§ DR. R. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the deficiency in quantity and defectiveness in arrangement of the soldier's ration, and of the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to consider the best manner of improving the soldier's ration. I think this question is one of very great importance. We all admit that the soldier is an expensive machine, and if he is to be kept in a state, of efficiency he must be liberally and substantially fed. The Medical Department of the Army have frequently recommended additions to the soldiers' diet, and have declared that it is necessary the soldiers should be provided with a larger allowance of meat than the three-quarters of a pound which they now receive. The recommendation of the Committee presided over by General Peel was that an extra quarter-pound of meat should be given; but General Peel himself did not concur with that recommendation, and preferred a small augmentation of the pay, in the belief that if the soldier had more pay he would supplement his ration out of his own pocket. Now, the soldier is told before he is induced to join the Regular Army that he will be fed and supplied with what are commonly called free rations; but such free rations are well known to be an entire fiction. Instead of getting free rations he only gets three-quarters of a pound of meat and one pound of dry bread; so that if he were left to live on what a grateful country supplies him with he would have very short commons indeed. He is allowed to supply himself at breakfast, out of his own pocket, with a little coffee and some milk and sugar; and if he likes to go a little further and spend his money on his stomach, he may go to the canteen and spend any amount he likes on an extra breakfast. After that he gets his dinner in the middle of the day, and he finds that the three-quarters of a pound which he is supplied with without bone, in the process of cooking, is dwindled down to four or five ounces. Then he may have coffee to his tea, and more bread, and he gets nothing more until the following morning. Hon. Members will understand what an injurious effect it must have upon a man to 1570 be kept fasting so long if he has laborious work to do. When a great and growing lad is suddenly called on to do a new kind of work the expenditure of a good deal of nervous energy is involved, and there is a good deal of strain upon the system. The recruit is usually a growing lad in good health; he is required to do a couple of hours' work before breakfast, and perhaps four-and-a-half hours' drill during the day. He has also to perform fatigue duties and to take part in gymnastic exercises, and all this strain upon the nervous resources ought to be met by a liberal diet. That the recruit does not get enough in the shape of rations is proved by the Reports of the medical officers, and it will be found that these men are spending their own money every day, perhaps 4d. or 5d. a-day, out of their so-called pay, in order literally to keep body and soul together. It is all very well to say that they have money which they may spend on food. There can be no doubt that young men in this position very much prefer to study their pleasure instead of their health and physique; and although it may be said that the ordinary agricultural labourer is not as well fed as the soldier, it is nevertheless the fact that he gets a kind of diet that is better calculated for enabling him to perform his work. Although he may not have quite as much meat, he has more fatty matter, and farinaceous food which more than makes up the deficiency. At present the soldier is in the habit of supplementing his diet by procuring, when at work outside his quarters, such things as butter and cheese. The remedy for this grievance is, I think, pretty obvious. I think that the soldier and the recruit ought to be provided with a better breakfast. They ought to have something more than dry bread to the cup of tea and coffee they have at 8 o'clock in the morning. Then, again, I think they ought to have something between their meals before they go to bed at night, and I think that bread and cheese would be a very good sort of food to give them. Of course it may be said that all this will cost money. I am afraid that it would cost a considerable sum; but it is a question whether it would not be preferable to cut off 2d. or 3d. a-day of this delusive pay—to give him less money, and a more reasonable amount of cooked food free of cost to himself. 1571 [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "No;" but I maintain that if the country cannot afford to give to the recruit and the soldier the extra food their constitution requires it would be far better to give him less pay, and make up for it by an increased amount of food. Then, again, we ought to do away with the fiction of free rations, the result of which at present is that the recruit, when he joins the Colours, finds that he has been practically deceived by the Recruiting Sergeant, and immediately becomes dissatisfied. I think it would be much better to state what the exact facts are. The most important matter, however, is the supply of an adequate quantity of good and substantial food. A recruit when he joins the Army, is generally not fully developed; and unless the unnecessary waste of tissue is prevented, and his bodily strength and constitution preserved, he will inevitably break down under the pressure and strain of the new work to which he is subjected. I therefore think that the expenditure of more money in food would, in the end, be economical. Two years ago, when