hanging up in their boxes.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, that regiments might make arrangements of the nature referred to for themselves if they thought it necessary. All that they would have to do would be to obtain the permission of the Secretary for War to use up the old coats, instead of selling them for a mere trifle.
GENERAL PEELadmitted that the suggestion was very good, and he could not sec any objection to its adoption. Great objection had been expressed in reference to the clothing system, and he felt sure hon. Gentlemen would learn with satisfaction that a new arrangement was about to be made in this respect. In reply to the hon. Member, he begged to say that the accounts were presented in the form in which they had been placed before the House upon former occasions.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was anxious, before the Vote was agreed to, to suggest whether it would not be better for the health of the Guards than providing greatcoats, to do away with some of the useless sentries who were kept on duty in various parts of London during the whole night. The police were paid for such duty, and he could not see the necessity for making soldiers perform it.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, that the East India Company was responsible to the Government fur 92,000 men; there was no provision in the Estimates for their clothing, although he had been informed that that responsibility fell upon the Government.
GENERAL PEELsaid, a certain sum of money was paid every month by the East India Company into the Treasury, not to the War Department, on account of those matters. And accounts passed between the Company and the Treasury which did not appear in the Votes.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he thought it was a more work of supererogation to have sentries at the Royal Academy and the British Institution.
§ MR. BLACKBURNremarked, that it would be better if the whole of the charge of the troops in India was borne on the Votes, and credit then given for the sum paid by the East India Company.
§ Vote agreed to; as was also
387§ (5.) £690,624, to complete the sum for Provisions, &c.
§ (6.) £420,727, to complete the sum for Warlike Stores.
Mr. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the large sum of £280,000 which appeared under this head. in the Votes for small arms, and also £510,964 for the purchase of miscellaneous stores, and both these without one word of explanation.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENexplained that he was responsible for putting the £510,964 item down in a single line, for the explanation filled a folio volume of 150 pages, which, with further details, might be swelled to any extent; but, even in the concise form, the explanation could not be placed in the Votes.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (7.) £192,736, to complete the sum for Fortifications.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he must take exception to the item in the Estimate for forts. The forts were small and useless, and, from their being spread over the whole of our coast, they would be quite inapplicable to repelling an invading force. It would be much better to bring down the gunboats, instead of building useless forts. He proposed, therefore, to move the reduction of the Vote by £50,000, the amount required for these intermediate forts,
§ Sir JOHN RAMSDENobserved, that the hon. and gallant Admiral was under a mistake in supposing that the forts extended over the whole of the coast. The charge to which he referred was for three forts between Gosport and the advanced lines.
§ SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, this explanation removed his objections to the Vote.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYobjected to the sum of £33,000 for the defences of Devonport. Hitherto Plymouth had never been defended, because it was possible to take it in reverse. Latterly, however, they had gone more seriously to work, and had laid out a large sum of money; but it was doubtful whether it would be attended with any good result. Behind Mount Edgcumbe a casemated edifice had been built, looking more like an ornamental Gothic villa than anything else, and he believed a ten-gun brig would knock it to pieces in five minutes, besides killing a number of soldiers by the splinters. It was at least questionable whether earthworks would not be better than these stone forts.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know whether the £21,000 stated in this Estimate would finish the work?
GENERAL PEELreplied that he could not say; but, in answer to another question, said that any balance that might remain over the expenditure of the year Would be paid back again into the Exchequer. The limestone forts had been erected on the recommendation of a scientific Commission.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £72,780, to complete the sum for Civil Buildings.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he had to object to an Estimate for the powder magazine at Aldershot being taken separately, as he wondered how it could be considered a "civil" building.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, it was placed in a separate head in accordance with the expressed wishes of the Committee last year; and he had classed it among civil buildings, as being neither a fortification nor a barrack.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, that with reference to part of this Vote which related to North Britain, he observed it was the intention of the Government to make an armoury on the Castle-rock at Edinburgh. The people of Edinburgh, who had already seen the Castle-rock covered with a number of ordnance sheds, which were more or less serviceable, as he had been informed, for the purpose for which they were designed, were now still more alarmed to see that the rock itself had been scarped and carried away to make the foundation of a wall on which to build this armoury. He hoped the building would not be proceeded with until the people of Edinburgh had had an opportunity of seeing the plans of the Government, and that the utmost publicity would be given to the new alterations.
