HC Deb 17 June 1869 vol 197 cc143-50

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £158,200, Military Education.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

called attention to the Report of the Commissioners on Education in regard to the Duke of York's School at Chelsea, and the Royal Hibernian School at Dublin, which he thought might be made more directly available for purposes of military education. He trusted the establishments at Chelsea and Dublin would be rendered more efficient for the public service.

MR. CARDWELL

assured his right hon. Friend that this subject had not escaped his notice. It had been referred by him to the consideration of the Committee on Military Education, whose first Report would, he hoped, be laid upon the table before the close of the Session. They would then consider this and other matters not included within their present order of reference. He would only remark, on the present occasion, that much more employment could be found for boys in the Navy than in the Army.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman's answer was quite satisfactory.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £118,500, Surveys.

(3.) £90,600, Miscellaneous Services.

(4.) £223,400, Army Administration.

MR. O'REILLY

rose to call attention to the present system of the government of the Army and the administration of Military affairs. The hon. Member referred to a speech delivered on the 26th of February by the Secretary of State for War, who asserted that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was not "Commander-in-Chief of the Army," but that his proper designation was "Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief." On turning, however, to the Royal Warrant, dated 1866, relating to pay and promotion in the Army, he found this passage at the very commencement— It is our Royal will and pleasure that the style of 'Commander-in-Chief' used herein shall be held to mean the present Field-Marshal or other General officer commanding in chief our forces for the time being. It further said that recommendations for appointments were to be made by "our Secretary of State with the concurrence of our Commander-in-Chief." The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had also, on the same occasion, made the more important assertion that there existed in principle no dual government of the Army. In the Royal Warrant several passages in disproof of this statement were to be found; and he maintained it was impossible to read them and say that there was not a dual government in the army. The test of power was the capacity of making payments, and a Warrant issued by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) empowered the Commander-in-Chief to make regulations as to pay without the concurrence of the Secretary at War. It was not desirable that appointments and promotions in the Army should be in the hands of a political officer, nor did he wish to make the Commander-in-Chief subordinate to any one except Her Majesty, acting through her political Advisers. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that all appointments were communicated to him before being made, and that he assumed the responsibility of all of them. In this respect he considered that his right hon. Friend assumed far too great a responsibility, and that without co-adequate knowledge and co-adequate power. One of the disadvantages resulting from the dual system in the Army was that the Secretary of State was obliged to have a military secretary to be an interpreter between him and the Horse Guards, and to translate questions and answers into strict military phraseology. He believed there was a great waste of power in the clerical staff of the War Office, and the right hon. Gentleman would be astonished if he knew how many clerks in his office were doing substantially the same thing at once. The unnecessary duplication of offices led to great confusion, and also to an antagonism which inevitably grew up amongst the subalterns, though not amongst the heads of the administration. The essential point was, that there should be unity of administration under a single system of government. To carry out unity and efficiency in the government, it was necessary that the offices should be consolidated, and both Mr. Sidney Herbert and General Peel had strongly recommended that both the Horse Guards and the War Office should be brought under one head. There should be a Memorandum similar to that existing for the Indian Government, defining the powers and duties of the respective officers, and the responsibility should rest where the knowledge and power rested.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that he concurred in much that had been stated by his hon. Friend; but the hon. Gentleman appeared to go further than the House itself was prepared to go. It was generally admitted that the discipline of the Army, promotions, and appointments should be placed in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief; still, it was the wish of the House that the Secretary of State should be responsible. It was a matter of every day's experience that a Minister was responsible for many things the details of which it was quite impossible that he should know. But that was only the position of every man at the head of a large Department. He quite agreed with Ms hon. Friend that it was not possible to conduct the affairs of the Army with advantage as long as there was a physical separation between the two offices by which the government of the Army was administered. A Committee, under the direction of Lord Northbrook, was considering what amendments could be introduced into the War Office, and his Royal Highness had invited them afterwards to extend their attention to the Horse Guards. He hoped that no long time would elapse before some satisfactory plan was adopted by Parliament by which the two offices might be placed under one roof. There was a want of unity in regard of administration and of locality; but there was not in principle a dual government. His Royal Highness had expressly stated before the Committee, and it had been repeated over and over again in that House, that, where the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War differed, the opinion of the Secretary of State must prevail; and if there was to be a distinction or separation of functions, which everybody must see to be necessary, he did not know how they could carry unity further than by saying whose voice was to prevail when there was a difference of opinion. He trusted that the efforts in progress would turn out well for promoting the efficiency and economy of the Departments.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he had expected when Vote 18 was brought forward that the right hon. Gentleman would, as he had promised, state what was intended with regard to the organization of the War Office. He presumed, however, as the right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the subject so slightly, that the Committee were still sitting, and that he was unable to state what arrangements would be made. He begged to say again, in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), what both himself and the right hon. Gentleman had before so often repeated, that no such thing as dual government of the army existed. There were two important duties entrusted to the Commander-in-Chief—namely, the patronage and discipline of the Army. Of course, these were matters which no civilian could or ought to be entrusted with, and it was very desirable that the Commander-in-Chief should in these respects exercise considerable authority. There never was a Commander-in-Chief less disposed than His Royal Highness to encroach on the functions of the Secretary of State, and His Royal Highness never thought of making any of the high appointments without obtaining the consent of the Secretary for War. Whilst he was in Office the two offices worked most harmoniously together; but, nevertheless, he was of opinion that the public convenience might be promoted if they were brought into closer proximity with each other. He confessed he was somewhat disappointed at not having heard more from his right hon. Friend in regard to the organization of the War Office; for before he himself left Office he had come to the conclusion that there were unnecessary and useless officers in that establishment; though he was not in Office long enough to carry out reforms which he had intended. He trusted that at the commencement of next Session the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to make a complete statement to the House on this important subject. There was another important improvement which he had intended to carry out, and that was an alteration in reference to the government of the Arsenal at Woolwich. In conclusion, he begged to call attention to the anomalous position occupied by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Vivian) who was called the War Lord, and who was, in fact, a Lord of the Treasury engrafted upon the War Office. This was a very irregular proceeding, and he trusted it would not be continued.

