§ 19. £477,600 Army Reserve Force (including Enrolled Pensioners).
§ 20. £668,400, Transport and Remounts.
§ * SIR WALTER BARTTELOT (Sussex, N. W.)I should like to ask one or two questions on this very important Vote. In the first place, I should like to know what has been done in regard to providing transport for two Army Corps. My right hon. Friend told us last year that he was making arrangements by which this transport should be forthcoming, and I am anxious to know how far these arrangements have been carried out. There is no question of the importance of this if the necessity for our Army Corps taking the field should arise. I should also like to know whether the new system of providing remounts for the cavalry is as successful as has been reported. I understand that General Ravenshill has done his work remarkably well, and that the new remounts are as good as those formerly provided by colonels of regiments. I should like to have it on authority if that is the case. Then I should also like to have some information as to the 179 result of the system of registering horses by the annual payment of 10s. per head. It is important to know how far this has been successful, and will have a great bearing upon the ability of a force to take the field should complications in Europe make it necessary, and we are bound to hold ourselves prepared for any emergency.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEI am very glad my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity of saying a few words on the subjects he has mentioned. First, in regard to the remounts, I am glad to say that my sanguine expectations as to the new system have been amply fulfilled. The greatest credit is due to General Ravenshill and those who assisted him for the way in which they have carried out the duties of a somewhat novel character entrusted to them. It may be remembered that last year we registered 7,000 horses, and of those more than 1,000 were riding horses available for cavalry if required. This year we have applied to the owners of those horses to know if they are willing to register them for a second year, and with hardly an exception they have agreed to do so; only a very small proportion, due to various causes, is to be taken off the number. With the registration of 7,000 other animals this year, after the examination has been completed, I have not the smallest doubt that, humanly speaking, we shall have 14,000 horses available, and amongst these a considerable proportion of horses fit for cavalry purposes. The system has worked exceedingly well, and has surmounted one of the greatest difficulties we have had to encounter for years past. As to the transport, I should like to say that very careful attention has been given to it, and supposing that we should have to mobilize an Army Corps we should find it fully equipped in this respect, and much progress has been made towards providing transport for a second Army Corps. For foreign service matters are not so complete, but they are proceeding in the right direction; and I think that since the subject was taken up two years ago, the progress which has been made is thoroughly satisfactory.
§ * SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many merchant ships are under engagements for the 180 purpose of transport, and what is thei average and highest rate of speed?
§ * MR. STANHOPEAs the hon. Gentleman is aware we are well provided with troopships, but exclusive of these there are no merchantships under engagement for the transport of troops. There is very little doubt that they would be available at very short notice should occasion arise.
§ * SIR JOHN SWINBURNEI was under the impression that there were merchant ships receiving a subsidy in order that they might be available for the conveyance of guns and troops should they be required.
§ * MR. STANHOPEThe hon. Member is referring to a matter which rather concerns the Admiralty, and the arrangements by that Department in the case of war for the carrying of guns has nothing to do with the War Office and is a question which should be addressed to my noble Friend.
§ * SIR JOHN SWINBURNEThen I understand there are no merchant ships under engagement for the purpose of transport?
§ * MR. STANHOPEIt entirely rests with the Admiralty to make the contracts, and I am not able to speak from personal knowledge. But I have no doubt that the Admiralty have made arrangements for any emergency.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 21. £2,605,000, Provisions, Forage, &c.
§ * SIR WALTER BARTTELOTI should like to just say a few words on this very important Vote. It is only right that we should hear from the Secretary for War what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations in the Report of the Committee in relation to this subject, and there are one or two questions I should like to put in regard to it. Before doing so it is scarcely necessary for me to insist upon the importance of having our soldiers properly and well fed, and also of the food that is given to them being better cooked than it has been in past years. You cannot expect young and growing lads to do the hard work they are called upon to perform unless they are properly fed; and I feel that many crimes that are committed have arisen through men not receiving what they think is a sufficient maintainence for them, and therefore going to the 181 public house. One of the first remarks made in this Report has relation to the meat supplied, and the Committee say that while in the larger stations it is fairly good in quality, in the smaller stations there is much reason to complain that the soldiers do not get the quality of meat they have a right to expect. There is no doubt that contractors, in many instances at the smaller stations, do really buy inferior meat, knowing that they can dispose of it to the Army and to the Navy, and that it will always command the contract price. Now this certainly ought not to be. I think there ought to be a most careful inspection, and I do not see how that inspection can be thorough unless it is carried out by men who have a knowledge of what good meat is—who know what a good sheep or beast is when they see it. I have had some opportunity of knowing how stores are supplied. I recollect that when I was at Limerick I was Chairman of a Board appointed to examine some preserved meat, and we were asked to pass a quantity with 5 or 6 samples open before us. But I immediately said "This will not do at all," and I directed that this, that, and the other should be opened. And the result was that we cast the whole quantity, and most righteously and properly we did so, for it was all bad, though the prepared samples were good. The next thing to which attention should be called is bread, and I shall not be contradicted when I insist upon the importance of this to the people from whom soldiers are recruited. The working classes always demand good bread, and they say, and very truly say, that it goes much further than that of inferior quality. If that is the case, certainly the claim of the soldier to have good bread is one that cannot be overlooked. A third question has relation to cooking and cooking-ranges. We know that in olden days there was much to be complained of in these respects. It is one of the things that in this country we fail over more than anything else, and we know that many men among the poorer classes are driven from their homes to the public-house by bad cooking. I will not go into every question that is touched upon in the Report of the Committee; but I will conclude by insisting 182 upon the necessity of an improvement in regard to cooking and cooking-ranges. This, after providing the men with really good food, is an absolute necessity, and I hope we shall got some satisfactory information from my right hon. Friend on these points.
