HC Deb 06 June 1867 vol 187 cc1698-701
MR. AYTOUN

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why the duties of inspecting Artillery Volunteers are thrown upon the Field Officers of the Royal Artillery in addition to their own special duties, and why Assistant Inspectors of Volunteer Artillery are not specially appointed to perform the duties as in the case of Rifle Volunteers? He did not wish to give any opinion as to which of the two systems of inspection referred to in his Question was the better, but was simply desirous of ascertaining why one system was applied to one portion of the Volunteer force, and to another portion of it a system entirely different. If the objection were made to the appointment of Volunteer Artillery Inspectors that they would be more expensive than the performance of the same duties by Field Officers of Artillery the remark would be equally applicable to the system of the Rifle Volunteers.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) had brought this subject forward in a very clear and able manner, and of nothing that had been said on either side of the House had he the slightest right to complain:—on the contrary, he had to thank all those who had taken part in this discussion for the tone in which it had been conducted. He was glad to hear from the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), who had himself held the office which he now had the honour to fill, that in his judgment it would be rash if he (Sir John Pakington), having held his present office for such a short time, were at once to come down to the House and give an opinion as to the proper mode of carrying out the recommendations of this important Report. There was one Question which was asked by an hon. and gallant Friend behind him which he had no difficulty in answering at once. He asked whether this blue book was to follow the fate of so many others, whether it was to be laid upon the shelf, and that nothing was to be done with it? He had no hesitation in answering that Question distinctly and decidedly in the negative. Considering the importance of the question with which the Report dealt, and the intricate and difficult points that it raised, it seemed to him that if there was one duty more incumbent on him than another it was to give this Report his most serious consideration, and carefully and deliberately to consider what part of it should be acted upon. But time was required for such deliberation. His hon. and gallant Friend (Major Jervis) had given a description—as far as he could see, by no means an exaggerated description—of the onerous duties of his office. At the same time, the noble Lord opposite had dwelt at great length on the important and difficult questions which the Report embraced. It would therefore, he thought, be great presumption in him, having held the office of Secretary for War for only two months, and with those incessant calls upon his time to which his hon. and gallant Friend had referred, if he were to come down to the House and state at once the course he intended to take in reference to the Committee's recommendations. If he were to do that he could only adopt one of two courses—he must either come down to the House and state as his own views the views of some other person, or else he must state views which he had so hastily and presumptuously formed, as to entitle them to no weight. Now he did not wish to lay himself open to censure on either of these grounds; and neither on this nor on any other subject would he offer any opinion except that which he might have deliberately and conscientiously formed. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) suggested the reference of this Report to a Committee. He could not yet say whether he was prepared to take that course. What he had done was to refer the Report to the consideration of the various heads of departments in the War Office, Many of them were deeply interested in the recommendations of the Report; the offices of several of them would be materially affected by it; and he thought it just and right to them that they should have an opportunity of examining it. When he was in possession of their views he would be able to consider deliberately and conscientiously how far he was able, with such advice and assistance as was at his command, to prepare a plan which he could submit to the House. When he had thus fully made up his mind on the subject it would then be time enough to consider how far it might be wise to remit the whole subject either to a Committee, as the noble Lord suggested, or to a Commission carefully formed. It was true, as various speakers had suggested, that there had already been several Committees on the subject. There was the Committee presided over by Sir James Graham; then there was what was called the Departmental Committee; and another Committee had sat within the last few years. Still the subject was so important that he did not know it might not be wise to have another Committee. The importance of a proper organization of the War Department could not be exaggerated. The inconvenience arising from the want of system was so great that changes were compelled to be made even while the Crimean war was raging; and the hon. and gallant General (General Dunne) behind them thought that most of these changes were bad. It was not to be denied that the changes had been made in great haste, and he thought the time had now come for a deliberate and careful consideration of the whole question. He hoped the House would consider that he had given good and substantial grounds in justification of the course he proposed to take.

With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) the matter to which he referred was purely one of arrangement. He asked why there were not special Volunteer Artillery Inspectors as well as Rifle Volunteer Inspectors. His answer was that the Inspecting Officers of the Royal Artillery were quite competent to undertake the duty; they were very glad to do it, and why should the country be put to expense for doing that which these competent officers were both ready and willing to do?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

asked whether the preliminary Report to which the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) had referred when he was at the War Office would be produced?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

must apologise to the noble Lord for having inadvertently passed over the Question which he had put in the course of his speech. The Question was whether anything that had been intended to be done by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon when he was in office would preclude Her Majesty's present Government from perfect freedom of action in dealing with the Report? To that Question he would give the most decided answer that he was entirely free to adopt those means that might most commend themselves to his judgment. With regard to the preliminary Report, he did not know to what it referred. He rather suspected that it referred to some Report that had not been presented. The Commissioners first agreed to a Report which was afterwards re-considered; after that they brought up the Report which was now on the table. He suspected that that re-considered Report was the Report to which the noble Marquess referred.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.