HC Deb 06 June 1867 vol 187 cc1701-21

SUPPLY considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £802,500, to complete the sum for Manufacturing Departments and Materials for Warlike Stores.

COLONEL SYKES

said, there was a peculiarity about this Vote to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. He had gone back on the Estimates for the last five years, and had found there was a systematic increase in the Manufacturing Departments. Thus in 1863–4 the Vote for the Manufacturing Departments was £956,365; the next year it was £973,031; the next £972,900; last year it was £1,105,800; and this year it was £1,162,052. This was the more remarkable as the Vote for Warlike Stores had decreased from £836,000 in 1863–4 to £393,000 this year. He should have supposed that as the Warlike Stores decreased the Manufacturing Departments would decrease also, the labour being diminished, for the materials to be worked up were diminished; instead of which there had been a regular increase.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

thought that the term which his hon. and gallant Friend had used was an exceedingly appropriate one; but his hon. and gallant Friend would see that the "gradual and systematic increase" in the expenditure under this Vote was attributable to the "gradual and systematic increase" in the size of all our munitions of war. Nothing would prove this more clearly than the weight of the guns at present being manufactured at Woolwich Arsenal. At present guns were manufactured at Woolwich weighing twenty-three tons, whereas at the former period there was nothing known beyond guns of 95 cwt.

COLONEL SYKES

remarked that the cost of the Warlike Stores out of which these guns were manufactured had actually decreased, implying a decrease in quantities, so that the excess over former years would probably be due to some other cause than the one stated by his right hon. Friend.

LORD ELCHO

said, he wished to ask a question in reference to the conversion of small arms into breech-loaders. The late Secretary of State for War wisely undertook the conversion of the Enfield rifles into breech-loaders. That conversion had been most successful; the difficulties which at first threatened to render the converted arms inefficient had been overcome, and at the close of the financial year 350,000 rifles had been thus converted. As far as he had heard, the difficulties with regard to the ammunition which had led to the fear that the conversion would be a failure had been overcome, and he believed that the converted Enfield was considerably better than the arm in its original condition. He wished therefore to ask what the Government proposed to do in reference to the Volunteer Corps? Of course, the Government were, in the first place, supplying the army with the improved weapon; they would next attend to the wants of the militia; but there was a natural wish on the part of the Volunteers to be also supplied with the superior arm as soon as a sufficient number had been converted. They had expressed a wish that the Queen's prizes should be shot for with the converted rifle; and they had a strong desire to know what was the probability of their being supplied with the superior arm at an early period, say, in a few years? Personally, he thought it would be better, inasmuch as a Committee had been appointed to determine the best breech-loader for the British army, that their Report should be waited for. Still, however, knowing how much the Volunteer force owed its continuance to the spirit of competition which existed, and how necessary to that spirit it was that its members should be furnished with the best weapon, the question was one which he thought deserved every consideration.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that from no one could the remarks that had been made more properly come than from the noble Lord. The conversion of the Enfields was being rapidly proceeded with, but there was still much to do. The colonies had pressed to be supplied with the converted weapons, and their request had been acceded to; and India would also have to be supplied. He hoped, however, that the Government, and that at no distant period, would be able to attend to the requirements of the Volunteers.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £263,000, to complete the sum for Military Store Establishment and Purchase of Warlike Stores.

MR. OLIPHANT,

in rising to advocate the grievances of the officers in the Military Store Department, said, it was not for him to inquire into the reasons why the Treasury refused to sanction a measure which the War Office deemed essential to the well-being of the army. The officers of the Military Store Department were anxious that their claims should be fairly considered, and their position determined before their relative rank was affected by the amalgamation which had been recommended should take place; otherwise their position in point of rank would be depreciated. It might be said that the duties of these officers were not so important as those of the Commissariats; but, as they had charge of all the improved weapons and arms of the service, and as their duties required great training, their position ought to be at least equal to that of the Commissariat. Consequently, any invidious distinctions by which the officers of one branch were placed in an inferior position to that of another were not calculated to improve the efficiency of the service. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would give him some assurance that the claims of these officers would be considered prior to any proposed amalgamation with any other Department. He believed that the measure proposed by the noble Marquess the late Secretary for War, but not carried out owing to the opposition of the Treasury, was quite satisfactory to these officers.

