HC Deb 08 March 1875 vol 222 cc1398-413
SIR WILFRID LAWSON

, in rising to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the assurances of friendship from all Foreign Powers, mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, warrant a reduction in the land forces of the British Army, said, that whatever exception might have been taken to the previous Motion, that was one which was at least germane to the business the House was about to be called upon to discuss. Nevertheless, he felt that he ought to make some apology for bringing it forward. Anyone ought to apologize to the House who ventured in these days to talk politics, and he was aware that the question of retrenchment and economy was not a question that was particularly popular in the House of Commons. He did not mean to bring any charge against the House with respect to that, because he believed it truly represented public opinion, for econony was an unpopular virtue in any private individual, and it appeared to be equally so in any body corporate. There was nothing in the country which people seemed to like so much as military display. But, whether unpopular or not, there was no place in the world, so far as he knew, where both sides of the question could be so fairly heard as in the British House of Commons. He believed that some hon. Members who substantially agreed with him would not be disposed to support his Motion, on the ground that the whole responsibility in such a matter ought to be placed upon the Government. Now, he could not admit the entire force of this argument, believing that a responsibility also rested upon him, as a Member of the House of Commons, to express his opinion. In that belief, he last year moved the reduction of the Vote by 10,000 men. As he was going away after the division, the Secretary for "War, who had opposed the Motion, saying he did not see why the Force should be reduced by any particular number, said to him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—"Why 10,000? Why did you not move to take 10 tons off the Devastation?" Well, there was some point in the question, and he felt, in fact, that he had no particular reason for wishing to reduce the Army by 10,000 rather than by 20,000 men; and, as he could give no rational reason for the reduction of any particular number, he determined to alter the form of his Motion. No doubt, he should now be told that he did not propose any definite reduction, but merely submitted an abstract Resolution. Next year, then, he should revert to the 10,000, and in the following year to the abstract Resolution, and so he should go on till he got some satisfaction. Meanwhile, he hoped it would be understood that he was not finding any fault with the management of the Army. He was not competent to do so, on account of being insufficiently acquainted with the subject. He could not go into any details as to the respective merits of long or short service, neither could he decide whether Cavalry or Artillery were the most useful, or Volunteers or Yeomanry Cavalry the most useless, branch of the service. All he wanted was, to discuss the policy which, in the opinion of the Government, rendered these large sums in the Estimates and this large number of men necessary. In 1792, in Mr. Pitt's time, we were content with a force of 18,000 men at home, but now we had an Army of 129,000. What reason was there that we should now have a larger Army on foot in the United Kingdom than we had any time since 1810? Why, when we received assurances of friendship from all nations, was it necessary for the Government to come down and ask for power to increase our Army by 287 men, and our expenditure by £192,000? There was some proof that those assurances were not idle, vague, empty compliments. The Prime Minister said no later than July last, that— There never was a period when our friendship, and our real friendship, was sought with more constancy and urgency by the leading-Powers and Empires of Europe and America. Why, if that were the case, did we go on increasing our Army? He had asked that question now for two or three years, and had got no answer. If he should not get an answer to-night from the Secretary for War, who was so frank, so fair, and so free in his bearing towards the House, he should despair of ever getting one at all. What was the reason? Was it in order to repel invasion that we increased our Army? He was not going to deny that invasion was possible. Nothing was impossible; but it was so improbable as to come very near the impossible, and one must be prepared to incur a certain amount of risk. It was well said of Sir Robert Peel that he had no foreign policy except peace and goodwill towards all nations; and that great statesman had said—"I believe in time of peace we must, by retrenchment, consent to incur some risk." But where was the risk? Of whom were we afraid? Would the Government say which nation it was that was not included in "all nations?" Was it France? When he came into this House first, we used to have alarming speeches made as to what France was going to do. But surely France was busy enough now looking after her own affairs. A story would illustrate the state of France. A gentleman hired a valet, and gave him strict instructions what he was to do. He was to call him in the morning to tell him what o'clock it was, of what kind was the weather, and what form of Government he was living under. Well, that being so, was it of Prussia we