§ MR. HANBURYI have not read the Report of the Committee in relation to these matters, but there is just one point I should like to raise before the right hon. Gentleman replies. I think the War Office ought to know that the price paid for meat is in some cases ridiculously low—namely, 4½d. or even 4¼d. per lb. It is bad enough if the men have the whole of that; but I understand that out of this it is possible for the officers and non-commissioned officers to purchase what they require at contract price, and of course the contractors give them the best of it. [Cries of "No."] I ask whether that is the fact? If it is it ought to be put a stop to.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEI am sorry that, owing to the late issue of the Report, my hon. Friend has not had an opportunity of seeing some of the passages it contains. The War Office have taken up during the present year the question of the purchasing of contract meat by officers and non-commissioned officers, and a distinct order has been issued by the Quartermaster General that it is no longer to be allowed. The price paid for meat does, no doubt, seem extraordinary till the Report of the Committee distinctly stated that, at the larger stations at any rate, the quality is excellent, though at some of the smaller stations it is not so. The Report makes various recommendations, and among others that the regimental officers should interest themselves in those matters. I believe that regimental officers are at the present time taking greater interest in those matters than at any other period in the history of this country, and that close personal interest must result in great improvement. My hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned the question of cooking. That matter also has been taken up in all the regiments in the Army. I am afraid the cooking ranges are not in all cases suitable. That is a matter I hope to deal with along with improved barrack accommodation. It is a very grave matter, and it affects 183 the comfort of the private soldier perhaps more than anything else. The question of bread also has been reported upon by the Committee, who mentioned two matters—first, the division of bread into smaller loaves. That I have already sanctioned. It is also suggested that different qualities of flour should be issued, but that question requires more consideration, and some persons think the flour at present issued is good enough for the purpose if properly dealt with, and I propose to await the result of dividing the bread into smaller loaves before I come to a decision on the subject. I desire to express the debt of gratitude I owe to the Members of this House who took part in the inquiry. The hon. Member for Exeter, who was the Chairman, and others devoted immense pains and very great attention to this very important subject, and I think they deserve the gratitude of the Committee and the country.
§ * SIR J. SWINBURNEThe biscuits supplied to the men in the Navy are made from the best wheat. Surely the bread supplied to our soldiers should be equally good.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEAs I have said, this is a question upon which I think it right at present to reserve a decision.
§ * LIEUTENANT - GENERAL FRASER (Lambeth, N.)My experience may be my excuse for occupying a few minutes. It is 42 years since I joined the Army, and during all that time there has been strong reason to complain of the treatment of the troops in the matter of diet by the War Office. When I say that as an Inspecting General officer the men's dinners have been shown to me, consisting of three quarters of a pound of meat for each man, to last him with one pound of bread for 24 hours, and the meat bad itself, and including gristle and bone, I think the hon. Member for Preston will agree with me that the officers of the regiments are not likely to take tit-bits from the soldiers' rations with avidity. The simple fact is that thousands of complaints in past years of the quality of the rations, and their insufficiency, as well as inferior quality of the coals, candles, forage, &c., have been forwarded to successive Governments, and that no Government had listened to the representations. I can give many in- 184 stances of the delay, trouble, and expense of representing matters to the War Office. I will ask to give one. A few years back I was commanding the 11th Hussars in Dublin. The escort to the Prince of Wales came into quarters in the night wet through; the horses had to be groomed and done up. There being no gas, the officer bought candles, the cost being 2s. 8d. This outlay led to a long and ardent correspondence from the War Office before it was grudgingly admitted. The interest of officers in their men is not new born! I protested against the blame thrown by implication on generations of officers who had devoted their lives to improving the condition of their men, and predicted that military Members would be listened to with more attention in the future.
§ MR. COSSHAMI trust that to effort will be spared to improve ne cooking of soldiers' food, for I hold that good cooking is essential for our social comfort and the improvement of the culture of the people.
§ * COLONEL BLUNDELLThough, no doubt, it is right to take precautions to prevent the best pieces of meat being given to officers or married people when the meat is contracted for, I do not think that in any well-regulated regiment in the Army this can happen, as care is taken that there are separate issues of complete carcases.
§ MAJOR RASCHI do not wish to offer my opinion as against that of the Ration Committee, but having had to pass rations myself I have to some extent gone into this question. I cannot help thinking that the Committee began at the wrong end—that they put the cart before the horse to some extent by going into quality instead of quantity. It is all very well to go into the question of cooking, but we should first see that the soldiers have something to cook. At the present time the soldier gets one pound of bread and three-quarters of a pound of meat weighed out to him with the bone daily. The meat is weighed out to him with the hocks and knees. They might just as well weigh in the hoofs and horns whilst they are about it—for, instead of getting three-quarters of a pound of solid meat, he thus gets not more than three mouthfuls. The Secretary of State for War has instituted a system of physical drill which takes it 185 out of the young soldier, and when the drill is over the soldier finds no Government rations at the barracks, and therefore fills himself out with beer, and possibly there is a crime against him next morning. The soldier has no Government ration from one o'clock in the day until seven o'clock the next morning. The small quantity of food issued to the soldier is, in my opinion, one of the great incentives to crime in the Army. Our men only get 55 per cent of the quantity of food served out to the Russian soldiers. I am aware that the Secretary for War will say that our Army has existed for so many years on the present rations, but I ask any hon. Member, who thinks that the proper amount of food is allowed to our soldiers, himself to try the ration between now and September, and if he does I will undertake to say that when the Appropriation Bill comes on we shall find him on our side.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEIf hon. Members would look at the Report of the Rations Committee they would find this matter exhaustively dealt with. That Committee carefully examined into the matter, and reported as to the quantity of food supplied to the soldier. Experience shows that recruits gain enormously in general condition, strength, and breadth of chest on the present rations.
§ * GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)I desire to say that the Committee, of which I was a member, went very carefully into the question of rations, and elicited from many sources information as to what was best for the soldier. We came to the unanimous conclusion that if the rations and the money allowed were properly utilized there is sufficient for the soldier. We found that the bread, when it is prepared in 2lb. loaves in the way suggested, is perfectly good and sweet at the end of a week. Formerly the articles supplied in some of the smaller stations were not as good as they ought to have been. The Committee thought that whatever was given to the soldier ought to be of the best quality. We found that the soldiers make no use of the meat bones, and that a great deal of valuable nutriment is thrown away. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen, who has taken a great interest in this matter, noticed when he was in the 186 Service that this was the practice. The hon. Member was examined before the Committee, and in their Report they were unanimous in stating that the food given was sufficient for the soldier if properly utilized. It had not theretofore been properly utilized. I do not blame the officers for the food not being properly utilized, because they are not properly instructed. I blame the system; and, I think, that if the Secretary of State for War looks into the matter in future the country will not have any cause to complain that the soldier is in any way underfed. There is no doubt a very general feeling that the officers and non-commissioned officers get the pick of the joints; but in well regulated regiments that is prevented. In a regiment I belonged to the colonel would not allow the contractor to provide for the mess as he said that if he did it would be suspected, however unjustly, that the officers got the pick of the joints. We know that the price paid for meat in the Army is low, but if the quality is bad it should be rejected by those who have to pass it, and the contractors, we may be sure will not long continue supplying meat at a loss. I am of opinion that everything will be right in the future if the War Office will pay attention to the recommendations of the Committee on Rations. The Members of the Committee were very pleased to find that before they were appointed some of the observations made in the House had been paid attention to by the Secretary of State for War.
