SUPPLY.—ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 18 June 1860)

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, if his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith), would compare the details of the Estimates of 1859 with the actual expenditure, he would find they were not so accurate as he evidently imagined them to be. In that year the House had voted £182,977 for the same purpose as that now under discussion; but the Government had actually spent £192,000. He wished the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) would explain whether the same variation was likely to exist this year between Estimate and actual expenditure; because, if so, it was really a waste of time to discuss the Estimates.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, it appeared that the cost of the Departments of the Secretary for War, and of the Commander-in-Chief, was considerably larger in amount than before the union of the offices; and the present Estimates were considerably in advance of those of last year. The figures for the War Office were this year £9,510; for the Office of the Commander-in-Chief, £1,705; between £10,000 and £11,000 together. The Secretary for War had declared himself responsible for the acts of the Commander-in-Chief. He doubted, however, whether he had much influence of the high personages at the head of the army. He ought to be responsible for all.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, the reason of the increase of the Estimate of this year was, because the Estimate of last year was found insufficient, owing to the increased demands upon the Staff, which was increased accordingly; and for which, therefore, an amount was required to be voted. He would take that occasion to make a few remarks on a Return which 590 had been presented to the House as to the temporary clerks in the War Office. There were 125 of them. But that arrangement had not been made by the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War. It appeared that one gentleman, fifty-eight years of age, was appointed in 1847, and, although he had performed thirteen years service, he was only a temporary clerk. Then there were fourteen clerks who were thirty-five years of age, who had been temporary clerks for six years, thirty-three for five years, and others for different periods. He thought that the time had now come when these gentlemen should be permanently employed; inasmuch as, without permanent employment, men were not very zealous in the performance of their duties. He trusted that this temporary system of employment was not to go on for ever. The cost of clerks had been raised from £15,000 last year, to £21,000 this year; and he thought it was desirable to know how long this increase was to continue?

COLONEL GILPIN
wished for an explanation of the charge for three classes of messengers.

COLONEL DICKSON
said, it was a misnomer to call these temporary messengers, as they appeared in the Estimates regularly every year.

§ COLONEL SYKES
pointed out an incongruity in the charges for the head clerks in the Commander-in-Chief's department. The first clerk received £1,000 a year; the second, £800; but the third, £975, or £175 more than his senior in office. Besides this, the third clerk was this year to receive £50 above his salary last year, while there was no augmentation in the case of the second, clerk.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
begged, in the first instance, to refer to the remarks of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Evesham, with regard to the payment from the surplus of one Vote into the deficiency of another. That could not be done, except under the sanction of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Lambeth said it was done, no doubt, upon the authority of the Secretary of State. On the contrary, the Treasury exercised a very rigorous supervision; and he frankly admitted very properly so; although they had refused him to do things which very often, he thought, might be advantageous for the public service. But he thought they were right in maintaining the rule, that although there might be an addition made from the surplus 591 of one Vote to cover the deficiency of another, on a work sanctioned by Parliament, it must never be done on a work not sanctioned. When Gentlemen talked of laying on the table an estimate of £15,000,000, and expected that they could make every Vote come right, it was expecting what no man could do with his private income.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
My right hon. Friend quite misunderstood me. I said when any variation occurred, you might come to the House of Commons and get a Vote.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, the House might not be sitting, and to wait for the Session would be too late. Last year there was a sum of money applied to increase the amount of machinery for making rifle guns at Woolwich, which was a surplus upon another Vote. He thought it an urgent service, and was most anxious to have the means of producing rifle guns for the navy. If he had waited until Parliament met, a great deal of valuable time must have been lost. At the same time he admitted that the Treasury properly exercised a strong practical supervision. On the other hand, it was clear that, with an estimate of nearly £15,000,000 upon a service scattered all over the globe, for the army in every colony, possession, or protectorate, of which the accounts did not come in until after the financial year had closed, no human foresight could produce a perfectly exact estimate. Practically what would be thought of the public officer who, upon a question of that kind, would refuse to take the responsibility of diverting the surplus of one Vote to cover the deficiency of another, when the service was an urgent one, which he would be properly blamed, if he had not undertaken to execute. With regard to the excess of the Estimates, he found that every year there had been an expectation of a reduction in the number of temporary clerks, &c, and yet the reduction never was made. The Estimate was for what the establishment actually cost last year; and although it appeared to him that there might possibly be a diminution in the amount of writing and correspondence connected with the War Office, yet he liked to be on the safe side. With regard to the temporary clerks, he was entirely of opinion with the gallant Officer (Sir Frederick Smith); and the War Office, in fact, made a representation to the Treasury that it would be much better, instead of that enormous number of temporary clerks, to have a larger establishment, and 592 get rid of the employment of temporary clerks to such an extent. It was not wholly a disadvantage to the public service, because they ascertained, by reports from the different branches, who should be allowed to compete for the permanent establishment; but he frankly admitted that the system was carried to excess in the War Office. The Treasury had appointed a very able Committee to examine into the subject, and very properly refused to give any answer until the Committee had reported.

COLONEL NORTH
asked, if the age of the clerks interfered with their competing?

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, if they stayed beyond a certain age it did; but those who were most fit had the advantage of competing before that time arrived. The number of messengers employed, arose from the enormous amount of business going on. He did not believe Gentlemen had any idea of the vast increase in the business last year. It was not caused merely by the additional force; but he believed the enormous facility given for writing, and the habit of writing, which was spreading everywhere, and pervading the whole population, increased the business of most Government offices to an extent which was almost inconceivable. He was not able to explain at present the cause of the larger salary of the second Assistant Secretary in the Commander-in-Chief's office.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, the appropriations ought to be printed with the Estimates, and not in a separate paper.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, it was the excessive amounts of the appropriations that he complained of.