this subject was brought before the House by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), whom I regret not to see in his place, and still more on account of the cause of his absence, the noble Marquees the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who was then at the head of the War Office, promised that the subject should have full consideration. The noble Marquess soon afterwards left the War Office, and I should like to know whether he transmitted the result of his deliberations to any of his numerous Successors? At all events, I would press these points upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who now so ably fills the post of Secretary of State for War (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman). I know that many Army authorities themselves consider that this question is one of much greater importance than has hitherto been attached to it. The subject of dieting a soldier is the subject of a prize essay next year, and I think that fact alone is a proof of the importance which is attached to it. I must, apologize for intervening between the right hon. Gentleman and the House; but I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the subject carefully, and decide upon securing for the soldier 1572 the advantages which I claim on his behalf.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House that the rations now supplied to the soldier are quite insufficient, and there is no good reason why they should not be increased. Both bread and meat are now much cheaper than they were, and at the present moment the War Office must be realizing a large saving out of the bread and meat contracts. Therefore, this would be an excellent opportunity for giving the soldier a really free ration. He ought to get his bread and tea and something for supper. It would not cost a very large sum of money, and the question is one which certainly deserves the serious consideration of the War Office. There was, however, one recommendation made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) with which I cannot agree—namely, that a deduction should be made to cover the expense of this addition to the soldier's rations out of the small pay which he at present receives. The soldier is badly paid at the present moment, and it will be most unwise to deduct anything from the small amount of pay he now receives. If you are really going to confer any advantage upon him in the shape of an increase of ration, you must make it a free ration. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) has called attention to the grievances of the Militia Sergeants. Now, the case of all Sergeants is this—they are practically at the head of their Profession. As an ordinary rule a soldier rarely rises beyond the position of Sergeant, although a few may be picked out and made Sergeant Majors. I believe that only 20 commissions are given to non-commissioned officers in the course of the year, and I must say that I look upon it as a great shame and scandal. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway who agree with my first remarks will not feel inclined to concur with me in that. No doubt those hon. Members are fond of the Army; but they regard it from an aristocratic point of view. I also am fond of the Army, but I look at it from a democratic point of view, and from that point of view I say that you do not give deserving soldiers a sufficient number of commissions. The grievance of the Militia 1573 Sergeants, especially in the remote pats of Ireland, is a very serious one, and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will look into the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) has shown how wretchedly paid about 700 of these Sergeants are, and it would only cost the country something like £17,000 to meet their claims. That is exactly the cost of the ammunition of one largo gun in the Navy. You provide all these expensive things for the Navy, and yet you grudge this small additional charge for the Militia Sergeants. I do not know what the case may be in England, but in Ireland there can be no doubt that the Militia Sergeants are very badly paid indeed, and I hope something will be done to remedy the grievances of which they complain.
§ COLONEL DUNCAN (Finsbury, Holborn)Sir, I am very sorry, at this late hour, to intervene between the House and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; but I understand that any grievances which hon. Members are to bring for ward should be ventilated before Supply is taken, and the subject to which I desire to call attention is an undoubted grievance both to the taxpayers of the country and the British Army. It will not amaze me to find myself supported by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), because one of my chief aims is to secure a reduction of charge to the taxpayers. I also imagine that I shall find myself supported by the Front Bench opposite, because I do not propose to add to the public charge, but to reduceit. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) ought especially to support me, because he spoke with marked emotion to-night of the inconvenience which might be entailed by the success of such Resolutions as that which was brought forward early in the evening, involving, as it would have done, a greatly increased charge upon the public. The right hon. Gentleman also alluded, in language which was both philosophical and the true language of political economy, to the injustice of saddling posterity with any heavy charge which it might find it difficult to meet or remove. During the time when the system of purchase in the Army was abolished, England was crossed by one of those emotional waves which do so much 1574 credit to the heart of the people, but which are often followed by a period of re-action and of bewilderment as to finding a substitute for that which has been rightly swept away. At such a time the Government of the day seem to place themselves heart and soul in the hands of actuaries. Now, actuaries are a class of men whom, from long experience, I regard with a sort of wholesome scepticism, for I have hardly found a single instance in which Ministers—either optimists or pessimists—have not been misled by them. I have here a book which gives an example of retired pay for 20 years prepared four years ago, and I find that their calculations for the retired pay of officers of the Army has already exceeded the Estimate by 50 per cent. When steps had to be taken to replace the purchase which was rightly abolished, the method suggested was compulsory retirement after certain ages or after certain periods of service in the several ranks. It began with the faulty and imperfect test of age. Some men are young and others old at the same age, and the result has been what was never contemplated or desired—namely, that the higher ranks of the Army are, owing to this test, practically closed to officers from the ranks. Again, in times of emergency when the military schools were unable to furnish a sufficient supply of officers, they had to go to the Universities and to take other steps to obtain a supply of efficient officers, and it was found necessary to raise the age, loading to results which have been prejudicial to the Service. At the moment nothing was thought of that; but a Nemesis was in front of the unfortunate officers. They were brought into the Army and hurled into the pit of professional extinction before younger men who joined at the same time. The principle of making a man leave after serving for a certain number of years has been found not only unsound, but bad for the Service. I might illustrate this by instances from my own branch of the Service, where a certain knowledge of science is absolutely necessary. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman who was formerly Secretary of State for War of the great cost of our armaments and ammunition, and it is essential that the officers in charge of them should have a strictly scientific knowledge of what costs the country so much. But at the end of, say, seven years, ser- 1575 vice in the ranks of Major a man is put on half-pay with the prospect, if he lives long enough and vacancies occur, of being brought to a higher rank. If he is a rich man, he remains idle until a vacancy occurs; if he is a poor man, he is obliged to take a pension that is higher than half-pay, and thus to commit professional suicide. It is, indeed, a terrible system of the survival, not of the fittest, but of the richest; and it makes those who do receive promotion more or less stale and inefficient by being unemployed, and it entails a loss to the country much greater than hon. Members may imagine. It was the late Emperor Napoleon who said, in a true Napoleonic way, that the history of artillery is the history of civilization, because it is the history of the progress of science. But, at the very time that you are spending so much money on the material for your Artillery, you are forcing into private life men whose brains become fallow from want of experience, who, when they are brought back to a higher rank, have to go again, as it were, to a professional school and learn. It is for this reason that I implore the House, irrespective of Party—for Army and Navy questions are not Party questions—to reconsider the Rules which at present exist with regard to this matter. Over and over again it is found that good men are being forced out of the higher ranks into the ranks of those on retired pay, while, at the same time, it is found that you cannot feed the lower ranks sufficiently fast. That shows the necessity for some rearrangement. At present a man when he enters the ranks knows that he is going professionally to die, and whether he is an efficient and active officer or not he dies just the same, on the same day. At present an officer is, say for five years, in command of a battalion, and he knows that at the end of the five years he must leave. The last year of his service is, consequently, a most disturbed year to him, and a year of hope to the man who may succeed him. His time is occupied in making up his mind as to what further employment he can get or what he can do. What I say is—let that man work on to the last day of his five years with the belief that if his work is satisfactory he will have an extension of two years. By so doing, you would not only save the money of the country, but would give to the officers 1576 an inducement to work well and efficiently during the whole of his service, which would produce an effect that can hardly be exaggerated. Why should you send a Major into professional extinction or into half-pay after seven vears when be is in the prime of life? Why not award to him the punishment of dismissal if he fails to make himself efficient, or give him a certain reward if he is efficient, in retaining his rank for a longer period, and thereby saving a heavy expenditure to the country? I have stated the case with perfect simplicity. I wish the House to realize the facts, and to think over them. It is a very important question for the officers. At the present time a feeling of despair has practically settled down upon them. I think it was