§ * SIR J. SWINBURNEI should like to ask whether it is a fact, as stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex, that the soldier receives no Government ration between one o'clock in the day and seven o'clock next morning?
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEIf the hon. Gentleman will consult the Report of the Committee, he will see that the amount of food supplied is amply sufficient for the soldier's wants.
§ * SIR J. SWINBURNEI ask for a direct answer to my question.
§ MR. BRODRICKThere is a fund in every regiment out of which tea is provided at 5 or 6 o'clock for the soldiers. The matter was discussed in the Report to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
§ * MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, West)I must say I think the Secretary of State for War should say without asking us to read the Report of the Committee whether the statement is correct that the soldier has no food served out to him from 1o'clock in the day until 7o'clock next morning. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Essex, who has himself been in the Army, has pointed out the evils which exist under the present arrangement, and I think we are entitled to a full answer from the Secretary of State.
§ MAJOR RASCHAs I have said, the Government ration is three-quarters of a pound of meat and one pound of bread. If the soldier saves his bread he has something left over for tea; but the bread and meat is generally consumed long before the meal called tea. In certain regiments a charge is made on the soldier's pay and an extra quarter of a pound of bread is provided, but this system is not carried out by the Government nor in every regiment, and many of the soldiers have to go without anything to eat—unless they buy it themselves—until seven in the morning.
§ * SIR J. SWINBURNEPractically, then, it amounts to this, that many soldiers have nothing to eat between one o'clock and seven o'clock the next morning.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEI do not think anyone can doubt that a more impartial Committee could have been appointed, or one that was more likely to consider the true interests of the soldiers, and they say that under proper arrangements the present ration is sufficient. I say that the arrangements now are proper.
§ * SIR F. FITZWYGRAM (Hants, Fareham)The great evil of the present system arises from the early hour at which the soldiers get their evening meal. In many regiments it is the custom to serve it out at five o'clock in the evening, and the consequence is that the soldier has to go without food for a long period. I think that if in no case was the evening meal served out till seven o'clock it would be a great improvement. I am of opinion, however, that the present ration is sufficient for the soldier, if no robbery, either in weight or quality, takes place.
§ * COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)The great difficulty about serving out the evening meal as late as seven o'clock is that the men on some stations will not come back to eat it. In most well-regulated regiments there is what they call a dry canteen where the men can get something to eat at night if they choose. What commanding officers have to do is to see that when men return to barracks at night they are able to get bread and cheese, or soup, or something of that sort. If the recommendations of the Committee are carried out I feel sure the soldier will be well-fed.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 22. £945,600, Clothing Establishments, Services and Supplies.
§ GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYI hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War will go fully into the question of clothing and see that the troops have good clothing, not only as regards to material but as regards the pattern. The materials of the greatcoats should be the best, because a man's life very often depends upon his having a good greatcoat. The under-clothing should also be good, and, the pants should be such as will stand a great deal of wear. I mention these matters because, though apparently small, they are matters of vital importance.
§ MR. HANBURYIf my right hon. Friend recollects, the Reports of the medical officers nearly all complained: of the poor clothing of the recruits in the winter. Nearly every Report distinctly alludes to the fact that a great deal of consumption and chest complaints in the Army is due to that fact. It seems to be a very poor economy indeed. The clothing establishment at Pimlico is a most expensive establishment. In the first place it is in a position where the land is extremely valuable and could be sold by the foot. There are no poor people living in the neighbourhood, and they have to come from long distances, and have to be paid extra wages in consequence. I do believe that if my right hon. Friend sold the Pimlico establishment altogether and: transferred it to a place where the land is less valuable, he would have to pay cheaper wages and effect a great saving to the country. It seems to me mon- 189 strous to have an establishment of the Government in a more or less fashionable quarter like the present.
§ MR. BRODRICKMy hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the question of the clothing of the recruits requires attention. The attention of the War Office has already been called to the point, especially with regard to young soldiers returning from foreign climates, or recruits who have just joined; and under the regulations there is a discretionary power to issue extra clothing or an undress suit. With reference to the Army clothing factory at Pimlico, there is no doubt that it is very conveniently situated, and to remove it would be a very great alteration. It is very accessible, in case of war, for the rapid transport of clothing to stations where it would be required. That is a consideration which should not be altogether disregarded in view of the rapidity with which large numbers of men's clothing would have to be transported abroad in ease of the outbreak of hostilities.
§ MR. HANBURYThis matter has been mentioned in two or three Reports, and it is not enough to tell me that attention has been called to the matter. I know what that means. I am not satisfied with that answer. I want to know whether as a matter of fact this clothing is going to be supplied to the recruits.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEI beg to say that it was in consequence of the Reports of the medical officers that the special attention of commanding officers was called to this subject, and I believe that proper care will now be taken, at any rate ought to be taken by the commanding officers, who are responsible. One matter of importance is the proper clothing of recruits when they return from foreign service. Steps are being taken to ensure that the men who come from foreign service shall be supplied with warm clothing to enable them to withstand the rigours of this climate after coming from a warm climate.
§ * COLONEL BLUNDELLI believe that it is a matter of great importance that the young men should be supplied with warm clothing, both as recruits, and on returning to this country.
§ Vote agreed to.
190§ 23. £1,808,000, Warlike and other Stores—Supply and Repair.
