HC Deb 03 July 1893 vol 14 cc769-79

Order read, for Consideration of postponed Resolution [27th June], That a sum, not exceeding £1,524,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers and others, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, it would be remembered that on Tuesday last, after allowing several Votes to go through without any long discussion, they came to this Vote, which was far over £1,500,000, and after a discussion of only 20 minutes the Closure was applied and the Vote carried through the Committee. As he had more soldier constituents than any other hon. Member, he was bound to bring before the House the grievances of which some of his constituents complained—namely, the grievances of the purchase officers. These officers considered there was a large fund, called the Army Reserve Fund, still in existence, to which they were entitled in respect of the prices they paid for their commissions on entering the Army. They also complained that this Fund had, to a certain extent, been distributed amongst retired officers, but that it had gone in a wrong direction, that it had been distributed amongst officers who were not entitled to it, as they were not purchase officers. The purchase officers said that, having paid for their commissions, they alone were entitled to any money still remaining in the Fund. He, therefore, wished to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there was any of this money remaining in his hands, or the hands of the Treasury; and, if there was any, whether it would be distributed amongst retired purchase officers? On behalf of these officers, he also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would allow a limited inquiry into the grievances of these officers, but not such an inquiry as would go behind the Penzance Commission. As Commissions and Committees were the order of the day, he thought it was not too much to ask for a limited inquiry. Such an inquiry would allay the irritation that was now felt, and would be for the benefit of the whole Service. The purchase officers alleged the Fund came to a large sum, and out of it, in the year 1861, a sum of £4,500 was given to a certain Lieutenant Colonel, who was in the War Office, on his retirement from the Service, and in 1864 another Lieutenant Colonel received a similar amount, although neither of them were purchase officers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory answer to both questions.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

complained that he had not received any answer to two or three questions he put to the Secretary of State for War on the previous occasion when the Votes were in Committee. Though he admitted that to some of the purchase officers small grants were made, others had very reasonable grounds for complaint. If the right hon. Gentleman would grant the limited inquiry asked for, he thought these officers would have a right to be content, and from inquiry into the matter he thought there were many cases that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to carefully consider. He wished, also, to call attention to the position of the Riding masters and Quartermasters. The Quartermasters complained that they were deprived of the honorary rank of Major on retirement, though they had been led to expect this rank would be conceded to them. He warned the Government that if they were not treated with courtesy they would not extend to the Government in future that consideration they had shown in the past.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

was bound to say he did not think the purchase officers had very much to complain of, and he did not think they had done badly under successive Governments since the abolition of purchase. He, himself, was a purchase officer paying the old regulation sum; but when he left the Service a grateful country gave him back the money he had spent on his commission, and, as a general rule, he believed that was the custom. Still, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to look into the matter by way of inquiry. He should not have ventured to call attention to this matter, looking at the enormous size of the Non-Effective Vote, if he had thought it would put the Secretary of State for War to any great expense; but as these cases were extremely limited—not more than half-a-dozen—he thought the right hon. Gentleman might grant the inquiry asked for; it would not cost much, and would tend to increase the popularity of the Service.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

wished to say a few words on the Non-Effective Medical Vote and the Effective Vote. He had referred to this question before; but the only result had been that certain medical papers had attacked those who referred to them in a way that was hardly becoming. He spoke with some knowledge of the question, as he sat for a time on the Camperdown Commission. The Non-Effective Vote was increasing by leaps and bounds, and at the same time the Effective Vote was absolutely decreasing, having in four years decreased by £14,000, which he thought was likely to be a serious detriment to the Army, as it showed that the Medical Service was less efficient than it was four years ago. In 1889 the Non-Effective branch amounted to no less than 54 per cent. of the active Vote; and it was estimated, according to the actuaries, that under the present system it would increase to 75 per cent. He thought it was a very startling result that 75 per cent. was to be contemplated as the cost of the Non-Effective Vote. Last year the Non-Effective Vote increased by £4,000, and the Effective Vote decreased by £1,800. Four years ago, when the Camperdown—not the name of a ship, but a Commission presided over by Lord Camperdown, hence the title—Commission sat, the maximum amount of the Non-Effective Service was 57 per cent., and at the present time it amounted to 88 per cent. of the Effective Service. But that was not all, because by a note to Item G it was said there were 82 other medical officers who were provided for with salaries out of Vote 2, amounting to £29,125, which would bring the Non-Effective Vote to within £5,000 of the Effective Vote. He thought this was a matter well worthy the consideration of the House. Of course, if they were going to sacrifice the whole interests of everyone to Ireland and the Irish Government Bill, it was logical to prevent the discussion of these matters; but it was a scandalous state of affairs. He begged to give notice that upon another occasion, if all was well another year, he should certainly press this matter in a more effective manner. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information as to the continual increase in the Non-Effective Vote.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, that when the discussion upon the Vote was closed in a very summary way in Committee, he had risen to call attention to one important matter. On page 107 was contained the Compassionate Vote, which was to make provision for the children of officers who lost their lives in the Service. This Vote was administered by Royal Warrant, and he found that a scale of payment was provided for. But he also found that the total amount of grant for this purpose seemed to be fixed, having been the same last year as this—namely, £22,000. He presumed the numbers relieved were not the same every year; and, therefore, what he wished to ask was whether the fund was adequate for all the needs of this particular fund, and also, if it was not adequate, whether all children who came under the description of those for whom the fund was provided were obliged to wait for the opportunity of sharing in its benefits?

