§ Order for Committee read. House in Committee; Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £201,833, be
1802
granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Departments of the Secretary of State for War, and of the General Commanding in Chief, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862, inclusive.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that until we returned to the organization of the War Departments as they existed before the war, it was vain to expect anything but waste and defective management. It was quite right, speaking in a military point of view, that the Commander-in-Chief should have the command of the whole of the army, but those details with respect to the fixed and usable matériel of an army, which formerly were in the control of the Ordnance Department, ought to be brought within some distinct and responsible control. As an instance there was not at the present moment a single man in England responsible to the country for the state of our defences. He wanted to know why there should be such an enormous establishment at head-quarters. The number of clerks was larger than ever it was before. He believed the size of the establishment was to be attributed mainly, if not altogether, to the want of organization. The Commander-in-Chief was quite capable of managing all the executive part of the army. It was absolutely necessary that some one should be placed over the scientific corps and the manufacturing establishments, and that the person selected to fill the post should be responsible for the state of our defences. It could not be denied that our establishments were not in a satisfactory state. The departments were filled with useless officers—officers who were unknown in former times. What could we want, for example, with a director of clothing, and of what use could a precis writer be in a military department? It was matter of complaint, too, that under the present system of registration many letters were left unanswered, and the correspondence in the offices was much slower than it ought to be. He thought, moreover, that the payments in the military departments should be brought under the view of one officer who should be responsible to the public. What was wanted was unity of control over all these departments.
Notice taken that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members being present—
COLONEL DUNNEproceeded to say that the great defect of our military system was the want of organization and responsibility. Everything was desultory. The result was 1803 that the expenses had enormously increased in every item. The old system might not have been perfect, but it was far preferable to the present arrangement. The Master General of the Ordnance used to be answerable for our defences; but now our fortresses were in a most unsatisfactory condition, and no one seemed responsible for the short-comings. Why should there not be some recognized military tribunal to determine on the merits of arms and accoutrements? It had taken three years after it had been pointed out by himself to remove a small brass guard which made every lance utterly useless, because there was no proper authority to whom the matter could be referred. It was very unpleasant for military men to criticise these matters, but he had no other object than the economy and efficiency of the service. He thought that the Under Secretary for War should be perfectly conversant with military details. Such knowledge could not be got by study, and in many instances the success of an expedition might depend on it. In the Crimea the neglect of some small details led to very disastrous consequences. In France the system of military organization was perfect. We had no means of transporting our cavalry, our horses could not go into cattle trucks, the tops being too low for the accoutrements. By a little arrangement these things might be attended to as in France, He hoped to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the recommendations of the Committee of last year would be carried out. He thought that near a million of these Estimates might be saved by proper organization.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he could not admit that there was great want of responsibility. The Commander-in-Chief was responsible for the discipline of the army, and the Secretary of Stale for War was responsible for the state of the various military establishments. He was responsible for the state of our fortifications, assisted by the Inspector General of Fortifications. He was responsible for the state of our artillery, assisted by high officers of that branch of the service; and so on through the whole extent of our military, medical, and commissariat arrangements. He could not see, therefore, that a very much better system could be adopted. He objected to the system of payment, for he did not think military officers should be paymasters, as it was not their legitimate duty. With regard to the establishments, he thought they had too many temporary 1804 clerks, and that it would be an economical improvement to increase the number of permanent clerks by promoting the temporary clerks. There were now in the War Office 145 temporary clerks, in addition to 357 permanent ones; many of these temporary clerks had been employed for eight, ten, and some even as long as fourteen years. If these gentlemen were really required it would surely be better both for themselves and for the service, as well as more economical, that they should be placed on the permanent staff. The Estimates he regretted to observe were framed with very little regard to economy, and many items were introduced which were either quite unnecessary or might very well be postponed. The Clerk of the Ordnance formerly made an annual circuit over the whole of the establishments in England, Scotland, and Ireland. If the Under Secretary for War would follow the same course and make a yearly inspection, no doubt he would detect many items which ought never to have found their way into the Estimates, and would have them eliminated in future. If the Report of the Organization Committee were adopted, he felt certain that great economy would be the result, and that the Estimates presented next year would be much more satisfactory to the House.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved that there were several items in these Estimates larger than the corresponding Estimates of last year, and the Estimates of last year were the largest which had ever been presented to Parliament in time of peace. He saw at Page 50 a Vote for Fortifications. He wished to know whether this sum was intended to carry out the Fortifications for which a sum was voted towards the close of last Session; and also to know, either from the hon. Gentleman or the noble Viscount, whether those fortifications were intended to be completed. He noticed a Director of Stores, employed at a salary of.