were afraid? Why, Prussia was employing her whole time in watching France. Besides, as showing the state of feeling with respect to the military system there, hon. Gentlemen perhaps had not heard what the Consuls at the different ports were telling us—namely, that there was a wholesale emigration from Prussia, owing to the disgust of the people at the grievous burden of the conscription, and the warlike preparations which beset them on every side. Besides, were we not connected by Royal marriages with Prussia? But, then, there was Russia. Yes, but we had married her also last year. Russia, indeed, invade us! We had been fools enough to invade Russia, but we might rely upon it, Russia would not be such a fool as to invade us. Then there was Spain. Were we afraid of her? In that wretched country even Kings struck work—and the present King was in such a wretched position, that when he took a trip in a railway train, he had to back into a tunnel to avoid the shots of his subjects. No, the fact was there were only two enemies from which the people of this country had any cause to fear invasion—the one was the Pope, the other the Colorado beetle. As for the first, he might be left in the hands of the late Prime Minister; as for the second, there was no doubt that the sound Conservative Government which we now had would prevent that noxious Republican insect from Americanizing our institutions. But suppose there were any other enemy than the two he had named. Hon. Gentlemen talked as though we had no Fleet. He believed we had a most powerful Fleet, and he would tell the House why. He remembered what occurred in the beginning of last Session. The right hon. Gentleman who manages the Fleet, not having got quite accustomed to his position, came down one night and alarmed the House most terribly. He talked about paper ships and a phantom Fleet. But in a short time the House saw it was entirely a mistake, and no one believed that our Fleet was a phantom, any more than that the right hon. Gentleman himself was a phantom. In fact, he had heard it stated over and over again by competent authority, that our Fleet was perfectly able to meet the combined navies of the world, and he believed it. Well, then, what was the use of all our great military armaments? Suppose the combined nations of the world were to come on and beat this Fleet of ours, believed to be invincible? Where were we, then, with all Europe against us? Our 129,000 men against their mighty armies would be little better than 129,000 broomsticks. No, our Army was far too small for aggression, and too large for self-defence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give an answer to the question, what we wanted all these men for? and would not talk vaguely, as his Predecessor used to do, about the great military Monarchies, saying that so long as they were arming, we were obliged to put a good face on it, and arm too. Why, that was his case; that we ought not to be the fools the great military Monarchies were. If we followed their example, we should be acting according to the old proverb, that "One fool makes many." He was informed that at that moment there were 12,000,000 of men under arms in Europe. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He might be wrong; but he had seen it so stated. He would not take up the time of the House in trying to delineate the material and moral evils of such a state of things, the waste of time, of wealth, of happiness, which it involved. If these things were going on in the nations of Europe, there was all the more reason for showing that in that great assembly of dangerous lunatics, there was one sane nation at least. His point was, that all this arming could not go for nothing. The existence of these large armies was the very cause of war. The sight of means to do ill deeds Makes ill deeds done. It would be the story over again of the old African Chief, who said he was obliged to go to war, because he had got a barrel of gunpowder, which would spoil by keeping; and the copying of these wretched people by this country was, if he might be allowed to say so, the most "snobbish" course any nation could follow. It was the old fable of the frog, which tried to make himself as big as a bull, and burst in the operation. He was interested the first night of the Session in hearing the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address (Mr. Stanhope) condemn what he called "a policy of selfishness and isolation." But there was nothing selfish in minding our own business, and there was nothing to be condemned by the name of isolation in looking after our own affairs, and leaving other people to look after theirs. The words which he had quoted from the Prime Minister would show that "the policy of selfishness and isolation" was the true policy; and he had quoted them to show that we were more respected in Europe than ever we were before—far more than we were a few years ago, when Lord Russell was always writing threatening letters, and Lord Palmerston making "Rule Britannia" speeches. It would be pleasant if the Government could see its way to some diminution of this military expenditure, so that they might be better able to fight—as he was sure they were anxious to do—the enemies permanently encamped among us—the disease, and pauperism, and crime of the country. They had broached certain measures with that object; it required time, money, and care to carry them out, and would it not be well