quaint old Curtius who said in his history of Alexander the Great—"Saepe desperatio spei causa est." Sir, in those days that grim parent may have been a fruitful mother, but to-day she is as barren as Sarai. This House will have to work a miracle ere officers see the Isaac of their hopes. It is as if in the midst of professional life they are always in professional death. That is the Nemesis they have to struggle against. What they dread is that practically during the whole of their professional career they are threatened with a death they can only avoid by a period of inaction distasteful to themselves and very costly to the country. They go about like gladiators during their professional career—"Morituri te salutant." In the interests of the taxpayer of the future I now desire to say a word. Strange as it may appear to the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), most of the Members representing the two great Services of the country have been sent here by very large and populous constituencise; and, therefore, they have no more desire to impose undue taxation upon the people than hon. Gentlemen opposite. If this system is not changed the amount of retired pay, which is already £1,000,000 a-year more than it was when purchase was abolished, will roll up to such dimensions that it will become absolutely unbearable to the taxpayers. Then will happen one of two things—either the people will be driven altogether to repudiate these pensions, or they more probably will say to the Minister of the day—"We give you so many millions for the Army; we leave you to decide how that is to be distri- 1577 buted; and if you cannot do something to get rid of the ineffective Army burden you must cut down the effective force." I therefore ask the House to face this subject in the interests of the taxpayers of the future, which ought to be just as dear to us as the interests of the taxpayers of the present. Why, in these days of depressed trade, should we add to the claims of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon us by turning adrift into the world men who are willing to work and swelling the crowds in the Service Clubs, who at present make night and day hideous with their moans? When a civil office becomes vacant, whether it be that of City Marshal or that of Governor of a gaol, you have candidates from every rank, from that of General down to the lowest subaltern. By adopting the suggestion I have offered you would get rid of this. You would encourage the employment of officers as officers; you would reward a Profession which deserves to be rewarded; you would increase the efficiency of these men as officers; and, at the same time, you would immensely relieve the taxpayers of the country.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN) (Stirling, &c.)Sir, I think it may, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House—and that is my only object in the matter—if I now reply, as well as I can, to the different observations that have been made, hoping that hon. and gallant Members, and other hon. Members who do not enjoy that distinction, will defer their observations on other points until Thursday. I believe that the old practice was, when the discussion on Vote 1 was not considered adequate, and when it was necessary to take the Vote, that on the next occasion when the Army Estimates were moved the Clothing Vote No. 11 should be taken out of its order; and on this Clothing Vote, in the circumstances, the Committee allowed unusual latitude to hon. Members for the purpose of discussion. I hope the House will agree to that arrangement, in the belief that it I will be for the convenience of all of us; and, at the same time, I think it will be a satisfactory fulfilment of the engagement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at an earlier stage of the Sitting.
§ MR. TOTTENHAM (Winchester)Is it to be understood that on Thursday 1578 we may take a miscellaneous discussion on any question that is not germane to the Vote?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI Yes. I think I may go back for a good many years, and find that this has been the usual custom. It has always been agreed that, as the soldier has to be clothed as well as paid, the most convenient Vote to take for the purposes of a general discussion, when the Pay Vote has been agreed to by the Committee, is the Clothing Vote. On that Vote there will be allowed, by the courtesy of the House, full opportunity for discussing any matter that may be raised on either side of the House. I am afraid that in replying to the speeches which have been made this evening it will be necessary, in the first place, to go back several hours to the observations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the I Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith). The light hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by alluding to a question which had previously occupied the attention of the House—namely, the question of Egypt; and the right hon. Gentleman made a remark which so obviously provokes a retort from me that, perhaps, the House will allow me the satisfaction of making one. He complained that much evil had been caused in the past by premature announcements of the withdrawal of troops either from Egypt or in Egypt itself. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that observation. But the Government were not guilty of any premature announcement in this case. The Estimates must necessarily be framed for the coming year, and it is impossible to conceal in them what we conceive to be the policy of the year. But if the right hon. Gentleman considered it a wrong thing for the Government to announce that they intend to retire to Assouan or Wady Halfa, why was he, of all persons in the world, the one to ask a question on the subject which gave me the opportunity of making the very announcement which he tells us himself has been so unfortunate? The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the fortifications on which we are engaged all over the world at the present time. The position of the Government with regard to that matter is extremely simple. In the first place we have to deal with the coaling stations, and the defence of these 1579 stations is the only branch of the question with reference to which definite promises and undertakings have been made. The work was to be spread over a particular period, and our position in that matter at this moment is this—the Earl of Northbrook in the other House, and, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir Thomas Brassey) in this House, in the last Parliament made a statement of what the total cost of the defence of the coaling stations would be and what would be spent this year. The total sum was £825,000, and this was to be spent in three years; but I am sorry to say that sometimes, in the large amounts involved in expenditure on objects of this kind, there is an ugly faculty of growing as the expenditure goes on—sometimes it even grows—or at least a portion of it — before the scheme is born. In this case it was added to considerably after it was born, and now the total sum which will have to be spent on these stations, including submarine mining, is £1,137,758. Towards that we have already spent £448,000, and we expect there will be spent this year £308,200, while there will remain to complete the work about £381,000. I think under the circumstances of the year, to which I intend afterwards to refer, we have done a very fair part of what was undertaken, and practically fulfilled the engagement of the late Government. With regard to that I have very little to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Woodall); but I do wish to take this opportunity of emphasizing what was said of the spirited and patriotic conduct of the small Colonies of Singapore and Hong Kong. We have all been gratified in the last year or two by the spirit shown in this direction by some of the Australian and other Colonies; and it is satisfactory to find that in the small Colonies like those I have just named there is the same spirit and desire to co-operate with the Mother Country in this matter. As to the submarine mining operations, exclusive of the coaling stations, the cost upon that service, including buildings and stores, will be £287,000, and after the expendi-diture of this year there will remain £100,000 to complete. Then we come to the great question of the defence of the military ports and commercial harbours. I may at once say that this 1580 matter has been the subject of inquiry by Committee after Committee. Plans have been prepared, then added to, and then cut down; but at last something like a comprehensive and final plan was fixed upon, and the general grounds of the plan were stated to the House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), and, I think, by my noble Friend the Earl of Northbrook; but as the work had not been begun it was obviously a matter which could stand over. It was not in the same position as the defence of the coaling stations, where the works were in progress. It was a matter which could stand over, and stand over bodily; and under the circumstances of the year and the great expenditure we have to meet, of the character of which the House is well aware, we thought that the present was not a time to undertake so great and costly a work. I agree that once we commence these fortifications the more rapidly we press them on the better. Finding nothing had been done, and that the matter stood entirely by itself, we have been content to leave it over for this year, and I do not think that many hon. Members will consider that we have acted unwisely in doing so. The one thing we have gone on with, and, as my hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Woodall) said, successfully, is the submarine mining defences of the harbours and military ports. I attach importance to this from a moral as well as from a military point of view. The fact that these mysterious mines are capable of being laid down will give a sense of security to those interested in the locality, and, conversely, will inspire some degree of dread in the minds of those who might otherwise be disposed to approach them. My right hon. Friend opposite has suggested that this matter should be referred to a Committee; and if I understand him rightly the principal object of his Committee is to capture my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). Now, my hon. Friend, with most of whose opinions I am glad to say I agree—except those which he propounds upon military questions—my hon. Friend is to be singled cut because of his particular hobby of the reckless expenditure of the country, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite is to treat him as in some countries they treat an elephant. They se- 1581 duce a wild elephant into a reserve, and when he is tamed they use him as a decoy for others. In the first instance it is proposed to induce my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford to serve on the Committee, then to bamboozle him with technical evidence, and when he is thoroughly trained and converted into a right frame of mind