SECOND READING. (Hansard, 5 August 1872)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object and provisions must be already so fully within the knowledge of their Lordships that he did not think it necessary to detain the House by any lengthened observations in support of the second reading. The Bill was founded on the Report of General MacDougall's Committee, which 442 sat last year, and which had recommended the obtaining of unity in the forces, an improved method of recruiting, and a simple and efficient machinery whereby the general officer commanding a district could set in motion the troops, by means of the division of the whole kingdom into military districts, each under the command of one officer, and in each of which there would be collected two battalions of Regular troops, two of Militia, and such of the Auxiliary forces as might be found within the limits of the district. Certain modifications which had been subsequently introduced in the scheme, and as it had been alleged that those modifications were an indication on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they were not prepared to act on the Report, he would explain how it was any change had become necessary. Where the boundary of the county and the boundary of the military district were conterminous there was no difficulty; but where two or more counties came within the military district a difficulty had arisen. There had been representations from officers of Militia that any attempt to remove the headquarters of Militia regiments from the county in which they were at present situate to the proposed depôt centre would not be agreeable either to the county or to the force itself. Under these circumstances, the War Department thought it would be pedantic if, in such cases, a removal of the head-quarters were insisted upon. What was proposed was that in composite districts the headquarters of Militia regiments should be retained in their counties; but that in cases where the boundaries of the county and the depôt centre were conterminous, the arrangement proposed in the original scheme should be adhered to. He thought the Department might congratulate itself on the small amount of opposition that had been shown to its selection of depôt centres. In certain instances, there had been memorials asking the War Office to select other places; but in the majority of those cases those memorials had been followed by counter ones praying that the selection already made might be adhered to. The objections to selections were generally based on the danger likely to arise from the alleged immorality of the troops. He thought he was not going too far in saying that this scheme of the Government 443 would have a tendency to decrease rather than increase immorality. It was a part of that scheme to introduce into the Army a system of short service, under which the connection between a soldier and his home would he severed for a comparatively very brief period of time. Under such a system, and considering, moreover, the fact that, even during his service with the Army, he would find himself serving among men recruited from the same locality as himself, and through whom his reputation would survive the period of his enlistment, it was not too much to assume that a soldier would he for the future careful of that reputation, by which his subsequent career might be so seriously affected. With reference to the case of Oxford, which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had brought forward with such force on a former occasion, he understood that a wish had been expressed in "another place" by one of the Representatives of the University, that no decision should be come to as to making Oxford a centre, until the authorities of the University had reassembled, in order that their united opinion on the subject might be expressed. He thought it very improbable that any final step in the matter could be taken by the War Department, until the University would have had such an opportunity as its Representative in the other House desired. In conclusion, he had only to point out to their Lordships that whatever might be the merits or demerits of the scheme, an undue expenditure of public money would not be one of the latter. The total expense of carrying it out would be £3,500,000; but this would render unnecessary a certain expenditure of £120,000. It was, perhaps, scarcely fair to take credit for the whole of this saving, because it would still be necessary to pay—lodging money, £40,000; camp equipage, £15,000; and fuel and gas, £12,000—£67,000; the actual saving would be £53,000, besides which the counties would be saved about £20,000. The amount saved by the expenditure of the £3,500,000 would, if capitalized, give £2,250,000. The remaining £1,250,000 did not, however, by any means involve that additional cost to the country, as it would cover an expenditure necessitated by the withdrawal of troops from the colonies—namely, provision for accommodation for 444 9,000 additional men consequent upon the presence of 70 battalions instead of 46 in this country; for owing to the expenditure under this Bill no extra charge would fall upon the country in consequence of this change in the number of troops. He did not think anyone could consider that an extravagant provision for that purpose.