£1,200. The gentleman occupying this post, he had been informed, was a captain in the Royal Navy. He begged to know whether this was the fact? In the Vote for two Accountant-Generals he found a sum of £631 more taken this year than last. Last year the amount was £1,000; this year it was £1,631. He should be glad to know the reason of this increase. Then there was a very unaccountable charge in the next page, of £20,800 for extra clerks. He found, too, that there were twelve less in number of 1805 messengers, doorkeepers, &c, than last year, and yet they were to cost £434 more. Advertisements and travelling expenses were higher by a sum of £2,000; the charge of the department of the General Commanding-in-Chief was increased by a sum of £500; that of the Adjutant General, by £600. Taken together, all the sums by which various items were increased this year amounted to £5,690 more than last year. He begged to ask the Chairman whether he was at liberty to move the reduction of the Vote by this sum, so as to disallow the excess over last year, without putting the Committee to the necessity of dividing some five or six times over?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was quite competent for the hon. Gentleman to move the reduction of the Vote by the gross sum, but, if he did so, it would preclude any other Member from proposing the reduction of any particular item.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not wish to do that.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that during the year 1856–7, the House voted enormous Estimates for the War Department and the Horse Guards on account of the extra work caused by the Crimean war. They were told at the time that the increase was only temporary, and would terminate with the return of peace. That expectation had, however, not been fulfilled. Surely it was possible under the existing consolidation of departments to exercise some control over that inordinate outlay and bring it down to something like a suitable standard for a time of peace. If they were to compare the Estimates of this year—a year of peace—with that of 1856–7—a year of war—the results would be found somewhat remarkable. In 1856–7, they had 246,000 men in their service, or just 100,000 more than there were at present. The cost of those men in that year was £34,900,000; this year it was only £14,000,000. The expense of the War Office, on the other hand, wasnow £175,000, whereas in 1856–7 it was only £169,000. That of the departments connected with the Horse Guards now was £26,000, whereas then it was £22,000. So that the expenditure of those Departments was now £10,000 more than it was when the war expenditure was 150 per cent greater. This increase ran throughout the administration of the army. There were now 357 permanent clerks on the establishment. Others were called temporary clerks, al- 1806 though some had served already for fourteen years. In 1856-7, however, there were only 344 of these permanent clerks. In like manner, whilst they paid £19,200 only for temporary clerks in a time of war—and we were then told that when the war ceased that amount would be diminished—they were now paying £20,800 for temporary clerks in time of peace. There were other points upon which he really thought his hon. Friend must be called upon to give some account to the Committee with regard to the messengers. In 1856–7 a sum of £5,691 was spent upon messengers; they now cost £7,500. He noticed also that there were forty-five messengers now on the establishment, whereas last year there were only thirty-three. Could his hon. Friend explain the reason for this increase? Similar observations would apply to the Horse Guards Department, and to the number of the Adjutant General's clerks, who were three more now than were found requisite during the Russian war. In the office of the General Commanding-in-Chief there were last year twenty-two clerks; there were now twenty-four. He had no wish to cut down the salaries of these gentlemen—on the contrary, he thought that would he acting in a very false spirit of economy—but unless some satisfactory explanation were given he should feel it to he his duty to move to reduce the Votes for several items.
CAPTAIN JERVISwished to ask what was the meaning of a Secretary for Military Correspondence? Everything belonging to a soldier's equipment, to military stores of every description, to contracts, &c, was military correspondence. Then, why were civilians solely employed to conduct the correspondence of the Army? The reason was that the country could never make up its mind to treat the army as a profession. In the legal or medical professions the men who distinguished themselves most were placed at the head of their professions; but in the army military men were systematically excluded from administration and finance. He had heard it asserted that the late Commander-in-Chief in the Crimea, though possessed of full powers, yet found himself incapable of exercising those powers, from his having been for forty years at the Horse Guards, and brought up in a school where he was not allowed to interfere with a single £5 of expense. They might rest assured that until the several departments at the War Office were thrown open to offi- 1807 cers of the army no real efficiency would be met with at a period of emergency. He trusted yet to see the Military Secretary placed in his proper position under the Secretary of State. It was understood that the whole correspondence of the Horse Guards passed through the hands of the Military Secretary; but if he (Captain Jervis) were not mistaken not one-half went through his hands, but passed from the Adjutant-General to the Store Department and other offices direct. Even at the Horse Guards much of the duties were performed by civilian clerks; except in the office of the Adjutant-General of Artillery, where an enormous amount of correspondence was carried on relating to the Ordnance arrangements in all parts of the world by eighteen non-commissioned officers and privates at a total cost of £1,800 a year, including clothing. The only other office of which he would then take notice was that of the Director of Ordnance. The non-appointment of this officer was viewed with great dissatisfaction by the army. He (Captain Jervis) hoped he would be placed in a position compatible with the importance of his office.
