§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £370,400, Commissariat and Ordnance Store Establishments, Wages, &c.
§ (2.) £2,997,000, Provisions, Forage, Fuel and Light, Transport, &c.
§ (3.) £800,600, Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies.
§
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,229,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1876 to the 31st day of March 1877, inclusive.
§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, the Committee would remember that he had on various occasions called attention to the question of the Martini-Henry rifle, believing that it was not the best weapon with which to furnish our Army. The difficulties of repairing the complicated lock in case of accident were so 1637 great that in actual service it would be perfectly impossible to overcome them. In 1871 he asked for a Committee to inquire especially into the construction of the lock, but a Committee was refused, though not by a very large majority. He admitted that a very competent Committee had chosen this arm, as in their opinion the best that could be procured; but he was fortified by the opinion of some of the best military authorities, that the lock was so complicated that in case of emergency it would fail, and of course the weapon would become perfectly useless. Since the present Government came into office he had to ask questions of his noble Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance, and had got some very curious statements from him. His noble Friend would not deny that the arm, at least as far as the lock was concerned, had been almost reconstructed since it was introduced into the Service. He contended that we ought never to have been called upon to expend such enormous sums to remedy the serious defects in the lock. His noble Friend had spoken of the amount as inconsiderable—3s. at one time and 3s. at another; but £75,000 was a very large sum to expend on each separate improvement. Independent Members in this House could not give the names of the various officers whom they had consulted; but there was hardly one who could not tell them that the present action of the Snider-Enfield was superior to that of the Martini-Henry. There were many persons who said that at Wimbledon and elsewhere the Martini-Henry shot admirably. He was not going to dispute it; but at Wimbledon and elsewhere there was always a man at hand to put the lock into repair at a moment's notice. But in a campaign in India or somewhere else, could a common soldier take the lock to pieces and put in a new spring if the old one got bad? With the rarest exceptions, every one who tried this rifle found some fault more or less. It went off when it was not asked to go off. It was true that attempts had been made to remedy its defects. Those attempts had been very costly. He believed this weapon would absolutely fail if it came to the practical test of war. At Perak it was reported on unfavourably, and it was said, that after being fired a certain number of times it became too hot to hold, and the 1638 cartridges got jammed. Moreover, it was 4 inches shorter than any weapon used by Continental regiments, and that, he ventured to say, was a very great drawback. If you crossed bayonets—and that was done in the late war between France and Germany—what an advantage it would be to you to have a bayonet longer than that of your foe. The drawback could not be remedied by having a longer bayonet, for in that same war the elongated bayonet or sword bayonet was found to be practically useless, and was discarded. If the Secretary of State for War would only have an ordinary soldier up before him and ask him to repair the spring he would then find how useless the weapon was, and at what a disadvantage the British soldier would be placed in time of war. He believed the old Snider-Enfield rifle was a far better weapon than the Martini-Henry rifle, and that it would be utterly impossible to repair the latter weapon when on service. With the view of affording the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving the Committee an explanation on this subject, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £85,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,143,146, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1876 to the 31st day of March 1877, inclusive."—(Sir Walter Barttelot.)
§ MR. MUNTZsupported the Amendment. He believed that after all the alterations and modifications which had been made, the great defect still existed—namely, that the weapon was so complex that in anything like a real campaign it would be unserviceable in the course of three months. The complicated character of the lock was so great that when it got out of order it was so difficult to repair it that it was almost certain in serious warfare to become useless. This, in combination with its shortness, were serious defects, and in a bayonet encounter would probably cause demoralization among the troops who were armed with it. They had had constant chopping and changing in that matter, and he did not see why they should be in so great a hurry. It was all very well to try experiments, but they ought 1639 to arrive at some definite conclusion as to what was the best rifle before they went on manufacturing it in any large quantity. As to rifles with the Whitworth barrel, he had fired 100 rounds with them in less than four minutes. The Snider was good for 800 yards. That being so, he thought until they had got something better that they could rely on, they might have kept it.