to devote more time, more money, and more care to those ends by getting rid of some of this expenditure? Then what benefit might be done to the "harassed interests" which were so often coming to the Government to complain? The Government had had time to attend to none of them but the Army. They had redressed some of the grievances of the Army; but others were coming with grievances which they could not redress. When General Peel sat in that House, he used to estimate by a rough-and-ready calculation that every man in the Army cost £100. The cost now was a great deal more, owing to the rise in prices, and if we cut off 10,000 or 20,000 men from our Army what a large sum the Ministry would have in hand! The Chancellor of the Exchequer was annoyed ever and anon by gentlemen coming to get rid of the income tax. His hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Gordon) was going some night to detail the misery of people with whom he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) sympathized to a certain extent—the brewers. The hon. Gentleman was going to ask the House to take off their licence duty. No doubt they would have the hon. Members for Derby (Mr. Bass) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene) by-and-by telling the House that if they did not get relief, they would end their days in the workhouse. Another question very dear to the agricultural mind was the repeal of the malt tax; its ad- vocates, too, would be sent empty away. At present it only had a following in the House of about 17; but that would no doubt be increased ten or twenty-fold, whenever a Liberal Government should again come into power. Then there was the question of Local Taxation. He spoke feelingly on that subject, for he was himself a distressed country Gentleman. He had heard the question of Local Taxation talked about for years and years; it was the dream of country gentlemen by night, and their talk both day and night—they longed for the time when rates would fall, and rents would rise; but nothing could be done for these poor country gentlemen. Already he saw the effect of "hope deferred" upon their visages. They looked so sad and sat so silent, except when on the great question of "Turnpikes" they gave forth an inarticulate moan. The fact was, so long as they had such an enormous and extravagant expenditure as £24,000,000 on the Army and Navy it would be impossible to give relief to any of these interests. He made his appeal to the present Government, and in doing so, wished the Nestor of the Tory party—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) who lent life and interest to every debate in which he took part—was in the House, because the right hon. Gentleman had voted with him before on one of these Motions as a protest against this great expenditure being permanent. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) hoped the House would not think he was pressing the Motion on Christian grounds. He did not put his Motion on the ground that war was wrong. He knew that opinion was held by the early Christians; but he was not addressing an assembly of early Christians, but of advanced Liberals. They had improved on Christianity since those early days, and went by the Articles of Religion to which they all—from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) downwards—owed "unconditional allegiance." The 37th Article declared that "It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the magistrate to wear weapons and to serve in the wars"—thus by one delicious sentence correcting the Sermon on the Mount and revising the New Testament. Now-a-days we sang Te Deums for the slaughter we had committed, with a warmth of devotion which was measured by the numbers we had slain. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had explained to them that a new kind of religious service was prescribed for the Navy, for when a ship was launched, a prayer was offered that no evil might befall her, but that she might do all the mischief that was possible. No wonder when the Shah was here he wrote in his diary words something like the following—"This is a wonderful people. I see hospitals and asylums and every institution to relieve suffering humanity, and at the same time they devote their whole energy and power to provide for the slaughter and destruction of their fellow creatures." Such was the language of this Pagan Monarch, who, no doubt, derived his notions of Christianity from some unorthodox missionary who told him our duty was to love one another. He simply asked the House to consider the question as a matter of business, and see whether the advantages to be gained were not too little for the money expended in obtaining them. So far as he was concerned, he was of opinion that both sides were equally to blame with reference to this matter. The Opposition were called Liberals, and the reason, no doubt, why they were called so, was because they were liberal in expenditure whenever they were in office. His great hope lay in the fact that in the Conservative Cabinet he saw Lord Derby, whose presence there seemed to prove that statesmanship and common sense could co-exist. Lord Derby had asked in one of his speeches—"What was the Army for?" That was the question which statesmen and politicians had to settle before they organized and reorganized it, and voted for its payment. Lord Derby, though not fortunate enough to be in office at the time of the Arbitration with