GENERAL DUNNE

said, there was a difference between the two classes of officers quite evident to those acquainted with military matters. One class was military; the other civil. He knew that the feeling of the Storekeepers was that they had been unfairly treated, and he hoped that their case would be taken into consideration.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that since he had been at the War Office the complaints of the officers of the Military Store Department had come under his notice, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he should be sorry to inflict upon them any injury or hardship. It was true that the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had, shortly before he retired from office, prepared a scheme to meet the alleged grievances under which they laboured. It was, however, scarcely matured before the noble Marquess left office, and the Treasury declined to accede to the plan on the ground that the Report of Lord Strathnairn's Committee was then expected, and that it must necessarily refer to the position and claims of the Military Store officers. That Committee had made its Report. He was afraid it was impossible for him to promise to reverse the recommendation of that Committee until it was finally decided what course was to be taken thereupon. He would, however, undertake — and he thought that with this promise the hon. Gentleman ought to be content—that these officers should not be placed in a worse position on account of the delay.

MR. OLIPHANT

said, he doubted whether these officers could be in a worse position than they were at present, so that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman was not likely to carry much consolation to them. What those gentlemen wanted was some assurance that they would not be amalgamated in such a way as they had been by that scheme. They required to be put relatively in the same rank as the officers of the Commissariat.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, the hon. Member stated that these gentlemen could not be put in a worse position than they now were, and yet that they would be put in a worse position in consequence of the Report of Lord Strathnairn's Committee. It was not very easy to reconcile those two assertions. However, he could not undertake then to predetermine what course might be adopted in consequence of that Report; but the position, or the grievances, of these officers would be fairly considered before they were amalgamated.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK,

in reference to the item of £10,194 for Wages of Masters and Crews of Store Vessels, inquired what sort of vessels they were and where situated?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

explained that they were employed in carrying stores along the coast.

MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTIN

said, that he could assure the hon. Member, from his own experience—as he lived in the neighbourhood of Chatham — that those vessels were very usefully employed, and that their crews well deserved the wages they were paid.

LORD ELCHO

said, there was an item in this Vote for the manufacture of iron ordnance. They heard a great deal about the manufacture of large guns and the different systems of rifling. They had the Woolwich gun, the Palliser gun, the Armstrong, and the Whitworth. There was another system of rifling called the Lancaster system. He had himself called attention to that system of rifling for small arms, and it was reported upon by a Committee of officers appointed for the purpose as being superior to the system which was in force. For some years, however, the Government went on manufacturing the other description of rifle, which had been declared inferior in shooting qualities, because had they adopted the Lancaster system they would have had to pay Mr. Lancaster a royalty of 1s. on every barrel they made on his principle. The result was that they saved that 1s. on every barrel, but they got a very inferior weapon for the army, the militia, and the Volunteers. That was a short-sighted policy as far as the efficient equipment of the service was concerned, and it also discouraged invention. The late Secretary of State for War (General Peel) had settled the claim of Mr. Lancaster, and had secured the benefit of the invention to the service, by paying him £4,000, which previous Governments had refused to do. But the Lancaster system of rifling was held by many eminent mechanics to be the best not only for small arms, but for large guns, combining as it did great durability with great accuracy. They also required to have a projectile that was composed of one metal, and not of two. The Armstrong projectile was composed of two metals, the one hard and the other soft, which it was found, especially in hot climates, to render it liable to injury from galvanic action, so that in the rough wear and tear of service the lead became loosened from the iron. The projectile fired from the Woolwich gun was likewise open to the objection of being made of two metals instead of one. Both the Whitworth and the Lancaster systems had the advantage of being both free from this objection, their projectiles entirely dispensing with a soft coating to the iron of which they were composed. It might be objected that the Lancaster guns in the Crimea frequently burst, owing to the projectile jamming; but this was a defect that had been re- medied, and he believed that with the new projectile the Lancaster system was found to answer admirably well. There was a gun rifled on the Lancaster system now in the Woolwich Arsenal, having a remarkable history attached to it. It was one of six guns which had been tried; the five were found wanting, and the one only stood the test the whole were subjected to; it was a cast-iron gun, yet it had fired 2,000 rounds with wrought-iron projectiles and remained sound. Many thought from this and other circumstances that the Lancaster gun would supply the much desired want of a large gun which would accurately fire a projectile made of one metal only; he commended this opinion to the Secretary for War, and informed him that the late Secretary (General Peel) had said he had ordered a large gun to be made upon the Lancaster principle, and hoped to have it tested in the course of the winter; he desired also to know whether that gun had been tried?