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the present Government was not responsible for the introduction of the Martini-Henry rifle, which had been taken up in a great hurry-scurry by a former Government. He had hoped that they would have had 750,000 Snider rifles stored in the arsenals, in excess of those in use, before they made any change of their weapon; but he well remembered that in that House speaker after speaker had put pressure on the War Office to induce it to adopt that change in the kind of arm which was now considered to be defective. It had been so frequently represented that the country was in danger with only the Snider in use; until the Martini-Henry rifle was adopted the means of offence and defence were wanting, and these would be put in perfect order, and the nation saved by the Martini-Henry rifle being forthwith manufactured in hundreds of thousands. This was all asserted at the very time the Germans were then fighting the French successfully with a weapon far inferior to our Snider rifle; but nevertheless we were not content, and nothing but the cry for the destruction of all the efficient and expensive machinery set up at the Enfield factory to manufacture the Snider was heard of, and new machinery to make the Martini-Henry introduced. That was ordered and intended to be completed in a short time, whereas he believed it occupied the factory two years to got all the works in order for the new and greatly lauded arm, and now that the work was going on the arm was condemned. However, the important point now was to try and satisfy the Army as to the completeness of the weapon that was put into its hands; and he urged on the Secretary of State the necessity of satisfying the soldier's mind in that respect.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANobserved, that that was not a question of going back to the Snider, but simply of having a new rifle. He considered that it would be a great 1640 mistake to spend £1,500,000 on a new rifle when they had such an excellent weapon in the Martini-Henry, which at 600 yards was 40 or 50 per cent quicker than the Snider. Although, the lock of the Martini-Henry was somewhat complicated but a very small percentage of those rifles went out of order. An American Committee sat a few years ago to consider the subject, and their decision was that they would adhere to the breechloader until they got a magazine rifle. They were confident that ultimately such a weapon would be invented; and as that was not impossible, it would be foolish in us to enter upon a large expenditure for new breechloaders, which might ultimately be suspended for a superior weapon. Experiments showed that at a range of 1,000 yards the Snider had no chance against the Martini-Henry. They could not get beyond the present calibre of the Martini-Henry on account of the men's shoulders. During the late Franco-German War the Germans impressed their men who had to meet troops armed with the Chassepôt with the necessity of coming to close quarters. The moment, however, the war was over, the Germans obtained a long-range rifle, which showed that they believed such a weapon was useful. His general opinion was that the Martini-Henry was a very good weapon, and that no Army at the present moment had a better one.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that the responsibility of the Government in connection with the Martini-Henry arm was not for its introduction, but for its continuation; for when they came into office in 1874 they found that 104,000 rifles had been manufactured at a cost of something like £460,000, besides those in course of manufacture. A great deal had been said about hurry and scurry in the adoption of the Martini-Henry, but the fact was that no other weapon had ever had a longer trial. The history of the weapon went back as far as 1866, when General Peel, then Secretary for War, issued a notice to inventors stating that it was in contemplation to choose a breech loading rifle, and asking them to send in rifles for competition. One hundred inventors sent in various rifles, and the Martini-Henry was the one chosen. The Committee that reported upon that weapon was formed, not of Artillery officers only, as had been 1641 supposed, but of five or six Infantry officers and civilians, and one Artillery officer as Secretary. Their Report approved of the Martini-Henry, as far as it went. That approval was endorsed by the Council of Ordnance, and another Committee was formed, his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) being an active Member of it. That Committee, confirming the opinion of the preceding one, declared that the Martini-Henry, so far as shooting qualities were concerned, was equal, if not superior, to any rifle in Europe. He did not think that opinion could be gainsaid. In the matter of lightness, accuracy, and cost he believed the Martini-Henry was unequalled. The Mauser, which was the German rifle, had been referred to as cheap, but he happened to know that it cost about £3 1s., while the Martini-Henry could be manufactured for about £2 13s. The latter, therefore, was not the costly weapon which the hon. Member for Birmingham supposed it to be, and so far as he (Lord Eustace Cecil) was aware, none of the regiments into whose hands it had been put had ever denied that it was one of the best weapons they had ever shot with. It was perfectly true that the Martini-Henry rifle was 4½ inches shorter than any other in Europe, but the question of length had received very serious consideration. The bayonet invented by his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) was thought of, but abandoned on account of its weight and cost. Then the Irish Constabulary bayonet was adopted to a certain extent. The bayonet finally approved for the rank and file was an elongated one, which made the Martini-Henry arm about an inch and a half longer than the Mauser and of about the same length as the Chassepôt, to the best of his recollection. At any rate, the Martini-Henry rifle mounted with the elongated bayonet was practically as long as any similar weapon in Europe. Of course, objection might be taken to the length of the bayonet, but that was a question which the military authorities were the best able to decide. Whatever opinions might be entertained on that point, the fact remained that one of the principal objections made to the Martini-Henry rifle, that of its shortness, fell to the ground. The question of balance was not one, he thought, on which any difficulty would arise. The hon. and 1642 gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), although admitting that the barrel of the Martini-Henry was good, took exception to the lock; and, indeed, it was only that part of the rifle which might be said to be seriously called in question. The great objection to the lock was that it was complicated, and that it required an expert not only to put it together, but to