he is to be set loose in order that he may exercise a wholesome effect upon all other hon. Members who think with him. That may be a very good idea; but I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend is the man to be caught by it. This is not a matter which can be properly referred to a Committee—I mean this question of details in reference to the defence and fortification of military ports, commercial harbours, coaling stations, and so forth. A Parliamentary Committee must be a public Committee, and some of these matters, as the right hon. Gentleman has himself sometimes stated to the House, are not exactly subjects which can be dealt with in a public and open way. If, on the other hand, the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to refer all the military expenditure of the country to a Committee, then I do not say that there may not be a great deal to be urged in favour of that course; but there is this great objection to it—that it would seriously impair the responsibility of the Executive Government; and, to repeat what we have heard from more than one hon. Member, that would constitute an assumption of authority on the part of the House of Commons which it ought not to undertake. That is the great objection to it. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly some advantages in the proposal, and it is, at all events, well worthy of being discussed, though I doubt whether the particular question of fortifications and harbours is one which could well be treated in this manner. We have been taunted with apathy in the matter; and an hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir Edward Hamley), who has spoken with great experience, accused us of tampering with the security of the Empire in order to meet the pressing needs of the Government. But I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is no pressing need of the Government we desire to meet, but the pressing need of the nation; and I am afraid that some hon. Members opposite 1582 have not got rid of the old fallacy that the Government have an unfailing and inexhaustible source of money at its back to enable it to do everything that is desirable. Now, the Government has to go for money to the taxpayer, and, in our opinion, it is impossible to put any such great burden upon the taxpayer. I will now turn to one or two of the other questions which have been brought forward in the course of the evening. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) called attention to the case of the Staff Sergeants of Militia. I admit that the Staff Sergeants of Militia are in a somewhat anomalous position, serving, as they do, alongside of men on Line engagement who are receiving a much higher rate of pay. But the position of the two classes is not similar with regard to their duties. I question whether there is much chance of anything being done to improve the condition of these Staff Sergeants. The matter has passed through the process of having been considered by successive Secretaries of State, one after another, and all have agreed that nothing can be done. After that conclusion has been come to, it would be, in my opinion, a very serious matter to re-open the case. I will, however, promise that I will look into the matter. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) has asked for certain additional advantages for the Artillery Volunteers. I can only say that, as soon as it is possible to do so, improved gun-carriages and Martini-Henry carbines will be given to them; but, although the hon. Member makes light of the expense, and seems to think that it would make very little difference, I can assure him that it is impossible to meet all the demands of this sort which are made upon us. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) wishes us to increase the ration of the soldier. My hon. Friend spoke from good experience as a surgeon in the Guards; but I find that the authorities who have at different times inquired into this question have not recommended any increase of the ration. In 1858 a Sanitary Commission discussed the question, and refused to increase the ration; in 1860 Lord Herbert refused to give an increase; and in 1866, after the Report of the Recruiting Commission, which proposed to raise the meat ration of 1583 three-quarters of a pound to 1 lb. General Peel preferred to give the soldier an increase of 2d. a-day in his pay. That the soldier's ration is not insufficient is proved by the notorious fact that recruits greatly improve in physique. It is also higher than in foreign Armies; but that, I admit, is a point upon which no strong argument can be founded. But it must be borne in mind that there has been a great and substantial increase in the pay of the soldier, so that he is very well able to supplement his ration for himself. To increase the meat ration from three-quarters of a pound to 1 lb. would cost £300,000 a-year; and if the stores now bought at the canteen are to be supplied gratis it would cost another £450,000 a-year, making altogether an additional cost of £750,000. Two or three years ago there was an inquiry at the War Office, carefully conducted, into the question whether an additional meal might be given to the soldier, and the question of the soldier's ration was fully considered. I am not prepared now to give a positive opinion either one way or the other; but what I have just stated shows that it is necessary to act with great caution in the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway—the hon. Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan)—has alluded to a subject to which I am not surprised that the attention of the House has been directed—namely, the enormous cost of compulsory retirement, the bitter cry of the outcast officer, and the dispiriting effect it has upon the officers of the Army. I quite admit all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. It is not a system of which I am myself enamoured, or that anyone can defend as perfect. It was adopted, however, in order to secure a flow of promotion; and no one knows better than the hon. and gallant Member that every little change which is made in the arrangements for compulsory retirement must affect the flow of promotion in that branch of the Service to which the officer who is retired belongs. It is a very delicate and difficult matter, and I admit the great force of much that has been said in regard to it. I can only add that if, after a time, it becomes possible to make a change such as the hon. and gallant Member advocates, I shall not regard the abolition or modification of the system of compulsory retirement with 1584 any regret. I think I have now, as far as I recollect, answered all of the points which have been raised. If I have omitted anything I shall be glad to be reminded of it.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)I will stand but for a very short time between the House and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman); but I am anxious to say a few words on a subject to which I have devoted a good deal of attention, and which has been brought before the House this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith). The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has made an announcement to the House of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the defence of the coaling stations and also of the military ports and commercial harbours. I am bound to say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the defences of our coaling stations is inure satisfactory than I had anticipated. But when the right hon. Gentleman said that the expenditure estimated for that purpose has increased from £825,000 to more than £1,000,000, I would venture to suggest that that ought to be a warning to him that economy would be best secured by proceeding, with the least possible delay, with this work; and that, in fact, the increase of expense is very often caused by the delay in completing works of this kind, by altering them from time to time until the completed works in no way or shape resemble those laid down in the original plan. With regard to the question of military ports and commercial harbours, I must refer for a moment to what was stated to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith) in July last. The House will remember that this question is no new question. As long ago as 1884 it occupied the serious consideration of the Earl of Northbrook and of the noble Marquess who was then Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), and both of them informed Parliament that they hoped before long to make some important proposals on the subject. The Session of 1885 began, and, in reply to Questions in this House, the noble Marquess (the Marquees of 1585 Hartington) stated that he would give the House full information with regard to it on the Army Estimates. Well, the time came for moving the Army Estimates; but the noble Marquess was not, in a position to give full information, and he postponed his statement till a later Vote, and before that Vote was reached he was, owing to the change of Government, no longer in Office. My right hon. Friend Mr. W. H. Smith) succeeded the noble Marquess as Secretary of State for War, and what did my right hon. Friend say in July last? On the 27th of July he said—
I think it would be right the Committee should know what has already been provided out of the Votes of Parliament, including the Vote of Credit, and the amount which will have to be included in the Estimates of the next four years, if the proposals which have been accepted and approved by the late Government are carried out.Therefore, what I am about to state to the House was the Estimate approved of by the preceding Government of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The details, in the words of my right hon. Friend, are these—I have already said that the Navy and coaling stations required a sum of £2,425,000 in three years. The Estimate for armament and works for the military ports is £2,230,000, and for the mercantile ports £1,770,000; making a total of £6,425,000. Of this £6,425,000, £900,000 has been met out of the Estimates of this year and the Vote of Credit, leaving an abnormal expenditure of £5,525,000 to be provided on Army Estimates within the next four or five years, and in addition a sum of something more than £250,000 would be required to complete the reserve of stores commenced in the Estimates for the present year."—(3 Hansard, [300] 123.)Therefore, my right hon. Friend contemplated this large expenditure as being necessary in his own opinion, and as an expenditure which had been approved of by his Predecessor for this important matter of the defence of military ports and commercial harbours. And what was the speech of the hon. Gentleman who was the Surveyer General of the Ordnance in the preceding Government—the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand)? That hon. Gentleman, in reply to my right hon. Friend, said—Of course, the statement that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) was extremely satisfactory to him, because it was really the programme of the late Government, 1586 both as regarded armaments, submarine stores, and fortifications."