§ MR. BLACKBURNcomplained of the large items in this Vote, and he hoped the Government would extend their principle of economy in this direction, and cut down some of these large and extravagant sums.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
Motion made and Question proposed,—
That a sum, not exceeding £397,091, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Barracks at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of pay-
389
ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1859.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the House bad lately voted large sums of money for the erection of barracks at home and abroad. He wished therefore to know whether any notice was to be taken of the prize plans, for which several of our architects had competed. He believed that his right hon. Friend had stated that barracks could be built more cheaply by the engineers than by architects, but the question was whether barracks so built would afford sufficient accommodation. He believed that the estimate given in for the prize plan was £140 a man for construction, and that the expense at Aldershot for construction had been £100 a man; and what he wanted to know was, whether the barracks built on the cheaper estimate contained the court-martial rooms, mess-rooms and all those other accommodations which had been pointed out by the Commissioners as being necessary. The illustrious Duke at the head of the army had a short time back referred to the question of barrack accommodation and to the general question of the comfort of the soldier, and every word which had fallen from his Royal Highness was perfectly true. That illustrious Duke stated that the Horse Guards were not at all accountable for the state of barrack accommodation throughout the country; that he had made constant representations upon the subject, but that he did not hold the purse strings of the nation; and that, although the truth of his representations might be admitted, he might be met with the answer. "All very true, but the Government has no money." The hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) had moved for certain returns, which he believed would prove the truth of what was stated by his Royal Highness—a statement with which he believed all commanding officers concurred. It was equally true, as was stated on the same occasion by that illustrious personage, that in most cases the improvements which had been made in barracks of late years had curtailed the accommodation, so that what the soldier gained in one way he lost in another. Well, then, the noble Lord the late Secretary for War made a speech in "another place" on the same subject, and he mentioned certain improvements which had of late years been made in the condition of the soldier. The noble Lord said that at present the soldier could rely upon retiring at the end of a certain period with a pension; but 390 that was nothing new, for in past times a soldier could always rely upon a pension after a certain period of service. The fact was that the Duke of Wellington had held, as every soldier knew, that every man who had served for twenty-one years was entitled to a pension. He might not, perhaps, be able to claim one legally, but no Secretary of State could have refused him one, without compromising the honour of the country. The noble Lord had also eulogised the liberality of Parliament and said that the system of stoppages fur rations had been abolished. Well, that really was only a matter of strict justice, for previously the stoppages in certain colonies were actually higher than the sum expended by the Government. As to the present barrack accommodation, it was very deficient. At Chatham, the Engineers, which it must be remembered was a very superior corps, were worked harder than the Guards, and yet the men relieved from duty were obliged to occupy the beds which had just been left by the men who relieved them. That was a most disgraceful state of things; and, again, the Portman Street barracks, as regarded proper accommodation to the soldier, were in a most disgraceful condition. The noble Earl at the head of the cavalry (the Earl of Cardigan) had stated that it was seldom that soldiers did not get baked meat twice or thrice a week; that might be the case, but the soldiers were obliged to have the meat baked out of barracks and pay for it themselves. Our barracks did not afford our soldiers an opportunity of doing anything but boiling their meat. What is required is, that in every barrack accommodation should be found for roasting meat, so that the soldiers should not be obliged to pay for it. With respect to the question of the repair of those barracks, he might state that if the annual estimates for that purpose were found to be too large for the capabilities of the Exchequer, the consequence was they were returned to the military authorities for reduction, and in most cases notwithstanding the most urgent applications from the military authorities were left untouched. As an illustration of the way in which those repairs were managed he might mention a circumstance which had occurred in the case of the barracks occupied by one of the regiments of Life Guards. In the month of November last an iron grate had been found to be out of repair in those barracks, and a requisition had been sent to the proper quarter to obtain an order for its repair. It had been repaired and 391 brought back, but when the quartermaster had ordered it to be put in its place, the answer had been that the word "refix" was not to be found in the estimate. The consequence had been that the process of refixing had not been completed until the 14th of December, up to which time from the 20th of November, the clerks in the office had been obliged to sit without any fire and the stores had been allowed to become damp. With respect to the Report of the Sanitary Commission he would only say that, having carefully examined it, he could not find, notwithstanding the censure cast upon them in that report, that the military authorities were fairly open to censure. When in 1849, for instance, fever had prevailed, it was owing to the energetic remonstrances of the commanding officer that the troops had been removed from the old to the new barracks at the Tower. The real obstacle in those cases was, he could not help thinking, the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he felt assured that no regimental officer would even for a single hour be found to neglect his duty. The Horse Guards had been censured; but the Commander in Chief was merely the medium of communication between the regimental officers and the Secretary for War, and he trusted that the correspondence which had been moved for by his gallant Friend would prove all that was necessary upon that point.