§ * SIR W. BARTTELOTThis Vote 12 is one of the Votes which was mentioned in the Royal Commission of which I had the honour to be a Member. And Votes 1 and 12 were the very Votes which were always manipulated when the Government wished to reduce expenditure in the Army. Everyone knows that these are the Votes for which the money was taken. I hope a better state of things is now about to arise. There are many other Votes which might well be manipulated. The War Office Vote itself and other Votes must be reduced considerably, but to reduce either Votes 1 or 12 is the most monstrous things that could be done. I am not alluding to one Government more than another. It has been systematically done. Vote 12 has almost always suffered. We know that at one time we had nothing in store, and we were obliged to use moneys, voted by this House for other purposes, to replenish those stores which had been depleted for the sake of keeping down the expenditure of the Army, and in order to show that the Government of the day was economical in every way. You could not have a more false economy. I see that for guns and carriages £207,340 is taken as against £140,490, and that increase suggests various questions. This is one of the most important Votes we have got to deal with, and I should like to ask my hon. Friend with regard to the increased amount of it whether the Horse Artillery and Field Batteries are all armed, or are about to be armed, with the new 12-pounder gun which is said to be the best gun in the world. My right hon. Friend told us that a certain number of horse artillery and field batteries were armed. I should like to know whether the whole have been armed. I should like also to know what progress has been made with the arming of our coaling stations. We were told that Gibraltar and Malta were in a most deplorable state for want of arms and guns of precision. The Commander-in-Chief has been to see the exact state of things at those stations, and I hope my right hon. Friend will, be able to say that our Mediterranean. 191 forts are in such a position as to insure the safety of our road to India and the colonies. There are other stations which have been sadly neglected, especially the Cape, and I should like to know in what position those stations now are? I think my right hon. Friend will agree that these are matters which cannot be put off, and that the safety of our fleet is at stake if they have not these stations to go into for coaling purposes, when they are defending our mercantile marine. I would like also to ask my right hon. Friend whether our great dockyards have been properly armed—Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheerness, and other places? We have been told quite lately that these forts have not been provided with all the guns which ought to have been there, and we know that it was necessary, in sending some ships to sea, to take the guns from these forts and put them into the ships which did not get their proper guns. I should also like to know how many of the new rifles have been made, and whether any have yet been served out to the troops? This new repeating rifle, we are told, is the best that has been yet invented, and that there is no nation in the world that has got anything like so good a weapon. I should also like to know when the whole complement necessary to arm our regular forces will be completed. I asked yesterday whether the ammunition for the Militia was to be a different ammunition, or is to be the same as that served out to the regular forces. My belief is that it is not. I think it would be dangerous to adopt that course, because you might have to send abroad your militia, and if you had different ammunition to that of the regular forces most disastrous consequences might ensue to us at certain times, and under certain circumstances. I have asked these questions because I look upon this Vote as of the gravest importance, and I hope the statements we shall hear from the Secretary of State will be satisfactory to the Committee and to the country.
§ COLONEL EYRE (Gainsborough)I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether if a war occurred we have sufficient gunpowder for our armaments, without depending upon foreign sources for a 192 supply. It is very important that our men should be properly fed and clothed, and it is also essential that we should provide ourselves with an efficient home artillery.
§ GENERAL FRASERI trust that the Committee may be informed as to the present Armament of the Royal Artillery in India. It may be remembered that two years back the distinguished and anonymous General Officer who recommended the Horse Artillery reductions to the Secretary of State for War sneered at the Horse Artillery gun, and that we proved to him that there were no less than 62 field batteries equipped with the very same gun.
§ MR. HANBURYWith regard to the new magazine rifles, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what the payment for patents has been, because a rather curious question arises in connection with it. We discover that a good many of them have been taken out by persons in Government employment, and who have access to Government information. It is a very important question how far those Government servants ought to be rewarded for inventions that had to be worked out in Government time. Very large claims have been made for payment in respect of these patents, but I cannot believe for a moment that my right hon. Friend has recognized those claims, if made by Government servants. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me the exact sum paid.
§ * MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI trust and believe the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory answer as to the progress that has been made in arming the Field and Horse Artillery, which for a long time I have considered the most important branch of the services that are included in this Vote. In urgency and importance I put it even above the Magazine rifle, for after all our Infantry is armed at present with the Martini-Henry, which will compare favourably with the weapons of other countries, but in respect of the guns of our Field and Horse Artillery, we are lamentably behind the position which we ought to occupy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a satisfactory answer on that score. I listened with much interest, and a considerable amount of 193 sympathy, to the homily of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Barttelot), which he gave us by way of preamble to his observations. I agree that stores ought not to be depleted for what we may call political purposes, but at the same time I think it is right to protest against the idea that there is any particular advantage gained by exaggerated reserves of all sorts of stores. I never heard the true doctrine better laid down than by the First Lord of the Admiralty to - night. The true doctrine ought to be that we should maintain the fullest reserves that can be required of stores that do not perish while stored, and which take a long time to replace. But there can be no greater mistake than to heap up stores for the sake of giving ourselves the satisfaction of knowing that we have got a great quantity of stores, though they are perishable, or can be easily obtained. It is rather the habit I am afraid in military circles to say that we should have a large supply of every requisite, so that at any moment the Army may be sent on active service. And in naval circles it is the same thing. With regard to those articles which take a long time to manufacture, which are difficult to obtain, which can be kept in store without damage, and are not apt to become obsolete, the demand for a full reserve is reasonable enough; but on many of the most notorious occasions in which stores have been rapidly depleted, the process has been one of weeding out absolutely useless stores, and stores which it was much more desirable in the interest of the public service should be obtained at the time they were required.