America, was the first statesman who initiated that policy; he knew its benefits and the probable advantage it would be in the future. The Prime Minister, also, when in opposition, had denounced our "bloated armaments." He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was quite sure the Prime Minister agreed with him in every word he had uttered, if only he would say so. He unfortunately did not belong to the Tory party, but he could trust the Leaders of that party in foreign politics as well as any other set of men in the country. He believed those statesmen were able to settle our disputes by "the still small voice" of reason rather than by an appeal to brute force, which, after all, was nothing but the argument of the bully and the braggart—the barbarian and the coward. He appealed to the House to support his Motion as a sort of Vote of Confidence in Her Majesty's Government. They had a great opportunity before them. They had been called to office by the voice of the country expressed at the last General Election. They had passed through along night of disheartening opposition, but they were now supreme in the House and in the country. Why should they throw away that great opportunity, spending the Session in bringing in Bills, of which the best that could be said was, that some people thought they might do some good, and nobody thought that they could do much harm? He called upon them to do something which would make them be remembered in history—for, as Bentham said—"Whatever nation shall get the start of another in making a proposal for reducing its armed force will crown itself with everlasting honour." Let the House encourage the Government to take that truly noble policy—a policy which he was convinced would not only lighten the burdens of the country, but promote peace and tranquillity, and ultimately confer blessings on the whole world. He begged to move the Resolution which he had placed on the Paper.

MR. PEASE

, in seconding the Motion, said that the remarks he had to make in reference to the present Estimates were equally applicable to those introduced by Lord Card well. They were now asked for £536,000 more than last year for the united services, and an increase of £1,173,000 on the year 1873–4, so that they were going on increasing, instead of diminishing their expenses, at a time when wages, iron, and other materials were falling. Since he had been in the House—a period of ten years—they had spent no less than £270,000,000 in the defence of the country, and they had had no war during the whole time. Under those circumstances why were they going to keep 400,000 men within the United Kingdom? What had they to fear? Not America, because the American Navy had gone to nothing, and they had only an army of 25,000 men dis- persed throughout all the States of the Union In fact, so scattered was it, that he was assured by a friend who was well acquainted with the condition of affairs in that country, that it would take six weeks to get together 10,000 men in any part of the Union. Had they any reason to fear the three European countries, who by reason of their wealth and armaments were alone formidable—France, Russia, and Germany? He thought not, when their respective conditions were considered. For instance, France scarcely knew from morning to night under what form of Government she would be living, and had adopted a Conservative Republic merely to avoid Napoleonism, and its consequences. Besides, for all aggressive purposes, she was crippled for some time to come; and had increased her debt from £245,000,000 to £1,100,000,000. With respect to Russia, they had done away with the only source of ill-feeling in that quarter, by giving up the points they had gained at so much expense with reference to the Black Sea, and whatever might be her sentiments, she could never think of invading us; while as to Germany she would hesitate before plunging into war with any country, knowing, as she did, that France was hanging on her flank ready to make an attempt to snatch back Alsace and Lorraine. We might be perfectly certain that as long as Lorraine and Alsace were German, we had no reason to fear an invasion from Germany. These things being borne in mind, and it being also remembered that they had the most powerful fleet in the world, it was idle to think that either of the three nations mentioned would ever think of invading this country. Therefore there was really no reason why we should keep up these great armaments. Moreover, we had a foreign policy continued through a succession of Ministers of remarkable talent, from both political parties, and this policy which had been energetically adopted by Lord Clarendon, Lord Granville, and Lord Derby, was that of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, but of holding our own, and maintaining our honour; and this could best be done by conciliatory measures, and working in harmony with other nations. Further, it should be borne in mind they had a large enough field in which to spend their money, instead of wasting it upon standing armies. There were such questions as Artizans Dwellings, Pollution of Rivers, Local Taxation, Education, and the Civil Service, all requiring the expenditure of large sums of money, and upon them ought the energies of the Government to be most properly directed. Counties were groaning under their burdens of taxation, but until the scandal of spending so much money upon the Army was abated, he, for