COLONEL GILPIN

inquired whether the six guns referred to by the noble Lord had all been tested by charges of the same description?

LORD ELCHO

said, he was not able to answer the QUESTION.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

thanked the noble Lord for his observations in reference to the Lancaster gun, which had so many admirable qualities; but he regretted that it was now "too late." Having interested himself in this invention because of its worth, he had found in the course of his inquiries that Mr. Lancaster was dying "worn out and used up," as he had said, from fruitless efforts to procure proper acknowledgment of the worth of his gun; but still ready to be of use if opportunity was given him. This deplorable result had arisen from the fact that the War Office was indisposed to pay the extra cost of 1s. a rifle which the Lancaster gun entailed; or at least some such parsimonious conduct as this had deprived the country of the use of a most admirable gun.

GENERAL PEEL

stated, that although the Committee of 1864 had resolved to try Mr. Lancaster's gun, another Committee decided that the army should be supplied with breech-loaders—so that no rifles were made on Mr. Lancaster's principle; it should not be forgotten, however, that Mr. Lancaster had been paid £4,000. He had not the slightest doubt that the Committee of 1864 were right, that the Lancaster gun was the best, and that it would be adopted.

LORD ELCHO

said, it must be admitted that since the Committee of 1864 reported a large number of rifles had been made upon the Enfield system, which the Committee had condemned. He desired to mention another matter which deserved attention, because it had the effect of deterring competitors from coming forward. It had been found that when gentlemen had sent in the result of their brains, other gentlemen had picked their brains, and that the officers and members of the Testing Committees had taken advantage of the plans sent in, and had constructed the Woolwich gun, and the probability was that they had patented that invention. He was glad that the late Secretary for War (General Peel) had put a stop to this most improper practice, whereby officers receiving allowances from the public purse to perform a public duty had devised patchwork guns and patented them in the hope of private gain. He urged the present Secretary to look into these matters himself; he had heard that rifle trials had been carried on to such an extent that those competing had been reduced to eight, and he felt sure that if those trials were continued with judgment we should soon have the best arm in the world.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, the gun referred to had been made, but it had not been rifled, owing to press of work; it was ready for rifling, however, and he thought it should be rifled as soon as possible. His noble Friend need be under no fear that the War Office would lack competitors, as manufacturers had recently sent in upwards of ninety small arms; these were being carefully considered, and all praise was due to the gentlemen who had courage enough to superintend the firing off of some of them.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

was ready to admit that some delay had occurred in adopting the recommendations of the Select Committee in favour of Mr. Lancaster's gun; but at the time his invention was occupying the War Office it was not a question of emergency, or his gun would certainly have been adopted. At the same time, its superiority over the Enfield was found to be very small. When his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) brought forward the matter two years ago many were in favour of adopting the small-bore Enfield, and before a settlement was come to the breech-loader was competing for public favour. And during this unsettled period, ranging over the last two or three years, he believed there had hardly been a single bore of the old pattern Enfield rifle manufactured. No one could regret move than himself that Mr. Lancaster had suffered in health by the anxiety and trouble he had undergone in connection with his invention; but the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Sir Charles Russell), when he said that the War Department had almost killed Mr. Lancaster, ought to have brought forward some evidence in support of that statement. The hon. Member referred to the £4,000 granted to Mr. Lancaster by the late Secretary for War; but a considerable time previously a sum of money was offered to Mr. Lancaster, and refused by that gentleman.

GENERAL PEEL

thought that the principle adopted with respect to competition in the matter of small arms was the right one. The War Department said that everybody might bring in a gun for experiment, and laid down rules so simple and clear that they were willing to allow any one whom the competitors themselves chose to decide on the excellence of the arms. Therefore he had proposed that the Committee appointed for the purpose should be perfectly independent of the War Department, and, in conformity with a suggestion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), the National Rifle Association was represented on the Committee by Earl Spencer, who had been most assiduous in the discharge of his duties. He believed that by far the cheapest and surest way of obtaining the best rifle was to offer a reward to any person in the world who could produce the most excellent weapon.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

disclaimed any intention of blaming the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire in mentioning the case of Mr. Lancaster; but he only hoped that after the remedy applied by the late Secretary for War, in the shape of £4,000, the dying man would be completely revived.