COLONEL NORTH
asked why the officers of the military store and barrack department and the clerk of the works should not be placed in Vote 3, and obtain the advantage of being placed upon the permanent staff of the army.

§ MR. MONSELL
had observed that it was proposed to give the superintendent of the small arms department a special allowance of £300 a year in addition to what he had hitherto received. Of the great ability of that hon. and gallant officer, Colonel Dickson, and the manner in which he discharged the important trust committed to him in that department, he could not speak too highly; and he perceived that the amount of money expended in 593 these factories was £200,000 a year. But he likewise saw that £100,000 was expended on the Royal laboratory, and he thought that the gallant officer who presided over this department ought also to have an increased allowance. The duties of his office were heavier, and also perhaps more important than those of the small arms department, and he (Mr. Monsell) could not conceive why he did not receive a like increased allowance to that of the other gallant officer. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give such an explanation as would show that he was not dissatisfied with the manner in which the gallant officer performed his duties.

COLONEL GILPIN
complained of the injustice of allowing only 1½d. a day for lodging money in a garrison town; and asked how the money had been expended which was voted some years ago for the furnishing of the mess-rooms and public rooms in barracks.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
wished to know why we continued two military officers, one at Liège and the other at Solingen, at a salary of £700, besides their military pay. He thought that, with our small-arm factory, and with the aid of the Birmingham gunmakers, we could obtain small arms enough in our own country without resorting to foreign factories. It had been stated that we sent over our plans for rifles to Liège during the Russian war, but that we did not get a single rifle from them—they were, in fact, made over to the Russians.

COLONEL LINDSAY
wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the position of married women in regiments. It was admitted that a certain number of women was necessary in a regiment, and permission was given to soldiers to marry to the extent of 6 in 100, for whom accommodation was found in the barracks when that was possible. But accommodation for married people in barracks was rare, and the lodging-money, to which allusion had been made, was far too small. He therefore suggested that the position of these married women should be more recognized than it was, that rooms in the style of model lodging-houses should be attached to barracks for the accommodation of the married soldiers, and till that was done some increase in the allowance for lodging-money should he made. If this were done, the men would not be driven to resort to the very worst part of the town.

§ MR. MONSELL
denied the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth that the Russians got hold of a single musket manufactured for us during the late war. The rifles manufactured at Liège were from 5s. to 6s. cheaper than those manufactured at Birmingham, and though he believed that the Birmingham guns were quite equal to those of Liège, yet it did so happen that in every trial between them the Liège guns beat the Birmingham ones.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
expressed his belief, in spite of what had been said, that the Birmingham rifles would hold their own against the world. As to the lodging-money, he thought the question was one of a much broader nature than had yet been started—namely, whether they should throw obstructions in the way of the soldier marrying, or whether he was to be left free to marry, as the citizens in all countries in the world were. Within the last ten years 3,000 soldiers had been admitted to the hospitals at Woolwich whose services to the country would not, in all probability, have been thus lost if, like other citizens, they had been allowed to settle down quietly.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, the hon. and gallant Member ought to know that in France no man was allowed to marry till he had gone through his allotted period of service as a soldier. Every commanding officer knew that his greatest difficulty on a march, or still more on being ordered on foreign service, was the incumbrance of soldiers' wives with their baggage. It was a life of unhappiness, of trial, and of privation for the women, and the more the soldiers were dissuaded from marrying until nearly the end of their service the better would their service be performed.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, he was on the whole averse to giving military rank to store-keepers. He thought there were too many quasi military men with military rank already. With regard to the salaries of Major Boxer and Colonel Dickson, he would be the last man to depreciate the services of the former, for he believed a more energetic officer was nowhere to be found. But the services of Colonel Dickson covered a vast deal of ground. He could suggest, however, to his right hon. Friend that he would not do better than leave Major Boxer in the hands of the Government—his merits would be sufficiently appreciated and rewarded. As to the lodging-money, it was a very difficult and a very expensive question. That money 595 varied on different stations, Woolwich, he believed, being one of the worst; and he had, therefore, taken a vote of £30,000 this year, which he proposed to expend on the construction of barracks for married men at Woolwich. He would not enter into the married soldiers' question. It had been often discussed, and had never been brought to a satisfactory conclusion; but this he might say, that as now all the men were on short service—they entered the army at eighteen and might leave it at twenty-eight—there was not the same hardship in refusing permission to marry as when the men entered the army for life. As to the officers who were at Liège and Solingen, he would remind the hon. Member for Lambeth that we had at present large contracts executing there, and the officers referred to were there for the purposes of inspection. As to the barrack furniture, they were trying the experiment of supplying some of the barracks with furniture, for which the officers would be charged a percentage, and he hoped it would be successful.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
called the attention of the House to the great increase that had taken place in the number of artificers employed. Last year there were 8,000, now there were 13,000. He hoped that when the time same for dispensing with their services, they would not be turned adrift in masses, as they were at the close of the Russian war.

§ MR. F. PEEL
said, he feared that the columns in the Estimates which proposed to state the number of persons employed in the several manufacturing departments did not give accurate information. Under the head of laboratories it appeared that in the current year there were to be employed 1,154 persons more than last year, and if they supposed that their wages on the average would be £40 each, that would require an increased sum of about £40,000 or £50,000; whereas the sum taken this year was less than last year by £2,400. In the carriage department he observed that the increase in the number of persons employed over last year was 350, while the decrease in the cost was as much as £10,000. He also wished to ask a question with respect to the carriage department. As far as he understood there was a difference between the revised and the original Estimates. There was an in- 596 crease in the force of 2,000 men, costing about £240,000 additional, which sum was met by the reduction of £80,000 each on three Votes—one the Miscellaneous Vote, one the stores Vote, and a third in this, the carriage department. He wished to ask what was the work which it was proposed to execute by means of the sum of £80,000, which it was now found possible to dispense with?