§ COLONEL SYKESbelieved that any attempt on the part of an independent Member to reduce the Estimates in detail would always be utterly hopeless, because the Government had in attendance a sufficient number of Members to overwhelm any one who should make such an attempt. He thought that there was little or no chance of securing a reduction in this manner; and it seemed to him that the only plan was for the House, at the commencement of a Session, to pass a series of Resolutions, giving a lump sum for each Department, and giving those Departments notice that that sum must he the limit of their expenditure. He wished to ask a question with regard to an increase that had not before been mentioned. Last year, in the Department of the Secretary of State for War, there was no Director of Ordnance—this year there was one, with a salary of £1,000. In the Accountant General's Office there were last year two officials, the Accountant General and the Deputy, and their salaries amounted to £2,000; a second Deputy was now added, and their salaries increased to £2,850. He wished to know why these additional offices had been created.
GENERAL LINDSAYhoped the Government would give a full explanation of its Intentions with regard to an organization 1808 of the War Department—a subject in which he took a deep interest. The Committee on the subject, of which he was a member, made several important recommendations; one of the most important of them referring to the position held by the Secretary for Military Correspondence. The opinion of the Committee was that the post should be abolished altogether, and the Secretary constituted one of the Under Secretaries of State. There was already one permanent Under Secretary in the War Department, and a political Under Secretary who was removed at every change of Government. The Committee thought that a Military Under Secretary ought to be appointed, who should be permanent, remaining under any change of Government, and prepared to give information to the civil officials. The army made no claim to have a military man appointed Secretary; but when a military officer had been proved to be able and efficient he ought to hold a position of some actual authority. Sir Edward Lugard, he believed, was consulted on almost every occasion; he worked hard, and was of the greatest use in the Department; but he really held no practical position. He had a certain number of clerks working under him; but he had no distinct department under his control. It was only fair, if a military officer was attached to the War Department, that he should hold a distinct position that gave him some degree of power. The army had a claim to be represented in the War Department in a responsible position.
§ MR. MELLORsaid, those hon. Members who had signed a certain document advocating economy in the expenditure were sneered at as "financial reformers," who never attended when the Estimates were discussed; or, if they attended, because they did not second every crude suggestion of a saving. But he thought it was better to make a representation direct to the heads of the Departments, who controlled the expenditure, than to waste time in the House in discussing the details of the Estimates. His own experience convinced him that very little saving could be effected by merely discussing the Estimates in the House. It was time to try some other mode of enforcing economy; he had, therefore, signed the memorial urging the Government to retrenchment in the public expenditure, as he should be ready to sign any similar document that was more likely to produce the result desired than discussion in the House, He believed those per- 1809 sons who were most able to reduce the amount of the Estimates were the heads of Departments,
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he could not allow the sentiments just expressed to pass without remark. He knew nothing more injurious—nothing that ought to be more deprecated, nothing that it was more important that the House should discourage, than the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the control of the public expenditure by the House of Commons was a mere delusion. Nothing could be more injurious, more destructive to the constitutional privileges and influence of this House, than that it should be allowed to be said that they were not to bring the expenditure of the country before the elected representatives of the people for the purpose of keeping it within proper limits, but were to go lurking about the ante-chambers of Ministers, and endeavour there to make arrangements in respect of the public finance. It would be a most dangerous principle to acknowledge, and he should be sorry if hon. Gentlemen on the other side—to whom he gave credit for feelings as pure as his own—were to tolerate or sanction it for a moment. The House of Commons was the proper place in which the proposed expenditure of the country ought to be brought forward by the Government, and it should be criticised by the representatives of the people and regulated exclusively by the balance of opinion. But the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, besides being false in principle and fatal in practice, was not founded in fact. The hon. and learned Member had said their criticism did no good. He begged to contradict the hon. and learned Gentleman. He denied that it was an idle and barren ceremony that they should criticise with the utmost deliberation and care the expenditure proposed by the Government. He denied that when a good plea for reduction was brought forward in that House it had always proved fruitless in results. It might be inoperative in the year in which it was advanced, but it was not correct to say that it had no effect. It always told in the end. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not had a very long experience here, but he would not taunt him with that; but many hon. Gentlemen must have remembered an occasion—not a time of great political excitement—in which there had been proposed a vast increase in the taxation of the country—no less than 12d. 1810 in the pound on the income tax—to carry into effect very largely increased Military and Naval Estimates. What did the House do then? It was only a few years ago, when the noble Lord at present at the head of the Government held another office, the House of Commons disapproved of that increase of taxation, and interfered; both sides of the House, without reference to any party feeling, spoke in a manner so unmistakeable and so distinct that the Government withdrew the Estimates, and the country had in consequence a decreased expenditure to a very large extent, and an income tax was proposed and agreed to of 7d. instead of 12d., and the Naval and Military Estimates were adapted to the revenue so reduced. That the business of the House of Commons, in considering the expenditure was a mere idle ceremony and imposture could not be seriously believed;—if it were so they had better not meet at all, for it was their principal object and their chief duty to the public to control the expenditure, and if they did not fulfil that duty they had no claims whatever on the public confidence. No doubt every Minister brought forward the Estimates under a deep sense of duty and responsibility; he did not bring them forward unless he believed they were necessary. He admitted, also, that there were some hon. Members who criticised those Estimates without argument, and found fault without reason—he would name no names—but he was not sure that even bad criticism was without its good results, and was one that the House ought absolutely to discourage. He would not make any personal allusions, but all knew that they had a surplusage of criticism in matters of Supply in the House; he thought it was not always barren of useful results, but, at all events, it furnished no ground for the doctrine that because these captious complaints were unsuccessful the House of Commons was to abdicate its duty—its first duty—its control over (he expenditure of the country. He felt confident that when Her Majesty's Ministers brought forward these Estimates, had they been opposed to the public interest, and had the House of Commons felt they were not justified, no consideration of political convenience would have prevented the House from expressing its opinion and refusing to grant the Supplies. The House of Commons, not in theory but in practice, exercised a control over the public expenditure. They were, by the constitution, 1811 appointed to control it, and by the practice of Parliament they had and exercised that power when it was necessary. He, therefore, protested against the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and those who concurred with him, whether they called themselves "financial reformers," or anything else, and he trusted that the House would not be led away from the question before it, but would in Committee of Supply use the power of controlling the expenditure of the country; and if any attempt was made in any quarter to reduce it and failed, he should feel assured that the votes agreed to had been shown to be justified by the requirements of the public service.
§ MR. MELLORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had imputed sentiments to him which he had never uttered. Nothing that he had said had called for the solemn lecture which had just been delivered. Experience led him to believe that a great number of these discussions on small items were of very little use, and, therefore, it was that he, not at all endeavouring to dissuade the House from exercising its functions in Committee of Supply, merely explained that he had found such discussions unproductive, and why he had in this instance tried another mode of influencing expenditure.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, during his long experience in that House he had never before that night heard such a speech as that of the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham. In Committee of Supply the hon. and learned Gentleman got up—did not say one word on the Vote under discussion—but occupied the Committee with a statement of something he had done on some other occasion, and then proceeded to read hon. Members of all sides a lecture as to their proceedings in Committee of Supply—a matter on which as it appeared he knew nothing—and intimated that all discussion of the Estimates was useless. His right hon. Friend the Member fur Buckinghamshire, who had had great experience, had risen and inflicted a severe and deserved rebuke, and had consulted the dignity of the House in so doing. For himself he (Sir William Jolliffe) protested against the tone of the hon. and learned Member's observations.
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, if the right hon. Baronet had been in his place a little sooner that night he would have found that the hon. Member for Nottingham had received much provocation for his ob- 1812 servations in the taunts which had been thrown out against him as one of those Members who had signed the celebrated document in favour of economy in the expenditure of the country.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had not alluded in the least to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman had signed that document. What he said was that Gentlemen who talked loud on the hustings and wrote very finely about financial reform never took a step in the House to carry it out. He should not be deterred by the hon. and learned Gentleman's lecture from doing all he could in these discussions to carry out those reforms in the army which he thought necessary. Nothing but perseverance, he knew, would carry them, and, though it might not be this year, nor next, sooner or later a reorganization of the army would be effected. When in office he had done what he could to secure the reforms he thought necessary by pressing them on the attention of his colleagues, and out of office he should not cease to press them on the attention of the Government.