LORD ELCHO

said, he had reason to believe that his statement with reference to the number of small arms that had been manufactured since 1864 was correct; but if he found on inquiry that it was incorrect he should have pleasure in correcting that statement, and apologising for having done so. The gunmakers and others had informed him that the greatest satisfaction prevailed amongst them in consequence of the instructions given by the late Secre- tary of State for War, that no member of the Ordnance Select Committee should patent inventions. They had also now an independent Small Arms Committee, which gave great satisfaction to the trade, instead of a Committee consisting of artillery officers. He quite confirmed the noble Lord's statements respecting Earl Spencer, who was performing his duties right well. He begged to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he intended to adhere to the resolution come to by his predecessor on the subject of patenting inventions by officers?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he had not come to any decision upon it as yet.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, that he had intended to call attention to a subject of considerable importance—namely, the expediency of granting a practical trial to the Whitworth system; but in consequence of the Secretary of State for War having lately laid on the table of the House the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Whitworth and the War Department and the Admiralty, which had not yet been printed, he thought it would be more convenient not to raise his intended discussion upon the merits of Mr. Whitworth's system that evening, but wait until such time as the correspondence was in the hands of Members. The invention might turn out an entire failure; but before he left office the system had so far proved to be founded on a sound principle that the late Government decided that Mr. Whitworth's system was deserving of a practical trial on board ship and on fortifications alongside of the Armstrongs. It appeared, however, that the present Government had come to the conclusion that in consequence of the inferiority of the system no steps should be taken to introduce it into the service. It was a subject well deserving the attention of the Committee. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who spoke of a large gun on the Lancaster plan, seemed to forget that at a trial of large guns rifled on different principles the Lancaster gun was reported against. Under these circumstances, he thought it rather objectionable that the late Secretary for War should have ordered a large gun from Mr. Lancaster.

GENERAL PEEL

said, he had ordered the gun to be manufactured on the recommendation of the Ordnance Committee.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

hoped the Committee would not then enter into a discussion of the merits of the Whitworth system; but in justice to Mr. Whitworth, wait until the correspondence he had laid on the table had been printed and circulated. It was far from his mind to disparage the high merits of Mr. Whitworth, for whom personally he entertained the highest respect.

MR. LIDDELL

asked the Secretary of State for War to give an answer to the Question put by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), without there were public reasons for declining to do so—namely, whether he intended to continue to permit officers employed in Public Departments to take out patents. There could be no doubt that such a practice deterred skilful scientific men from forwarding their inventions to the Government.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he was not then prepared to state that he condemned the system. There was a great deal to be said on both sides. He would give the subject his best attention and consideration, with a view to shortly come to a decision upon it. He, however, very much doubted whether it was wise or politic to depress the energies of clever men engaged in the public service—especially considering the right of the Crown to override all patents. The prospect of obtaining a patent was no doubt a great stimulus to inventive genius.

GENERAL PEEL

said, that his rule applied only to the Members of the Ordnance Select Committee. The objection to officers generally taking out patents originated with the Admiralty, and not with the War Office.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

entirely agreed with his right hon. and gallant Friend that Members of the Ordnance Select Committee should not be allowed to take out patents. They bad to act in a judicial capacity.

MR. SAMUDA

thought it would be most improper to allow members of the Ordnance Select Committee to take out patents. No employer of labour could ever carry on his business if the heads of departments were allowed to avail themselves of the improvements that were constantly being made, take out patents for them, and make other inventions subordinate to their own. Officers had the opportunity of carrying out experiments at the public expense, putting prominently forward whatever they approved, and discouraging all other inventions. It was therefore mani- festly unjust that they should be allowed such advantages in competing with independent inventors.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £593,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for the Superintending, Establishment of, and Expenditure for Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment from the first day of April 1867 to the 31st day of March 1868, inclusive.