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, the right hon. Gentleman would remember the other day that he was so kind as to say on that occasion he would state what was the outcome of Lord Northbrook's Commission on the subject of the Home Charges of India, and how far the Revenue of India contributed to the grants in aid that applied to the Non-Effective Service.

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND (Colchester)

said, the two subjects to which he wished to allude were both touched upon the other evening, one by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, Hants, and the other by the hon. and gallant Member for Hammersmith (General Goldsworthy), and one had been touched upon again this week by the hon. Member for Essex (Major Rasch); but, as to the latter, he was afraid he had been somewhat badly coached. In stating there were only six cases of purchase officers, the hon. Gentleman made a most important error, because, instead of six, there were rather more than 600. The complaint of the purchase officers he wished to bring forward was that brought forward some time ago by the late Member for Lambeth. As he understood the case, it was this: Before the year 1871 every officer in the service of the Guards and the Cavalry and the Line had purchased his commission, and also all subsequent stages of promotion. This was done because the officer was assured that if he was a smart soldier, and was well reported upon, he was perfectly certain to be promoted, sooner or later, to Major General, to Lieutenant General, if not to a full General. The retired pay of a Major General was £700 a year, so that a man got something back for the price he paid for his commission; but if he was promoted to a full General, the retired pay was £1,000. As the House probably was aware, in the year 1871 the Liberal Administration of the day abolished purchase in the Army. When the system of purchase was abolished it was clearly and distinctly stated by the Ministry of the day that no injustice whatever would be done to the purchase officers who had invested their own money; but, notwithstanding this declaration, a grave injustice had been done them in two ways. In the first place, the establishment of General Officers had been reduced from 275 to 100; so that, whereas formerly the purchase officer had a chance of promotion to a body numbering 275, that number had now been reduced to 100. In the second place, an Age Clause had been introduced by which officers were obliged to retire at a certain age, so that, by limiting the establishment on the one hand and reducing superannuation on the other, they had in 90 cases out of every 100 prohibited purchase officers being promoted to the rank of General at all. In these circumstances, they made the extremely moderate request that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into their grievances, and by the Report of that tribunal they were perfectly ready and willing to abide. According to Hansard, the late Secretary for War said he was willing to appoint a tribunal with a limited Reference—which could only mean one of two things, either that the scope of the inquiry would not go behind Lord Penzance's Commission, or that only specified cases would be inquired into. If it meant the latter, then there were something like 600 specified cases, so that the operations of the tribunal would be of a fairly arduous nature. He wished also to draw attention to the position of Quartermasters and Ridingmasters. The Secretary for War, in April last, said it was only a few years since the position of these officers had been fully considered, and that great advantages were then granted to them. This reply was rather misleading. It was perfectly true that some years ago their position was considered, and certain advantages granted to them, but, at the same time, they were subjected to certain disadvantages as well; and it was a ques- tion whether these disadvantages did not outweigh the advantages. Three distinct advantages were given. Their retired pay was increased by £17 per year; they were granted the honorary rank of Captain after 10 years' service instead of 20 as formerly; and six Quartermasters and three Ridingmasters were promoted to the rank of Major. At the present time, however, in the Navy, 33 per cent. of the Royal Marine Quartermasters held the rank of Major, whilst in the Army only 1 per cent. held that rank. What was the reason of this discrepancy? Again, these officers in the Army were now compelled to retire at the age of 55, also formerly they were eligible to serve in the Pay and other Departments long after this age. At the time the retired pay of the Quartermasters was increased by £17 the the retired pay of the combatant Captain—of the same rank, was increased by £60. He contended it would have been fairer to have taken a little off the latter class and added it to the former, so as to bring about some degree of equalisation. Again, the Quartermasters and Riding-masters asked that their pensions should be made proportionate to the length of their service—that was, the longer they served the greater should be the pension to which they would be entitled. He hoped the grievances of these officers would receive favourable consideration.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.)