GENERAL PERCY HERBERT

said, he hoped the Committee would not draw the inference from, anything that had been said in the course of this discussion that the Commander-in-Chief or the Horse Guards had authority to disburse a single shilling without the special permission of the Secretary of State. He might remark that not a single soldier could be moved in this country except upon a route bearing the signature of the Secretary of State for War.

MR. O'REILLY

said, the warrant he had quoted was a Royal Warrant, countersigned by the Secretary of State. He had not spoken of a dual government of the Army generally, but he maintained that co-equal authorities existed with respect to certain parts and details of administration. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had told the House that the approbation of the Secretary of State was obtained only for appointments of great importance; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War distinctly stated that it was obtained to all appointments.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that all appointments of importance received the personal approbation of the Secretary of State, but that minor appointments were not brought under his personal cognizance. They were arranged in the office by the Under Secretary of State, by whom, if there was no objection, they were returned to the Horse Guards. With regard to the change in the War Office, which had given him the advantage of the assistance of his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Vivian), the truth was that the War Department was not sufficiently represented in that House by only one Member of it. It was necessary that the Under Secretary should have a seat in the other House, and until the War Department obtained greater strength in a regular manner, it was necessary to obtain it in some other way. With regard to the re-organization of the War Department, he felt flattered in being supposed to be able to do in a short time what his predecessors had not done in a long time. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: It was almost done when you came in.] His opinion differed from that of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. He thought that there had been too many partial changes at the War Office, and that what was wanted was a more comprehensive and complete review of the whole subject. The first thing he did was to appoint a Committee, which had not yet been enabled to complete its labours. It was better to take a little longer, and to do well that which it might be found necessary to do at all. With regard to Woolwich, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) introduced a Control Department, and the Controller had the preparation of the Store Estimate. This introduced a dual government at Woolwich. His right hon. Friend then sent down the Director General of Ordnance to reside at Woolwich, and exercise a certain, but not very clearly defined authority over the Arsenal. It was found impossible to go on at Woolwich with triple authority, and, therefore, pending the Report of the Committee, Woolwich was placed under the Controller. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reillly) quoted a Warrant as if its words had power to change the actual facts. All he could say was that, whatever might be the words of a Warrant, it was true, as stated by his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief before the Committee of Sir James Graham, that whenever the opinion of the two officers differed that of the Secretary of State must prevail.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, that nothing was known in the India Office of any official document, such as the hon. Member for Longford had described.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £27,000, Rewards for Distinguished Services, &c.