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that the correspondence and returns which had been moved for by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) would not give a just idea of the communication which had taken place between the War Department and the Horse Guards. They would, if given in the form originally asked for, have involved such a mass of detail that at the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend they had been altered. In their present shape, however, they would afford but a very meagre account of the urgent demands which had been made by the Horse Guards in respect to various improvements. Neither was there any want of requisitions upon the part of regimental officers upon the subject, but there was no sum taken in the Votes for those purposes, and therefore they were necessarily postponed.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he concurred with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel North) in thinking that the military authorities were not responsible for any shortcomings which might exist in our barrack accommodation. His 392 gallant Friend, however, in endeavouring to exculpate the Horse Guards, seemed to throw a considerable weight upon the shoulders of his (Sir John Ramsden's) noble Friend the late Secretary for War. Now, he thought he could show that his noble Friend was not open to blame in the matter. He had taken office in 1855, and within one or two months after he had appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole subject of barrack accommodation. That Committee had reported on it a short time since, and he (Sir John Ramsden) believed that the barracks which had been built since that report had been issued showed a marked improvement as compared with those which were in existence at the time. He might observe that the House of Commons appeared to him to be as equally free from blame as his noble Friend, inasmuch as it appeared, from a return which had been laid upon the table of the House, that no less a sum than £1,500,000 had, during the years 1855, 1856, and 1857, been expended on the enlargement and repair of barracks at home. The outlay upon barracks during a series of years had been enormous, but the barracks had fallen into such a state of disrepair that there were enormous arrears to make good. Even with a yearly Vote of £500,000, it would take a considerable time before the barrack accommodation was in a proper state.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENThe economists of preceding years.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYprotested that a more unfounded charge had never been made than the accusation of niggardly economy in regard to barracks upon the part of the House of Commons. He found that the sums voted for barracks during the last four years were—in 1854–5, £495,755; in 1855–6, £846,719; in 1856–7, £1,269,444; in 1857–8, £522,715; making a total, for the last four years, of £3,134,633. The fault was not in the House of Commons; it must lie somewhere else. He wished to call attention to the first item of the Vote. In the years 1855–6–7 the House of Commons voted £700,000 for huts, and the sum now asked for Wits in addition. The total estimate for Aldershot barracks was £400,000. The sum actually expended was £413,770. The amount proposed for the present year was £88,000, and it was said that £20,000 more would be required to complete those barracks. Thus £521,770 was wanted for works which had been estimated to cost £400,000. There must be somewhere a 393 fault in the expenditure of those enormous sums.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYwished to know who was responsible for the selection of the site for barracks at Aldershot. The barracks were erected in such a position that hospitals could not be constructed without purchasing additional ground.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he had continually called attention to the subject of barrack accommodation. He regretted to find there was no vote this year for Portman Barracks. He wished to make an observation respecting the plans sent in by architects for barracks. The plans sent in were extremely creditable to the authors of them, and he wished to know whether those gentlemen would be employed to erect new barracks when any were required. If they were not to be employed he could not but think a great fraud had been practised upon them, and that the engineers who built the barracks would be picking the brains of those architects in a most unfair manner. He regretted the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) was not present, for he believed that gallant officer had laid out the ground at Aldershot barracks. The village which adjoined the camp was lighted with gas, while the soldiers in barracks, only separated from the village by the width of a road, were deprived of that convenience. The expenditure for barracks in the midst of that wild heath had been enormous, and still the want of barrack accommodation was enormous. He wanted to know what was to be done with the huts, Which would speedily require large repairs at a great expense? Great mistakes had been made in barrack building, and he thought it was time that an improvement should be made in those of the metropolis, where it was so necessary to keep the men out of temptation.
§ COLONEL BOLDEROthought that experience ought to have induced a much wiser expenditure or money than had been the case in respect of barracks. In the case of Aldershot, several thousand acres of land were bought at a price of £25 per acre, in order to form a summer encampment. At first tents were established, but soon huts were built, the contracts for which stated that they were to be built of sound timber, free of sap; but, instead of that, the timber was full of sap and as rotten as a pear. He wanted to know how it was that, having a large body of men quartered at Aldershot, the Government did not employ them during part of the 394 day in making roads and drains for the use of the camp, which was part of military duty, instead of expending large sums of the public money for that purpose? Again, with respect to the site of the new hospital at Netley Abbey, the chief medical officer at Aldershot stated before the Commission that it was not at all a suitable one, being on the margin of a large tidal river, partly exposed at low water, and flanked on one side by a piece of marshy ground. Yet that was a place on which they were now expending a sum of nearly £300,000, or about £300 for each of the patients, of whom 1,000 were to be accommodated. He contended the Government might build an hospital on that scale for much less money, and on a much more eligible site.