keep it in order. Well, the expert was there in the person of the armourer-sergeant, who ought certainly to be able to put the lock into proper order. But the Martini-Henry was not the only arm which was liable to become unserviceable. On the very morning of the battle of Inkermann a brother officer of his, being on picket duty, found that the nipples of the muskets of his company had got stopped up in consequence of dampness during the night. He immediately marched them to head-quarters, had the nipples put in order, and then marched back to help in the accomplishment of that great feat of valour, which had conferred so much glory on English arms. If he had not adopted that sensible course, and had not had the aid of an armourer-sergeant to put the nipples into order, his company would have been disabled on that critical occasion, and very serious consequences might have ensued. Even if they were to go back to the old Brown Bess it would be necessary that there should be some one to look after the arms and keep them in order. He thought, however, it behoved those who said the Martini-Henry rifle was an excellent weapon to look after it a little more closely than they had done. It had come to his knowledge—he would not say that it had not received fair play, for that was a strong term—but it had come to his knowledge that it had been allowed to get rusty and out of order, the result being that when people put it to any sudden test or trial they found that it did not work with that perfection that they might expect. There was no finality in these weapons; but although they had not arrived at perfection or finality, he thought it would be most unsatisfactory and most expensive to be changing their weapon every three or four years before they put it to the test of active warfare. Had they put the Martini-Henry to the test of active warfare? They had one report from 1643 Perak, which stated that after a certain time the weapon got hot and out of order, and that the men had to throw it away; but since then they had reports of the campaign, and not a single fault was found with the rifle. There had been a solitary report, and that was all. Do not let the Committee suppose—and he hoped the country would not suppose—that the Martini-Henry was the only gun in which defects had been found. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Muntz) spoke of the Snider as being a superior weapon. [Mr. Muntz had only said that until they got something better they might have kept it.] Before the Snider was adopted finally defects were discovered, quantities had to be returned to the stores, and reports which he had before him showed numerous defects which had been found out. Indeed, no rifle when first introduced was entirely satisfactory. There was no doubt the Martini-Henry had been put to wonderful trials, and it must be allowed that it had come out very fairly. It was not perfectly understood at present, but when it was he believed it would be appreciated. In the spiral action it was not singular, and as to the alleged great recoil of which they at first heard a great deal now nothing was said about it. He did not view the Martini-Henry as a final weapon; but he believed, as it stood, it was as good a rifle as they could possibly wish for. They had cured a great many defects. It was the best shooting rifle in Europe, and the lock, whatever might be its disadvantages, if properly taken care of, would work well.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, his noble Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance having done him the honour to refer to him as having been on the Committee who sat on the Martini-Henry rifle, he hoped he would be permitted to say a word on the subject. Although a Member of that Committee, he had nothing to do with the selection of that arm as the rifle for the British Army. That was done by the first Committee, for there were two, and he was a Member of the second only, which had to consider the Reports from regiments to which the Martini-Henry rifle had been issued on trial. A question having been raised as to the efficiency of the breech action, he felt that it was necessary to have an experienced mechanical 1644 engineer appointed a member of the Committee. This was done, and he was bound to say that the evidence given by gentlemen most eminent in their profession of engineers, respecting the Martini-Henry rifle, was that it was a most efficient weapon; and that the spiral spring principle in another weapon was mechanically sound and reliable. Then, as regarded the shooting of the Martini-Henry rifle, it had been shown that it was an infinitely superior weapon to any foreign rifle. He did not know what was meant by saying that it was a delicate weapon. The Committee subjected it to a harder trial than it would ever get in the field, and the gun withstood it. He was, therefore, not alarmed at the gun being called a delicate weapon; but he was alarmed at hearing from the noble Lord that they must look to an improved class of soldier, who would be more fit to handle delicate weapons. As regarded finality, of course nothing was final; and although there might be better rifles hereafter, at present this was, as regarded range and accuracy, the best military arm in Europe. In Switzerland he found that something like 700,000 shots had been fired from the Martini rifle at the Tir Federal without accident; but the Swiss were not armed with the Martini rifle, but with a different weapon. It was, indeed, at one time a "toss up" whether they were to adopt it or the "Wetzler," a repeating rifle, but the latter was chosen. It had always been, he might add, a matter of great surprise to him that the first Committee should have rejected all repeating rifles in favour of breech-loaders, because it was manifest that troops armed with repeaters would occupy relatively the same position towards those which happened to be armed with breech-loaders that the latter would hold in reference to those who had only muzzle-loaders. The Swiss repeating rifle had a magazine containing 11 cartridges, and it shot with accuracy and at long ranges; but he had seen an American rifle—Green's—which had the advantage that it could be used either as a repeater