MR. MONK

hoped some explanation would be given of an Estimate on page 81, amounting to a sum of £63,000 for billiard-rooms. It was true that only £3,000 was required for the present year, and £60,000 was left for future years to complete the Vote. Now, the Committee must feel that this was a very large sum for billiard-rooms. This was in addition to a considerable sum for reading and recreation rooms.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, this item had been entered on the Estimates by his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel), and he (Sir John Pakington) was ready to support it. He thought it most desirable that officers' quarters in different parts of the country should at least have the same means of indulgence which had been given very largely to soldiers in the shape of reading and recreation rooms, and with great advantage to the service. In the Department with which he was formerly connected—the navy—the plan had been for some time in operation. The Royal Marines had a billiard-room provided for them; and it was not proposed to do more for the army.

GENERAL PEEL

said, he had found that both at Sandhurst and at Woolwich billiard-rooms were found, and he thought that young officers on joining their regiments ought not to be deprived of similar opportunities of amusement.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

understood that the Vote referred to billiard-rooms, not tables.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

thought this a very large sum to be spent on billiard-rooms; and it was not creditable to the House to encourage gambling in any shape. ["Oh, oh!"] Those who knew anything of the world must be well aware that the fact was so. The Legislature ought to set their face against anything of the sort.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he could testify to the beneficent results of such a Vote as this. All the State did was to find the billiard-room—the officers found their own tables. Gambling was prevented by having such amusements provided within the barracks where the officers played among themselves and associated with those who could keep them in good behaviour. It was outside that young men got into bad company.

MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTIN

said, he wished to call the attention of the Government to a circumstance connected with the pay of civil officers in the Royal Engineers department. Previously to 1858 those officers were not compellable to serve abroad in unhealthy climates; but since that time they had been compelled to serve on foreign stations. But, unlike all other officers in the same position, if they died on foreign service their widows received no pension, and that was a great hardship, which was increased by the fact that if such an officer insured his life he vitiated his policy of insurance by going abroad, and then if he died his widow got nothing.

GENERAL DUNNE

said, he believed the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham Martin) was under the consideration of the authorities.

COLONEL SYKES

wished to know to what part of the world the £60,000 of billiard-tables were to be sent?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that the £60,000 was for billiard-rooms, not for billiard-tables.

COLONEL SYKES

thought that considerable reduction might be effected in the Vote of £3,193,278 for the colonics. He hoped that when the Estimates for next year were being prepared this large item of expenditure would be carefully looked into.

MAJOR ANSON

inquired whether the huts at Hong Kong, for which £10,000 was asked, were for the accommodation of Native troops or of Europeans?

MR. OLIPHANT

asked how much of the £5,909 asked for China and Japan was required for the latter country?

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

moved to reduce the Vote by the £3,000 asked for billiard-rooms.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,

in reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Anson), said that the huts at Hong Kong were intended for Native troops.

MR. CHILDERS

desired to ask a ques- tion relating to a previous item in the Vote—namely, £9,300 for the removal of Portsea lines. By the removal of those lines the Government would become possessed of a large quantity of most valuable land—worth many thousand pounds—and he wished to ask whether any definite arrangement had been come to as to utilization of that property? If judiciously laid out it might be a source of considerable income.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, the hon. Gentleman was of course aware that the lines at Portsea for any purposes of defence were utterly useless; it was therefore considered advisable to remove them. The value of the land was no doubt very great; but he was not aware that any plan had as yet been laid before the Government for utilizing it.

MR. OTWAY

remarked upon the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who the other night offered the greatest opposition to an increase of a few thousands in the Vote to augment the salaries of the miserably paid clerks in the Convict Prison department, but was now an ardent supporter of a Vote for £63,000—for that was the amount they were going to vote, though only £3,000 was to be expended this year—for billiard-rooms for officers all over the world. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Peel) had informed them that in another page of the Estimates there was a Vote for billiard-tables. He had no objection to the buildings being found; but if they were to provide the tables where were they to stop? Of course, they would be called upon for the cues and other requisites. He hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) would persevere with his Amendment for reducing the Vote. He was sure that the officers themselves would repudiate the idea of the taxpayers of the country being called upon to pay for their amusements.

