HC Deb 10 June 1879 vol 246 cc1553-62
MR. GOURLEY

said, that in consequence of the answer which had been given to his Question by the Secretary of State for War, he wished to call the attention of the House to the depôt centre system, and to point out how he thought that the proposed inquiry should be conducted by a Royal Commission and not by a Committee. To put himself in Order, he would conclude with a Motion. When Lord Cardwell's national system of depôt centres was introduced, it was contemplated that at those centres there should be deposited a sufficiency of commissariat to meet any demand which might be made in an hour of emergency. But that object had not been carried out. The Militia and Volunteers, as well as the Regular Forces, still had their own independent Staffs. The commissariat was still deposited at Woolwich and other large centres, and the various depôt centres had no commissariat whatever. The result was that the troops which had been sent out from this country to South Africa eventually landed there without a proper commissariat; and, so far from the great object of Lord Cardwell having been carried out, and a sufficiency of commissariat establishments provided at the depôt centres, the Commissariat of the War Department had entirely broken down. With regard to the Committee which was about to be appointed by the Government, he believed it would not be satisfactory either to Parliament or the country. Instead of being composed entirely of officers of the Regular Army, the Committee ought also to include officers connected with the Auxiliary Forces, with the Marines, and other branches of the Service; and he contended that unless that were done the Committee would entirely fail in its object, which was to decide upon and carry out a national scheme which would be impartial in all its details. That end, he held, would be much better accomplished by the appointment of a Royal Commission, which could travel about and collect the best evidence it could find throughout the country; whereas a Committee sitting in London would be bound, to a great extent, to procure its evidence from the Horse Guards, to whose shortcomings and want of system in details we owed in a largo measure our failure in the Transport Department, not alone in the Zulu, but also in the recent Afghan campaigns. He protested most strongly against the proposed constitution of the Committee, and maintained, as he had already stated, that it should be composed of officers representing all the various branches of the Service, including the Marines. He the adjournment of the House

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

, in seconding the Motion, said, he believed he expressed the opinion of many hon. Members of the House, and of many persons outside the House, when he said that it would be regarded as much more satisfactory if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had given a little more detailed information as to the character of the proposed Committee, for it was a subject to which the public were giving considerable attention, and many were looking forward to it with some degree of misapprehension. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said there were two distinguished officers whom he proposed to nominate on the Committee, and whom he considered to be desirable representatives to be placed upon it. He (Sir Henry Havelock) understood him to refer to those two very distinguished officers, Lord Napier of Magdala and Sir Henry Norman, who were both officers of very great experience; but there were scarcely any other two in the whole Army List whose acquaintance with the existing Army system, as applied at home, was more limited than theirs. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he had no desire to reflect upon or to depreciate the knowledge and well-known—indeed, world-known—merits of those two distinguished officers; but he was within the mark when he said that Lord Napier of Magdala had no experience whatsoever of the working of the present system, except as regarded the limited number of regiments which had served under his command at Gibraltar. And in the case of Sir Henry Norman, with all his great and acknowledged merits, he had absolutely no acquaintance whatsoever with the working of the Army under the existing system, or with regard to its organization, short service, or recruitment, in any portion of their details. It was well known that he had been charged for many years with the organization of the Indian Army, and those two officers were prominently in the public mind as having been primarily concerned in the organization of the Indian Army, which, although it had gone, in a manner, through a recent war, had not had applied to it such a strain or test of its efficiency as a war would be to the British Army if it were called into the field. They laboured under a disadvantage in being connected in the public mind as being the authors of the Indian Army system, which was now, and must for many years to come be, on its trial, and had not proved a success. The Indian Army, it was well known, was not only distinguished for its costliness, but for its want of stability and want of power to resist the strain of war, to an extent that was not known in any other Army in the world. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had not definitely decided upon the names he proposed to place on the Committee, he thought it was highly desirable that he should select from the large field of choice open to him the names of officers who, by their previous experience, were well acquainted with the working in all its details of the system which it was proposed to put upon its trial. He hoped he might gather from one part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, that it appeared to be recognized that the existing system, although not perfect, was sound as regarded the main lines on which it was laid down, and that it required altering, not in its great principles, but in its details.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gourley.)