MR. T. G. BARING, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth, stated that the appointment of the Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications was not a new office—it was the same as last year. The work thrown upon Sir John Burgoyne and the other officers of the department had been considerably increased by the new fortifications going on, but no addition had been made to this Vote, the additional expense being defrayed from the loan. The next office the hon. Member had referred to was the Directorship of Stores and Clothing; but that also was not a new appointment, and the same sum was voted in the Estimates for it from year to year. It was at present held by a distinguished naval officer, who had been employed in the Baltic during the late war, and who has for some time filled the office of Director of Naval Ordnance. In that capacity he gained such a general acquaintance with ordnance stores of all kinds that when the office of Director of Stores was created he was appointed to it, and he had discharged its duties with great diligence. The Army Department furnished a large amount of stores to the navy, so that, even if he had not been appointed, it might have been necessary to have a naval officer in the department. The appointment of As- 1813 sistant Accountant General was made upon the recommendation of a Treasury Committee, and was absolutely necessary. He believed there would be great advantage in having that additional office) ', as the first step towards economy was to insure accurate and careful accounts. The Committee would observe that only a small increase of expense would be the result, because the salary of the Accountant General was reduced from £1,500 to £1,200 a year. Then as to the precis writer, it must not be supposed that this officer would cost £1,000 a year additional, as the salary of the gentleman in the department who had been appointed already amounted to that sum. That salary he retained; but the salary which attached to the office was £600 a year, rising by £25 a year to £800 a year. Then as to the librarian, it was indispensable to have some gentleman to look after the large collection of books—some 70,000 volumes—which belonged to this department. Mr. Marshall, an officer of great ability and long service, had accepted the appointment, and the duties of it would, he believed, be very onerous, With respect to the large number of temporary clerks, he agreed that it was not to the advantage of the public service; but the Secretary of State wished to act with caution in increasing the permanent establishment. The Accountant General's Department would when reorganized require in addition to its present staff, a certain number of the junior ranks; but, as there would probably be a diminution in the total number of first class clerks, no extra expense would be occasioned by the change The increase of transit boys had cost very little, and their employment in carrying papers from room to room had greatly facilitated the transaction of business. The increase in the expense of advertisements was only nominal, arising from a transfer of all the advertisements in other Votes into this Vote. As to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Dunne) upon the defences of the country, he believed they were in a far more satisfactory state than they ever were at any former period.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might have some private information with respect to some fort of small consequence in a distant part of the world; but, treating the question broadly, 1814 he could assure the Committee that the defences of the whole British empire were in a better position than at the time when the Board of Ordnance ceased its functions. With regard to the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War, it must be remembered that upon fortifications he was able to consult with Sir John Burgoyne, who was, perhaps, the most able engineer officer in this or any other service. There would also be a Director General of Ordnance, whom the Secretary of State could consult on the artillery portion of the service. Provision for the salary of this new officer was inserted in the Estimate in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee on Military Organization which sat last year, and he would exercise superintendence over though be would not interfere with the details of the manufacture of ordnance and ammunition at Woolwich. He did not agree in thinking that the office of the Assistant Director of Stores and Clothing at Whitehall was unnecessary. The officers at the head of the large establishment at Pimlico could not manage the clothing department of the War Office. It was absolutely necessary that there should be some one at Whitehall to assist in the management of that important branch of this Department. He admitted that it was an exceedingly inconvenient arrangement to make the military officers at the head of the manufacturing establishments give security, and be responsible for the cash and for the payment of wages. An alteration had been made by which cashiers would be appointed in the different establishments who would give security, and receive a small annual addition to their salaries. The further employment of soldier clerks was under consideration. He denied the justice of the proposition of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that, unless he was able to give explanations of the difference between the Estimates of the present and any preceding year, the Committee ought not to be satisfied, as he thought Ids position only required that he should be able to defend any particular item in these Estimates to which exception might he taken. There might be a gradual diminution of expenditure in various cases, but he saw no possibility of any sudden reduction. Now, if the hon. Gentleman had taken the expenditure of the War Office for the year 1856–7, and compared it with the Estimates of this year, he would find that the estimate 1815 of this year was much below that expenditure. The Vote for the War Office in 1856–7 was £179,886, and the estimate this year was £175,738—making £4,148 less than the expenditure of that year. He did not mean to say there might not be some items in which reduction could be made. Still, on the other hand, it was extremely necessary that no undue delay should take place in the transaction of business. He quite concurred in the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Lindsay), and the recommendations of the Select Committee as to the organization of the War Office. Its great defect undoubtedly was the want of military officers, with practical experience, to advise the Secretary of State. His noble Friend at the head of the Department had resolved to carry out the plan recommended by the Committee. A Director of Ordnance would be appointed as soon as the Vote was sanctioned by Parliament. His noble Friend also proposed to appoint a military officer as permanent Under Secretary of State; these changes would not involve any increased expenditure, and the present Vote would, therefore, be sufficient to provide for them. He cordially concurred in the praise which had justly been bestowed by the hon. and gallant officer upon Sir Edward Lugard (Secretary for Military Correspondence), to whom the Secretary of State was indebted for valuable assistance.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he was not a Member of the body who arrogated to themselves the title of "financial reformers;" nevertheless, he was desirous to see the principle of economy carried out, with a due regard to the efficiency of the public service, and he thought the increase in the Votes of this year could not be passed over without notice. There was one item in this enormous expenditure which had been alluded to by the hon. Members for Lambeth and Pontefract, but to which he again wished to draw the attention of the Committee. He alluded to the very large sum put down for messengers, porters, door-keepers, &c. This item of about £7,300 demanded, he thought, further explanation from the hon. Under Secretary for War.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, nothing could have been more satisfactory than the explanation which his hon. Friend had given to the Committee, but he desired a little more information as to the particular duties to be performed by the Director of Ord- 1816 nance. Was he to be Director General of the Artillery, and would he be responsible for the state and condition of the arms at home and abroad? or would he have to be responsible for the state and condition of the arsenal and factories at Woolwich? By the Report of the Committee, laid upon the table of the House, it appeared that the arsenal at Woolwich was well conducted, while, on the other hand, nothing could be much worse than the account given by the Commissioners of the state of the dockyard at Woolwich. If the Government intended to appoint an officer whose business it would be to interfere with the heads of the Departments, it would considerably diminish their responsibility and interfere with those operations which were now carried on so well, and, in the end, the appointment would be a complete failure. It would be impossible for any establishments in the world, were they in the hands of the Government or in the hands of private individuals, to be more economically and more efficiently managed than those at Woolwich.