MR. CHILDERS

thought that, after the personal attack made upon him, he might be permitted to point out the inconsistency in the conduct of his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), who stated his unwillingness to support the Vote for the billiard-rooms, while in the same speech he called on the hon. Member for Finsbury to persevere with an Amendment for its rejection. As for himself, in or out of office, he should always oppose anything which appeared to him to be extravagant, and on that ground he had opposed the proposal for increasing the salaries of the convict clerks; but he did not see the connection between that proposal and the Vote of £3,000 for billiard-rooms for the officers of the army. In each case he had formed his opinion on what appeared to him to be the merits of the case itself.

SIR HENRY EDWARDS

did not think there was any good reason for opposing the small Vote for billiard-rooms. Hon. Gentlemen who were so very sensitive on the point of spending the public money on matters intended for the recreation of gentlemen serving in the army ought to remember that dining and smoking-rooms were provided out of the public funds for the recreation and comfort of the Members of the House of Commons.

MR. MONK

asked, whether this was a new Vote, and whether billiard-rooms were voted for other Departments of the public service?

GENERAL PEEL

said, it was quite a new Vote. He ventured to think that the public would not object to billiard-rooms and billiard-tables being provided for the officers of the army, who were a very badly paid class of public servants, and were often sent for months to very dull places where there were no amusements. Were regiments to carry their billiard-tables about with them?

MR. OTWAY

said, his personal experience of the army was that the regiments ordered to such places always purchased the billiard-tables and other amusing games their predecessors generally had to dispose of on leaving. The Vote itself was not of much importance; but he submitted that it was a new principle for Parliament to provide amusements for military officers. Such a proposition was the more objectionable at a time when the reasonable demands of badly paid Government clerks for a small increase of salary were peremptorily refused.

COLONEL GILPIN

reminded the Committee that though a great deal had been done in recent years to improve the condition of soldiers, the officers had not participated in the grants for that purpose. This was a trifling matter, yet might be of very great service. Billiard-rooms in barracks would be of use in keeping young officers from going to public billiard-tables at which gambling might be going on.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) would not press his Amendment. At some remote stations officers could not find billiard-tables if they were not provided in the barracks. The officers of the army were very badly remunerated, for they received little more than interest on the money paid for their commissions.

LORD ELCHO

hoped the reduction would not be pressed; because, although it was true that the privates had not been provided with billiard-tables, libraries and reading-rooms had been established for their recreation, and bagatelle-boards and draught-boards had been provided for their amusement. He saw no reason why they should not adopt a similar liberality in their treatment of officers.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, he objected to providing either billiards or billiard-rooms for officers. He believed it was not desirable to hold out any encouragement to these young men to engage in that amusement. He persisted in his Amendment for the omission of the £3,000 from the Vote.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £3,000, for Billiard Rooms, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Lusk,) —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) £112,000, to complete the sum for Military Education.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

called attention to the largeness of the sums to be expended on the Military Schools of Sandhurst and Woolwich. Sandhurst cost the country £17,313, and Woolwich £15,363. This large outlay was, he believed, occasioned by the disproportionate supply of teachers to the number of pupils. There were at Woolwich 180 cadets, and fifty professors and executive officers; while at Sandhurst there were 300 cadets, and forty-five professors and forty-five executive officers; so that at Woolwich the proportion was one professor or executive officer to about every four cadets, and at Sandhurst one professor or executive officer to about every six cadets. He wished to know why these two establishments should entail so much expense on the country, for there were, he believed, no other educational establishments which cost, proportionately, so much. In his opinion either the two Colleges ought to be amalgamated, or the number of professors in each of them ought to be reduced. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would take this matter into consideration when he proposed a scheme for military re-organization.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN,

referring to the Staff College at Sandhurst, remarked that a Parliamentary Return respecting the appointments to the Staff from 1859 to the present time gave the following results:—The number of lieutenant-colonels who had received their education at the Staff College was only four, while the number who had not passed through the establishment amounted to eighty-two. Then only eleven majors had passed through Sandhurst, while seventy-seven had not. In regard to captains the proportion was still more striking, for only fifty-seven had come from Sandhurst, while no fewer than 202 had been appointed to the Staff without having passed through the College. Of lieutenants only three had passed through the Staff College, as compared with 116 who had not received that education; while of the nineteen ensigns or cornets not one had passed through the College. Unless the right hon. Gentleman were able to state that the future results would be more satisfactory, he should feel inclined to move that the sum which was asked for the maintenance of the Staff College at Sandhurst should be omitted from the Vote.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