§ * MR. STANHOPEI desire to express my entire concurrence in the views of the right hon. Gentleman as to the principle on which we should keep our stores. I never desired for one moment to go beyond that, although I admit at the present moment we have hardly reached the point in respect of the Army when we can rest and be satisfied. I have endeavoured to check, as far as possible, any desire to extend our reserves of perishable stores, which would be a very great mistake. We are doing all we can to promote the centralization of stores and to facilitate the mobilization of the Forces. With reference to India 194 I have no control over the orders of the Indian Government, but, as the recipient of those orders I happen to know that the Indian Government have ordered an enormous number of 12-pounder guns; and I believe that in a short time the Army in India will be armed with those guns. With regard to the coaling stations, practically the armament of the coaling stations has been carried out under the loan of last year, with the exception that a sum of £250,000 or £300,000, will be found in the Estimates for the purpose of providing light arms and ammunition. There has been some delay in those armaments, especially in regard to the larger type of guns, owing to the heavy demands of the Navy, because on all occasions I have never hesitated to place the claims of the Navy first. Nevertheless, in spite of the demands of the Navy, progress is being made, and I trust that some of the particular difficulties encountered in the course of the last few years have now been surmounted. I have to express my deep sense of the obligation the War Office is under to the colony of Singapore to provide them with guns as soon as possible. Some guns are going out almost immediately, and the whole of the guns for Singapore will go out within a few weeks. With regard to the more important coaling stations, I hope that during the current year a considerable number of big guns for their defences will go out, the smaller armaments being already almost all in their places, while the 6-in. guns for the minor coaling stations are also being proceeded with, and, indeed, we have received them from the contractors. In the defences at home, too, good progress is being made. Without going into details, I may say that Portsmouth is very much stronger than it was last year, while in the case of the Thames somewhat larger armaments are contemplated than were originally thought of under the plan proposed last year. The manufacture of the magazine rifle is proceeding very satisfactorily, but I cannot say we have a large number of completed weapons at the present moment. We are, however, under contract to allow certain contractors to carry on the manufacture of Martini-Henry rifles until they are in a position to give 195 effect to the manufacture of magazine rifles; but they are manufacturing those rifles of such a bore that when we have the magazine rifle we shall also have a considerable number of Martini-Henrys of the new bore which will carry exactly the same ammunition as the magazine rifle, and which we shall be able, in case of emergency, to issue to the regular troops. With regard to the patterns for the new rifle, I do not intend to allow the country to be saddled with any payment until I am satisfied that a distinct invention had been made by which the country would profit.
§ * COLONEL BLUNDELLI am afraid the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the new rifle cannot be considered satisfactory, that being in my opinion the first and most important weapon of the Army at the present day. As to the Martini-Henry that is a fairly good rifle compared with other breech-loaders; but to compare it with the magazine rifle would be like comparing the old muzzle-loading rifle with the breech-loading weapons by which it was succeeded. Had we adopted the magazine rifle 20 years ago, the military history of this country during that period would have been very different, and the country would have been put to far less expenditure. I say unhesitatingly that the first requisite for the troops of the present day is the magazine rifle. There is a danger to be guarded against of contractors trying to defer its construction if allowed to continue making Martini-Henrys.
§ MR. HANBURYI wish to put a question to my right hon. Friend the secretary for War with reference to the case of the man Dunn at Woolwich. It was owing to his investigations that I was able to disclose certain discreditable transactions in regard to the stores at Woolwich. That man was enabled to bring out the whole of the information then put forward in spite of the strongest opposition on the part of his superior officers and yet, having done so much public service, he has been punished instead of being- rewarded. The Judge Advocate General said he was even a better man than Spice, who was getting higher wages, and yet Dunn has been twice passed over in the matter of promotion by men whom he had been 196 the means of exposing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to protect that man and see that he is not subjected to the tyranny of those whose want of technical knowledge—I will not say, malpractices—he exposed. So far as I know there is no possible explanation of that fact except that this man has in the interests of the country exposed certain evils which came under his notice. It is said that he has been offered a post elsewhere. But, Sir, as a fact, he has not been offered a post of the value of the membership to which he is entitled. Why, I should like to know, do you want to get rid of this man? The Judge Advocate General reported very strongly in favour of Dunn being promoted, and he is in fact the very man who in the interests of the country ought to be kept in this particular Department. Only one reason has been alleged for keeping this man back from promotion, and I do not say that that is a reason which the right hon. Gentleman below me would be likely to father—I do not think he would support such a shabby suggestion, but still it has been put into his mouth by the enemies of this deserving workman. It is this, that since these occurrences he revealed to me a fact which he certainly was entitled to reveal, because he had made remonstrances on the subject to his superior officers without avail, and, that being the case, he had no right in the public interest, to let the public know what he had to disclose. Now he found that some hair for hospital beds, in which there was a great deal of blood and which also was very inferior material, was being used for the padding and stuffing of saddles. Now for such work it is important that good hair should be used, and I do not think anyone will say that hair from hospital beds ought to be utilized for the purpose. I asked a question about the matter in this House. Dunn had described the hair to me as being dirty and not fit to be used. Inquiry was made and a quantity of hair was picked out without Dunn having any opportunity of selecting any of it himself.
§ MR. BRODRICKI may say that I was the person who went down to Woolwich in order to inquire into this matter. I requested Dunn to accompany me, and he did so and picked 197 out some of the hair with his own hands.
§ MR. HANBURYThat is in direct contradiction to what I have been informed. But that is not all. The hair was sent not to an independent expert but to a man who acted as foreman to a firm which was contracting under another Government Department, and he said that the hair was good for the purpose for which it was used. Now it appears to me that Dunn is being kept back from promotion simply because he gave me what is called "bad information," and because he meddled in a matter in which he had no interest. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend would be a party to such treatment of the man. Undoubtedly he has done a great public service. The Judge Advocate General declared him to be a man thoroughly fitted for promotion, yet he has twice been passed over in the natural course, and for nothing but the somewhat shabby reason which I have already explained. I hope I shall have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in this matter. It is not raised in a controversial spirit, and I do think we ought to err rather on the side of generosity to a poor man who, in spite of tremendous odds, has done a great public service. I trust, therefore, that unless strong reasons are shown for keeping the man back, my hon. Friend will remedy this injustice.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPETwo or three questions have been addressed to me which I should like to answer at once. First with regard of the supply of gunpowder I am glad to be able to state that I have now made arrangements by which we are able to get all our gunpowder at home. I have not heard any complaints of it, and I believe it is of a satisfactory character. Next, as to the new rifles, I am confident that the contractors are desirous of pushing forward the new rifle. I believe that the delay has been mainly on the side of the War Office, though it was unavoidable. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Preston, the Committee will remember the circumstances under which the case was brought forward. My hon. Friend seems to think he was the originator of the inquiry, and that he disclosed the scandals, but 198 my recollection is that that inquiry was directed by myself the moment the Royal Commission of Sir James Fitz-James Stephen reported that it needed investigation. On that I asked the Judge Advocate General to hold the inquiry, and he did so in a thoroughly impartial spirit. The result of the inquiry was laid on the Table, and on it my hon. Friend based a very bitter attack on the Department of which I am the head. Now, Dunn and Moody were the men most instrumental in bringing the facts referred to to light, and the suggestion is that they have enemies in the Department who desire to keep them back and prevent them being promoted. But what are the facts? Moody has been promoted; he has been selected as a thoroughly good and competent man, and he has been promoted to the position of foreman. The case of Dunn is different. Dunn has not been in the same way reported for promotion by those under whom he serves. I have taken special care that Dunn's proceedings in every respect and the work he is doing shall be periodically reported to me, and I have seen the officers under whom he is serving. Last year a circumstance arose which told against him, and that was the question of the hair. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was present when Dunn made a selection, and he testified that the hair was taken out in a thoroughly fair and legitimate manner and submitted to an expert selected with the utmost care who reported that Dunn's complaints were without foundation, and the hair was thoroughly fit for the public service. It is possible that Dunn made a mistake in this matter. I do not want to judge him harshly. I am afraid he has been encouraged by my hon. Friend and other people, and that he has acted too hastily. But in consequence of that simple act I should not for a moment think of saying he was unfit for promotion. He may have honestly made a mistake. I am perfectly willing that he shall be promoted as soon as he is reported fit for it. We have already offered him an advance in his wages. One of the offers would have removed him from the shop in which he is now working to another shop where he would have undoubtedly earned more wages. But he did not 199 think fit to accept either of these promotions. I leave it to the House to say, under these circumstances, whether I have treated him otherwise than fairly. When he is fit for promotion, he shall have it.