—[Ibid. 135.]Therefore, Sir, we have had this question under the consideration of two Governments for something like a year and a-half, both of which were of opinion that it was a subject of immense importance upon which a large expenditure was absolutely necessary; and the Secretary of State for War now comes down to the House and tells us that the Government do not see their way to making any expenditure at all upon it. I am quite sure that the financial difficulties of the year are great. No doubt, it may be difficult to find all the money required for these and all other purposes. But here we have a matter of very urgent and primary importance, and the result is that nothing is to be done. Does the right hon. Gentleman want funds? If so, I refer him to the admirable speech which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finsbury (Colonel Duncan). If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the words of the hon. and gallant Member, and would consider the question of compulsory retirement, with a real endeavour to lessen the enormous and annually increasing Vote for the Non-Effective Services of the Army, due to the system so eloquently and powerfully described by my hon. and gallant Friend of retiring men who do not want to be retired at a time when they are perfectly efficient—as efficient as ever they were in their lives—for the service of their country, and retiring them with pensions which add enormously to the burdens of the taxpayer—if he would but consider this matter, and try to retrench with one hand and expend where expenditure is necessary on the other, I think he would do something to make his tenure at the War Office a valuable one to the country.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON (Lancashire, N.E., Rossendale)I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his references to what was said by myself and my hon. Friend behind me the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) last year. There is no doubt that a large expenditure was required to put our military ports and commercial harbours in a perfectly satisfactory state of defence; and this is undoubtedly the view which has been held for some time past at the War Office. But I do not 1587 think I ever said, or that anything has been said in the House, which distinctly committed the late Government to the initiation of an expenditure of this kind. I have not the smallest doubt that a large expenditure is required. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this question has been under the consideration of two Governments for a year and a-half. He very much understates the fact, for it has been under the consideration of successive Governments for 15 years at least. When Viscount Palmerston made provision for the erection of fortifications on the Coast by means of a loan, he did not provide, and no Government has since provided, for their armament. There is some consolation to be found in the fact that if the armaments had been provided, as ought to have been done, when they were first adjudged to be necessary, the greater number of them would be obsolete by this time, and would have to be replaced by new armaments altogether. I went somewhat into this subject in moving the Army Estimates last year, but I never professed that we had reached a state of finality; and I think that a very considerable risk is incurred by an indefinite postponement in the hope of reaching an ideal perfection of the measures recommended by the professional advisers of the Government. I think that any Government which undertakes the completion of these defences will undoubtedly incur a considerable amount of responsibility. At the same time it is perfectly true that if a work of this kind is to be undertaken at all, it ought to be undertaken with the view of bringing it to a speedy completion. I cannot, therefore, find fault with the conclusion arrived at by Her Majesty's present Government. They are, as has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), dealing directly with what is the most pressing of all these works—namely, the defence of our coaling stations. I do not know whether we shall be enabled to do that work effectually and well at the present time; but the matter ought to be kept before the country, and as soon as the fortifications of our coaling stations abroad shall have been completed—and I admit that that is a pressing necessity—the subject of the condition of the defences of our military ports and commercial harbours, ought to be taken up. But 1588 there is no use in beginning the work in a half-hearted spirit. There is no use in voting £300,000 for a work which will cost, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) admits, from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000. In my opinion it is improbable that the work will ever be satisfactorily finished until some Government thinks it right to borrow the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 necessary for the conclusion of the undertaking in one or two years. On the whole, looking at the uncertainty which exists as to the state of our scientific knowledge, I think the Government are well advised in deciding to complete that part of the work which they have in hand, and to postpone until a more convenient opportunity, and until our knowledge upon the subject is more complete than it is at present the great undertaking of fortifying our military and commercial harbours at home.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, andagreed to.