or a single barrel. It was, in his opinion, one of the best rifles which had been brought under his notice, and in cases in which, rapid firing at close quarters was desirable, it would be very serviceable. It appeared to 1645 him, therefore, that those who were responsible for the arming of our troops would be wanting in their duty if they were to decline to give due consideration to the merits of such weapons. As to the Martini-Henry, there had at one time been an organized set made against it by some disappointed inventor; and it was very certain that, whatever rifle was adopted, it would encounter the like opposition. Allusion had been made to a sword-bayonet which bore his name. Now, he did not himself stand up in this House as a disappointed inventor—he did not claim to be an inventor. When he went on the Committee there were a rifle and a bayonet submitted to them. The Committee succeeded in getting the rifle reduced a pound in weight, and the Committee that sat previously on the subject had reduced it in their time also in weight, so that the weapon was considerably lightened and rendered more manageable. But as to the bayonet which the first Committee adopted, it was simply the old straight sword bayonet with a saw at the back, which, while it was not peculiarly adapted to be a thrusting, was a most inefficient cutting instrument. Now, what was wanted in the Army was a weapon that would cut wood readily. There were endless occasions when a soldier would find the advantage of such a weapon—in cutting wood for fuel, for making gabions, fascines, and abattis, in cutting his way through jungle, hedges, or other obstacles. Formidable though a bayonet looked at the end of a rifle, and much as was heard of bayonet charges, still bayonet wounds were almost unknown, the whole percentage of killed and wounded by cold steel, including swords, in the Franco-German War having been only 2 per cent. He therefore went to Mr. Wilkinson, of Pall Mall, the best sword cutter in Europe, and with the help of Mr. Latham, his partner, a form of sword bayonet was devised which, while most formidable as a thrusting weapon, was, as a cutting instrument, as powerful as any woodman's bill, being formed on the principle of the famous Ghoorka knife. Lord Sandhurst, when it was shown to him, in a letter which he wrote to the Committee, described it as supplying a want which had been long felt in the Army. Well, the Committee, having deliberated, adopted that form of weapon, 1646 and it having been begun to be manufactured and issued by the Government, he should like to know why its issue had suddenly been stopped in deference to the report of a departmental Committee of whom the name of a single Member was unknown to the country? Rumour said that the reason why the issue had been stopped was that the bayonet was one which fixed at the, end of the rifle would not look well in Pall Mall in the hands of a sentry! At least, no better reason had been given. If the objection to the adoption of this bayonet was not a question of appearance or weight, it must be a question of expense—the matter of a shilling or two—and surely this nation was not so poor that it could not give its small Army the best weapon that could be obtained.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, his noble Friend was wrong in supposing that his services were not valued, even though the sword bayonet which he proposed had not been adopted for the Army. He had never before to-night heard it alleged as a reason for giving up the sword bayonet that it would not make a good appearance in Pall Mall. Again, his noble Friend was wrong in supposing that the expense would be very small. The ordinary bayonet which was now proposed, of a lengthened pattern, would, with its scabbard, cost 4s. 1½d.;whereas the sword bayonet, with its scabbard, would cost 15s. 6d. Rich as the country was, we could hardly be expected to pay so large a sum except for something of superlative excellence. The ordinary bayonet, he might remark, was 10 ounces lighter than the proposed sword bayonet. He need not detain the House with any observations concerning the rifle itself. Our forces were, he believed, armed at the present time with a weapon which was well calculated to meet any one of a different kind in the hands of any enemy whom we were likely to encounter; and although there might be some defects in it, those defects had been remedied by the mechanical ingenuity of our gunsmiths in such a manner as to prevent their recurrence. At all events, until we saw the superiority of some weapon of a totally different kind, we had better content ourselves with that which we already possessed.
§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, that after the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, 1647 he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. It was because he believed that the lock of the weapon was defective that he had thought it right to bring the matter before the House.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANwished to know how many breech-loading rifles there were in the country?
§ LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in reply, said, that the number of Sniders in use for the Land Forces was 323,484, and the number of Martini-Henrys 93,020, making a total of 416,504 breech-loading arms. The total number of breech-loading arms now in use, or which would probably be in store on March 31, 1877, would, it was hoped, amount to 891,061. Too much stress had been laid on his remarks about the educated soldier. All he meant to say was, that a man should be able to take care of his arms.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, as far as the interests of his constituents were concerned, it would be to their advantage to see the Army provided with the worst possible weapon, because they would have to manufacture a greater number of them. The present weapon, on its introduction four years ago, was eulogized and stated to be perfection, but now 20 defects in it, some of which were not yet remedied, had been admitted.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £845,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1876 to the 31st day of March 1877, inclusive.
