§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to ask the Under-Secretary for War what the War Office could show in men and war material for the difference in the cost of the Army in 1873 and 1904–5, the Estimates having relatively been £14,000 000 and £28,000,000. The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the close of last session I thought it desirable that we should know what we got for our money, the increase in the Estimates having been so great, and I drew up a sort of Memorandum, which I showed my noble friend, as to what I thought should be given in the way of information; but that was not done last year, and I have thought it better, instead of moving a Resolution, to put it shortly in the Question which stands in my name today. The greater contrast between the present and earlier times is between the 584 year 1853 and now. The Army Estimates in 1853 were £9,000,000, but in that year the Militia was just born and there were no Volunteers. The Volunteers did not appear on the Estimates till after 1860. I have excluded the lowest period of contrast for these reasons, and have taken the year 1873, which was three years after Mr. Cardwell's Army reform scheme. I think it is a very fair test.
The Estimates in 1873 were £14,000,000 and in 1904–5 nearly £29,000,000. I simply ask what we have to show in men and material for this great rise in the Estimates, which have more than doubled since 1873. For it is to get men and to have material for war that all these Estimates exist. I am inclined to think that, whatever number of men you can show, a great many of them are under twenty years of age and for that and other reasons about one-third would have to be deducted. But what is most striking is the matter of material, especially with regard to guns. I believe nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the state of our guns. In 1704 we had the best guns in the world; in 1808 we had guns as good as those of the forces of any other country. But what has happened since? I am positively told that at the present time we have not more than 200 guns up - to - date and equal to the guns of other nations. I am told that even the little State of Belgium possesses superior artillery to our own, and that we should be blown out of the field by them, not to speak of France and Germany, whose artillery is greatly superior to ours.
You had, too, an object-lesson at the Cape, and you have another in the Far East. Your Lordships know quite well that we had no big guns at the Cape to meet the Boer Long Toms, and now we read of the great success Japan has had with her large guns. I saw in to-day's paper that they have 1,600 guns in the field at this moment; and yet we have, as I have said, if my information is correct, and I should not mention it to your Lordships if I did not think it was, only 200 up-to-date guns at the present time. It appears to me that the War Office would have done much better if they had spent money on artillery rather 585 than in endeavouring to get a short rifle for the cavalry which was not wanted. I believe they have stopped that expenditure now, and, if they have, they could not do better than devote the money to large guns.
*THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE)My Lords, the noble Earl at the Table has given notice of a Question which might justify me in reviewing in great detail the whole question of Army administration during the last thirty years.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSI only ask what you can show in men and war material.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREBut that affects everything else in the Army I think in this matter I have a grievance. The noble Earl has taken advantage of the occasion to deliver a disquisition on field guns and rifles, and if I had had the slightest notion that he intended asking these Questions I should have ascertained how many guns were ready at the present time. I can assure the noble Earl that these guns are being pressed forward as rapidly as the ordnance factory and the three firms concerned can produce them, and the rearmament of the whole of the artillery will, I believe, though I am speaking from memory only, be complete by the end of next year.
The difference in the figures between the years mentioned in the Question is £13,100,000 odd and £28,700,000 odd. This difference is accounted for in many ways, and the first reason is the increase in the number of men. I am excluding troops in India. The Regular Army in 1873 numbered 123,674, and is now 213,000; an increase which you cannot have without paying for it. The Army Reserve has increased from 7,600 to about 90,000; the Militia, on the other hand, has decreased by 20,000; the Yeomanry have increased from 12,600 to 28,000, and the Volunteers from 171,900 to 250,000. These figures show that there was a total estimated strength on the Estimates of 1873 for all branches of the service of practically 466,000. It is now 655,000— nearly half as much again.
586 I might perhaps mention, in passing, that more is now spent on the individual soldier. We give him a great deal more in the way of comforts and so forth than was thought necessary in 1873. The cost of a man in 1873 was £87; in 1904 it was £108 15s. In the Army Reserve a man cost £3 10s. in 1873; now he costs £9 13s. The cost of a Militiaman has risen from £9 11s. to £20; of a man in the Yeomanry from £6 to £22; and of a Volunteer from £2 13s. to £7 8s. The next point of which I would remind the noble Earl is that the Army has now more extensive duties than it had in 1873. There is a much larger population to defend. The acreage of the British Empire has increased from 4,500,000 square miles to 12,750,000 square miles, and the population to be defended has increased from 280,000,000 to 450,000,000. Another point which, of course, has increased the expense of the Army has been the abolition of purchase, the real effect of which was not experienced in 1873. This has caused a considerable increase in the Pensions Vote. In 1873 the defences of our naval bases and commercial harbours at home were very unsatisfactory; and these have now been considerably dealt with, especially since Lord Carnarvon's Commission.
We have, as I have said, vastly bettered the standard of comfort for the private soldier. The noble Earl mentioned the year 1853. I am told that in 1853 it was possible to house a battalion in the same number of rooms as you now house a company in. There were no beds in the rooms but simply lines of bunks, and I believe one bunk WHS considered sufficient for two men. Then there have been considerable increases in the soldier's pay. I need not give details, however, on this point for I do not think your Lordships wish that I should go into these matters in too great detail. Then I am informed that it is only within the last thirty years that we have spent money on manœuvres and manœuvre camps, and on such matters as the Staff College, the School of Musketry, and signalling. Officers and men did very little more than rigid drill, and naturally the exercises that they were put through 587 in the old days were not so costly as they are at present. In 1873 there was no Intelligence Department at the War Office and no scheme of mobilisation for the country.
Further, I would remind your Lordships that the cost of war material has very considerably increased, and you have to have more war material when you increase your numbers. As science produces more intricate and detailed inventions to apply to arms, a considerable increase in Army expenditure is involved. I do not think it is necessary for me to add more. Your Lordships are aware of the £10,000,000 which have been spent on providing reserves of stores, which, of course, have to be kept up, and your Lordships are also aware, I have no doubt, of considerable ameliorations which have been made during the last few years as regards stoppages from the soldier's pay and the provision of mess allowances. We have also had to spend, and will continue to have to spend, considerable sums on building new barracks and on improving our present barracks, the cost of which, though largely met by a system of loans, increases the Army Estimates through the channel of loan annuities.