§ MR. HUMBERSTONcomplained of the increased amount of money required for clerks, and said he should be glad to be informed whether the office of precis writer and librarian was a new office for the gentleman who had been appointed to it at such a large salary, and whether the situation which he held previously had been filled up at the same salary paid to this gentleman?
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE, in reference to the temporary messengers and boys and doorkeepers employed at the War Office, said, there was a class of most deserving men—soldiers who had been discharged on account of wounds and long service—who could perform these duties efficiently. Perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary for War, who, he knew, wished to promote the deserving men of the army, would see whether this Vote could not be expended in the employment of men who would perform the duties more efficiently than boys, and it would in some degree be a recognition of their services in foreign climes.
MAJOR KNOXthought the explanation with regard to the appointment of the precis writer was unsatisfactory, for Mr. Panizzi, of the British Museum, received only £800 a year, and he performed much greater duties. But his immediate object in rising was to learn whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. G. Baring) could give any information in reference to the war- 1817 rant issued in March last, which prevented officers retiring on half-pay before they had been 25 years in the service. Before that date 18 years, and in some cases 21 years were sufficient; and officers returning from India and other stations considered it a great hardship that they could not retire on half-pay until 25 years had been completed. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would give a satisfactory answer for the alteration in the time of service.
COLONEL DUNNE,in explanation, said, he never meant to say that the Secretary for War should be held responsible for the condition of the fortresses abroad and at home. His responsibility could be only nominal, for it was impossible that he should be held responsible for the details of fortresses abroad, of which he could know nothing. With regard to the clothing department, he was still of opinion that the officer in Pall-mall, who presided over the department there was useless, as the three colonels who were placed over the Department were perfectly competent and quite sufficient to manage the whole business. As to the appointment of the precis writer, it would be found that it would be of no earthly use to the Secretary for War. The Government had attempted to create a central registration office in the War Department, and the result was the employment of these transit boys, but he believed they would be found to be of no use whatever. He thought if the hon. Gentleman had read the report of General Eyre in reference to the fortresses in Canada, he would not have answered in the way he had done. As to the question of responsibility for the condition of our fortresses abroad, he would put the matter in this way—if a requisition were sent from any of our fortresses abroad, who would have to decide on it?
GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, that after the explanation which the Committee had heard from the Under Secretary of State as to the organization of the War Department, he should not proceed with the Motions of which he had given notice. It was decided by the Committee on Military Organization that there ought to be a Director of Ordnance who should have the general superintendence of the manufacturing departments, but should not immediately interfere with the heads of those Departments.
CAPTAIN JERVISthought it would be advantageous to the heads of these departments that some officer should he appointed 1818 who would understand their business, and through whom they might communicate with the War Office.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the salary attached to the office of precis writer had been reduced by £200. The clerkship of the gentleman who had been appointed had been filled, but at a much less salary. The suggestion of the hon. Baronet as to the employment of discharged soldiers as messengers should be considered; as to their number they were fewer than were attached to most other public offices. It was not intended that the Director of Ordnance should interfere with the responsibility of the heads of the manufacturing departments. The question as to half-pay he would answer when the Vote for that service was before the Committee.
§ MR. CONINGHAMthought the office of précis writer ought not to be a permanent one. He was glad to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite so steady to-night in the assertion of the fact that the House of Commons was called upon to exercise authority over the public expenditure, for the tone some of them had taken lately might have led to a different conclusion.
§ MR. TURNER, without expressing any opinion on the question whether the Government ought to be maunfacturers, felt it right to state that he had never seen accounts better kept, or establishments more creditably conducted, than those at Woolwich. As he had spent some weeks at these places, be thought he was qualified to give an opinion; and he was the more glad to speak approvingly in the case of Woolwich, because they presented a very favourable contrast to those at Weedon and the Tower, where the discrepancies were disgraceful. He should be sorry to see any superior officer appointed who would interfere to any great extent with the present arrangements at Woolwich.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked, whether any steps had been taken to reduce the enormous charge for temporary clerks? He wished to know whether any stops had been taken to reduce the immense mass of writing that was carried on? The existing system was really a reduction ad absurdum. As an instance of the absurd extent to which form was carried, he referred to a case in which eight distinct letters had been written about a matter involving an addition of 1d. per week to the salary of a porter. He also wished to know whether the War Office considered them- 1819 selves bound to adhere to the Vole of £171,000 for the War Office, as in the last published Estimate—that for 1858–9—there was an excess over the estimated charge of £9,210? The detailed account for 1859–60 had been presented, but had not yet been printed, and when printed would be practically of no use, as the Estimates would be gone through before it was in the hands of Members. To show how rapidly and silently expenditure grew, the item for" advertisements and contingencies" had jumped in a single year from £2,500 to £5,000.