§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, though he had no wish to anticipate the Motion of which he had given notice for the following day, with regard to the mortality of the army, he must make one or two remarks having a bearing on that subject. It was in vain now to indulge in elimination and recrimination in reference to the state of the barrack accommodation, and the consequent mortality in the army. The essential thing was to consider what line of policy the Committee was to adopt with regard to this important question. It was well known that enormous sums had been fooled away at Aldershot and elsewhere; but that money was spent, and the question now was, whether they ought not to go on spending more money until they lodged the soldier—he being a picked man—in a manner calculated to give him at least as good a chance of life and health as an ordinary civilian? The Portman Street barracks had been referred to, and they worn certainly very bad, but they were far from being the worst he had seen. The barracks at Woolwich were in so dilapidated a condition that the authorities had been obliged to have them shored up to prevent accidents and loss of life. Besides, under the very dormitories were lavatories, latrines, and the like, enough to breed a pestilence in the place; yet the state of these barracks had been represented to the authorities for no less than nine consecutive years. It was vain to think of bringing up the arrears of mismanagement without expense. But no economy could be worse than that of enlisting recruits and paying a bounty for them in order to kill them off prematurely twice as fast as the rest of the population. On every principle of justice, humanity, and true economy, Parliament ought not to rest until the bar- 395 racks of the country were put into a reasonably healthy, decent, and creditable state.
§ MR. TITEsaid, it appeared to him that the Government and the country had been liberal in the outlay with respect to barracks, but the great defect had been that they had not proceeded on any distinct and well understood plan. They did not want a Commission to inquire into these things, but an intelligent practical man who would tell them, at little or no expense, what the real defects were and how they were to be remedied. It was not red-tapeism that was required, but a simple and intelligible plan of procedure. A few years ago architects were invited to send in plans for barracks, and a promise was given that the successful competitors should be employed, the premiums being made very small on that account; and the architects who happened to be successful now complained, and he thought justly, that the promise made had not been fulfilled. He had been in communication on the subject with the Secretary at War, who had promised to give the subject his best consideration. He could not but think that architects who were accustomed to erect civil buildings were the most suitable persons to erect barracks. He would appeal to the Secretary for War to postpone the Vote for Netley Hospital, on the ground that a gentleman of great intelligence had distinctly reported against the suitability of the site, as he (Mr. Tite) believed almost every other person who was an authority on the subject had done, including Mr. Stafford, whose death they all deplored. It was said that the building had been contracted for, and that we must therefore go on with it. He thought, however, it would be much the wisest course to compensate the contractor for any loss which he might have incurred, instead of going on spending thousands upon thousands foolishly and unprofitably. When the proper time came he should certainly press for the postponement of the £73,000 asked for on account of this vote until the papers which had been promised on the subject were forthcoming.
GENERAL PEELsaid, of course if the architects alluded to by the hon. Gentleman were promised employment, they had a just ground of complaint. Their plans, however, did not seem at all economical. The estimate for infantry barracks was £140 per head, for cavalry barracks £300 per head, and for artillery £330 per head, whereas the cost actually incurred at Aldershot was £45 for the infantry, £150 396 for the cavalry, and £157 for the artillery. He thought that, although Aldershot had been so much abused, the barracks there were, on the whole, very good. The only fault which he had to find was, that they were situated at the extremity of the property. With respect to the remarks of the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington), he thought his wisest course was to deal with matters as he found them. It was of no use to talk about the money which had been spent in vain; what the Government would do was, to endeavour, as far as possible, to apply a remedy to existing evils.