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, it was true that with an increase in the number of hands, there was a diminution in the amount of the Vote; and that circumstance had arisen from the fact that many of the persons employed were boys, who were engaged in the manufacture of small-arms ammunition, and who, of course, did not receive a high rate of wages. The reduction in the carriage department had been effected in the following manner. It was found that carriages could be constructed more rapidly than they were required; but it was deemed advisable not to dismiss any of the men, but merely to diminish the amount of overtime.

COLONEL DUNNE
called attention to the confusion at present existing in the accounts in the War Department with regard to clothing. Clothing ordered last April had not yet been delivered; and he should propose the Vote be suspended until some explanation had been afforded. He wished to get the actual expense of the clothing which did not appear.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
suggested that next year the number of men should be placed opposite the amount voted, so that the Committee might know whether there had been economy in the Clothing Department or not.

COLONEL DUNNE
asked what was the actual cost of clothing for the Line.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said the cost was £4 5s. per man.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he could not understand why the barrack furniture should cost so much every year, as it lasted a long time, and the soldiers themselves had generally to pay for the repair of it.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
asked for an explanation of the increase in the Forage and Fuel Departments.

COLONEL DICKSON
hoped that the Se- 597 cretary for War would take steps to give cavalry officers their forage free, and also to protect the men from the awful mulctings to which they were subjected on the score of barrack damages.

COLONEL NORTH
asked why commanding officers of cavalry regiments did not receive command money like infantry officers?

§ SIR WILLIAM RUSSELL
said, the cost of the repairs of barrack furniture was more than met by the charges made on every regiment, and he was afraid this was only to be accounted for by some great waste in the service.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, if the officer in charge, when taking up the barracks, would only govern them properly, it would be impossible for improper charges to be afterwards brought.

COLONEL DICKSON
said, there never yet was a regiment in which, at the end of every month, deductions for barrack damages were not made from every man's pay.

§ MR. MONSELL
asked why an additional sum of £300,000 was this year required for the purchase and repair of small arms, the amount this year being £615,051, instead of £322,592. In the Vote for iron ordnance, shot, shell, &c, there was also a very great increase. He wished to know what portion of that amount had been applied to the manufacture of Armstrong guns, and how much in the purchase of smooth-bore guns, to be afterwards rifled either on Sir William Armstrong's or some other patent. He understood that none of the smooth-bores which had been rifled had given satisfactory results, and that some of them had burst.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
remarked that the sum asked for Miscellaneous Stores in the present Estimate was £713,438, while last year it was only £621,354. When so many other items were given in detail he thought this was a case in which fuller information might be given.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
also referred to the largo increase in the Miscellaneous Estimates, particularly those for India. He also wished to know when the Returns ordered of the account between the Indian Government and English War Office would be laid upon the table.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, it appeared that 120,000 rifles had been supplied to the 598 Volunteers. Now, these were very delicate weapons, and he wished to ask whether any steps had been taken for ensuring their safe custody in their present hands.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, it would be impossible to print in the Estimates all the items of which the Vote for miscellaneous stores was composed; but it might, perhaps, be desirable to class them under certain heads. The large sum which was charged for small arms arose from the circumstance that last year the trade did not deliver the whole number they had contracted for, and there was, therefore, an unusually largo delivery this year. Besides the Estimate for 1,000 Armstrong guns, they had also made provision for the manufacture of a number of smooth-bored guns of heavy weight, for which, under certain circumstances, rifled ordnance could not be substituted. He thought the arms were safer in the hands of the Volunteers than of ordinary recruits: moreover, the Volunteers wore bound to repair any damage which was done to the arms placed in their hands. The payments from the Indian Government for stores were now made more rapidly than in former times; but the settlement of the general military accounts with India could not be completed until after the lapse of three or four years.

§ COLONEL SYKES
complained that, although on the whole Estimate there was an increase of £950,000, the House was put in possession of no information to show that it was necessary.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
said, he had been informed that the Armstrong gun had cost the country, directly or indirectly, a sum of £1,000,000. Now, he had no objection to make to that outlay if the arm was likely to perform the services that had been supposed. But he was anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had turned his attention to the Whitworth guns, which had proved to be most efficient weapons. With respect to the Whitworth rifle, he wished to state that he had received a letter from Mr. Whitworth, in which that gentleman declared that he could manufacture that instrument at Enfield as cheaply as the rifles which were at present made there; and as the Whitworth rifle had stood the test of all competition it was desirable that that declaration should be put to some practical test. No doubt Sir William Armstrong had expended a very large sum of money in bringing his gun to its present perfec- 599 tion: but so also Mr. Whitworth had expended £30,000 or £40,0000 on his. Now as Mr. Whitworth must turn this outlay to account for some country or other, he hoped it would be for England, and that the War Office would retain Mr. Whitworth as they had Sir William Armstrong. If our Government did not purchase Mr. Whitworth's invention, he had no doubt some other country would.

§ MR. MONSELL
condemned the manner in which the gun-factory at Woolwich was at present governed. The gallant officer who was formerly at the head of the factory had been removed to make way for Sir William Armstrong.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
explained that Sir William Armstrong was Director of the Rifled Ordnance, not of the whole gun-factory, and that his appointment to that office and the removal of Colonel Wilmot were quite distinct.