§ MR. J. R. YORKE, who had given Notice of a Motion to omit the sum of £17,000 for the re-construction of Knightsbridge Barracks, said, if it were merely a question of taste he should not have troubled the Committee on the subject, but there was the matter of convenience to be considered. There were many disadvantages attending the retention of the present site, which he had always contended was inadequate; indeed, it had been officially reported as such for the purposes of barracks, and, 1648 if so, after the road had been widened, as was proposed, it would be still more inadequate and inconvenient. As a question of convenience, therefore, as well as of good taste, he would recommend to the favourable consideration of the Secretary for War the proposal of Sir Henry Cole to erect anew barrack 100 feet back from the site of the present building, and to allow the ground which they occupied to revert to the Park in the shape of an ornamental garden. With reference to the suggestion, he believed that the best authorities were of opinion that more commodious barracks might be erected to the north of the present buildings. It had often been urged that the barracks occupied by the Household troops ought to remain in Hyde Park, because it might be necessary to employ those troops against mobs of people who had gathered in the Park for unlawful purposes. There were two answers to this argument—an argument which he utterly rejected. In the first place, they could have no object in doing so, now that the question of holding meetings there was settled; and if disorderly mobs were to gather at all, it was surely much better that they should assemble in the Parks than they should choose the neighbourhood of, say, the Houses of Parliament, or the thickly-populated districts of the metropolis; and, in the second place, if it become necessary to deal with such persons, the soldiers to be employed for the purpose should not be the Household troops, who were stationed constantly in London, but men drawn from distant garrisons for the special purpose. The last time they were employed against the people was at the funeral of Queen Caroline. Several people were then killed, and the Life Guards were long known as "the Piccadilly butchers." Troops living on the spot ought not to be so employed. The Duke of Wellington did not rely on the Household troops in 1848, and there was abundance of cavalry and infantry at Colchester and at Aldershot within an hour's rail of the metropolis. With regard to the sanitary part of the question, there was sufficient evidence on the Table of the House, in the Reports of Professor Parkes of the Royal Commission of 1863, and of the Sanitary Commission of 1861, all of which were overwhelmingly strong in favour of separating the horses and the men, and unanimous 1649 in affirming that the health of both would be improved thereby. All the evidence given before those bodies showed that it was injurious to the health of the horses to have anything except the stable roof between them and the outer air, while it was still more injurious to the health of the men to have them lodged over the horses, as their rooms were saturated with the odour of the stables. They also reported that the site of the barracks had been shown to be inconvenient; and, further, that a convenient one could without difficulty be found. The conclusion which he had come to was that in the absence of an overwhelming necessity, it would be very wrong to erect new barracks on the old site, and therefore he must ask the right hon. Gentleman at the eleventh hour to re-consider the matter and adopt the suggestion referred to; for if he did that he would give satisfaction to the people of London, and especially to the people residing at Knightsbridge. He now left the issue in the hands of the Committee, being conscious that he had left nothing undone to press what he considered an important matter on their attention.
§ MR. FORSYTH, in seconding the Motion, said that, though it would be in vain to hope to resist the Vote, yet, if hon. Members were willing to listen to facts, he would show that the new barracks ought not to be erected on the present site. When the barracks were first erected in 1780 at the time of the "Lord George Gordon Riots," the site was nothing but green fields, and Knightsbridge a small village. Now, they were an unsightly excrescence on one of the noblest suburbs of the metropolis, and he submitted that, if they wanted a good approach to the metropolis from the West of England, they must pull down the present barracks and leave the space vacant for the erection of good houses. So long as the barracks remained in their present position, no contractor could be found to undertake the erection of a single good house in the place of the mean and disreputable edifices which now existed. This he said, fully admitting that he had nothing whatever to allege against the soldiers who inhabited the barracks. He had hardly ever seen one of them drunk, nor had he ever seen a soldier enter a public-house in the neighbourhood. He insisted that if the barracks did 1650 not already exist there, the Secretary for War would not obtain a single shilling for their erection at Knightsbridge. It could not be asserted that no other site for them could be found, because several had been pointed out, and if all who had the improvement of London at heart voted for their removal, one of them would soon be chosen. Nor could it be said that these barracks were necessary for strategic purposes, because there had been, happily, no collision between the military and the populace of London for the last 90 or 100 years, and the difference of time in the arrival of troops from Chelsea or from Hyde Park could not be more than five or ten minutes. That delay would not endanger the peace of London, and there was, therefore, no necessity for retaining the barracks where they were.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £17,000, for the Reconstruction of the Hyde Park Cavalry Barracks, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Reginald Yorke.)
