HC Deb 09 May 1873 vol 215 cc1750-60
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,

in rising to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee of Public Accounts on Army Services, and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the balance of the Fine Fund therein referred to, should be paid into the Exchequer," said, that the main object he had in view was to show that on a very important point the War Office had been retrograde. About four years ago a proposal was made by the War Office that the fines inflicted upon soldiers for drunkenness should go to form a separate fund, out of which the sober and well-conditioned soldier should be rewarded. That proposal was acceded to by the Treasury, although not without some hesitation, the requirements being that a public statement should be made as to the receipts and expenditure of the amount. It seemed, however, that from 1869, when the Fund was first established, no public account of it appeared until this year, and that account was produced in February last on the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hereford (Major Arbuthnot). The Fund amounted, on a balance being struck at the end of last year, to £45,000. He thought it was wrong, and contrary to the usual practice with regard to the Estimates, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to have withheld the Fund from the notice of Parliament for a number of years, especially considering how liberally Parliament had voted money for the Army; for, on looking back to the Army Estimates for the last three years, he found that certain sums of money had been paid on that account, and that £7,000 had been proposed and voted as gratuities for long service and good con- duct, to soldiers on their discharge, and a further sum of £1,000 to enable soldiers to settle in the Colonies. That sum was voted in 1869, and a similar amount in 1870 and 1871; and this year a similar sum was inserted in the Estimates which they were about to vote. It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War had been unable to expend the whole of the Fund, because at the end of three years he was in possession of a balance of £45,852, the calls upon the Fund having been extremely trifling. In fact, there was no object to which the money could be applied in consequence of the soldier's position having been of late so greatly ameliorated. By the Resolution he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had intended to move, had he not been prevented by the forms of the House, he proposed that the balance accumulated on the 31st of March, 1872, should be paid into the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman would probably say that the soldiers had believed that that would be a Fund set apart for soldiers' uses, and that they would feel aggrieved if the fines were diverted from the purposes to which the War Office intended to devote them. But why should the soldier object to the money being paid into the Exchequer, any more than the civilian objected to the fines imposed on him for drunkenness being paid into the county or borough rate for the public good? All the soldiers' wants were provided for by the public, and he would have no right to complain if this Fund were appropriated in the way he suggested. He did not desire, on that occasion, to question the policy of the arrangement made by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that of inflicting fines on soldiers for drunkenness, and of rewarding others for sobriety; but he would remind hon. Members of the great dangers and difficulties which arose from the fact of balances remaining in the hands of persons who were not directly responsible to Parliament, and would point out that the able gentleman who represented the War Office before the Committee on Public Accounts stated, that in his opinion the public rather gained by this money being left at the War Office, and that it would be a great advantage if the balance should very largely increase. Such was not the spirit which characterized the House of Commons, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, on the part of the Government, would give them a full explanation of the whole matter, and the course they proposed to take. If that was not done he should reserve the right, at a suitable opportunity, of moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject.

MAJOR ARBUTHNOT

remarked that, of course, for the same reason as assigned by the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last he should be precluded from moving the Amendment he had placed on the Paper to the effect— That the balance of the Fines Fund may equitably be applied to the provision of gratuities for those non-commissioned officers and soldiers, whether still serving or discharged, who, though eligible for the same under Royal Warrant 27th December 1870 (paragraphs 896–905), have not received them, owing to the insufficiency of the amount voted by Parliament for that purpose. He believed the fund amounted to no less than £45,000 in 1872, and was probably now £60,000. That large sum, he ventured to submit, might reasonably be employed in the interest of the well-conducted men of the Army. He wished to guard himself against being supposed to approve of the principle of rewarding well-conducted soldiers with sums of money obtained from the pay of ill-conducted men. He objected to that on military grounds, on which it was unnecessary for him to dwell; but the question did not arise in this case, as his proposal only went to this extent, that the sum of money of which they had unexpectedly found themselves in possession, accumulated from the Fine Fund, and not the amount realized by the Fund in future, should be applied in the manner suggested in his Amendment. In the Treasury Minute, their Lordships appeared to treat this Fund as if it stood on the same footing as the pay of soldiers who absented themselves. This was not the case. The pay of absentees was stopped, but in addition further military punishment was inflicted. In cases of drunkenness the fine was usually the only penalty. "My Lords" declared that it was not desirable to "offer public rewards for sobriety." But a civilian might get drunk in his own house without offending the law, whereas the mere fact of a soldier being drunk anywhere was a punishable offence. Up to three or four years ago the small book furnished to every soldier contained ex- tracts from a Royal Warrant which led them to believe that after 18 years of irreproachable service they would be entitled to a medal, carrying with it a gratuity which they would receive on quitting the service. Since then, however, another regulation had been inserted in the soldiers' books, in which it was provided that the amount should not exceed £40 for 900 men. How inadequate that sum was would appear from the case of the Royal Artillery. That force consisted of 36,000 men, and £40 among every 900 would give £1,600 for the whole regiment. For several years 100 men had been on the average discharged who had qualified themselves to receive these gratuities, but had never obtained them, mid this year there would be about 1,000 men serving in the Artillery alone who were never likely to get a shilling of their money though actually qualified. But it did not end there. In many regiments where the soldiers were very young, the sum of money to which the regiments were entitled was not taken up, and the surplus, instead of going to the benefit of other regiments, went back to the Exchequer. He believed an inquiry had taken place, or was taking place, into the subject of pecuniary rewards and bonuses to soldiers. He had not much faith in War Office inquiries; but he hoped that in this case he might not be disappointed, and that some comprehensive scheme for settling the matter would be adopted. If not he reserved to himself ate opportunity of moving for a Select Committee, perhaps not until next Session, to inquire into the whole subject of medals and gratuities.

MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN

said, that before the present Government took office—namely, in 1867–8—representations reached the military authorities complaining of the system then in existence for punishing drunkenness. Those representations were made by military men of high position and great authority, including Sir William Mansfield, who as Commander-in-Chief in India pointed out that the existing punishment was ineffectual, and advised that a system of fines should be substituted. Sir William Mansfield's letter was remitted to Mr. Mowbray, then Judge Advocate General, who cordially endorsed his suggestion. The Duke of Cambridge thereupon appointed a departmental Committee, which after taking evidence, recommended that the crime of drunkenness should be dealt with by a system of fines, laid down a scale of fines, and said they considered that it was— Essential to the success of any such system, that the fines should he formed into a separate fund, and should, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War, be applied towards increasing the rewards to well-conducted men, or to other objects for the general improvement of the soldier's condition. Sir John Pakington referred the Report of this Committee to the Royal Commission then sitting on Court Martials, which was not composed only of soldiers, but of which many civilians of high authority were members, Colonel Wilson-Patten being Chairman. The Royal Commissioners in their first Report expressed their agreement with the Committee, in the opinion that the existing system of punishments for drunkenness was not only ineffectual, but that it demoralized the men subjected to such punishments. They also expressed their concurrence with the Committee in the recommendation already quoted from their Report, and in the belief that such an application of fines would tend materially to secure the general concurrence of the Army in the alteration. In their second and final Report they again recommended that the fines should "constitute a fund for the benefit of the Army generally." Upon that Report of the Royal Commission, in 1869 the necessary alteration was made with the concurrence of the House in the Mutiny Act and in the Articles of War under the Mutiny Act. In April, 1869, a General Order was issued to the Army, which was as usual read to the troops, and which declared that— The amount accruing from the fines for drunkenness should be formed into a General Fund, to be applied under the Secretary of State to objects tending to the benefit of the soldiers of the Army generally. On the 1st of May, 1869, the new system came into operation. It then became the duty of the Secretary of State to find out how he could best apply these Funds for the benefit of the Army generally. His right hon. Friend appointed a Committee, which made a Report. That Committee made certain proposals for a system of gratuities under which they estimated the expenditure at £11,000, but it turned out to be only £5,923, while the receipts had been greater than they anticipated; but it must be remembered that it was absolutely necessary that a large sum should be kept on hand to meet the case of any sudden falling off in the income. The disbursements did not commence until January, 1871, when the balance already in hand was £27,000, and that it was a wise precaution to be under the mark in calculating expenditure was shown by a passage of the Treasury letter sanctioning the new system to the effect that— Under no circumstances will my Lords sanction any expenditure in aid of the Fine Fund should the rate of distributing it prove greater than it will support. The whole thing was, of course, purely tentative, and as to the accusation which had been brought against his right hon. Friend on the score of delay, he could only say that the delay was premeditated. He could not possibly have known until the beginning of this year what the amount of the accumulation would be, and the moment he got the necessary information on the subject, his right hon. Friend gave instructions that, the Fund being so large, it should be shown on the face of the Estimates, in order that nothing might be done in the matter without the cognizance of that House. In the next place, he had referred the subject to the Military Secretary, the Deputy Adjutant General, and to himself (Mr. Campbell Bannerman) in order that they might see in what way it was desirable that the Fund should be expended, so as to keep pace with its income. Although it was said that it would be found impossible to spend it, he could assure the House that there were various ways in which it could be expended, and the Committee of which he was a member had been looking into the question. It was one, however, which required great consideration, and the two distinguished officers with whom he was associated had been procuring all the requisite information from those who were connected with the working of the Army, with the view of ascertaining in what way the money could be best laid out. Nothing had been done in this matter by the War Office without the full authority both of a Royal Commission, of the Treasury, and, so far as it was required, of Parliament. A somewhat similar arrangement had, he believed, been made a short time ago in the case of the Navy, and the Regimental Debts Act of 1863 provided that the unclaimed effects of soldiers might, after the lapse of a certain time, be formed into a fund to be bestowed in a certain way for the benefit of the soldier. There were precedents, therefore, for the present case, and both the Treasury and the House of Commons had authorized the adoption of a similar course. It was not desirable then, he contended, under those circumstances, to break faith with the soldier, and to go back on what had been done when the money could be expended in the way originally intended, and in accordance with the promise which had been made to the Army. The system of fines had been most advantageous to the Army, and it was only by maintaining this fund that that system could be continued.