§ MR. MONSELL
believed the appointment of Sir William Armstrong necessarily led to the removal of the gallant officer. The objection to the present arrangement was, that if the gun of Mr. Whitworth or of any other inventor proved to be superior to that of Sir William Armstrong, and were purchased by the Government, the manufacture of it would have to be confided to a rival inventor. Mr. Anderson, he knew, was the resident head of the factory, but still he was subordinate to Sir William.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
wished to know whether it was proposed that there should be a trial for range or accuracy of the Armstrong and of the Whitworth guns.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, Mr. Whitworth had been in communication with the Government; he had, indeed, received considerable assistance from it. Mr. Whitworth proposed two things,—that the Government should try his gun, or buy it; on the whole, the Government had decided on buying the gun without trying it. If on trial the Whitworth gun should prove the superior arm, Mr. Whitworth would supply a little additional machinery to the Government manufactory which would enable the Government to make the gun without difficulty, Mr. Whitworth receiving a certain royalty on each gun. As to the Whitworth rifle, it was certainly a very good weapon; but it cost £10, while the Enfield rifle cost only £2 18s. The Government must hesitate before it decided on adopting the more costly article. The 600 life of a rifle is estimated to be about ten years; and there should always be in store 500,000; to replace the arms now in use by the Whitworth rifle, and have the proper number stored in reserve, would cost £10,000,000. Mr. Whitworth was trying a less expensive process of making the rifle barrels, by which, if it succeeded, a great advantage would he gained. He thought the Government would be acting unwisely if, when the present weapon was in advance of that of all other armies, it changed it for one more than three times its cost. It had been stated that the Armstrong gun was very expensive, that it had already cost the country £1,000,000; but he believed it would cost less at last than at first. The brass 12 pounders that originally cost £250, were now manufactured for £90 and £100. Part of the Vote for ammunition was applied to shot and shell for the Armstrong gun; it was very expensive, as were other shells and fusees; but the destruction caused by the Armstrong shells was much greater.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
suggested the expediency of putting a certain number, at all events, of Whitworth rifles, into the hands of our troops. The British soldier was the most costly one in Europe, and he also performed the largest amount of duty; and it would be true economy to arm him in the most efficient manner.

§ LORD FERMOY
understood the Government had decided on first buying the Whitworth gun and trying it afterwards. Surely the merits of the gun would be an ingredient of the price. To ordinary minds it seemed a strange way of doing business.

§ COLONEL SYKES
thought it not quite decided whether the Enfield rifle was the best weapon. It fired rapidly, but he understood grew foul very rapidly also. He was not aware whether the Whitworth rifle was liable to this defect in the same degree.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
said, he doubted whether the Whitworth rifle might not foul even more quickly than the Enfield, since the diameter of its bore was smaller.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
asked for explanations relative to the total estimated cost of the store establishments at Fort Touraille, at Guernsey and Alderney, amounting altogether to £30,000, and £15,000 of which was for the present year. He should like to know how it came to pass 601 that it would cost so large a sum, which in itself was sufficient to construct a small fort. At Woolwich Arsenal there was also a proposed charge of £2,000 for a new painters' shop, £3,000 for a cart and waggon shed, £8,000 for a landing and shipping shed, and £12,000 for a new magazine establishment. There was also £50,000 taken for a school of gunnery at Shoeburyness—which was about the price of a small fortress. Unless satisfactory explanations were given on these points he thought the works ought not to be undertaken.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, it was necessary that the store establishments at Fort Touraille should be surrounded by a defensive inclosure. The charge for the new painters' shop might seem considerable, but it was to cover a larger space, and when they remembered what a large amount of painting had to be done it could not be considered excessive. The waggon shed would be found convenient for the accommodation of the carts of the military train. The shipping wharf was also indispensable for the new magazine establishment. It would effect a great saving, as it would form a permanent magazine, and supersede the necessity of sending the powder by floating lighters up the river. As regarded the school of gunnery at Shoeburyness he had no intention whatever of stopping the progress of the works. The school was for the instruction of our troops and artillery force, and the money could not be better expended. It was an institution from which the army would derive the greatest benefit. He should be sorry to see the Vote curtailed, as it would prevent them from going on as rapidly as possible.

COLONEL NORTH
took occasion to ask whether in the new hospital at Netley it was intended accommodation should be afforded for the lunatic soldiers of the army? While upon that subject he should wish to draw the attention of the House to the case of a poor soldier who had become a lunatic in consequence of wounds he had received in the service of his country. The case, which had occurred at Rochester, had come on for hearing before the mayor. 602 This man was set adrift in the streets of Chatham with a non-commissioned officer in plain clothes to watch him. But suppose he had done some one an injury? It was disgraceful to this country to treat thus a soldier who might have lost his reason from sun-stroke, or from wounds received in the service of his country. He thought the overseers of Rochester quite right in refusing to maintain all the lunatics discharged from the military hospital. He had sat upon the Committee for inquiring into the sanitary arrangements of the army, and there was no point on which the Committee were so unanimous as on the recommendation that there should be a lunatic asylum for the army; and the Committee, after a full consideration of the subject, recommended that a portion of the hospital at Netley should be set aside for lunatics. Sir J. Liddell told the Committee that in the navy a sailor was taken care of from the moment he was seized until he was restored to reason. One of the Inspectors-General of the army said he found that when a lunatic soldier disobeyed the orders he received from civilians set over him he said, "I do not know you; you are not my officer, and I have nothing to say to you." If lunatic sailors were so well taken care of, why should there not also exist a lunatic asylum for soldiers?

§ MR. MONSELL
inquired what necessity there was for expending £120,000 in erecting a new hospital, and purchasing land at Woolwich. Even were it required, was it right to go on expending at so formidable a rate?