(6.) £73,000, for General Officers' Pay.

MR. ANDERSON

complained of the great expense of the non-effective services and pensions, amounting to £126,840 for general officers, besides the sinecure colonelcies, which could hardly cost less than £100,000 more. He thought the whole system of pay and pensions in our Army was rotten and wrong, as well as the system of devolving upon the next generation burdens properly belonging to the present. He held that pensions only ought to be reserved exclusively for cases of wounds and distinguished services. Officers ought to provide for old age out of their incomes, and, even if their pay were proportionately increased, the service would gain in efficiency if the change made it less aristocratic, by throwing it more open to men without private fortunes, who must live on their pay.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £480,500, Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers and Half Pay.

(8.) £156,400, Widows' Pensions, &c.

(9.) £22,300, Pensions for Wounds.

(10.) £34,400, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals (In Pensions).

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

called attention to the amount of the Chelsea Vote, and complained that a very small portion of it was given to the pensioners, and a very large one to what was called the establishment, consisting mainly of officers of various ranks, who were provided for in other ways. He trusted that the Minister for War would turn his attention to the matter.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £1,239,300, Out Pensions.

(12.) £17,900, Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps.

(13.) £132,000, Superanuation Allowances.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he thought the scale of these allowances was ripe for revision. There was a Storekeeper General in the War Office, who had been thirteen years serving at a salary of £1,200, and who was now to receive a retiring allowance of £1,000. In juxtaposition with this there was a Quartermaster General at Chelsea, whose salary was £370, and who was to have a retiring allowance of £203. The system was full of anomalies such as these, and it was high time there should be a revision of it.

MR. CARDWELL

said, the first case was part of the arrangement consequent on the appointment of Comptroller General. Every case as it occurred was referred to the Treasury. In some instances the case was decided in accordance with the requirements of an Act of Parliament, and sometimes without reference to any provision of the Act.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

objected to the practice of pensioning men merely because they were old.

MR. M'LAREN

observed, that the answer of the Secretary for War was not sufficiently explicit; it amounted to a perhaps, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not afford fuller information, silence would better have become him. If there were Acts of Parliament to regulate the granting of pensions they should be abided by, and if the Treasury had transgressed them, it was for the House to say whether they were justified in so doing.

MR. CARDWELL

explained, that some superanuations were made under an Act of Parliament, and some had no specific provision of the Act to regulate them. The decision in the case of the latter, of course, rested with the Treasury.

MR. CANDLISH

said, that, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone the Vote.

MR. CARDWELL

consented.

Vote postponed.

MR. CANDLISH

wished to know how it happened that £43,047 had been expended for unforeseen and urgent services, without the sanction of Parliament, by the authority of the Lords of the Treasury?

MR. CARDWELL

said, the item referred to a former year. It was impossible to foresee with perfect exactness in so large a service where and when the expenditure would be required, and under what heads.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

added that the subject of unauthorized expenditure was at present under the consideration of a Committee.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock; Committee to sit again To-morrow.