one, did not see how they were to be relieved. But apart altogether from such considerations as these, enormous evils were created by the mere maintenance unemployed of large bodies of troops in a country. The fact was, that by keeping up a large standing Army they were withdrawing a large number of men from industrious employment, and were maintaining them at the expense of those who were industrious; they were also engendering a spirit of war amongst the people which it was most injudicious to encourage. Not only was that spirit of war fostered in young officers, but a vast amount of absolute immorality was produced. One man in every four of the Army had been convicted of drunkenness, and out of 17,000 recruits there had been no less than 5,000 deserters. That alone showed the large amount of vice which would always be an attendant on a standing army in times of peace. He might be told that this expenditure was called for by the vast standing Armies maintained on the Continent, and he believed that the great Powers had on foot not less than 5,000,000 men. But, on the other hand, the aggregate debt of Europe had increased to £2,218,000,000, the larger part of which had been expended in keeping these vast forces in arms, and in fostering the military spirit. And what was the consequence? Why did the German emigrants leave their country in shoals? It was to escape the conscription, and because they hated the military service. In Russia, the same thing went on, thousands emigrating to America to avoid service in the army. He felt it his duty to second the Motion of the hon. Baronet, because he believed that keeping up that war force in time of peace had a detrimental effect upon the morals of the country at large. It was said we were a Christian nation. The Church had a prayer which thousands uttered every Sabbath day, and it was, "Give peace in our time, O Lord." That was a prayer we ought to listen to, and thus set a better example to those nations of whose conduct we had reason to complain.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the assurances of friendship from all Foreign Powers mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, warrant a reduction in the land forces of the British Army,"—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson,)

—instead thereof.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

said, as he intended to vote for the Amendment of Ids hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), while not at all agreeing with some of the grounds upon which he based his proposal, he should be glad if the House would permit him, in a very few words, to explain the different grounds upon which he intended to support the proposal for a reduction of the Army. He was not what his hon. Friend called an early Christian; he did not at all believe in the immediate approach of a Millennium in which the rule of force would cease, and moral considerations alone govern the destinies of the world, nor did he put that faith which his hon. Friend appeared to do in the pacific assurances which Her Majesty invariably received from England's rivals abroad. He supported his hon. Friend in the first place, because he retained the old traditional objection of the Liberal party to a standing Army. Some reasons for that distrust and suspicion had just been alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Pease). There were others not less important which he might mention, but with which he need not trouble the House at that time, as they were sufficiently recognized and understood. But beyond this he entertained the opinion that their form of standing Army had passed into a condition of present and necessarily increasing inefficiency. That was an impression which, in his opinion, was becoming generally shared by both sides of the House, and by all parties in the country. To put it simply, the day of the recruiting sergeant was past, and under its present form and government the military occupation as now carried out could not enter into competition with the best portion of the working classes of this country, with their ordinary avocations and modes of industry. It was not his intention to trouble the House at that time with more than the merest sketch of what he would propose as a substitute for their standing Army; it was enough to say that he would base it on the principle of making the entire male population of the country a great Reserve, to draw upon in any case of real necessity. He would endeavour to increase the physical force and strength of the whole population, superadding such an amount of military training as would make all the nation rapidly effective in case of necessity for defence. He was, of course, pointing to some modification of what was known as the Swiss system, and this, in his opinion, was the sort of aim which they should set before themselves in the future, and which he believed would be warmly assented to by the working classes of the community. A commencement should be made at once in this direction by requiring some amount of physical education and gymnastic exercise as a branch of their system of national education. He was aware that to many these views would sound exceedingly Utopian, but he was convinced that he was far from standing alone in these opinions. Three or four years ago 50 hon. Members of that House held a private meeting on the question of the national defences, and signed a paper of adherence to a scheme