§ GENERAL SHUTEsaid, he did not think the House of Commons the place where such details as he had listened to regarding this question should be discussed. It was one to be decided alone by military authorities, and not by hon. Members of that House, most of whom knew nothing of Cavalry, or the mode in which Cavalry regiments should be accommodated. He thought the site at Knightsbridge a most valuable one, and sincerely hoped it would be retained. Our Household Cavalry were kept down to a low point, and it might happen that they would only be able, when wanted, to mount 200 horses. Every one knew the importance of not irritating the mob by a display of force, and the advantage of these barracks was that the authorities could quietly and unobtrusively concentrate in them, not only one or two battalions of Infantry, but a large force of police, who could act with the Cavalry in case of necessity. The removal of the barracks to a more northern portion of the Park has been suggusted, but a road must be made, and there would be waggon loads of manure to carry from the stables. He would, however, recommend a still larger expenditure than the War Office now proposed, so as to bring the riding school 1651 nearer the men and horses. It was said that it was undesirable for sanitary reasons that the men should not sleep over their horses, and the opinion of medical men had been quoted. He did not care what medical men said, but let them ask the opinion of commanding officers of Cavalry regiments. There would be a great deal more disease through men getting wet in going to and from their stables. When he was at Shorncliffe his men were half-a-mile from their stables, and they were always getting cold and being laid up from having to go and look after their horses in the rain. Where did their grooms in London sleep but in rooms over their horses? and the Cavalry stables were much cleaner and better ventilated than private stables. It was far better that the stables should be under the barrack rooms than at a distance from them.
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, that this was more or less a question of economy; the War Office would be called upon to pay a large sum of money for any other site. To remove the present barracks, and build a new one would also entail large expenses which, he believed, the country might not be disposed to pay. He believed that the Government would be glad to provide new officers' houses further to the west if they were not afraid of the expense, which would amount to about £15,000. To place barracks on the right side of the road going westwards would simply ruin the appearance of the Park, and spoil the grass-plat there, without deriving any material advantage from such a position.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERcalled attention to the disgraceful state of the huts connected with the Beggar's Bush Barracks in Dublin, which, he said, were entirely worn out, and expressed a hope that the Secretary for War would order them to be pulled down as soon as possible. They called for improvement quite as much as the barracks under consideration.
§ MR. ADAMsupported the Amendment, contending that the elevation of the new barracks, as shown by the model exhibited in the Tea Room, was not such as would add to the beauty of that part of London in which it was proposed they should be erected, while the site was a bad one so far, as furnishing those conveniences which barracks ought 1652 to possess. He also objected to the argument that it was desirable to have troops near Hyde Park, as it were to overawe the people who might assemble there for objects which might be perfectly legitimate, observing that those who were bent on mischief would not be likely to meet in the vicinity of barracks. He suggested that a better site than that at Knightsbridge might be found near Chelsea Hospital, and that another and more healthy place might be provided for the boys by whom the schools there were occupied.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYexcused himself, on the ground that the subject had been repeatedly discussed, from entering into it at any length. He denied that he had ever made use of the argument that it was desirable to keep troops in the neighbourhood of Hyde Park, for the purpose of acting against the people. So long as the meetings held there were confined to proper objects, and properly conducted, there was no wish on the part of the Government to interfere with them at all. But it was very expedient that there should be an open space in the immediate vicinity of Cavalry Barracks in order that the troops upon an emergency might be able to move in every direction without passing through narrow streets. As to removing the barracks to Chelsea, he hoped the Committee would not think he was wrong in not spending more money than he could avoid in dealing with the question, seeing that he had at hand a site which he was informed would furnish all that was requisite for Calvary barracks, and that he was assured on the best authority that the health of the men would not suffer from sleeping over the stables. Indeed, in the most recently erected barracks—those at Colchester—where there were no other considerations at work than the advantage of the troops—the men's quarters were placed over the stables. With regard to Sir Henry Cole, when it was suggested to him that his scheme was costly, he pointed out that that was no affair of his, but to beautify London. It might be very well to propose plans admirable for their aesthetic qualities; but, at the same time, they must not be unmindful of economy. The duty of the Secretary of State, however, was not to beautify London; and as to æsthetic qualities, they were matters about which tastes very much dif- 1653 fered. It was therefore his duty to keep economy in view, while at the same time he had to take care that nothing should be done offensive to the neighbourhoods where the barracks were. Even on that score the elevation of the new barracks would, he believed, bear favourable comparison with any of those magnificent houses to which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had referred. If the House of Commons wished to put him in possession of enormous sums for that purpose that would be an affair for them to consider. There was, however, no site which he could find which for various reasons was so advantageous as that at Knightsbridge, and he hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote without further discussion.