§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he cordially concurred with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State in thinking that but very little advantage would result from hunting back into the archives of the War Department to find out who refused to carry out barrack works which were considered necessary. The point they had now to consider was, the best mode of setting the matter right. He recollected the time when very little was thought of the army, when there was a dream of perpetual peace, and when economical questions occupied the minds of the English people. Very little was at that time done in this direction; but in defence of the House of Commons he must say that when a case was fairly put before them he saw no signs of illiberality. During the last three years a large sum of money had been voted by the House for these purposes—voted to compensate for the penury of previous years—and it had been said that that money must have been fooled away. When, however, hon. Gentlemen compared the amount per man spent upon barracks and compared that with the sum required for building a cottage, he thought they did not look upon the question in its proper aspect. In the one case there was a cottage and nothing more. In the other case it must be remembered that a barrack was not a house but a town. There were at this moment more men living in the Wellington barracks than existed in certain towns which were represented in that House. In connection with a barrack there must be a chapel, parade ground, ball court, prison, a library and reading-room, which corresponded with the literary institutions of the town; and quarters corresponding to the neighbouring squires' houses to accommodate the officers. A barrack was not merely a soldiers' habitation; it must be built to accommodate a complete society; and the deficiencies now existing in this respect 397 would not, he feared, be remedied without a very considerable outlay. He observed that Lord Panmure, "in another place," had quoted the Portman barracks in contradiction to the assumed assertion of the Commission that the greater mortality in the Guards resulted from their more crowded condition in comparison with those occupied by the line. Now, the Commission had made no such assertion. He had cautiously avoided giving anything but a bare statement of the facts, and knew better than to attempt to account for them. Lord Panmure, however, had quoted the Portman barracks to show that the Commission was wrong in an assertion they had never made. But as to the facts, his Lordship was entirely in error, though led away by a cry natural supposition. Lord Panmure found that there were fewer admissions to the hospital in connection with Portman Street barracks than any other; but if he had looked at the nature of the admissions he would have found that, tested by the serious character of the diseases and by the mortality, they were the most unhealthy barracks next to the Tower. He had every confidence that his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) would, when the whole facts were before him, deal with the question of barrack accommodation in a proper spirit. With regard to Netley Hospital he (Mr. S. Herbert) still held the opinion that the site was an unfortunate one. It was not, however, the fault of Lord Panmure that such selection was made, for he had referred the subject to the Army Medical Board, who did diet which civil medical boards would also have done—showed that they had given but slight attention to the construction of hospitals. If they went through London and conversed with medical men they would be surprised to find how few of them had paid the slightest attention to the subject of construction, the quarters of administration and treatment.
GENERAL PEELsaid, with regard to Netley Hospital, the Vote for which some hon. Gentlemen wished to postpone, the works had been contracted for and were in progress, and he did not see how it was possible to postpone the Vote.
§ MR. TITEsaid, it was usual to take power in contracts to stop works when necessary, and he could see no difficulty in doing so in this case.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, there was one fact that was decisive against Netley Hospital. No patient in it could see the 398 sun from the hospital windows. He had had great experience in hospitals, and he knew how important a cheerful situation was for the patients, which was altogether denied them in this hospital. But he had great confidence in the fairness and candour of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and of his anxiety to promote to the utmost the comforts of the sick soldiers.
MAJOR WORTLEYsaid, that he should take this year the same course as he did last, and move for the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £88,000, the estimate for completing the works at Aldershot. He had formerly expressed the opinion, and he repeated it now, that the officers and soldiers did not learn the art of war at Aldershot, and that the soldiers were not taught cooking. He had also warned the House of the rotten state of the huts, and against the wild expenditure into which they were led at Aldershot—an expenditure of which there seemed to be no end. He moved the omission of £88,000, being the Vote for Aldershot.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, the camp at Aldershot was essentially a camp of instruction, and that the soldiers there were accustomed to dress their own dinners. The militia regiment he had commanded there had more than once had their break fast and dinner in the field. He wished to know from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Ramsden) why the allowances granted to officers under the Royal Warrant of July, 1848, and which was understood to apply to the troops encamped at home, had been discontinued at Aldershot? With regard to huts erected at Aldershot, it would be recollected that the noble Lord, lately at the head of the Government, stated that they were quite unfit for troops during the winter, and that they would only be used in summer; but a large body of troops had, nevertheless, been in those huts all the winter. He could assure hon. Gentlemen who were anxious about economy, that that virtue was severely practised at Aldershot, for in the course of one month last winter he was informed he had drawn half a scuttleful of coals more than his allowance, which must be deducted in the course of the next month.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the allowances to which the hon. and gallant officer referred were field allowances given to troops when in camp, but they were not issuable to troops in permanent encampments in this country. The allowances were only intended to provide officers with 399 accoutrements for the field, and to meet other expenses which they were not put to in permanent encampments.
§ CAPTAIN ANNESLEYsaid, he had no hesitation in stating, as the result of his own knowledge, that Portman Street Barracks were perfectly unfit for the habitation of any troops in Her Majesty's service. He begged to know whether there was any probability of their being rebuilt.
GENERAL PEELreplied, that the condition of those barracks would be reported on in due time, and he hoped they might be able to replace them by new barracks.
GENERAL CODRINGTONthought the field allowances referred to by the gallant Officer (Colonel Gilpin) should be given at Aldershot.
Whereupon Motion made and Question, "That the Item of £88,000, towards completing the permanent Barracks at Aldershot, be omitted from the proposed Vote," put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Whereupon Motion made and Question, "That the Item of £73,000, for the erection of a new Hospital at Netley, be omitted from the proposed Vote," put, and agreed to.
Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; as was also,
§ (9.) £324,091, to complete the sum for Barracks.
House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.