§ MR. HANBURYI have no wish whatever to bring my right hon. Friend and Dunn into collision as to what happened at Woolwich in regard to this question of the use of hair from hospital beds, but the main facts remain undisputed. The man Dunn said that hair from hospital beds was being used for the padding of saddles. It is now admitted that it was used, and I do not think that any one will say that such material was the proper stuff to use. My right hon. Friend cannot indeed deny that that stuff is still being used at the present moment, and therefore it is no good his attempting to draw a red herring across the scent, and to try to lead us away from the main point. I say that Dunn was absolutely correct when he said that this hair from hospital beds was not the proper material to be used for the stuffing of cavalry saddles. Then the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has not had any report from Woolwich saying that Dunn is fit for promotion; but we have the actual fact that he has already been offered another post, and in addition to that we know that he actually acted as a viewer for several months without a single complaint being made against him. The Judge Advocate General specially reported him as a man who ought to be promoted, and added that he had more knowledge of this work than the very man on whose report apparently his promotion is made to depend. I refer to Inspector Spice, who is the man who practically has to recommend Dunn for promotion, for he is his immediate superior, and I do protest against Dunn 's fate being left in his hands.
§ MR. JAMES ROWLANDS (Finsbury, East)As one of the persons who may be accused of having egged Dunn on in this matter, may I venture to say that there was no egging on whatsoever in regard to this particular case. We have on more than one occasion been able to bring under the attention of the Government facts in connection with Public Departments which have 200 exposed radical wrongs, and time after time it has been admitted that information obtained from men like Dunn has proved very accurate indeed. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has met the case quite fairly. It has been admitted by the Judge Advocate General's Committee that he was equal to the position of viewer. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has not received the necessary information with regard to Dunn which would entitle him to promotion. Afterwards he told us that offers had been made to Dunn which would have placed him in a better position than the one he now holds, but that he declined to accept them. Why did Dunn decline? Because, Sir, he considered that they were offered to him, in order to shelve him from the legitimate promotion to which he was entitled, and he thinks he ought not to be deprived of that promotion simply because he has done his duty to the country. If he is not worthy of promotion why have these offers been made to him? I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a broad and generous view of this man's case, for whenever a. public servant—however humble the position he holds—does a great public service, he ought not to suffer for his action. The opinion 'at Woolwich among the Dockyard employés is that Dunn is suffering for what he attempted to do in the public interest, and if you look at the local press there, you will see that they take a similar view of his-position, and will make it clear to the employés in the public service that Dunn is not to suffer for the action he has taken.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
24. Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £715,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Engineer Works, Buildings, and repairs at home and abroad (including purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890.
§ * MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI think it only right on this Vote that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any information as to what he proposes to do in regard to his new barracks scheme. He told 201 us in the beginning of the Session that he had a scheme in hand for the erection of new barracks, and he greatly disturbed the equanimity of many of us when he intimated that in the course of the Session he would be obliged to make a proposal to Parliament for a loan to meet this expenditure. Since then we have heard nothing of it, and I hope he will give us some information on the subject.
§ * MAJOR-GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYI hope that the Secretary for War will be able to tell the Committee something satisfactory. Many of our barracks are a disgrace to the country, and the health of the men might be improved and crime prevented if the men were well lodged. It is not so much the new barracks which are complained of as the very old ones and temporary huts and like structures which they have to put up with. I trust also that special attention will be paid to recreation rooms and the provision of coffee bars, so that the men may be as comfortable as in civil life. I do not go so far as Lord Wolseley in advocating conscription, but every reasonable inducement should be offered men to join the Army, and I think it would be a very good thing if a larger number of men could be induced to enlist in the Army, if only for a short period, for they might go hack to civil life mentally, morally, and physically improved. Nothing would tend so much to the attainment of this end as the provision of good barracks.
§ * MR. STANHOPEI do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman has called attention to this matter; and I am sorry that I have been obliged to delay my statement so long. But my examination of the question was attended with great difficulty, and I felt it my duty to ascertain all the data, and to proceed upon careful Estimates of what was wanted. As it is I am afraid that I may not be able this Session to present any general scheme. It may be that the remainder of the Session will not be long enough to make an exhaustive inquiry, but I do at once propose to make a beginning; and a portion of the scheme will be presented in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. For example, I could not reconcile it with 202 my conscience to leave Dublin Barracks in their present condition. Nor can Portsmouth be neglected. The barracks at Portsmouth has been evacuated and will probably have to be pulled down. Those at Dublin will have to be dealt with as a whole, not only in regard to barrack accommodation, but also as regarded the stores, which are extremely inconvenient. If certain portions of the Royal Barracks were evacuated good store-rooms could be provided, and this it is proposed to do; and the place can be put into the best sanitary condition. Richmond Barracks, where I am sorry to say there has been a good deal of sickness latterly, can be remedied without great difficulty or expense. I can not say what is necessary, but the matter will at once be attended to. The Cavalry Barracks and the Ship-street Barracks will also be attended to, and portions of the latter may have to be pulled down. The Government are in possession of the old Richmond Prison, but more land will be wanted. Certain portions of it can be converted into barracks at less cost than new ones could be erected at. The Committee is entitled to all the information I can give, and may be assured that the Government has no intention of abandoning their plans, and mean thoroughly to grapple with this crying evil, although they could not mature a complete scheme this Session.
§ * MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green)There is included in the Vote the item of £20,000 for the purchase of land for mobilization stations. I have not been able to find it in a definite form, but I know it is there, because the Secretary of State for War told me so a few weeks ago, when I took the precaution of addressing to him a question on the subject. Mobilization is the order of the day. I do not say that mobilization is a fad of the day, because I am very sensible of the extreme importance of mobilization, but at the same time we cannot afford to sacrifice everything else to mobilization, however important it may be. The Secretary of State proposes to break up 14 batteries of Artillery, in, order to create ammunition trains.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPENo. I do not propose that. That was a proposal made two years ago, but now we have made other proposals.
§ * MR. PICKERSGILLI am extremely glad to have elicited that statement from the right hon. Gentleman, which, I venture to say, is not only new to me but new to many gentlemen of the military profession. But I only referred to the matter to show that at the present time mobilization is popular, that mobilization is, to some extent, a cry to conjure with, and it is under the name of mobilization that we are asked to-night to vote £20,000. As I am about to ask the Committee to reject the proposal to spend £20,000 for the purpose proposed, it is obvious I must refresh their memory as to the terms in which the proposal was submitted. The Secretary of State for War, referring to the scheme, said—
The scheme now adopted is an additional security, necessary only in what may be a remote contingency, but in that contingency some part of the battle would have to be fought by troops inferior to those to which they would be opposed. It is, therefore, necessary to prepare and strengthen the positions which they would occupy. There are certain strategic positions round London commanding roads and railways which are essential to its defence. These are the positions on which, on London being threatened, the defenders of London would, in a few days, be concentrated and entrenched. Almost all this work is to be left to be rapidly carried out when the emergency arises. There are, however, a few sites of specially urgent importance, which we deem it essential to acquire at once. It is the intention to establish ordinary field works in the form of entrenched camps, which would form a backbone of a defensive line, and in which certain articles which would be required on the shortest notice could be stored, and where it would be possible hereafter to exercise some of the defenders in the actual place which they might have to defend. The cost will be inconsiderable. The negotiations are pending for these essential sites, and I have accordingly included in the estimate the sum of £20,000.Now, I ask the Committee whether reading between the lines, they are satisfied that this sum is to be expended for a purpose which is necessary, which is essential to mere mobilization of the troops, which within certain limits I thoroughly approve of, or whether, on the other hand, this is not the first step in a course which I believe would lead 204 to the expenditure of millions sterling, and not only the expenditure, but the wasted expenditure of millions sterling. I mean the first step in the fortification of London. I wish to strengthen my position by calling attention to what I regard as a most remarkable coincidence. Last year there appeared in one of the magazines a remarkable series of articles upon the British Army, articles which were originally published anonymously, but which have since been republished under the admitted authorship of Sir Charles Dilke. Whatever hon. Members may think of these articles, every unprejudiced mind will consider them the result of a very close study of the subject. But it is more to my present purpose to point out that there is a remarkable resemblance between the suggestions which are thrown out in those articles and the propositions which have been put before the House by the Secretary of State for War. But although, as I contend, the two schemes are substantially identical, the Secretary of State misleads us, unintentionally of course, by the idea that the work can be done for £20,000, while Sir Charles Dilke fixes the price at between £3,000,000 and £5,000,000. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that he is not about to commence the fortification of London, and I have no doubt also that he will be perfectly sincere in making that profession, that he really believes that £20,000 will be the extent of the expenditure. But in cases of this kind the experience of the past leads us to the conclusion that by a kind of fatalism, as it were, we are led on by promises of small expenditure until thousands and millions of pounds sterling have been expended. We are now asked to enter upon an entirely new road of military expenditure, and, therefore, I may fairly ask the Committee to pause before it takes the first step. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £20,000.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £695,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
205§ MR. J. ROWLANDSI think the statement of my hon. Friend is worthy of some notice by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend has, at least, tried to make out his case. He has pointed out what he thinks to be a now departure from our military expenditure, and I know I am not wrong in saying there are some military authorities who believe the fortification of London would be a great waste of money.
§ * MR. STANHOPEI hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickersgill) will not think I meant any discourtesy to him in not rising to reply to his remarks. I thought I had made my case very clear in the speech I made on the Army Estimates, and which the hon. Gentleman did me the honour to quote. I certainly am quite prepared to rest my case on the statement I laid before the House on that occasion. The hon. Member for Finsbury says there are some military authorities who are opposed to the fortification of London. I am equally opposed to it. No one connected with the War Office have for a moment suggested the fortification of London. They have proposed, and I have approved a simple scheme for mobilising the Auxiliary Forces for the defence of the capital. Some money must be necessarily expended in order to obtain sites on which to put store-houses, which must necessarily be expended in order to enable the Forces to take up their positions with the least possible delay. I can assure the Committee there is nothing behind this which I have not fully explained, and nothing is further from our intentions than to allow the scheme to be developed into a general scheme for the fortification of London.
§ * MR. PICKERSGILLI propose to go to a division.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 150.—(Div. List No. 153.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the dangerous character 206 of the Dover Barracks. They are practically sunk into the earth; which I daresay is a very desirable thing from a military point of view, but which results in their being about as unwholesome and damp as it is possible for them to be. For many years past the health of the men stationed there, even for a short time, has been most prejudicially affected. I do not know what steps ought to be taken in the matter, but certainly something ought to be done, because at present they are simply ruinous to the health of every man who dwells there even for a couple of months.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)I notice that no money is being taken for Galway Barracks, which are among the worst in the kingdom. The main barracks must be over 100 years old. There is a new barracks at Galway, but it is a very small one.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEGalway Barracks is certainly one of those which are engaging our attention, and I do not think it will be justifiable to allow troops to remain there for a much longer period. As to Dover, the question has ome before me, although I am not closely acquainted with the details of the case.
§ MR. WADDYIt is the much larger rooms I referred to, those underground, where the walls are streaming with damp, and so unwholesome that many men have contracted serious illnesse from this cause.
