HC Deb 10 March 1859 vol 152 cc1644-53
CAPTAIN VIVIAN

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the effects of the alterations in Military Organization regrding the War Office and Board of Ordnance which were made in the year 1855, and also to inquire whether any changes are required to secure the utmost efficiency and economy in the administration of Military Affairs. It was needless to point out the increased security for the preservation of peace and the goodwill of its neighbours which a great couutry must derive free the completeness of its military organization, and its capacity to meet the requirements of any sudden exigency. The Count de Montalembert, in his pamphlet entitled Un Dêbat sur l'Inde, had told them that England had lost her military prestige in consequence of certain events which took place in the Crimea. If this were true—and he had no intention now to dispute the dictum of so high au authority—this result was not due to any degeneracy on the part of the British soldier, or to any declension in the Anglo Saxon race. The Alma and Inkerman gave the lie to any such assertion, to say nothing of the great deeds of valour and endurance daily performed by our countrymen, amid circumstances of the most incredible hardship, in the trenches before Sebastopol. The real cause was that our system was not equal to our material. The sum to he expended for the maintenance of our army during the ensuing year was, according to the estimate of the Secretary of War, about £12,000,000 sterling, and the same right hon. and gallant Gentleman had told the House they could not hope to see the number of our troops materially reduced. It was there-fore most important that they should satisfy themselves whether the military establishments, for which so heavy an outlay was incurred were efficiently and economically conducted. He understood that no opposition would be offered by the Government to the proposal for inquiry, and he should have left the question there were it not that certain erroneous notions were entertained respecting the object of his motion. It had been said that he sought to do away with the functions of the Commander-in-Chief and to transfer to the hands of civilians all power over our military departments. Nothing could be further from his intention. On the contrary, he should be glad to see more military and practical knowledge introduced into the administration of the army; and certainly he should not have chosen this particular moment for casting such a slur upon an honourable and gallant profession, as to say that no administrative talent was to be found among soldiers. Not only by his services in the field, but by the ability which he had shown at the Horse Guards, the Commander-in-Chief had commanded universal respect. The civil departments, too, were presided over by a general officer whose diligence and zeal were acknowledged by all; nor could he forget the services of such men as Sir Henry Storks, Colonel Lefroy, Major Marvin, and many other military men. He did not wish to trench on the authority of the Commander in Chief; but he maintained that if they had two high functionaries, independent of each other, and of equal authority, the one responsible to Parliament, and the other irresponsible, they could not expect to have harmony between the two departments unless they defined their relative duties and relations towards each other. Any change in this respect did not necessarily involve any curtailment of the power of the Commander-in-Chief, nor was that at all his object. On the contrary, if the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief were only defined, he should be glad to see that officer invested with even greater powers than he now possessed, so as to enable him to decide many questions as to which it was now necessary for him to confer with the Secretary for War. These views were in accordance with those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert), who, in a memorandum which he left in the War Office in 1854, proposed to constitute for the transaction of business between the Secretary of State, the Military Departments, and the Civil Departments a Board to be composed of the Secretary of State, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Master General of the Ordnance, of which the Secretary of State should be president, and one of the Under Secretaries secretary. This plan had been partly carried into effect by the present Secretary of State; because he understood that once a week a meeting took place at the War Office, at which the Commander-in-Chief, the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and the two Under Secretaries were present, and at which various questions of detail were discussed and settled vivâ voce, which formerly gave rise to long and sometimes to unpleasant correspondence. If that system worked well let it be adopted as part of our military system, and not allowed to depend upon the caprice of the Minister for War. He should not, however, have referred to these matters but for the purpose of removing the erroneous impression that had got abroad with regard to his motives in bringing forward his present Motion. The Committee he asked for was one to inquire into what was the present condition of military administration, for it could not be disputed that at present it was so very deficient that in the event of another great war it would entirely break down. He knew his right hon. and gallant Friend was making great changes, and had no doubt that when inquired into they would be found of a very efficient character; but a great deal remained to be done. He could give one or two illustrations of the system existing at present in the War Department, which would, he thought, show that, were any great strain to be made upon it, the greatest confusion would result. For instance, he would describe the journey of a letter addressed to the War Department. No doubt some hon. Gentleman might have had occasion at times to communicate with that Department, and might probably have felt surprised at the length of time that elapsed before they obtained any reply. First of all the letter went to the office of the central registry. The average number of letters to the War Department daily was about 1,200; therefore the person whose duty it was to read the letter and refer it to the branch to which it belonged would not have very much time to do so; and it very often happened that he sent it off haphazard, perhaps to Whitehall-yard, instead of to Pall Mall or to the Horse Guards. But supposing it reached the branch to which it was directed, then the junior clerk would read it, and make a minute upon it of his opinion of the contents; the head of the room would make his minute; and the head of the branch would make his minute. Those Minutes would very often not agree, and perhaps it would be necessary to refer some question to some other department; but eventually it would come to the Under Secretary of State, who would put upon it, "I concur;" then, perhaps, Sir Benjamin Hawes would add, "I agree;" and, lastly, the Secretary for War would endorse the letter, "I approve." But by that time it would be so covered with Minutes that it became a matter of doubt to which the approval referred. Then if a question had to be referred to the Admiralty, the delay was still greater, and indeed many complaints were made of the dilatory replies given by that department. As an example of this, he would relate the following circumstance that occurred only a day or two ago. An officer was ordered on foreign service; he applied to the proper quarter for his passage. After three weeks' delay he obtained an answer, dated the 24th of the month, ordering him to sail in a ship that had started on the 22nd. Many such instances might be narrated. Some time ago a requisition was made for some oats to be sent to the Cape of Good Hope. He was not going to colour this story in the slightest degree, but simply to relate it as it actually occurred. It was, he thought, a tolerably good sample of circumlocution business. The officer, whose business it was to dispatch the oats, applied for information as to how they should go. A junior clerk with considerable zeal immediately took the matter into his consideration, and having read the question, after mature reflection, put a Minute on the letter to the effect that they should go in sacks. But it happened that he had a rival in his room, who, wishing, perhaps, not only to show equal zeal, but superior judgment, endorsed another Minute, giving it as his opinion that the oats should be sent in tubs. The head of the room then took the matter into his consideration, and he was for barrels. It then became the subject of discussion by the Director of Stores and his clerks, and eventually was brought under the attention of Sir Benjamin Hawes, who held that sacks were decidedly the best medium. In the mean-time, however, the requisition for the oats was entirely forgotten, and nobody heard any more of it until six months afterwards, when a letter came from the Cape, asking why they had not been sent. He would not weary the House by multiplying suck illustrations as these; but he contended, that in the present uncertainty as to the maintenance of peace we ought to look into our military organization, and so arrange it that we might not again witness the spectacle of a magnificent army sacrificed to the defects of a system.

