STOPPAGE OF OFFICERS' PAT FOR FORAGE.—ADDRESS MOVED. (Hansard, 16 March 1863)

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, he rose in pursuance of notice, to move— That this House will, To morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying 1541 that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that the stoppage from the pay of Cavalry and Horse Artillery officers for forage be discontinued. The question, though brought under the consideration of the House on previous occasions, stood now upon different ground to what it did before. Field officers of cavalry and horse artillery were permitted to keep four horses, and obliged to keep two, and for each horse 8½d. per day was stopped. Captains were permitted to keep three horses, and obliged to keep two, and for each horse in like manner 8½d. was stopped. Lieutenants and cornets were obliged to keep two horses for the benefit of the service, and 8½d. was likewise stopped from them. Now, he contended that it was wrong to say that the pay of a cornet was 8s. a day, and then to deduct from it 1s. 5d, which, in reality, reduced his pay to 6s. 7d. The mess in a cavalry regiment was exceedingly expensive; and if he put down the expenditure of a cavalry officer at 10s. a day, he was sure that he was not putting it at two high a figure. In consequence of the examination system, of which he did not complain, so many rich men did not enter the service at the present day as was formerly the case, and therefore officers, as a general rule, were less able to dispense with the money which was deducted from their pay for forage. The deduction operated, he might add, with the greatest severity in the case of those officers who were raised from the ranks for their good conduct, and who were obliged to keep up the appearance of gentlemen on very small pay. It was not a small matter to have £26 a year deducted from the pay of subalterns; £30 deducted from the pay of captains; and £52 a year deducted from the pay of field officers. The subject had been brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon and the late Lord Herbert, when in office, and had not only received their favourable consideration, but had been pressed by them on the Lords of the Treasury, who stated that on certain conditions they might agree to the discontinuance of the stoppage. Those conditions had been complied with, hence the different grounds on which the case now stood. The commissions had been reduced, the high prices over regulation had been diminished, and you had got that class of officers which the Treasury thought were most likely to remain in the service, He trusted the right hon. Baronet who was now at the 1542 head of the War Department would look upon it in the same light, and that he would meet with the co-operation of the Treasury in removing a charge which was a great detriment to the service.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that it was the misfortune of the Secretary for War, in proposing these Estimates to the House, to be placed between two antagonistic forces. On the one side he had to contend against hon. Gentlemen, who complained that the Estimates were extravagant, that the charge for the army was excessive and ought to be reduced; while, on the other, he was pressed by other Gentlemen in an opposite direction, who wished to increase the expense of the army beyond what had been proposed by her Majesty's Government. Upon a late occasion, reference was made to what was said to be the excess of cost of the English army over certain foreign armies, and particularly was it mentioned that the expense of a soldier of Denmark was only £12 a year, and that was held out as a model for our imitation. Well, upon the present occasion, the hon. Gentleman said that the pay of a cavalry officer was insufficient, and he proposed in substance an addition to their pay. ["No, No!"] Well, if it was not an addition to their pay, he would be glad to know what it was. If the remission of a stoppage from a man's pay was not substantially an addition to his pay, he really was at a loss how to designate it; and it was impossible for the House to regard it in any other view. Now, it would be necessary, if this Motion were agreed to, to bring in a supplementary Estimate for about £20,000. The matter had been considered in former years, and there was no doubt that former Secretaries for War had taken a favourable view of the scheme, but it must be observed that the price of a commission of a cavalry officer was higher then than it was at present. A few years ago the price was lowered to the standard of the infantry. That circumstance bad been rather ingeniously used as a reason for 1543 this addition to the pay of a cavalry officer because, said the Mover, a different class had been admitted to the cavalry. Still the reduction in the price of the commission must be regarded as a benefit to the persons who purchased, and therefore was rather a reason against the increase of their pay. Under all the circumstances of the case, he regretted to say that it was not in his power to accede to the Motion.

COLONEL NORTH
said, they put down the pay of a cornet at 8s. per day, and obliged him to keep two horses, for which they deducted the charge for forage. Now, it would be much fairer to set down his pay at 6s. 7d., which was really the amount. He should like to know why the deduction in the case of the horse artillery was only 6d The horses ate the same amount of forage—the same forage when stationed in the same garrison. Under what regulation or system was this state of things permitted? [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: They are a scientific corps.] Scientific? Are the horses scientific? [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: But the officers are.] Well, that might be, but that was no sufficient reason why their horses should not require as large a quantity of forage as those of others, and he trusted the House would see the propriety of yielding to the appeal which had been mode to them by his hon. and gallant Friend below him.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he thought it possible to reduce the expenditure on the army in various directions, but he would not do so by deducting the pay of officers for the forage of horses which they were compelled to keep for the good of the service. But it seemed to be the principle of Government to stick to abuses, and to refuse reforms where they would be useful and truly economical. It was because they would not reduce the monstrous excrescences that attached to the expenditure of the army that they were unable, by complying with the Amendment, to do an act of justice to a deserving class of officers.