SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 12 April 1869)

§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER
said, he thought it was high time that the attention of the Committee should be drawn to the degrading practice of branding deserters with the letter "D." He should like to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it was not contrary to the Articles of War, which specified the place where a man should be branded, to mark him more than once? If soldiers were subjected to the disgraceful punishment, how could it be expected that respectable men would enlist? Men deserting from the police were not branded; and admission to the force was at a premium. It was held to be disgraceful among the men of the police force to be 661 dismissed; why, then, should it not be so in the army? Since the House had abolished flogging it would not long tolerate the far more barbarous practice of branding. Was it just to mart a man indelibly for an offence committed oftentimes from momentary impulse?

COLONEL NORTH
said, he entirely differed from the hon. Baronet (Sir j Robert Anstruther). Branding was necessary as a precaution. Formerly the man who had been punished carried the marks of the cat upon his back, but now flogging had been done away with. It was absolutely necessary that something should be done to prevent a deserter deceiving the country by a second enlistment. It had been stated, on more than one occasion in that House, that desertion was becoming a regular trade, and an instance had been given of one man who had deserted no less than thirteen times. It was necessary to have some means by which they could prevent men, who from their appearance frequently seemed to be likely to make good soldiers, from re-enlisting after desertion. Unless they could devise some such means there was nothing to prevent such blackguards from enlisting in all the regiments in the British army. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to get up in that House and talk about degrading the soldier; but the opponents to the present system ought to be prepared to recommend some equally efficacious means of preventing re-enlistment after desertion.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, that the idea of branding human beings as one would brand cattle was most repulsive. The practice appeared to be a relic of past times, of times such as those of Charles II.—a very pious monarch—when the Mutiny Act of the day contained a provision that any soldier speaking disrespectfully of the doctrine of the Trinity or swearing should be liable to have his tongue bored through with a hot iron. The question which the House would shortly have to consider was not whether men should be branded several times, but whether that punishment should be inflicted at all. Even burglars were not branded. He believed that desertion might be prevented as well as it was under the present system by resorting to photography, which had been found of so much use in enabling the police to recognize offenders against the law. If, however, no other remedy could be devised, he thought it 662 would be better to run the risk of a certain percentage of deserters.

§ MR. BUXTON
said, he believed that the only effectual cure for desertion was to make the Queen's service as attractive as possible. There was no real reason why the army should be the only service which men were forced to enter, especially as it might, without much difficulty, be made the most attractive service in the country.

§ MR. GUEST
said, that the term "branding" was quite a misnomer in the case. The operation was known to the doctors as cupping. In reality, it inplied nothing more than the tattooing to which nearly all sailors voluntarily submitted. There was no branding with a hot iron. The practice was necessary as a precaution against fraud—an evil against which photography, while being very expensive, could afford no protection whatever.

VISCOUNT BURY
, in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Buxton), said, that to make the army more attractive would be to make it worth the while of dishonest men to enter the service for the sake of deserting it. It would be impossible for commanding officers from mere photographs to pick out men who had deserted or been dismissed for bad conduct, and prevent them from joining the ranks. There appeared to be an idea that this branding was similar to the branding of cattle; whereas in reality it was nothing more than pricking the flesh with a needle and rubbing in some gunpowder. Almost every sailor in Her Majesty's fleet bore similar marks, and if a sailor rolled up his shirt sleeves he generally disclosed the initials of his own name and of the name of at least one of his ladyloves. Of course, it might be said that marking with a "D" was a sign of disgrace, but the disgrace was not to be inflicted unless it was deserved. He certainly thought we ought to retain one means by which we could prevent deserters from attempting to enlist in other regiments.

§ LORD GARLIES
said, that it was at the discretion of the courts-martial, and not imperative upon them, to order a prisoner to be marked in this way, and the punishment was frequently, in the case of young and inexperienced soldiers, withheld, in the hope that the leniency exhibited might be attended 663 with beneficial effects. Nor was it necessary to imprint another "D" on deserters upon a fresh conviction.

§ MR. CARNEGIE
said, that the effect of this system was to deter good men from enlisting. The punishment ought to be abolished altogether, and commanding officers ought to have the power of discharging bad characters. Any loss thus sustained would be fully made up by the enlistment of a better class of men.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he hoped that the day had gone by when desertion was or would be anything like what it was when he first entered Parliament. There were now excellent candidates for admission into the service, and he hoped to see the day when marking would be altogether abolished. The history of the question was this—At one time an enormous system of fraud was practised by men who enlisted first in one regiment of the army, then in the Militia, and who went from one regiment to another. Such was the loss occasioned to the public in this way that, in 1844, Parliament altered the Mutiny Act, and—he would not enter now upon the legal question—appeared to make it more stringent. His opinion had been asked, not upon the legal question, but whether marking should be regarded as a proper punishment. His answer was clear—he did not think it ought. It was not meant to be inflicted as a punishment, but for the prevention of fraud; so that the second infliction of it was wrong, and he felt no doubt that His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief would be of the same opinion.