GENERAL PEEL

said, the Government had determined from the first to grant the proposed Committee, and certainly there was nothing in the very able and temperate speech of the hon. and gallant Member which could induce them to alter their resolution. The hon. and gallant Member had not attempted to cast censure upon, or express want of confidence in, the heads of the military Departments, nor had he seized upon the present occasion to make a display of party spirit. His object seemed to be to inquire, not whether the existing system of military Government was properly administered, but whether the system itself could be improved. [Captain VIVIAN: Quite so]. To that the Government had, of course, no objection. They not only admitted that improvements had been and might be introduced, but he, himself, had authorized great changes, many of which were now in course of being carried out. The present Motion of the hon. and gallant Member was different from that which he submitted last year. The latter concluded by asking the House to resolve that a divided responsibility existed between the Minister for War and the Commander-in-Chief, and that greater efficiency would be obtained by placing the two departments under one head. On the present occasion the hon. and gallant Member, although he might retain his opinion unchanged, did not ask the House to come to any such resolution, but simply wished that the subject might be referred to a Committee. The hon. and gallant Mover had shown by the illustrations he had given, that he knew more about internal arrangements of the Department than he (General Peel) did, for he had never heard of the great controversy about the barrels and sacks. Of course the 1,200 letters spoken of could not receive the individual attention of the Secretary of State for War, and indeed there were ninny questions besides those of the "barrels and sacks" that had to be decided without his interference. He could only say, for his own part, that if any beneficial change could be introduced, he should be happy to see it carried into effect. There was no intention, he hoped, to submit the undoubted prerogative of the Crown to the consideration of a Committee, or to subject the discipline and command of the army to any greater control than that which the House now justly exercised by having a Minister directly responsible for every shilling voted by Parliament for the military service, and, at the same time, indirectly responsible for the manlier in which the duties of Commander-in-Chief were performed. He would not follow the hon. and gallant Member into all the details which he had submitted to the House, but he could not admit that the prestige of the British army had deteriorated, or that if it should ever be our misfortune to be engaged in another war the existing system would be found so utterly defective as the hon. and gallant Member seemed to suppose. The system to which the hon. and gallant Member had alluded was that which existed during the Crimean war. It had been completely altered since, and the question as to whether any further improvements could be introduced, he, for one, would gladly leave to the decision of the Committee.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

remarked that if the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) would be kind enough to furnish him with the particulars of the cases of mismanagement which he alleged had taken place in the navy, he would take care that they should receive full and prompt attention.