something like that he had sketched out. On that occasion he had for the only time in his life the honour of finding himself in agreement with the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). It was therefore upon quite opposite grounds to those put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that he supported his Motion. It was not because he thought with the hon. Baronet that England was superfluously strong in defence, it was rather because that in any case of strain and necessity she would be found essentially weak. The hon. Baronet had stated that he based his Motion upon a Vote of Confidence in the foreign policy of the present Government, in which he said he had just as much faith as in the policy of the right hon. Gentlemen who now sat upon the Opposition side of the House. In that sentiment he (Mr. Taylor) entirely agreed. His confidence was equally great—or small—in the right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the one side or the other of the House. He believed that that Department of Public Business, like any other Department which was practically free from the observation and criticism of public opinion in the country, would be characterized in the future as it had too often been in the past by an unhappy mixture of rashness and cowardice. He believed they would be liable in the future to such alternations of spirit as had marked their policy during the last few years: parallels would be afforded to their conduct in permitting Alabamas to prey upon the commerce of an ally when thought to be weak, and when that ally became strong of humiliating themselves, not by accepting arbitration, but by accepting it with the inevitable results accruing upon its being tried by ex post facto conditions; or should they find themselves compelled by the urgency of an ally to threaten again their great Northern rival, Russia, they would first commit the folly of striking at the extremity of the enemy and not at its heart—in the Crimea instead of in Poland—and finally when the occasion had passed of sacrificing the little they had gained through the expenditure of so much blood and treasure by tearing up the Treaty, which was the only result of the war. On these grounds he should vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he did not think that on the present occasion it was necessary to enter upon the question raised by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). The question of conscription was of too large a character to be discussed on that Motion, and he doubted whether conscription would be found in its results at all less expensive than the system at present existing. As the hon. Gentleman gave that sole ground for voting against the present state of our armaments, the House would feel that until the course suggested had been provided, we must keep to the existing order of things. He need not say much upon the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). It was certainly a little hard for one like himself, who had to go through the dry work of moving the Estimates, to find that any little liveliness which might lie in the subject had been taken out of it by anticipation. The hon. Baronet said he had great confidence in the foreign policy of the Earl of Derby, and, relying upon that, did not think it was necessary to have so large a defensive force as we now had; but the Earl of Derby was of a different opinion, because he was a party to these very Estimates. There was one compensation in connection with his hon. Friend. Even when he was depicting our miseries, he did so in such a good-humoured manner that everybody was laughing when they ought to be crying. But when they left the hon. Baronet and went to the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) they at once passed "from gay to grave, from lively to severe." That hon. Gentleman had depicted as blackly as he could all the evils of a standing Army; but he seemed to forget that the 400,000 men of whom he spoke were not only for the defence of this country, but for the defence of India and the colonies. As to the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle that in Pitt's time, the Army numbered only 18,000 men, he had to observe that at that period there were over 1,000,000 of men available for the defence of the country; while India had its own troops. The comparison between Pitt's time and the present day, therefore, was an argument in favour of increasing, rather than of diminishing, our forces. The reliefs now required for India rendered it essential, indeed, that we should maintain a considerable force at home, and he was quite sure the country had less to fear from its existing Army than from the success of enthusiasts like the hon. Baronet; because, if they succeeded in effecting such a great reduction in the Army as his hon. Friend contemplated, the effect would be that people would become frightened, and say the Army was entirely inadequate for the protection of the colonies and the preservation of India, and a revulsion of feeling would sweep away all economical measures, and plunge the country into a larger expenditure than we had now. That being so, and feeling sure he should not convince the hon. Baronet by speaking at any greater length, he would only say that he trusted the House would not consent to the Motion, but allow the Government to go at once into the Estimates.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 61: Majority 163.