bore testimony that the education given at the Staff College at Sandhurst was most admirable, and he hoped the Committee would do nothing to impair its efficiency. He hoped that measures would be adopted to prevent the appointment to the Staff of officers who were really not capable of performing Staff duties. There were, he believed, 1,600 officers in the French army who were perfectly competent to command a regiment of cavalry or infantry, to lay down the country, and to perform all the duties of a Staff officer.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

said, that unless the number of professors at Woolwich and Sandhurst were reduced there was but little chance of the Estimate being diminished. At Woolwich there was a professor of practical geometry and also a master for geometrical drawing; but he could see no reason why a master for geometrical drawing could not teach practical geometry. Then there was an item for the payment of a Master and Adjutant at Sandhurst, but at Woolwich the two offices were combined. Again, there were three Instructors in Military History at Sandhurst and none at all at Woolwich. These and various other matters required investigation.

MR. SELWYN

said, he could not understand why a poor man's son, who could not purchase a commission, was compelled to spend a year at Sandhurst, while a rich man's son might obtain his education anywhere else. Let the examination be made as strict, as special, and as military as possible; and if a youth could pass it and perform the duties required of him, why should inquiry be made as to where he had received his education?

MR. OTWAY

would repeat a complaint made last year, that there were at Sandhurst four Professors of Military History, and in all thirty professors, for 180 cadets; while at Eton 800 boys were taught with a smaller staff of Masters. Surely, two of the four Professors of Military History might be dispensed with? A calculation showed that the education at Sandhurst cost £130 or £140 each cadet; that was what was voted by Parliament. It was a ground for complaint that only a small proportion of the officers who thus received their education at the expense of the State were appointed to those places they were best qualified to fill, while others, who had not received special training, were selected for Staff appointments.

COLONEL GILPIN

said, he was not prepared to oppose the Vote for the College although he had no great love for it. He concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) in thinking that the present regulations at Sandhurst tended to preserve an invidious distinction between the sons of the rich and the poor. A clergyman might educate a rich man's son with his own, and yet the latter must go to Sandhurst for a year, while the former would escape because he could purchase his commission.

MR. O'BEIRNE

said, it was desirable to know what proportion of those who had passed the Staff College had not been appointed to the Staff.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, there was an imprinted Return showing that several lieutenants, cornets, and ensigns who had passed the Staff College had not received Staff appointments, although there were nineteen cornets and ensigns who had received appointments on the Staff and had not passed the College.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

fancied there would be more ground for complaint than there was if the system at Sandhurst was assimilated to that at Eton, and that it would be a great misfortune for the army if the College were done away with. With regard to the question that had been put as to residence, the requirement of a year's residence from the man who received a gratuitous commission was the guarantee that the officer receiving it was well educated. The sons of officers were admitted on lower terms than others. The education given at Sandhurst was extremely good; and this was the only College in England in which a military training was given, and it was better than that given in any other country in Europe. The rule was, that officers who had passed the Staff College were appointed on the Staff; but a special exception was made in the case of officers who had gained distinction in the field, and he believed that would be the real explanation of the figures quoted. It was not supposed that all Staff appointments were given to those trained at the College; they were given also to those who had been on the personal Staff of a General Officer. With regard to what had been said as to the number of professors, he thought the real question was, whether the education given was not of the very best kind. At the Staff College officers received a training which qualified them for all Staff duties, and their services would be required in the event of war breaking out.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he believed the education given at Sandhurst was of the best kind, and provided at a very slight cost. He had been told that officers trained there were found perfectly prepared to undertake their military duties when they joined their regiments. He wished that all officers were required to go there before receiving Staff appointments; for it was unfair to officers who worked hard at Sandhurst that others, who did not understand Staff duties, should be appointed.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

said, he did not take objection to Sandhurst or Woolwich particularly; but complained of such an enormous expense as £32,000 a year on account of executive officers and professors.

MR. SELWYN

wished to explain that he had not argued in favour of a relaxation of the standard of competition. Let the examination be made as high, as technical, and as military as they pleased; but when a candidate did what was required of him, why should the War Office make it a condition that he should acquire his knowledge in any one particular place?