MR. LIDDELL

said, he wished to look on the question as a financial and not as a military one, and contended that it was irregular to depart, even with the assent of the Treasury, which had been expressed in a very hesitating manner, from the long-recognized rule that all extra receipts should be paid into the Exchequer. It was an evasion of a national obligation to supplement votes of Parliament from irregular and unknown sources. Parliament would not for a moment hesitate to vote money for the reward of deserving soldiers, and he hoped the House would set its face against the practice to which attention had been called. He could not regret with his hon. Friend the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), the increase in the Army Estimates. However widely on many points of military policy he differed from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office, he could not help acknowledging that, so far as the re-organization and consolidation of the Army were concerned, he had done more for the service than any Minister of our time.

COLONEL NORTH

said, he thought that any change in the present mode of distributing the money would cause great discontent after the General Order which had been issued, and which bad been well received by the Army. Under these circumstances, he could not support the Motion.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to divert them from the real point at issue. No one wanted to go back to the punishment of imprisonment in the Army, nor did they object that the fines imposed should find their way back to the Army as rewards for good conduct. All they wanted was that the fines should be paid into the Exchequer, and that the money given for rewards should be voted by Parliament.

MR. HUNT

said, he thought that this was a very important matter, utterly irrespective of this particular discussion. The question was, whether they were to revert to the old system of Departments having special funds to deal with, without the control of Parliament, or without the sums appearing upon the Estimates. It was formerly the practice for every Department to endeavour to obtain a fund which they could dispose of without the matter being brought under discussion in the House. The House had, for a series of years, set its face against this practice, and when he was Secretary to the Treasury he brought in a Bill, which was carried, to enable the Treasury to require all extra receipts to be paid into the Exchequer; and he considered that in that way, he had put an end in principle to this system of special funds. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to divert the issue, by giving an interesting account of the change in the mode of punishing drunkenness in the Army; but the question was, whether the fines should be carried to a special fund, or paid over to the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman said, that the attention of Parliament was called to the alteration in the Mutiny Act, which enabled the fines to be employed in the way mentioned; but they all knew that the Mutiny Act was passed in blank; that the usual clauses were not even printed, and probably no one but the officials of the War Office knew of the introduction of these particular clauses in the Mutiny Bill. There was nothing in Hansard to show that the subject had ever been mooted in the House. But even if attention had been called to the new clauses, it would only amount to this—that the House had sanctioned drunken soldiers being fined instead of imprisoned, and not that the fines should be employed in rewarding well-conducted soldiers. The hon. Gentleman said, that it was the intention of the War Office to present to Parliament an account of these fines; but down to the present time, he believed that no such statement appeared upon the Estimates. It had been suggested that the fines should be applied for the benefit of the Army. Now, that had nothing to do with the proposition before the House. If rewards were to be given for good conduct, they ought to be voted by Parliament. As to the question of policy, it had been stated that this policy had received the sanction of Parliament. That, no doubt, was true; but the question of the payment of bounties for good conduct had never been brought before Parliament. It was a radical fault that to a certain extent, Parliament had been kept in the dark as to the policy of the War Office on this point. In his opinion, the policy of the payment of gratuities for good conduct and sobriety under the Army Circular of 1872 was deserving of notice. He considered it an inducement to every soldier in the Army to make every other soldier in the Army drunk. Clause 1 stated that— The fines inflicted upon soldiers for drunkenness are appropriated for the purpose of giving gratuities to well-conducted soldiers on receiving their discharge from the Army. The 2nd clause stated that— The scale of gratuities will be regulated annually, according to the state of the general fund, and will be known by the Army from time to time. Therefore the larger the fund obtained from fines for drunkenness, the larger would be the distribution of gratuities to well-conducted soldiers. If every well-conducted soldier saw his way to making all his fellow-soldiers drunk the larger would be the share of the fund at his disposal upon his discharge if he had conducted himself well and soberly. Such a system might be productive of great inconvenience in the Army. That was a matter well worthy of discussion, and if there had not been a special fund it would have been discussed before. But the question was, whether the special fund should cease, and the money should be paid into the Exchequer. It had been said that we ought not to commit a breach of faith with the soldier. It was not proposed to do any such thing. The only question was, whether these gratuities should be voted by Parliament.