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, there were two items in regard to which it appeared either that the columns were not added up correctly, or else that the Estimates had been much exceeded by the actual expenditure. The estimated cost of the New Staff College at Sandhurst was £75,000. It appeared that £20,000 had been already voted, that £25,000 was now asked for, and that £40,000 was wanted to complete the college, being £10,000 more than the original estimate. Then, in the next page, there was a Vote for erecting new barracks at Chelsea. The original estimate was £140,000. The amount already voted was £120,000, the sum now asked for was £30,000 and the further amount required was £110,000. Here the estimated cost appeared to be £140,000, and the expenditure £260,000. This Vote required some explanation. 603 Then there was a vote for the new hospital at Netley. The total estimated cost was £292,911; the amount already voted was £285,000; the sum now proposed to be voted was £45,000, and the further amount required was £25,299. Here was an outlay of' £355,000, against an estimated cost of £292,911. Some valuable instructions had been issued by the right hon. Gentleman to Engineer officers in regard to the expense of civil buildings. An opinion was gaining ground, however, that these buildings would be better attended to by the Board of Works, which had the care of all the public buildings of the country.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
, seeing an item for £21,000 for gas at Aldershot, hoped it was not intended to introduce gas into the huts there. It was very undesirable, on sanitary grounds, to introduce gas into small and crowded buildings. He wished also to know whether the site for the barracks at Nottingham had been purchased, and whether it would be sufficiently far from the town to permit of exercising and recreation ground being provided for the soldiers. He did not think the Hotel at Fleetwood adapted for the purposes of barracks. Then as regarded Netley. He thought it had been one of the most mismanaged of all our public buildings. But he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War was to be exonerated from blame in this matter because he was the first to call attention to the matter, and to endeavour to arrest the further progress of the building on its present site. Land had first been purchased on the Southampton Water. Then money was asked for the foundations. Step by step the outlay had risen to £350,000, and no doubt it would amount to £400,000 before it was finished. It was a hospital for accommodating 1,000 men, and it would cost £400 per man, while in a sanitary point of view it was a most improper site for a hospital. He had visited most of the hospitals in the country, and Netley also, and he must say it was a miserable production. The sun hardly penetrated the long corridors, and it was internally ill-arranged. It appeared to be got up for a show in Southampton Water, and not as a hospital for invalided soldiers. He should like to know for how many men the new hospital at Woolwich was intended. Was it true that it was intended to erect brick instead of wood huts in 604 the various camps in the country? There was an item of £50,000 for sanitary improvements, under barrack and hospital Commissions. His only objection to this barrack expenditure was, that we did not from the first take the bull by the horns and ask for £800,000 at once, instead of perpetually taking these additional Votes.

MAJOR HAMILTON
wished to know whether the Vote for military prisons was to provide increased accommodation. He thought in the case of soldiers convicted of only military, not criminal offfences, care should be taken that they were confined in prisons where military discipline was enforced, and that they should not be degraded by contamination with felons.

MR. PIGOTT
approved the suggestion of the hon. Member for Coventry, that the huts at Aldershot should be constructed of brick. The huts at present were not water-tight; many of them were in a very loathsome state, infested with bugs, which rendered them almost uninhabitable by either men or officers. This annoyance should be got rid of somehow. It sometimes happened that the men were unable to appear on parade in consequence of the punishment they had undergone during the previous night. At all events, the huts should be kept clean and decent. The yards also required great attention.

COLONEL LINDSAY
knew the huts at Aldershot to be in a state anything but satisfactory. They were full of fleas, bugs, and all sorts of insects. It would be a great improvement if brick huts were introduced. It was a great inconvenience that no quarters were provided for the General officer in command, who in consequence was obliged to live at a very considerable distance, and to ride ten miles every day to and from the camp. As the General officer in command (General Knollys) was about to leave that camp, he could not help observing that they owed much to him for the state of discipline into which he had brought it. He took the camp when in a state of inefficiency, and he had brought it to its present state of perfection. In doing so he had very great difficulties to encounter, which required all his firmness and all his courtesy. While he was in command of that camp the Militia were first embodied, and he had brought them to the highest state of perfection—quite equal to that of their 605 brethren of the Line. He wished to ask a question or two. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain, with regard to married soldiers' quarters—for which £30,000 was taken this year—whether it was proposed that these quarters should be given over absolutely with certain allowances to the married soldiers who were to occupy them, or to make them pay a certain amount for the occupation of these quarters? He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir Joseph Paxton) that it would have been much better to vote a large sum at once in order to carry out barrack improvements. That arrangement would have been at once more satisfactory and more economical. He had had the honour of sitting on a Committee for Barrack Improvement, and the understanding come to was that £40,000 a year should be devoted to this purpose. There was now a sum of £50,000 taken for sanitary improvements, and the other sum of £40,000 did not appear. He hoped to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that the arrangements connected with the new barracks at Chelsea were now finally terminated.

§ MR. CHILDERS
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain the item of £20,000 for the purchase of the hotel at Fleetwood, which he did not think at all suitable for a barrack. £8,000 had been spent on the Coventry barracks, and 5,000 was asked for now; and there was a large sum put down for land at York to increase the barrack accommodation there; but he wished to call attention to the case of Leeds, in the same county, which was more in want of barrack accommodation than York.

§ COLONEL SYKES
begged to call the attention of the Committee to the contingencies that arose on Votes now agreed to. If they looked to column 5, they would see that very large sums would be required in future, these sums being contingent upon others now or previously voted. For gas works at Aldershot there would next year be required £11,000, a sum of £10,000 having been already given. For a new Staff College £40,000 would be required, £20,000 having been already voted, and £25,000 being now asked for more land for barracks at Chelsea, £110,000—now asked for £30,000. For a new hospital at Woolwich there would be wanted in future £105,000, the sum now asked for being £15,000. These and other sums which he might specify would 606 ultimately be required in consequence of sums voted this year. The fact being that the above four Votes alone would require £266,000 to complete the works.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
asked what was to be done in reference to the proposed barracks at Glasgow? He understood that the site which had been suggested for the purpose was an inconvenient one, and that the locality fixed upon was of five times the value for which equally good ground could be procured.