§ LORD ELCHOthought that although it might be no part of the duty of his right hon. Friend to beautify London, he should take care that barracks were not erected which would be a disfigurement to the Metropolis. He should vote for the Knightsbridge site as, in his opinion, the best; but then he should like to have an understanding with the right hon. Gentleman that he would not bind himself by any contract, until the public had been enabled to judge of the probable effect of the new buildings by means of a model on a sufficient scale.
§ MR. MUNTZthought the situation of the barracks at Knightsbridge most excellent, and it would be folly to throw away money in buying another site. He should certainly vote against the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 125: Majority 111.
§ MR. E. J. REEDwished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to the state of the question with reference to the Moncrieff system of gun carriages; and to ask, whether it was now carried out on the mechanical principle on which it was first introduced, or on the hydraulic principle Major Moncrieff proposed at a later period?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that Major Moncrieff last year made his final settlement with the War Office, and a Vote was taken to complete the payments due to him. Since that period Major Moncrieff had applied himself to 1654 utilizing the hydraulic principle in working heavy guns; but with that the War Office had nothing to do. They were, however, seeing what could be done in applying hydraulic apparatus to the working of the larger guns.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANobserved, that the Moncrieff system had, in the estimation of a great number of persons out-of-doors, been somewhat suddenly dropped by the Government without any adequate reason having been given for doing so. He thought it would have been more satisfactory had the Government brought the invention forward a little, in order to ascertain exactly what its merits were.
§ MR. E. J. REEDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question. What he wished to know was, whether the Government intended mounting guns which should disappear when fired; and, if so, whether they would do it on the hydraulic principle?
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, there were two systems of Major Moncrieff, one the counter-weight system, the other the hydraulo-pneumatic system; the former they had adopted, the latter had been reported against, and they had not used it.
§ MR. HAYTERasked for some explanation as to the proposed expenditure of £3,000 in the repair of Knightsbridge Barracks, and as to the amount to be spent upon the huts at Shorncliffe? He also wished to know, what benefit would be derived from the proposed reclaiming of part of the Long Valley at Aldershot?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the matter of the huts would require great consideration; but, in the meantime, it was necessary to make the proposed expenditure at Shorncliffe. The Horse Guards would be quartered, some at Regent's Park, Knightsbridge, and Hampton Court, during the rebuilding of the Knightsbridge Barracks.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (6.) £144,100, Establishments for Military Education.
§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, he presumed, from the age for officers entering the Cavalry being extended to 22 years, there was great difficulty in getting a sufficient number to join the 1655 Service, which accounted for there being four, five, and six vacancies in most of the different Cavalry regiments. The question was, whether or not the examinations were carried too far, and the most useful, proper, and important class of men deterred thereby from entering the Service. In the old days there never was any difficulty experienced in obtaining officers for the Cavalry; whereas, at the present time, as he had said, nearly every regiment was short of its complement, and he attributed that circumstance to the stringency and uncertainty of the examinations, and to the fact that unless a young man happened to be one of the fortunate few at the head of the list, he stood no chance of obtaining a commission before he had passed the limit of age. His own son, who had passed through the examination successfully, had come out 28th out of 520 young men examined, but had he gone up at the next examination the same number of marks would have placed him sixth on the list; and it was quite possible that a man who was able to pass a very fair examination might find himself hopelessly low in the list because a number of cleverer men than himself happened to go up at the same time. It was not good for the country that any special class should be excluded from the Army, and under the present system men who could afford to keep themselves were, as he had said, prevented from taking that step. He also thought that some concession should be made to the Artillery and Engineer officers, who were compelled to spend two and a-half years at Woolwich without pay, after they had passed an examination that would qualify them for officers in the Line. That regulation was the means of also keeping young men from joining the two corps he had named.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, the two questions were intimately connected with the abolition of Purchase without first providing a proper substitute. He never defended the Purchase system, but he believed that it did a great deal of good. When Purchase existed it did not apply to the Artillery, and the two years' attendance at the Woolwich Academy was rewarded with a commission; but now the number at Woolwich Academy had fallen off. Both Austria and Germany, and he believed France also, had been 1656 trying to get officers in the Reserve who were not strictly professional men, but who in time of war would increase the number of officers in the Army. He suggested whether some arrangement might not be made by which young men of fortune could enter the Army for five or six years, without displacing the professional officers.
§ GENERAL SHUTEdid not think we could have too high a standard of qualifying examination for military officers, but he greatly objected to competitive examination, because he did not believe in unnatural forcing. It deprived us of the services of excellent young men who were slow as regarded intellectual development, but who in after life turned out most able. As far as he was concerned, he preferred his subalterns coming from a public school than from a crammer. One great grievance complained of, and which caused many young men to leave the Army was this most unjust practice, that young men who could not get into the Cavalry directly in the first instance, got into it through the Militia, and were put over the heads of men of nominally inferior rank, though of superior qualifications.