MR. CARDWELL

remarked that the question had been brought down to more rational proportions by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Although the right hon. Gentleman was so jealous of any Minister having the command of any fund without its being under the control of Parliament, yet, during the period when he was Secretary of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had not thought it necessary to bring the Army Reserve Fund under the control of Parliament. When he (Mr. Cardwell) went into office, and found that the Secretary of War had the power of administering the Army Reserve Fund without the control of Parliament, it appeared to him necessary to put an end to that state of things; and he included that fund in the Estimates, for the express purpose that it should always be brought within the control of Parliament. With regard also to this particular fund, he had lost no time in giving directions that it should be dealt with in the Estimates. He therefore agreed with the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, and claimed credit for giving them practical effect. The reason why the item for good conduct rewards had not been included in the present year's Estimate was because, the sum expended under the advice of Colonel Stephenson's Committee not being as large as the soldiers were entitled to, a new Committee had been appointed to advise on the proper scale of expenditure, but it had not yet reported. It was intended to reprint Vote 17 for the purpose of bringing that fund, as in the case of the Army Reserve Fund, under the control of Parliament. It would really be very difficult to conduct the Government, if, after Royal Commissions consisting of the most distinguished men had been appointed by one Government, and their Reports laid before Parliament by their successors, and Parliament had been amply informed of every step that had been taken, it were to be said that Parliament had no knowledge of the matter whatever. In his judgment, it would be unadvisable to pay in the amount of this fund to the Exchequer, because the effect of such a course would be to swell both the Army Estimates and the Treasury receipts by a sum that was really paid with the one hand and received by the other. It would also be a dangerous matter to take possession of this fund, as it would give rise to suspicions in the soldier's mind which it might be difficult to remove. That, however, would be entirely obviated by the course which he (Mr. Cardwell) had suggested of bringing the matter before Parliament in the annual Vote, exactly in the same way in which he formerly brought forward the Army Reserve Fund.

GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

concurred in the general principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Secretary of State for War, although he thought reasons might be adduced for departing from them on certain occasions. As to the objections made by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) in respect to the undue accumulation of this fund, the answer just given to him by the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly sound and complete. He (Sir Percy Herbert) certainly thought, now that some idea could be formed as to its average receipts, it exceedingly objectionable that any large sum should be allowed to accumulate in the fund referred to. It would be most objectionable to pay this fund into the Exchequer, because soldiers and sailors were very sensitive upon all matters that affected their pay and allowances, and any dealing with this fund might affect recruiting. It was quite possible if this Fund were dealt with in the way proposed that soldiers might receive the impression that this system was a mere dodge by which the recent increase in their pay was to be balanced by means of fines. For that reason, it was, in his opinion, quite right that the annual receipts and disbursements in relation to this subject should be placed annually before Parliament in a clear and distinct manner.

MR. HUNT

wished to correct an error the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into in regard to the Army Reserve Fund. The right hon. Gentleman thought he (Mr. Hunt) had had an opportunity of dealing with that fund. It had been reported on by the Committee in 1868, but he went out of office in that year.