COLONEL KNOXcomplained that the number of clerks employed in the War Department was disproportioned to the amount of work to be done. He protested against the class of supernumerary clerks being kept up; the brunt of the work fell upon them, but they had not the same advantages of promotion as the other gentleman engaged in the office, some of them having been in their present position for six or seven years without advancement. The Government should define the number of clerks necessary to perform the business to be done, and all should be placed in a fair position for promotion. He asked whether the supernumerary clerks in the War Office were ever promoted, or whether their salaries were ever increased? He thought both ought to take place or the supernumerary clerks ought to be abolished.
§ MR. CONINGHAMobjected to the appointment of précis writer and librarian. He moved that £1,000 be struck off from the Vote in reference to that officer.
§ CAPTAIN STACPOOLEasked for information respecting the number of clerks which it was intended permanently to retain, and the positions which it was intended they should occupy.
COLONEL DICKSONcomplained of the monstrous increase of expense at the War Office. In 1853–4 the charge for clerks at the War Office was only £37,261, whereas this year it was £117,845: while the increase in the army had been only £40,000. It was a farce to be discussing these Estimates year after year, and yet to allow such extravagance to pass. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £50,000.
MR. T. G. BARINGregretted that the two gallant Officers who had just spoken were not in the House when he gave an explanation of some of the points to which reference had been made.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, it was impossible 1820 for him to know that these Estimates would be brought on, as he was not familiar with the new arrangements as to business.
COLONEL DICKSONobjected to the number of clerks in the establishment, and moved as a further Amendment, that the Vote be reduced to the extent of £50,000.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he had given the usual notice that the Army Estimates would be brought on that night. He had already at an earlier period of the debate explained many points recently raised, and he would not now repeat his explanations. There were many gentlemen of great ability at the War Office who rendered the State service, although they remained unknown. Yet were it not for their diligence and ability, he should have been unable to give the Committee information on the many points that had been inquired into that night. With respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, he justified the salary by reference to other Departments. As to the amount of writing Lord Herbert had issued an order by which the present system of writing would be very much curtailed. He had been asked by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), whether he could guarantee that the Vote, if agreed to, should not be exceeded? All he could say was that the expenditure should be carefully watched, with a view to prevent an excess above the estimate. In answer to the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), he must observe that state of affairs was not exactly as he had represented it. In 1853–4, the expenses of the War Office were £174,334. According to the increase of the number of the forces the expenses would be this year £210,700; but the estimate was £201,833, or a diminution of £8,867. He did not mean to say that the expenses of the Department must be in proportion to the number of men; but, assuming this to be the proper test, then the present Estimates showed, not an increase, but a decrease.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, as usual, the hon. Gentleman who last spoke had not answered one of the questions which had been put to him. Why should they spend £80,000 a year more on clerks than they did when the army was 40,000 men more? Why should they not have made one of the thirteen first class clerks précis writers instead of creating an express officer with a salary of £1,000. a year?
§ MR. MONSELLobserved, that in the 1821 year referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dickson) there were charges for clerks in the Ordnance and Commissariat Departments which brought the total for this item up to a much higher sum than he had stated. The precis writer was a first-class clerk.
§ MR. WYLDthought the hon. Gentleman had made a clear explanation, but the fact was that a thorough revision was required in all the public departments. As an instance of this he might mention a case that had taken place soon after the Crimean war. A chaff-cutter was injured by some members of the Military Train. Seven minutes were made on this subject, six letters were written, and twenty-five persons were involved in the correspondence, though the whole cost of the repairs only amounted to £2.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that we were governed by clerks. Railway secretaries, who were worked like galley slaves, had only £1,000 a year. There were plenty of literary men who would jump at £400 or £500 a year for the duty of precis writer and librarian.
§
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put,
That the item of £1,000, for the Precis Writer and Librarian, be omitted from the proposed Vote.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 100; Noes 131: Majority 31.
§ Original Question again proposed,
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the expenditure for the army during the war was £35,000,000; now it was £14,000,000, and yet the expenditure in the War Office was less during the war than it was at present. The Under Secretary for War stated that if they compared the expenditure in the War Office for 1853–4 with that of the present year they would find that there was a heavier charge in 1853–4 than there was now; but he did not include in the charge for the present year the expense of postage, which, in the former year, was no less than £60,000 out of £195,000. At the time of the war there were 344 clerks in the War Office, and the expenditure for them was about £85,000 a year; there were now 357 clerks, and the expenditure was £95,485 a year, so that there was an increase in the expenditure of £10,000 a year on the permanent establishment. There was also an increased expenditure of £2,000 a year for temporary clerks. In order to test the opinion 1822 of the Committee he moved that the item be reduced by £3,000.