COLONEL NORTH
asked whether any steps had been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Military Punishments, who had suggested the establishment of a central military prison, and whether there was any foundation for the statement that crime in the army was on the increase?

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that one of the first questions which came before him on taking Office was the first Report of the Commission upon this subject, and he had been very desirous of putting into the Estimates of the present year a sum of money for the purpose of carrying into effect the recommendation as to the central prison. Upon consultation, however, with Colonel Henderson and his hon. Friend the Member 664 for Truro (Captain Vivian), who was a Member of the Commission, he came to the conclusion that it would be premature to do so, not from the slightest unwillingness to give effect to the Report of the Commission, but for these reasons—In their first Report the Commissioners recommended many alterations in the mode of punishment which would diminish the number of imprisonments, substituting fines; for example, for drunkenness, which was the fertile mother of all imprisonments. It was thus highly probable that the number of imprisonments might be diminished. Then the contemplated reduction in the number of men might lead to the disappearance of the most frequent inhabitants of the military prisons. And, lastly, he thought it better to wait until the final Report of the Commission had been presented, together with the evidence, so that Parliament might be fully informed upon the whole subject.

§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN
said, the Commission had presented their first Report because they thought that the Government should be put in possession of their opinion that, consequent upon the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, it was necessary that some system of severer punishments should be adopted in order to prevent crimes that were likely to prevail. The Commission, among other things, had recommended the infliction of severer punishments than could be inflicted under the present prison system, and for that reason they had suggested the building of a new central prison. He hoped this suggestion would be carried out without delay. At the present moment, there was scarcely a military prison where punishment could be inflicted according to the mode recommended by the Commission. The recommendation of the Commission should be carried out as soon as possible, for since the abolition of corporal punishment certain crimes, such as insubordination, had increased. He would, therefore, suggest to the Secretary of State for "War that, under these circumstances, the civil prisons throughout the country should be made available for military punishments until the prison referred to could be built.

MR. OTWAY
said, he was surprised at the statement that crime had increased in the army since the abolition of corporal punishment. He had heard nothing 665 of this. On the contrary, according to his information, there had been a great improvement in the character of the army, and the character of the men who offered themselves for enlistment was much higher. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take an early opportunity of laying some evidence of his statement before the House.

§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN
said, he should lose no time in doing so. He did not know where the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Otway) had got his facts, but they were certainly very different from what were stated before the Commission. He had that very morning been informed upon the highest possible authority, that there had been a very great increase of the crime of insubordination in the army. For instance, in 1866, that crime prevailed in one branch of that service at the rate of .6 per cent, in 1867, it was .9 per cent, while, in 1868, it had risen to 1.9 per cent. This had not been given in evidence before the Commission, but if the hon. Gentleman would come before the Commission and state any evidence to the contrary effect they would be delighted to hear him, and his statements might materially affect the Report of the Commission.

MR. OTWAY
said, that it would be unnecessary for him to do so, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman was going to lay the evidence on which he based his opinion before the House, when it could be discussed. It was not, however, absolutely necessary to take information on this subject from a Royal Commission, and he could only say that several commanding officers had informed him that the state of the army had improved since the abolition of corporal punishment. If the right hon. Gentleman was about to show that crime had increased since the abolition of corporal punishment, he thought they had letter wait until they had the evidence before them.

§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN
said, the hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent him. What he had said was, not that crime had increased, but that one particular crime had increased. The Commission were taking the greatest pains to obtain information on the point, and if the hon. Gentleman really possessed it he ought to let them have it. The Commission would be delighted to 666 have any proof that one crime was not on the increase.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he thought it would be wiser to wait for the evidence before they discussed the matter further.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, he wished to know whether the conduct of men had been better since the abolition of flogging than it was before, seeing that the Estimates for detection of crime and for imprisonment had decreased by £15,000?

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, in reply, that the apparent reduction was owing to changes made with regard to clothing and stores which were transferred to another Vote.

VISCOUNT BURY
said, there was an item of £1,123 under the head of contingencies of the Medical Department for travelling. He had been informed that in a regiment quartered in London several invalids were ordered for change of air to some place on the sea-coast; but they were unable to take advantage of the order because no fund existed to pay their travelling expenses. The consequence was that the services of these men wore likely to be permanently lost to the country. He wished to know whether the item he had referred to included any sum for the travelling expenses of convalescents for change of air.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, the item alluded to by the noble Lord had reference to the travelling expenses of medical officers. There was no sum provided in this Estimate for the travelling expenses of convalescents.

§ LORD GARLIES
said, the charge of £4,700 for the treatment of lunatics showed a reduction of £500 on last year. He wished to know on what basis that reduction was made, seeing that there would be a largo increase in the number of troops at home this year?

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, in reply, that lunatics were now more rapidly sent to their parishes than was the case formerly.

VISCOUNT BURY
said, that if it was the case that there was no sum available for the conveyance of convalescents to the sea-wide, it was hardly creditable 667 to the country, and he would suggest whether it would not be well to put aside some such sum for the future. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman on the Report of that Vote whether he would not undertake to ask Parliament to set aside such a fund next year?