LORD HOTHAM

said, he could not but express his satisfaction at finding that the Government were disposed to acquiesce in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin. He could not speak from any personal experience to any of the circumstances to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred, but he knew there was a very general and wide-spread feeling that the great advantages which were expected to flow from the consolidation of the military Departments had not, as yet, been realized, nor had the new machine, as far as the information of the public went, been found to work with the simplicity and case which some persons had anticipated. He did net know to what causes that might be attributable, but he, for one, did not believe it was owing to any shortcoming on the part of the Minister of War, who had devoted himself with rare assiduity to the duties of his office, from which he had seldom, if ever, been absent since the first day of his appointment. The Motion which the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin brought forward last year was open to many serious objections, but the present was one of a simple, practical, and temperate character, and as such he would have great pleasure in recording his vote for it, hoping that the labours of the proposed Committee might be productive of benefit to the public service.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, he fully agreed with the right hon. and gallant General, and with the noble Lord, when they remarked with satisfaction upon the altered tone of the hon. and gallant Member's notice as compared with that of last year. He thought that the tendency of that inquiry would have been to place the Commander-in-Chief more under the civil authority than lie was at present. But he (General Codrington) could not see that it was competent to the House to interfere in the disposition of the Queen's forces; and therefore he hoped the two questions would be kept separate. The Commander-in-Chief ought to be responsible for the condition of the army to the Queen's Ministers. That was a necessary part of the constitution of the country, and he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had given his consent to the appointment of a Committee, which might place the necessary powers more fully at his disposal and within his control.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, he fully concurred with the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding, that there were circumstances connected with this important topic, which required investigation by a Committee, and he was glad that the Government had assented to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin. The hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin Lad spoken of the departments of the army as though, from the highest to the lowest, they had all been admirably administered—he eulogized all the heads and even subordinates of departments; and yet discovered that ludicrous mismanagement had occurred. But there were points on which he (Sir De L. Evans) desired to say a few words. The hon. and gallant Member had varied the terms of his Motion, and said he now desired to augment the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. The discipline and control of the army must undoubtedly remain with the Commander-in-Chief; but there was a question of patronage to be considered, which stood upon an entirely different footing, and seemed to be at the bottom of most of the disputes between the military and other departments of the Government. He was not at all desirous that the patronage at the disposal of the Horse Guards and the Commander-in-Chief should be increased. It was intended, he trusted, to invest the Parliamentary representative of the military forces of the country with additional power. He thought that was a course which ought to be pursued. His responsibility was, or ought to be, to that House in all military questions, whether in time of peace or war; then he ought to have practical power, how otherwise was he to be responsible? That was certainly the opinion of the public and of Parliament. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken, he believed, of the deterioration of the scientific branches of the army. The changes which had taken place had been at first popular among Ordnance officers, because they felt that there were at the Horse Guards prejudices which were injurious to them professionally, and that those prejudices had originated in the Horse Guards not having unlimited control over the Ordnance Department. They thought that if the Ordnance Department were placed under the control of the Horse Guards, they would obtain their share of staff appointments. That, however, had not in the least been the result. During a long course of years the Artillery and Engineers, whilst under the Board of Ordnance, had been kept in a high state of efficiency; though whether the matter was managed with as much economy as it might have been, he was not prepared to say. Since the change there seemed to be scarcely any head of the Artillery. They were both under the immediate authority of the Horse Guards. He had perfect respect for the gentlemen at the Horse Guards, but he must say he believed that none of them were intimately acquainted with the Engineer or the Artillery Department. There was an officer of great experience still on the staff of the Engineers, but there was no such officer at the head of the Artillery, though the force numbered 24,000 men. Formerly there was a Director General of Artillery, and also an Adjutant General, both officers of rank and experience, and capable of contributing greatly to the efficiency of that arm. Both these offices bad been abolished; and they had got a lieutenant-colonel or a colonel, he did not recollect which, who was a good officer, but who wanted experience, and whose rank was not sufficient for his position. Whether time Ordnance Board were restored or not, he should like to see a Director General and Inspector General of Artillery restored. He hoped that the expediency of giving to this part of the army staff officers of competent rank and experience would be considered. How did it happen that the small force of 6,000 men who composed the Foot Guards had an Inspector General, an Assistant Adjutant General, an aide-de-camp, &c. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Hill did not think it necessary that there should be an Inspector General of Foot Guards; they directed any superior officer at the Horse Guards who could spare an hour or two now and then to inspect the Guards. He should recommend the Secretary for War to abolish the office of Inspector General of Foot Guards, and then, without additional expense, he might place an Artillery officer of rank on the staff service of that arm. The result of the changes which had taken place in the Artillery and Engineers might not be appreciated at once, but in the course of a few years the consequence of the neglect might be seriously felt in every part of the empire where the Artillery and the Engineers were required. The general feeling was, that there was at present a species of anarchy in the War Department, and it had grown into such monstrous dimensions that he was not surprised that there was a little difficulty in arranging its affairs. Everything depended upon this Committee being well chosen, and upon witnesses being summoned who were able to elucidate the truth, otherwise the whole proceeding would be of no utility whatever.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN,

in explanation, said, that what he had stated this evening was not very different from what he had said last year. He should not object to the hands of the Commander-in-Chief being strengthened if his duties were strictly defined.

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed— To inquire into the effects of the alterations in Military Organization regarding the War Office and Board of Ordnance which were made in the year 1855, and also to inquire whether any changes are required to secure the utmost efficiency and economy in the administration of Military Affairs,