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

regretted to hear the remark made by the Secretary of State for War with regard to the members of the Committee being selected from persons outside of the Departments. If that mode of selection were acted upon, those officers would be excluded from it who, from their previous experience, were most competent to advise the Government, while officers much less acquainted with the working of the present system would find a place upon it. He alluded to the omission from the Committee of the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General of the Army—two officers who would have to carry into effect any recommendations the Committee might make, and who occupied their present offices owing to their knowledge of any details. Officers of the largest experience of the present system ought to be selected, and it was only by such a selection that any recommendation the Committee might make would be received with goodwill and respect, for it was of the greatest importance that their recommendations should be carried out with goodwill by those in Office. Some time ago a Royal Commission was appointed, at which 10,000 questions were asked and 10,000 answers were given, and yet absolutely nothing was done. He thought that a Committee would be much more useful.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

said, he highly approved of the plan of selecting the members of the Committee entirely from outside the War Office. He trusted that one object the Committee would have in view would be to do away with the short service system altogether, or so to modify it as to make the Army efficient, and not to bring the Army, as it had already been nearly brought, to disgrace. He trusted that they would also break up the brigade depôts, which had cost us an enormous sum—upwards of£5,000,000—and which had utterly and absolutely failed, proving the most humiliating and costly military failure we had ever had. He foresaw that the object of the Secretary of State for War was to break up the brigade system, and to do away with the linked battalion system, and he welcomed the prospect of such a result.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he hoped that, as the discussion had arisen in a somewhat irregular form, he might be excused from replying in any great detail to all the points which had been raised. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had launched into quite a prophetic vein. They had prophesied many things which might or might not come to pass. The question was, however, very simple. Matters of principle must be left for the consideration of the Government and the House. There were many matters of detail which, if they affected principle, would, of course, be brought under the cognizance of the House. A great many points were points of detail important in themselves, and which would go a long way to correct the defects hitherto experienced. In introducing the Army Estimates, he had frankly explained what he conceived to be the faults of the existing system. He had spoken with some reserve as to the steps which might have to be taken hereafter; and, although he did not go back from the substance of the opinions which he had previously expressed, he could not help feeling that in a matter of that vast importance a careful inquiry and examination of facts by the best technical minds which they were officially able to command would be of advantage to the Government and the House in considering the steps which might be required to perfect our Army system. He did not wish them to express an opinion for or against the depôt-centre system; that was a matter fairly worthy of inquiry. He did not conceive that the Committee would be justified in laying aside the short service and the Reserve system; nor did he think they would be right in departing from the principles of the localization scheme. Feeling strongly on the matter himself, and knowing that many others had expressed their opinions for and against the system, he had been anxious to obtain the services on the Committee of officers who, while having great knowledge of the subject, had not committed themselves strongly to pre-conceived opinions. He wanted to have as perfect and as impartial an inquiry as possible. It would then remain for the Government to consider what steps should be taken, and if they had occasion to come to Parliament, it would be his duty, or his Successor's, to make the necessary representations to the House. He wished at the present moment to keep his mind perfectly clear on the matter, and to be assisted by the authorities to whom he had referred in arriving at the best result on the evidence which would be obtained by the Committee. There appeared to be some misapprehension in the House as to the functions of a Committee; but he knew of nothing that could be done by a Royal Commission which could not be done equally well by a Committee. There would be no more difficulty in a military Committee going to different localities, if that was desirable, than for a Commission to do so. As to officers of the Marines serving on the Committee, the system of the Marines was entirely distinct; they had their own barracks, and they were not interwoven with the military system of this country at home. They had distinct functions to discharge, they were in no way concerned in the inquiry of the proposed Committee, and it would not be convenient or even right that they should be members of it. He had explained in general terms the object and scope of the Committee; and one prominent consideration which had weighed with him was that by appointing a Committee, and not a Commission, they might obtain more promptly the recommendations which the military authorities might think it requisite to make. He did not think it would be convenient or right for him to say more on the subject. As to the statement that officers had failed to carry out Lord Cardwell's system thoroughly, his Lordship did not expect his system would be carried out in a day; but it would be generally admitted that great progress had been made in carrying out the system, and still continued to be made. He was not aware that it was ever intended that the brigade depots should be centres of commissariat arrangements. It would be ab- surd if regiments having their depôt in I the middle of England, and having to go to a port of embarkation, were to have their waggons and stores in the heart of England, instead of finding them nearer the port of embarkation. As to the systems adopted in other countries, it ought to be remembered that we had our own particular lines to pursue, which were forced upon us by our insular position. That position gave us great advantages, although it also had its disadvantages; and we could not blindly copy any foreign system, however good it might be. He hoped that, after those explanations, the Motion for the adjournment of the House would be withdrawn.

MR. J. HOLMS

said, he was glad that the officers who were to conduct the inquiry were to be selected outside of the War Office; but he thought a Royal Commission ought to have been appointed in preference to a Committee. He was also glad to hear from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the Government were determined to adhere to the short service and the Army Reserve systems. What was wanted in the way of inquiry was a calm consultation between military men of large knowledge of the subject and men who were large employers of labour, so that they might come to a sound decision as to the principles upon which they ought to proceed. The present system, there was no doubt, had broken down most completely, for it was quite obvious to everybody that the men, or rather, boys, who were now being sent to fight the Zulus were not exactly the type of soldiers that wore required. He would suggest that it would be well if the Government re-considered their decision, and appointed a Royal Commission instead of a Committee.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War took no notice in his remarks on what was the most important point in the question before the House—namely, that the Committee was to be composed of officers of the Regular Army alone, and that officers of the Militia and Auxiliary Forces were to be excluded from it. He thought it would be satisfactory to the country if the proposed investigation were to be of a less one-sided character than that suggested. The problem to be solved was how to combine the institutions of the country so as to combine what might be called an armed nation for the purpose of defence with an Army for foreign service, and that was a problem which it seemed to him totally impossible for the members of one branch only of the Service to solve.