COLONEL GILPIN
called the attention of the Committee to the state of military hospitals. He believed that if a soldier was afflicted with lunacy and his parish could not be ascertained he was farmed out. He believed that this was not a satisfactory state of things, and the Lunacy Commissioners had strongly reported against the present system in reference to lunacy.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, the Lunatic Asylums at Fort Clarence and Chatham had been condemned, and a Commission recommended the purchase of a piece of land for a new asylum on the banks of the Medway, near Maidstone; but for some reason or other the purchase had not been completed, and the matter remained in abeyance. He observed that there was to be a new Staff College at Sandhurst, but he should like to know how £75,000 was to be expended for that purpose. With respect to the item of £10,000 for erecting rifle range huts at Gravesend, he could not understand how this outlay should be needed when there existed so much accommodation at Chatham. The army at large were much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the present Vote for married soldiers' quarters. The gasworks at Aldershot would greatly increase the comfort of the troops, who were often driven to the public-house because a party of twenty men were only allowed the light of two miserable candles to read or write by.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better to remove Kensington Barracks altogether, and place them either in connection with the Chelsea Barracks or in some other situation.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, he would now answer the various questions that had been put to him. In reference to military lunatic asylums he recollected that the subject had been considered by the Sanitary Commission, who had made a recommenda- 607 tion to the Government on the subject; and were disinclined to recommend the erection of new lunatic asylums to be managed by Government authorities. He believed that it was better for the military lunatics that they should be placed in well-regulated private asylums supervised by the Lunacy Commissioners. He had no great faith in Governmental management of an asylum of this description, and particularly on this ground—that they had not a staff of men educated for that special purpose. It was no hardship to send military lunatics to private asylums, for the friends of persons in a better station of life preferred sending them to such places, and he believed that the lunatics there were well treated. As to the hospital at Netley, he did not think that the building had been spoken of in terms a bit too severe. He himself protested against the plan when it was first suggested, and a Commission of which he was a member reported against it. But the House did not support him in his objections. The truth, however, was that the building at Netley was commenced before public attention was directed to constructions of this kind. It was quite true that military hospitals were not well adapted for their purpose; but if from that statement it was inferred that civil hospitals were one whit better, the inference was quite wrong, for there were some of the large hospitals in London that would cap anything that existed in the worst military hospitals. The Government were now building barracks that would make incomparably better hospitals than many of those now in existence; for instance, the barracks for the Guards at Chelsea. He believed that they would be excellent barracks, but he was sure they would make incomparably better hospitals than the generality of the Metropolitan hospitals. Netly Hospital had been very expensive in its construction, and the expensive part of the building rendered it unfit for a hospital. There were long-corridors with deep rooms with windows at the end facing the North East, and no side ventilation; whereas, now that common sense was being applied to these subjects, it was well recognized that the proper treatment of the sick required the greatest possible admission of fresh air. The late Secretary for the Treasury opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had pointed out some difficulties in reference to military buildings, and said, "Why do you not go to the Board of Works and let them 608 build for you, or why not go to a civil architect?" Now, the fact was, that wherever the Engineers had built barracks in competition with civilians they had built them both better and cheaper than the civilians. That they should build them better was but natural, seeing that they were better acquainted than civilians could be with the habits and requirements of soldiers. In the time of Lord Panmure barracks wore built by competition, and the result was this:—The Infantry barracks at Devonport were built at a cost of £70 a man; those at Preston at £80 a man; those at Gosport at £91 a man; those at Aldershot, the cheapest barracks they had, at £51 a man; and those at Berwick at £96 a man. The tenders by civilians for the infantry were £140 per man, another £200, and another £212. For the cavalry in the same proportion, £195, £196, and £198. The Staff College was the next thing alluded to. At the Staff College there was accommodation for forty officers, each officer having a sitting-room and small dormitory; accommodation for forty-one servants and eighty-one horses, with libraries, hall of study, lecture-rooms, &c. All that, of course, was a serious addition to the expense of the building.

COLONEL NORTH
said, in his day the Staff officers used the room of the cadets.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, that was quite true, but it was intended to employ Sandhurst more extensively, where young men were to pass their time in order to go through the army. It had been observed that in some cases that the figures did not tally in the Estimates. One or two of the differences were obviously misprints. In the case of the London and Chelsea barracks the total estimated amount for the building was £140,000; and the sum of £120,000 which was taken last year was for the site alone, but he was happy to say that it had been obtained for a great deal less money. Another case was that of Gravesend. The sum stated as being spent last year was £17,000 in the purchase of land, and in that case of course the figures did not tally. With regard to the Euston Hotel at Fleetwood, that was intended not for a barrack, but to be a duplication of the establishment at Hythe, as the latter place was already overdone, and it had been represented that a similar establishment in the North would be advisable, and that this hotel could be easily converted into 609 officers' quarters. York and Nottingham were in the same position; a small sum had been taken for additional buildings to each. Both were cavalry barracks; and the Government thought it better to have a few large barracks than a number of small ones distributed over the country, as it was obviously much better for discipline and in all other respects, and was more economical. At Leeds the barrack was in a bad situation for the purpose, and it was a question whether it was not better to sell the site, which was valuable for other purposes, than to spend more money upon it. At Edinburgh estimates had been put forth from time to time for the purchase of a site for barracks, but the modern Athenians objected to spoiling the picturesque appearance of the neighbourhood, and put forth a design for a building of a highly ornamental character—one something resembling that House—which would cost a very large sum of money, but they did not propose to furnish the additional money that would be required to carry out their plan. He thought, therefore, it was better to give up the barracks at the Castle, and to look for another site outside the town. At Glasgow it had been proposed to purchase a site upon which had been erected a lunatic asylum; but, although very ornamental, the building was not suited for barracks, and therefore he thought it would be wise to look out for a site outside the town. Woolwich Hospital had been referred to, but he hoped that at least the Estimate for that hospitals would be left untouched. The garrison there was continually increasing, and the choice was between building new barracks or a new hospital. The present hospital was well fitted for barracks, and it was proposed to build a new hospital on a more eligible site for the purpose. It had been said that the improvements in barracks and married quarters were not carried out with sufficient rapidity; but there was immense pressure for various expenditure, and caution was necessary. He found that 2,327 barrack rooms and 349 hospital wards had been already ventilated, besides various other sanitary improvements, so that it could not be said the authorities had been idle or dilatory.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, that he understood that there was a gas company at Aldershot that had offered to supply gas on very liberal terms to the Government. He had been informed by disinterested parties that gas could be supplied to the 610 barracks at Aldershot far more advantageously than the Government were likely to supply it themselves. It would be satisfactory to hear from the right hon. Genleman if that point had been considered.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, he believed at this moment the subject was under consideration. It was a question whether the Government should build the works and have them worked by contract.