I wish, in the first place, to say a few words in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple), who has repeated to-night a question which he asked on the previous occasion when this Vote was under discussion. My hon. Friend then alluded to a speech which was made by a noble Lord, and which conveyed the impression that a heavy charge had been put upon India in connection with the abolition of purchase. I am able to say positively to my hon. Friend that no part whatever of the cost of the abolition of purchase fell or now falls upon India. When an officer who has purchase rights retires on retired pay, the value of his purchase rights is deducted from the retired pay, and India is charged her share of the amount. And not only was India exempted from any charge in respect of the abolition of purchase, but the Imperial Treasury or Imperial Funds, at all events, took over the whole charge of compensation for the abolition of the Indian bonus system, with which this country had nothing directly to do. So far from there being any grounds of complaint on the part of India in this matter, I think, if we drew a debit and credit account, the balance would be rather on the other side. There were two questions brought before us tonight which were touched upon on the previous occasion. Let me say a word, first of all, as to the closuring of the Vote on the previous occasion; and certainly there was no departure from precedents in past years, because I have followed these proceedings for the last 20 years in this House, and I have often known years in which no time at all was spent upon this Vote, or a very short time.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

When was it closured?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I do not know that it was closured, but 20 minutes was certainly about the average given to it. However, I make no complaint of the observation made on the closing. One of the chief questions which has been brought forward to-night is the question of the claims of the purchase officers. I am bound to say I am not at all disposed—and I say it openly and in the broadest sense—to countenance the idea that the general question of the claims of the purchase officers can be re-opened now. It is a very old story, and successive Secretaries for War have had the matter under consideration. My immediate predecessor has especially given a great deal of time to it. He came to the deliberate conclusion that nothing was to be gained by re-opening the question, and I have no disposition or intention to depart from his decision. As to the fund which the Member for Basingstoke has asked me about, that fund has evaporated or disappeared long ago, and there is nothing available from it now. On the whole question I think it would be almost culpable in me if I was to say anything which would leave the impression that I was disposed, or thought any succeeding Secretary for War would be disposed, to re-open the question of the rights of purchase officers; but I qualify that by saying if any individual officer puts forward some individual circumstances of his own case which are peculiar, and which constitute a real grievance, I shall be very glad indeed to look into it. The other question which was brought before me by the hon. and gallant Member for Hammersmith and the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester was that relating to the Quartermasters. Let me make one remark which occurred to me the moment the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester rose to address the House on the question. For some unknown reason, which I never have been able to understand, every Member for Colchester, ever since I have been in the House, has been a strong advocate of the claims of the Quartermasters. I do not know what there is in the air or the climate that seems to induce that particular disposition of mind. The claims of the Quartermasters have been dealt with and re-dealt with over and over again, and large concessions have been made to them. There now remain only one or two points upon which they even allege they have a grievance. Those points were brought before me not very long ago by the hon. Member for Fareham, and I am looking into them now, but with no very great expectation of being able to do very much with regard to them. I will, however, look carefully into the matter, and if any little concession can be made I small be very glad to make it. The hon. Member for Islington spoke of the large non-effective charge of the Medical Vote. Undoubtedly it is an enormous—I will almost say preposterous—charge, bearing an unusual proportion to the effective charge; but I cannot go into that question now. It is, as I explained the other night, the result of the new arrangement made many years ago with the view of making the Service attractive to the medical world. The financial authorities, as well as myself, will be only too glad if they can do anything to produce economy in this part of the Vote; but I have not much expectation of effecting this. The hon. Member for Preston asked me about the Compassionate Fund. That is, practically, a fixed sum from year to year, and it has been found in experience sufficient for the claims upon it.

MR. TOMLINSON

Will it be increased?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I have no doubt that if it proved greatly inadequate it would be increased. I think I have now answered all the points that have been raised.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, he should not have risen but for the observation of the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester (Captain Naylor-Leyland), with regard to what he described as a promise made by the late Secretary for War the year before last with reference to the purchase officers. As his right hon. Friend was not present, he should like to remove a misapprehension. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had suggested that the Secretary for War should follow the example of his predecessor in promising an inquiry into this subject with a limited Reference. The late Secretary for War, when he made that promise, went on to say he could not for a moment think of re-opening the whole purchase question or consent to allow any such question as that to be referred to a Royal Commission for investigation, and the promise was distinctly limited to a class of cases, whilst the observations that night had been directed to a re-opening of the whole question. The Secretary for War had followed the example of his predecessor in declining to make any general promise which would only raise expectations that could not be fulfilled. The Secretary for War had said there was no great departure from precedent in closuring this Vote after 20 or 25 minutes' discussion. He protested against such a statement. When the matter was discussed a week ago they took three large Votes without any attempt whatever to prolong the discussion beyond reasonable limits; and when this Vote was brought on about half-past 11 a matter of vital interest to officers was brought forward, and the course pursued of closuring it was not calculated to advance business on the Army Estimates on other occasions. The Secretary for War was in error in saying that in compassionate allowances the amount was fixed. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said practically fixed.] That was a mistake. The Estimates last year showed a considerable reduction in this respect simply because there was not a demand of qualified candidates; but if there was a war or anything of that sort there was nothing to prevent the Vote going up by £10,000 if proper candidates were brought forward.

Resolution agreed to.