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, the objection was not a military but a financial one. It appeared that an average number of ten and a fraction had passed through the Staff College at a cost to the country of £8,596 a year.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL,

without wishing to be egotistical, said, that he had been employed in the department of Quartermaster General and Adjutant General without passing an examination. On behalf of others as well as himself who had entered the service before the rule of examination was established, yet who had had experience in the field, he begged to say that it would be very hard to exclude them from the chance of service. He did not depreciate special education; but, at the same time, thought that practical knowledge gained in the field was worth all the theoretical knowledge which could be crammed into a boy; and that if a man from actual service showed aptitude for the profession he should not be debarred from rising in it.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, he had not for a moment intended that his remarks should apply to those who, like the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Charles Russell), had won the Victoria Cross for services in the field. He thought those who had obtained distinction by their services before the enemy were of all others most entitled to Staff appointments.

MR. AYRTON

said, that if the statement of his hon. Friend were correct that the education of every officer who passed through the Staff College cost the country £800, and when the knowledge imparted was possibly only a smattering, the Secretary for War would do well to consent to the appointment of a Committee to investigate the matter.

SIR JOHN PAKIXGTON

said, he did not know on what authority the hon. Gentleman made this statement. Whether the education given at the College were costly or not, he had never heard that it was not a thoroughly good military education. The Vote for the College was exactly the same as last year; and he therefore assumed that it had been considered satisfactory by the House.

MR. LAING,

having had a son at Sandhurst, felt bound to express his belief that a thorough and excellent military education was imparted there. The country, at all events, received full value for the money expended in training the junior department, and it was desirable that the country should be able to secure the services of young men duly qualified. He heard instances during the Crimean war in which officers who obtained their commissions by purchase were some months before they were able to perform their military duties. The officers trained at Sandhurst, on the other hand, were able at once to enter upon their regimental duties. If war broke out again, the War Office would want a large supply of such officers. The late Lord Herbert was of opinion that all officers on entering the army, whether by purchase or not, ought to pass some description of military college like that of Sandhurst. With regard to the senior department, it was worthy of inquiry whether the country obtained an adequate return for the large expenditure upon the Staff College. Staff appointments were now held for only a limited number of years; and perhaps the reason why so comparatively small a number passed that institution was that it was not considered worth an officer's while to qualify himself for a Staff appointment.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £59,300, to complete the sum for Surveys, United Kingdom.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £100,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1867 to the 31st day of March 1868, inclusive.

MR. CANDLISH

called attention to the expenses—altogether £28,271—attendant upon carrying out the Act for the prevention of contagious diseases at certain naval and military stations. He disapproved thus taking away the penalty which immorality brought with it, and of giving facilities to crime, and he moved that this item in the Vote be reduced by the sum of £26,624.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, the question had been so often debated that he should decline to follow the hon. Gentleman into the policy of this legislation.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £26,624, for expenses attendant upon carrying out the Act for the prevention of Contagious Diseases at certain Naval and Military Stations be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Candlish,) —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £144,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for the Administration of the Army, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1867 to the 31st day of March 1868, inclusive.

LORD ELCHO

said, that great encouragement might be given to enlistment if more places in the service were opened to old soldiers. By no class of men was the work of public offices better discharged than by non-commissioned officers, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see whether they could not be appointed in greater numbers than at the present time.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that both at the War Office and at the Horse Guards non-commissioned officers were now employed as messengers, and in some cases as clerks.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Alderman Salomons.)

Motion, by leave, withdrawn,

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(8.) £13,100, to complete the sum for Rewards for Military Service.

(9.) £36,000, to complete the sum for Pay of General Officers.

(10.) £231,800, to complete the sum for Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers.

(11.) £79,600, to complete the um for Widows' Pensions and Compassionate Allowances.

(12.) £13,200, to complete the sum for Pensions and Allowances to Wounded Officers.

(13.) £17,800, to complete the sum for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.

(14.) £595,800, to complete the sum for Out-Pensioners.

(15.) £68,000, to complete the sum for Superannuation and Retired Allowances.

(16.) £11,000, to complete the sum for Retired Allowances for Disembodied Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteers.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again To-morrow.