§ GENERAL PERCY HERBERT
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to report Progress, as there was an important question to be raised on the Reserve Fund, with which this Vote was connected.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he had been waiting for the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), to introduce his Motion. He was not desirous of depriving any hon. Gentleman of an opportunity of raising a discussion on a particular Vote. He had consented to postpone the Yeomanry Vote; but they had not yet been an hour in Committee of Supply, and the noble Lord, if he did not bring forward the question at that moment, could raise the discussion at another opportunity on the Motion that the House resolve into a Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, he was anxious to have a full discussion on the important question of the Army of Reserve, of which the Militia was one of the main elements, and it would be perfectly absurd to begin the discussion at that hour (twenty minutes to twelve o'clock). There had been a general impression that the Votes bearing on that question would be postponed. He should endeavour to condense his remarks as much as possible; but it was quite impossible that the matter could have been adequately dealt with at the hour the House went into Committee—eleven o'clock.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that the noble Lord could not attach more importance than he (Mr. Cardwell) did to the question. As time would only be wasted in discussing what they should do, he would at once consent to postpone the Vote.

MR. J. D. LEWIS
said, he rose to call attention to the extensive changes at present being made at the Royal Laboratory, Devonport, and to ask in what manner the work hitherto carried on at that establishment was in future to be performed?

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, the Controller in Chief found that it was not necessary to maintain a separate establishment at Devonport. The duties would be discharged by the Store Department as between 1850 and 1858, and the result would be a considerable economy.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, he wished to know the amount of stores lying in the different depôts, and the value of them?

MR. CAEDWELL
said, he was not sure how far it was possible to give an inventory of stores in different parts of the world, but he should be extremely happy at any time to communicate to the House all the information he could collect on the subject. Every means would be taken to get rid of surplus stores. There was a considerable reduction in this Vote, which he had no doubt would be regarded with great satisfaction by the Committee.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
asked, whether a larger proportion of the arms had not been made at Birmingham than had previously been the case?

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, the power of the Small Arms Factory had not been diminished, though it was now being worked at a low point from there being very little work to do. It was true that a small portion of the Enfield rifles required for the service had been given to manufacturing companies, because it was economical to rely in some degree upon the trade for supplies, and not to maintain establishments large enough to supply the whole of our requirements. With regard to the new Henry-Martini rifles, 200 were being manufactured, which would not be ready until August, though a few would be ready for the use of the National Rifle Association at Wimbledon. A portion of the machinery at Enfield was being altered for the purpose of making this new rifle, and then they would be made in larger quantities, though the first decision as to whether the Henri-Martini would be the arm of the service could not be taken until they had been tried in hot and cold climates.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
asked if the establishment at Enfield was to remain as it was now?

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that there would be no alteration at Enfield, except that a smaller number of men would be employed, as there was less work to do.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
said, he wished to ask whether it would not be better that in future this portion of the Estimate relating to the navy should be placed under the management of the Admiralty?

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he had no doubt it would be very satisfactory to anyone who had to move the Army Estimates to be relieved of all that related to the naval service, but he could not say that the navy had much at present to complain of. There was the best possible understanding between his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and himself, and he did not know that any change would be made in that matter.

MR. O. W. MARTIN
said, he wished to call attention to the position of the clerks of works of the Royal Engineer department, who within the last few years had been compelled to serve abroad, and whose widows were not allowed pensions supposing the men died on active service. These officers had insured their lives, and when ordered on foreign service their insurances were vitiated. A discussion had taken place last year, when General Dunne called attention to the position of clerks of works in the Engineers' department, and a sort of half-promise was given that the claims of their widows should be considered.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he was not aware that his hon. Friend intended to bring that matter forward. He confessed the case was entirely new to him, but he would consider it. That question, however, ought properly to be raised on the Non-effective Votes. He believed that no pensions were contemplated in the case of clerks of works, but he would inquire.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
said, he wished to know what his right hon. Friend intended to do with reference to the Report of the Court Martial Commission on the subject of military prisons. The 670 Commission recommended either that a central military prison should be established at Aldershot, or that a contract should be made with local prisons ready to receive military prisoners. If his right hon. Friend would do either the one or the other he should be content.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he had desired to include an estimate for a central military prison in the present Estimates, but not having yet received the final Report of the Commission, and being doubtful as to the number of prisoners for whom provision ought to be made, he thought it better to wait for the Report, and hold himself at liberty to propose an estimate for the prison a little later, if it were found necessary to do so.

§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER
said, he desired some explanation as to the Vote of £32,000 for the purchase of ground for storehouses at North. Woolwich.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, in reply, that the amount originally proposed was £70,000, but the Control Department at Woolwich had effected a considerable saving in reference to the matter, and the store houses in question being no longer wanted would be re-sold.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, he wished for an explanation of the excess over the original estimate of £260,000 for the defences of the dockyard and naval anchorage at Bermuda. The estimate had now increased to £375,000.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, the increase was very vexatious, and arose partly from the fact that there was no convict labour available, and partly because the compensation under a local Act was assessed by local juries, who gave much larger sums than were anticipated.