§ GENERAL UPTON
complained of land having been taken near the quarters of the Guards, which did not leave the men space sufficient to fling a quoit.

§ LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM
asked of what material the barracks at Hong Kong were to be built, and whether the necessity for their construction arose from the Chinese war.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
replied that it had been proposed to remove the troops at Hong Kong to a higher level, and a few huts had been erected as an experiment, but he could not say what material would be used.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the handsome manner in which he had spoken of the Engineer officers employed in public works, more especially as the memorandum issued some time ago had given great pain to them.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he thought it desirable that where there was any alteration from the original Estimate, attention should be called to it by a marginal Vote. He referred more particularly to the Vote for the Staff College.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he never knew money thrown away in a worse manner than that £70,000 for the Staff College. He thought the Staff College one of the greatest pieces of extravagance of the day. Qualification never was a reason for getting employment on the Staff, and he believed (having been in the College himself) that in twenty years not more than sixteen officers from the College had been employed. He wished, also, to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Vote of £5,000 for gymnasiums at the Curragh, and £10,000 for rifle ranges. £5,000 ought to be enough for twenty gymnasiums. They were distributing rifle arms in all directions; was it proposed to prepare rifle ranges for all branches of the army and the Volunteers as well? He wished to know what steps were being 611 taken towards procuring ground for the construction of these rifle ranges.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
called attention to the various Votes for purchases of land mentioned in the Estimates, as, for instance, in the case of a hospital at Woolwich, and of a battery at Glasgow. He thought they ought to have specific details of the lands purchased and the sums paid for them as separate items.

MR. HENLEY
regretted to hear the decision which the right hon. Gentleman had announced with regard to the treatment of lunatic soldiers. The condition of such persons in what was called the hospital at Chatham was as little satisfactory as that of the inmates of any similar establishment in the country. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to take these unfortunate persons from the hospital at Chatham and scatter them through the various private asylums. He ought, however, to remember that the Legislature had compelled the various authorities in counties and boroughs to take the pauper lunatics out of such places, and to provide accommodation for them. The manner in which a poor lunatic soldier had been turned out in the neighbourhood of Chatham, in order to raise a legal question as regarded the parochial authorities, was not a good sample of Government treatment of these poor creatures.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, he had not spoken of an intention to do anything. He had spoken of the existing practice, and in doing so had not said that the men removed from Chatham were scattered in private asylums throughout the country. They were removed to one asylum.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
requested an explanation respecting a sum of £5,000 taken for the erection of a gymnasium on the Curragh.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
Not for the Curragh only, but for gymnasia at the different stations.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
thought these gymnasia totally unnecessary, and his experience of them was that they were places at which men became ruptured and received injuries which unfitted them for soldiers.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, the Government sent an officer to Paris and Berlin to inquire into the system of gymnastics in use there, and it was found that the French had paid particular attention to gymnastics for the purpose of developing the strength and activity of their soldiers. 612 The system gave wonderful power to men who were not naturally very athletic or vigorous, and it was determined to adopt it to a moderate extent in this country. Of course, if men were allowed to frequent these gymnasia without proper control they would be liable to accidents; but, in point of fact, they would never use them except at slated hours, and under the eye of an officer who was competent to direct their exercise, and who would see that they did not expose themselves to unnecessary risk. The French soldiers subjected to this training were able to clear formidable palisades, to climb walls where there seemed to be no hold, and thus acquired a development of the muscular system which could not be attained by ordinary exercise. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member (Mr. A. Smith), it might be desirable for the future to distinguish in the Estimates between the cost of land and of buildings.

COLONEL LINDSAY
said, it was most important to provide soldiers in and about their quarters with means of recreation, which at the same time developed their muscular power. Some years ago the late Colonel Hood established a gymnasium for the use of one of the battalions of Guards. It was under proper supervision; to the best of his belief, but one, if one, accident occurred there, and the training they received added much to the physical efficiency of the men.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
persisted in thinking this sum of £5,000 an unnecessary expenditure. Soldiers did not like any exercise which assumed the shape of drill. If you wanted to give them exercise, let them play at cricket, or any other healthy amusement of the kind. He should move the reduction of the Vote by this sum.

§ COLONEL PERCY HERBERT
was surprised that a Gentleman who had once been in the service should oppose this Vote. If there was one thing more desirable than another, it was to give soldiers plenty of occupation, and to keep them out of the pothouse.

§ MT. BERNAL OSBORNE
The hon. Gentleman has convinced me. I shall divide upon this Vote.

COLONEL KNOX
asked what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do about the barracks at Chelsea. The plans of the barracks had been modified and altered until they had become extremely expensive, while in other respects he believed 613 the alterations to be for the worse. Was it proposed to begin these barracks at once? ["Divide!"] The hon. Member who called "divide" represented a northern constituency, and cared nothing about the soldier except to get as much out of him as possible. He stood there, however, as a representative of the army, and would not be put down by a mercantile man in any such way.