MR. PARNELL

said, that the short-service system was designed by the late Government when our foreign policy was very different from the policy pursued by the present Government. Short service gave us a large number of Reserves, as had been proved last year; but these Reserves could not be sent to Afghanistan, Africa, or Burmah, to carry on petty wars. If the present foreign policy of the Government was to be persisted in, they would require a very different, and a far more extensive, Army organization; but he warned the House not to be led away by the apparent failure of the short-service system in South Africa—not to be led away into sanctioning an organization of the Army which would enable an ambitious Minister to enter upon aggressive wars, either large or small, all over the world.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, whether the conversation which was now being carried on was or was not directly in Order he would not say; but it was important to call the attention of the House to the exceeding inconvenience of the course which they were now pursuing. It must be generally admitted that there was nothing of greater importance for the conduct of Business in the House than that they should know, with some degree of certainty, what Business they were called upon to discuss when they met, and especially when the meetings of the House were fixed for Morning Sittings with a special view to the discussion of particular Bills. Those hon. Gentlemen who came down to the House at some inconvenience to themselves might fairly expect that they would be allowed to proceed with the discussion of the Business for which they were assembled. He was perfectly aware that it was within the Rules of the House that any hon. Member might move the adjournment of the House, and that upon that Motion he had a right to offer such remarks as he might think necessary to justify what he had done. But it was a distinct abuse of the Motion fur adjournment, if that opportunity was taken to introduce subjects which had not been put upon the Notice Paper, and for which no opportunity of discussion had been regularly sought, and to bring them on in anticipation of the regular Business of the day. Hon. Gentlemen would see easily enough to what mischief that system might lead. For instance, on an ordinary day some hon. Member who had a Motion to bring forward stood first; but another who had not been equally successful in the ballot might cut in, and, saying that he was not satisfied with an answer he got from a Minister, might move the adjournment of the House and raise the whole question. If hon. Members would consider it as a matter of fairness among themselves, they would see that it was not right to resort to such a course, except in a case of emergency, which nobody would say the present case was. But beyond that, this was a mode by which Business might be indefinitely, and to any extent, retarded and, in fact, rendered impossible. The House must remember the circumstances of the Bill which was down for discussion that day. It was a Bill of very great importance; it was one to the preparation of which the Government had given very great attention; it was of considerable magnitude; and had been discussed, he was afraid to say on how many occasions, at very great length. There was still a great portion of the Bill to be dealt with, and the Government were prepared to give a large part of the time that remained of the Session to its discussion. They did not desire to limit the discussion on the Bill; but it ought to be clearly understood, not only in this House, but out of the House, that it was impossible for Business to be carried on in a way which was advantageous to the country, or creditable to the House itself, if it was not done with something of regularity. And he must say that the discussion which had been going on for half-an-hour or an hour, whatever the intention of the hon. Gentleman who had originated it, or whatever the interest which he admitted attached to the question which had been raised, was now taking a turn which would have the effect simply of obstructing the progress of the Business of the House. That might be a matter of great satisfaction to some persons. It was a course which the House might be content to condone, or even to approve; but it was right that the circumstances should be known which, in the present state of things, rendered it impossible for the House to make that progress with the Business of Parliament which the country expected at their hands. Of course, he admitted that the Question put to his right hon. and gallant Friend was one of great importance—one which at another time might be made the subject of a debate, or of a Question; but his right hon. and gallant Friend having given an answer, he thought they might have been allowed to proceed to the Business of the Day. But now they had had, not only further discussion upon particular Business, but the hon. Member for Meath made it the occasion for raising a general discussion on the foreign policy of the Government. It seemed to him utterly impossible, if that was the way they were to conduct Business, that they could get on with Business at all. He did not know that he could object in point of form to what had been done; but it was only right that the House and that others should be informed that it was impossible that the Business of the House could be conducted if such proceedings were of frequent recurrence.

MR. GOURLEY

said, that with the permission of the House lie would withdraw the Motion. At the same time, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would always act up to the good advice he had just given them.

MR. PARNELL

Upon this question I beg to say a word or two, and I shall not take up one-fourth of the time which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. ["Order, order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman has already exhausted his right to speak. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn?

MR. PARNELL

No.

MR. SPEAKER

Then the Question is that the House do now adjourn.

Question put, and negatived.