§ * SIR E. HAMLEY (Birkenhead)Perhaps I may be allowed to ask for some definite information as to the works styled in the Estimates "Mobilization Stations," which are intended for the defence of the kingdom. In common, I am glad to think, with most of the public, I feel the deepest interest in this subject, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee information as to the localities and extent of the positions he proposes to fortify, the purpose they are intended to fulfil, and the circumstances 207 under which Volunteers would occupy them.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEI think that if the hon. and gallant Member will consider, he will understand why I do not think it would be right for me to give such details as he desires. I think I am bound to maintain some reserve on this subject, not as regards my hon. Friend himself, from whom I have so often received valuable assistance and advice, if he or any other hon. Member specially interested will communicate with me, I will give the information desired.
§ * MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANRecurring again to the general question of barracks, and to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am glad to recognize that he does not contemplate any large and comprehensive scheme dealing with the subject at this late period of the Session. I am not surprised that when he came to close quarters with the subject he found that it required a good deal of detailed investigation. No doubt any scheme of the kind will require the fullest consideration, and I think that the appointment of a Committee or some tribunal of the kind would be highly satisfactory as a means of arriving at full information. With regard to any barracks, at Portsmouth, Dublin, or elsewhere, which the right hon. Gentleman can show to be in a wholly insanitary state, there will, I am sure, be every readiness in the House to support him in dealing with so urgent a case. The Dublin Barracks are in a very bad state, and when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there is always a mystery about these barracks, I would add that there is the same mystery about many other public buildings in Ireland. I am afraid that even the Vice-regal Lodge and the Chief Secretary's Lodge are not above suspicion; I do not mean morally or politically, but physically. I know that at the Chief Secretary's Lodge there is some mystery. I remember that when I occupied that building for a short space when I held 208 the office of Chief Secretary, there was a doubt raised as to its condition, and the Report that was made was to the effect that structurally and in sanitary matters, and in drainage and water, the house was pronounced perfect; and I remember there was special approval of a particular well from which water was drawn by a pump; but then the Report concluded with a recommendation that the handle of the pump should be immediately removed. That little incident is significant of what might be said of many other buildings in that country. But what I meant to convey is that money required for the restoration of barracks, where it is necessary for the health of the troops will, I am sure, be given without grudging; but a large and comprehensive scheme for new barracks must require much consideration.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEI must reserve the terms of any proposal I may have to make, but I undertake that no fixed scheme shall be pressed upon the House without full time being given for its consideration.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANAnd we are not committed.
§ MR. HANKEY (Surrey, Chertsey)Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can inform me if there is any probability of Woking Prison being made available as a barracks for troops. It is a building comparatively unoccupied by convicts, and with small expenditure would provide excellent accommodation for troops.
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEMy hon. Friend must understand me as not giving a final answer, but I hope it will be found possible to secure Woking Prison for the purpose of barracks.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ 25. £115,300, Establishments for Military Education.
§ COLONEL NOLANI wish to take this opportunity of asking a question in reference to the Royal Military Academy. I understand from the Press that the fees for the sons of the civilians are much increased. For the sons of military officers the fees are lower and 209 fixed on a scale according to rank. I have no objection, and that it is quite reasonable that military officers should have this advantage. But they should not get the advantage out of the pockets of the civilians, whatever loss there is to be made good should be provided by the State. I suspect this action arises out of the action of the Committee on the Navy Estimates; we certainly did find fault with some items of expenditure, and unnecessarily high salaries. The effects of this raising of fees against civilians is really to reintroduce purchase into the Army. Remember, the system of purchase which ultimately required eight or nine millions for its adoption, began with very small sums.
§ GENERAL SIR F. FITZWYGRAM (Hants, Fareham)I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice, to reduce the Vote for the Staff College by £100. It is not because I am altogether hostile to the Staff College, for I believe such an institution may be useful, and in some cases necessary, but it is because I wish to point out the strong, I might almost say the universal, feeling of injustice that prevails among Regimental officers as to the undue preference shown to Staff College officers in appointments to the staff. Staff appointments are the prizes of the Army, not so much because of the higher pay or lighter duties, as because these officers are brought more prominently forward for distinction after every campaign, when rewards are distributed, and Regimental officers are left in the cold shade of neglect. I am sure it is the wish of every officer in the Army that the staff should he supplied with the best men the Army can supply. If, then, when a Staff appointment is vacant, a Staff College officer is, in the opinion of the Military authorities, the best fitted, by all means let him have it. But if, in the opinion of the same authorities, there is a regimental officer better fitted, I say, in 210 the name of common-sense and justice, he ought to have it. I am for free trade and fair play in this matter as elsewhere. I have nothing to say against Staff College officers as a rule, and do not suggest that they are incompetent; what I protest against is this system of preference that tends to depreciate the value of regimental services. Regimental officers number some 6,000 or 7,000, the Staff College officers only about 300. Regiments are the backbone of the Army, and on their efficiency depends success or disaster. If the Staff College education is good, I do not see why fair competition with the Regimental office: s should be feared.
THE CHAIRMANI would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this discussion does not properly arise on this Vote. The administration of the College is relevant to the Vote; but I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be raising the question of promotion of Staff College officers, and this is pertinent to the War Office Vote.
§ COLONEL NOLANEvery good Regimental officer can get into the Staff College; it is simply a question of examination, and he has but to qualify himself. Regiments are the backbone of the Army; but the staff ought to be the brains. I have not had an answer to the question I raised about the Military Academy.
§ MR. BRODRICKThe change made in the amount paid for cadets who are not officers' sons has been adopted on the recommendation of a Committee which inquired into the matter, and, having regard to what is paid at public schools, the charge is not excessive.
§ * MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANBefore the Vote is passed I should like to have some explanation of the increase under the sub-head for regimental and garrison schools. Nowadays, with the extension of the system of primary education, we should naturally expect a reduction rather than an increase.
§ MR. BRODRICKA large number of soldiers availed themselves of the voluntary education than was anticipated last year, and that has necessitated 211 an increase in the staff for the present year.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANI think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman in reference to the Military Academy is anything but satisfactory. It is monstrous to make a comparison with Eton and Harrow, and £150 a year is altogether out of proportion to the cost of education and maintenance of the cadets. I think this increase arises from the desire to show the Academy is a paying concern. I should like to know the composition of the Committee referred to.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 26. £89,800, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
§ 27. £15,700, Reward for Distinguished Services.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £79,300, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charges of Half Pay, &c., of Field Marshals, and of General, Regimental, and Departmental Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890.
§ It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday.
§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.