GENERAL LINDSAYagreed that the number of clerks should bear some correspondence to the number of men; but in this case there might be some reason for the increase. Formerly, the clothing department was not within the control of the War Office. Now, there was more correspondence between the various regiments on the one part, and the War Office and Horse Guards on the other upon clothing than upon any other matter. The Volunteer movement must also have added greatly to the correspondence of the War Department.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that one part of the increase in this item of the Vote was for ten third class clerks, who had been added with the sanction of the Treasury to the Accountant General's Department. If hon. Gentlemen intended again to raise a contrast between the year 1855–6 and the present time, then he could perhaps, give the Committee a few broad reasons, which would show why this expenditure had been increased. In the first place, hon. Gentlemen were aware that although the troops in India were not paid for by this country, yet the number of Her Majesty's troops in India had increased very greatly since 1855, and this had increased the correspondence of the War Office. Again, the increased number of troops in the shape of second battalions of regiments had added a considerable amount of work to the duties of the office. The actual increase in the expenses of the War Department in consequence of the Volunteers was about £3,000. Then, there was the operation of the Limited Service Act, according to which the men took their discharge after ten years, which greatly increased the correspondence. The establishment of schools of gunnery, and the great increase in the manufacture and change of warlike stores, had had the same effect. When all these things were taken into account it would be seen that the increase of expense for the clerks in the War Department was on the whole small from 1855–6 to the present year. He thought he had shown there was a considerable increase of duties, with but a small increase of expense.
§ COLONEL SYKESremarked that there had been no increase in the second battalions since last year.
COLONEL DICKSONthought that with the 494 clerks in the office there was no 1823 necessity to take 10 clerks from the Treasury into the Accountant General's Department.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that it was evident that a great change had come over the House and the country with respect to those Departments. The House was tired of paying large salaries when the work could be got better done by practical men. The House was indebted to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) for the practical and business-like suggestions which he had made. Indeed, he was the only "financial reformer" who came regularly down, and devoted his attention to retrenchment in his place in that House. The employment of soldiers as clerks, which the Under Secretary had promised, would tend materially to economy, as practical men could be got at £100,a year, who would work from nine to six in their offices, instead of paying £400 a year to Gentlemen for attending from ten to four. He could not, however, vote for the Amendment.
§
"Whereupon Motion made, and Question put,
That the item of £95,845, for Clerks in the War Department, be reduced by the amount of £3,000.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 75; Noes 165: Majority 81.
§ Original Question again proposed,
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that however anxious hon. Gentlemen might be to promote the cause of economy, they did not appear able to hit on the right mode of procedure. It certainly seemed to him that the proper plan would be to revert to the ancient method of moving Amendments in Supply, namely, to reduce the amount of the Vote, and leave the Secretary of State the necessary discretion for reorganizing his department. The patent fact before the House was, that they were decreasing the army and increasing the establishment; and it was the duty of the Committee to see that that increase did not take place. He should, therefore, move to reduce the Vote to the sum it was last year, namely, £196,224, and leave it to the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman to eke out that sum with judicious reforms. The House really ought to put the Government on their mettle.
COLONEL DICKSONobserved that his only regret was that the hon. Gentleman had not moved a large reduction. He had looked through the Estimates carefully, and he was of opinion that £50,000 might 1824 be knocked off if the Committee were resolved to enforce due economy. He wished to have some information as to an officer who was called the "Compiler of Statistics," who appeared for the first time in the present Estimates, and whose salary was £240 a year.
COLONEL NORTHobserved that some hon. Members were constantly urging on the Government the necessity of increasing the comforts of the soldier, and that when the bill came to be paid they seemed to forget the course they had taken.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, the Vote had nothing whatever to do with the comforts of the soldier, but referred to the administrative departments of the army.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the item for the compiler of statistics was not a new one. It was in the Estimates for the last year but one; but was omitted last year, because the officer who held it had accepted the office of paymaster in the Artillery; but on the abolition of that office he was restored to his old appointment. With respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in the grounds on which his Amendment was founded. No increase had taken place in the higher appointments. Last year there were thirty-one of these, at an expense of £36,924; whereas this year there were only twenty-nine, at an expense of £33,075. The increase had taken place in the number of junior clerks, who were absolutely necessary in consequence of the increase in the number of Her Majesty's troops serving in India, the increased comforts now given the men, and the introduction of the new armaments—all of which required additional accounts and correspondence. The total Vote now asked for was no more than was required for the public service.
§
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £196,244, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Departments of the Secretary of State for War, and of the General Commanding in Chief, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862, inclusive.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 103; Noes 124: Majority 21.
1825§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again To morrow.