§ MAJOR PARKER
said, there was an item of £10,000 for rifle ranges. If you began to pay for these things for the Volunteers, the Rifle Volunteer movement would lose its present character.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
replied that these ranges were purchased for military stations, and not for Volunteers. The plans of the Chelsea barracks had been submitted to military men, who had thought highly of them. A Vote was asked for on account of them, and tenders were on the point of being taken for their erection

§ MR. CONINGHAM
understood there was to be a removal of depots from Woolwich to a situation further northwards, and yet buildings appeared to be proceeded with at Woolwich at a rate very alarming in respect to the public purse.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, that though some depôts of arms and ammunition might be removed from Woolwich, that place would still continue a very great military station, and the head-quarters of the Artillery.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
observed, that there were several items for making roads and drains, amounting in all to a large amount. If the soldiers were employed on that work and paid for it they would be better occupied than in gymnasiums.

MR. PIGOTT
said, he had been pointed out, particularly by the hon. and gallant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox), for some observation he was supposed to have made; but if the gallant officer had been connected with the mercantile world he would have been more punctual in his attendance in that House, and would have known that the matter alluded to by him had already been explained once or twice by the Secretary for War. If a division took place, he should vote with the hon. Member for Liskeard. This was only the commencement of a large expenditure, and if they began with £5,000 they would soon get up to £500,000.

COLONEL KNOX
said, he had not alluded to the hon. Gentleman.

COLONEL DICKSON
expressed his intention to vote with the hon. Member for Liskeard. There were many things on which this money could be spent more important to the army than gymnasiums. He trusted that some stop would be put to the expenditure of money on huts at Aldershot. If barracks were built in other parts the troops could be collected for two or three months at a time together under different commanders, and that would serve all the desired purpose.

COLONEL NORTH
supported the item which had been objected to. The object of every officer was to give some amusement to the soldiers.

MAJOR KNOX
said, he trusted that the Secretary for War would declare that this item was only the commencement of a system.

§ MR. CHILDERS
called attention to the item of £29,000 for the prosecution of the Ordnance Survey in England. He understood that in that amount was included a sum to defray the preliminary arrangements for completing the survey of the whole of England and Wales on a 25-inch scale. He thought the country owed a deep debt of gratitude to Colonel James for his conduct of the survey. But, as the expense of a survey on the enlarged scale, was estimated at no less a sum than £1,450,000, he thought the Committee should pause before embarking in so costly an undertaking; and, in order to raise the question, he moved that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £10,000. He had no objection to the survey in England and Wales being completed on a 6-inch scale.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, it would be in 615 the recollection of the Committee that about three years ago this subject was very much discussed, and that Lord Panmure, who then held the office of Secretary for War, appointed a Crown Commission to inquire and report. The Commissioners were unanimous in thinking that the expense of taking a survey upon a 25-inch scale exceeded by so very little the cost of a survey upon a 6-inch scale, that in regard to all new surveys it should be considered the least economical and most wasteful course to adopt a 6-inch instead of a 25-inch scale. A 25-inch scale could be reduced with case to any scale whatever, so that it possessed the advantage of a 6-inch scale with scarcely any additional expense. It should be remembered that a 6-inch scale was far beyond the limits of the size of a map, and therefore could never be available in that character. If a map was wanted, let a 1-inch scale be adopted. A 6-inch scale was fitted, not for a map, but for a plan, or what they called on the Continent a cadastre. The evidence was conclusive and the report unanimous, and he believed that with regard to the survey of cultivated tracks on the 25-inch scale being preferable to a survey on the 6-inch scale there would be no difference of opinion among those who read the evidence taken before that Commission.

COLONEL DUNNE
remembered the discussions that had formerly taken place on this Vote, and he thought it had been settled that the 25-inch scale was only to be applied to certain parts of Scotland. It now appeared it was to be applied to England too, and if so, of course to Ireland. He wished to know what would be the expense of this change of plan over the whole kingdom.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
thought that 25 was an unfortunate number, and that 24 inches would have been better, because it would have been the multiple of six inches. He could not understand what the rural districts could want with the 25-inch scale; and when it was considered that a survey on a large scale for the purpose of tithe commutation had been recently made, he thought the expense unjustifiable.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, there would be a 1-inch map for England, a 6-inch for Ireland, and a 25-inch for a considerable part of Scotland. There was no question between the 25-inch and the 6-inch, because the former was much more useful and a 616 very little more expensive. But the question was whether it was worth while that the whole of England should be surveyed over again on the 25-inch scale. If the three kingdoms were to be all surveyed on the 25-inch scale, it would cost some millions of money, and he suggested that the Committee should now report progress, and not seriously discuss the matter in this incidental manner, without notice, after midnight.

§ MR. JOSEPH LOCKE
had a distinct recollection of the discussion that took place formerly on this subject, and he understood that the conclusion come to was, that the parts of Scotland then under survey should be completed on the 25-inch scale, and no more. Since then, however, the survey on the 25-inch scale had been extended to other parts, he believed, without the authority of this House. It now appeared that it was to be extended to England, and in all probability to Ireland. He admitted that the question was a difficult one, but for that very reason he thought it was a strange thing to attempt to commit the House to the expense by a Vote of this kind. He would support the Motion for reporting progress.

§ MR. ELLICE (Coventry)
thought the Committee ought not to consent to this Vote without being fully aware that a 25-inch scale for England and Ireland meant not only an entirely new survey, but the maintenance of a permanent establishment for the perpetual correction of that survey. A 25-inch survey was nothing more nor less than a map of a man's estate, marking all the lanes, the trees, the hedges, drains, and a variety of features which were continually changing, so that what was a correct survey this year was anything but correct next year. The Committee ought, therefore, to take into consideration that not only was it asked to sanction a first expenditure of a good million, but to saddle the country to all time with the maintenance of an expensive permanent department.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
would postpone the Vote, but hoped the Committee would proceed with some of the unopposed Votes.