§ SIR. ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that in the opinion of one of the ablest of those who prepared young men for the Army and for Woolwich the system for the examination of cadets for the Army was the worst that the Government could adopt, and that it had the unfortunate effect of excluding from the Army men of practical knowledge and experience. He hoped the Government would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway to have professional and non-professional officers, as such a system must prove fatal to the efficiency of the Army.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYhoped that the Cavalry grievance mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton would be done away with—that there would be no such thing as sub-lieutenants, but first and second lieutenants, or at all events lieutenants only. Under the present arrangements, an inexperienced man from the Militia would have no chance of being placed over the head of a Cavalry officer who understood his business. If any man from the Militia entered the Cavalry, he must have arrived at a certain point of efficiency before he was placed above a 1657 junior officer. With, respect to the question of examination for the Cavalry, the age of candidates had been raised from 20 to 22, which was formerly the age, as on account of the expense of being in the Cavalry there were not so many candidates. He had made another change in the made of calling on candidates to compete for commissions. Hitherto the Infantry and Cavalry commissions had been put together, but he now divided them into Cavalry and Infantry commissions, so that those who were prepared for Cavalry commissions and who attained a certain point of efficiency would have an opportunity of getting commissions if those who were before them did not choose to take them.
In reply to CAPTAIN NOLAN,
MR. GATHORNE HARDYstated that, excluding the officers who had passed the final examination at the Staff College last December, and who had not yet gone through the course of instruction in different branches of the Service, the number who were eligible for appointments to the Staff was 247. Of these there were officers who had retired, 42; died, 13; disqualified for cribbing, 1; in India, 7; declined appointments offered, 8; still subalterns, 15; unemployed on the Staff of the Royal Artillery, 5; unemployed on the Staff of the Royal Engineers, 1; and unemployed on the Staff of the Royal Marines, 3; making together 95. The other 152 officers had been appointed to the Staff from the Staff College, and some of them had been employed twice. He did not think it could be said therefore that they had experienced any want of employment.
§ MR. MUNTZremarked that a great many young men were deterred from joining Cavalry regiments by reason of the great expense which they would have to incur, and which was unnecessary and uncalled for.
§ GENERAL SHUTEhoped that the Secretary of State for War would consider the expediency of restoring the rank of cornet and ensign in the Army, instead of that of second lieutenant.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (7.) £36,600, Miscellaneous Services.
§ In reply to COLONEL ALEXANDER,
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he was not aware that there had been 1658 any delay in the distribution of medals, and that he would inquire into the matter.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £214,700, War Office.
§ MR. ANDERSONasked why the salary of the Assistant Military Secretary had been raised, and why there was so large an increase in the department of the Financial Secretary?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, that the pay of the Assistant Military Secretary had been increased on account of the increased work he had had to do.
§ LORD ELCHOasked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, If he could give the Committee any information with regard to the result in the recent changes in the pay of the troops? How was recruiting progressing, and had the deferred pay had the result anticipated? He had heard that the Artillery were 1,900 men short, and that the Guards were short of men also by 450.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, that the Artillery was bad enough, but not so bad as the noble Lord had represented. They were short of 1,450 gunners, but the superfluity of drivers reduced the actual deficiency to 1,150. With respect to recruiting he had no complaint to make, but he was much pressed by the extraordinary number of discharges. Those who enlisted after the Crimean War were leaving in large numbers, but the recruiting was very good.
§ MR. ANDERSONWith regard to the department of the Financial Secretary?
§ MR. STANLEYsaid, it arose mainly on account of the increment and an adjustment in salaries.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (9.) £35,500, Rewards for Distinguished Services, &c.
§ (10.) £89,000, Pay of General Officers.
§ (11.) £505,800, Full Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers, and Half Pay.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERtrusted the Secretary of War would take into consideration the case of the chaplains.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (12.) £144,600, Widows' Pensions, &c.
§ (13.) £16,500, Pensions for Wounds.
§ (14.) £35,400, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
§ (15.) £1,220,000, Out-Pensions.
MR. GORSTcomplained that many men who had served for many years in the Army meritoriously had not those pensions paid to them to which they were entitled.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONalso referred to cases of a similar nature, and asked why pensions to soldiers of 18 years service were not awarded according to the terms of the Royal Warrant of 1870?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the subject of pensions was under the consideration of the Government, and he hoped it would be arranged satisfactorily in a short time.
§ (16.) £164,200, Superannuation Allowances.
§ (17.) £34,300, Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps.