The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-YESTERDAY.

ARMY ESTIMATES.

Col. DICKSON moved that the consideration of these
estimates should be deferred with a view to their revision.
Mr. T. G. BARING said that the arguments of the hon.
and gallant member who had last addressed the house did
not prove the advisability of postponing these estimates,
but went to prove that it would be desirable to go
into committee, when the different items to which
he alluded to could be fully discussed. With
respect to the military hospitals, the increase in the
expenditure was rendered necessary to provide for the com-
fort of the soldiers, and the increase for barracks was caused
by a desire to carry out that object also. He then defended
the votes generally and expressed a hope that the house
would not delay going into committee, when all the
details to which the hon. and gallant member alluded to
could be fully considered.
Col. DUNNE said no doubt it would be more conve-
nient for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) to go into com-
mittee than to answer in a satisfactory manner. He com-
plained of the expenditure for military purposes within
the last few years, and contended that the house should
have received full information with reference to the diffe-
rent items in the army estimates, but that infer-
mation was more meagre than ever. He hoped
the house would not grant these estimates until
they received the information that was necessary to
show that the requisite care had been exercised in regard
to these items.
Mr. B. OSBORNE was pleased that this subject was
brought forward, and strongly censured the system
of the camp at Aldershot. That camp he re-
garded as the most demoralising and useless
object for which public money had ever been
voted, and it was nothing more than a preparatory school
for making indifferent brigadiers. He thought, however,
that these questions would be better discussed in com-
mittee.
Col. NORTH could not agree with his hon. and gallant
friend (Mr. Osborne) that Aldershot produced only indif-
ferent brigadier-generals. On the contrary, they had al-
ways shown their gallantry and done their duty equally as
well as any other officers in the world. (Hear.)
Col. LINDSAY observed that no one who took part in
the operations at Aldershott could do so without adding to
the information he had before. He did not think it was at
all fair to say that Aldershott produced only indifferent
brigadiers. The gallant officer who commanded at the camp
was a man of great eminence in his profession, and the bri-
gadiers who served under him did their work excellently
well. He did not think it was fair to mix up the officers at
Aldershott with what his hon. and gallant friend termed
the jobbery of erecting the camp. He did not believe, how-
ever, that camp was formed with foresight, and he had not
the slightest doubt that the large sum of money expended
upon it might have been much better expended in other
ways. (Hear.)
Mr. MONSELL did not wish to prolong this discussion,
but he wished to ask whether it was not possible upon
these estimates to save a considerable sum of money ? The
speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other even-
ing was loudly cheered, particularly from these (the Liberal)
benches, but now, when this question came before the
house in a practical shape, some members of the Govern-
ment absented themselves from the house: (Hear, hear,
from the Opposit'on benches.) In comparing the esti-
mates for 1853-4 with the present estimates, he found that
the number of men voted for the British army at the
former period was 119,181 men ; for the present year it was
146,053 men. The charges for the staff in 1853-4 were
£175,895; this year they were £326,898. The next point
to which he wished to call attention was the article of for-
age. In 1853-4 the Government had to provide for 9,450
horses ; this year they had to provide for 13,612 horses. He
believed there was no great difference between the price of
forage at the two periods, and yet in 1853-54 they paid
£269,165, while in the present year a vote was asked for
£482,392. (Hear.) With respect to fuel and light, he thought
the house had a right to expect some reduction, because
they were told that the introduction of gas and cooking
stoves would lower the expense, which in 1853-54 was
£116,220, and yet in the present estimates they were asked
to vote £482,392. (Hear.) There were next the charges for
hospital furniture, and many other articles, with which he
would not weary the house; but he thought he had estab-
lished the fact that there appeared to be a most dispropor-
tionate increase in our estimates. (Hear.) In comparing our
estimates with those for the French army he had eliminated
the difference of conscription and the difference of the two
military systems, and he found the difference as to the ex-
pense of the two armies to be this—that our estimates for
the cost of 146,000 men were £14,066,000, while the cost of
the French army of 400,000 men was about £14,000,000.
Deducting from our estimates for all pay, allowances, and
non-effective men, £7,674,180, there remained £6,992,000 ;
deducting for stores, ammunition, and guns, a further sum
~c.ct,2.30,000, chew rowatueu 1;•;,7'JJ,01.10. Whilo
for similar deductions iu the French establishments, the
remaining charge might be placed at about £4,000,000.
Here then they had the fact that for a similar class of
charges for which the French, with an army of 400,000 men,
spent about £4,000,000, this country, with an army of only
146,000 men, spent £5,500,000. If the house proceeded in
such a wild expenditure they might depend u: on it that
the country would rise up against them. (Hear.)
Gen, PEEL hoped his hon. and gallant friend (Col. Dick-
son) would not divide the house on his motion. The vote for
fortifications had nothing to do with these estimates, and
it would not be in the power of the Under Secretary for
War to give explanations about them. His hon. and gal-
lant friend, in his calculations, had been unmindful of the
increase of the army from 1854 to the present time of 75 to
100 per cent., and his hon. and gallant friend had reckoned
for the whole number of men upon the estimate, whereas
nearly 13,000 of those men were never raised at all, and he
had also forgotten that at that time the commissariat was
not under the War-aoffice ; it was under the Treasury.
There was a difference in the amount of the stoppage of the
daily pay which, instead of being 6d., was only 41d. per
day. Hon. members had pointed out where they thought
these estimates were too large, but no one had pointed out
that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baring) proposed to take
money enough for the purpose he required. It was his
(Gen. Peel's) misfortune to beobliged to point out where the
estimates might be considered too great. He said that on
the Ist of April they would have 3,000 men more than they
had voted money to pay for. He had moved fir a return of
'ho number of men on April 1, and he found the number of
effective men on that day was 115,862, while the number ti
be vcted was 146,031, so that only 182 men were needed to
complete the establishment. The number of men to be
voted for India was 66,625, and the number of men actually
in India was 82,200, so that there was an excess of 15,575
men for India. The Under-Secretary for War had pointe 1
oLt that reductions were to take place to the extent of five
r giments of infantry and one regiment of cavalry. Was
that reduction to take place on the Indian establishment ?
Mr. T. 0. BARING said the strength of the regiments in
China would be reduced to the peace establishment.
Gen. PEEL said the strength of regiments in India was
already in excess of their proper number by 10,000 men.
Ile wanted to know how the reduction was to take place.
He did not see how they were to reduce the number of men
in India and dispose of the men. They must either dis-
charge them or wait till they were absorbed, and that would
take some time. If there were any India troops in China
after April 1 they would entail their expenses for Indian
pay and allowances. Was that expense to be met out of
the additional vote of credit asked for by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer for the next financial year ? He hoped
that when they came to specific votes the Under-Secretary
for War would be able to afford full explanations on this
subject.

Viscount PALMER 3TON acid the ccurse pursued by
boa. gentlemen was inconvenient, unless their object was to
ask questions and to make:observations to which there could
Le neither refutation nor reply. The usual course of pro-
ceeding upon army estimates had been founded upon good
sense, and was well adapted to the convenience of the house.
The Speaker was moved out of the chair, and the house
went into committee. When in committee any number of
questions might be put by any speaker, and his hon. friend
the Under-Secretary of State might rise and answer them
any number of times without violating the orders of the
house. The matters which were to be discussed were
divided into a great number of heads, and were taken one
after the other, so that each subject might be kept separate
and distinct. On this occasion, however, members had got
up and discussed the details of votes which were ranged
under two or three and twenty different heads; and when
his hon. friend had once spoken, he could answer no fuither

questions that might be put to him. It followed, therefore,
that all the observations which had been made, so far as

answer, refutation, or explanation went, were of no practical
utility whatever. He trusted that the hon. member would

not press his motion, but would allow the houso to go into

committee, when all these questions might be answered in

committee with the votes to which they respectively re-
ferred. (Hear, hear.) He (the noble lord) should have
confined himself to that request, had it not been for what

had fallen from the member for Liskeard (Mr. B.Osborne).
His hon. friend was very fond of sweeping assertions, and

had a most ample vocabulary of strong words. Everything

that he disapproved of was a job. (Hear, hear, from Mr.
Osborne, and laughter.) Everything that he did not like was

absurd, ridiculous, foolish, and preposterous ; but judging
from the military opinions which he had given that even-

ing, he (the noble lord) must congratulate the country
that itidefences did net depend upon his hon. friend's

knowledge or decision. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman said,
" Look at that extravagant job at Aldershot." (Hear, hear,
from Mr. Osborne.) He (Lord Palmerston) denied that it

was ajob at all. (Hear.) On the contrary, he ass.trtcd that
there never was a wiser application of public money, or a

more advantageous or economical one. it was formerly one

of the great wants of the British army, that it had no place
where any large number of men Could be assembled for the

purpose of learning combined movements. That feeling:was

so strongly impressed on the mind of the Government, that
l'ef°re 4ldersbot was purchased Chobham was taken. Now,
Chobham was very expensive, and a large sum had to be
W1„41.1' compensation to the owners of tha crown rights,
.'"-4
were interfered with by the formation of the oamp,,

Aldershot, on the other hand, had only cost £l5 an acre,
and anybody would say that there could hardly be a better
investment in land than that. Why, if the property should
ever cease to be wanted foe the public service, it could be
sold again for many times the sum which had been expended
in its purchase. (Hear.) Then his hon, friend complained
of the huts ; but those huts were required suddenly. Per
haps, as it had turned out, it might have been more judici-
ous to have built them of bricks ; but that would have
taken a much longer time; and the wooden huts were at
any rate much better than tents. As to the effect of Alder-
shot in forming regiments, in forming officers and gene-
rals, no military man whc knew anything about the mat-
ter would concur with his hon. friend in saying that it had
been useless. (Hear.) He hoped, therefore, that those
light and violent expressions of opinion—(a laugh)—which
his hon. friend was so very fond of throwing right and left
would not find any sanction from the house. (Hear.) His
hon. friend talked about the demoralising effects of the
camp. He (the noble lord) really did not know what the
hon. member meant by that ; but this he could /lay, the
troops at Aldershot had been more healthy than any other
body of men in her Majesty's service. (Hear.) With regard
to Portsdown-hill, his hon. friend, who had erected him-
self into the supreme judge in all military matters, pro-
claimed his opinion that if he were shut up in the contem-
plated works he should be afraid of being undermined by
the enemy. But mining and undermining implied a long
siege. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Osborne.) " Hear hear I"
Exactly. But did his hon. friend suppose that they were
going upon the assumption that a foreign army would be
left quiet before Portsdown-hill till it had completed its
mining operations ? (Hear.) Why the only object we
had in constrncting these works was to prevent any force
that might suddenly be landed upon our coast from taking
up a position on that commanding hill and destroying our
dockyards at Portsmouth. It was nonsense to say that an
army landing at Chichester or at any other point within
an easy disZance, could not seize Portsdown-hill, if it were
undefended, and from thence damage our fleet and dock-
yards at Portsmouth. (Hear.) Our object, therefore, was
not to resist a regular siege, like that of Coblentz or Mentz,
but it was merely to prevent the enemy taking possession
of the hill by a coup de main. If we could keep it our-
selves until the enemy could take it by undermining, he
believed that we should have good reason to be perfectly
satisfied with the proposed works. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
Capt. JERVIS thought that this debate would not be
thrown away if it led in future years to the framing of more
intelligible estimates; for in their present state it was diffi-
cult to learn from them what our army really costs us. It
appeared, however, that the price of the army at home was
£49 Bs. 4d. per man ; but in the colonies it was £54115. Bd,
whereas the cost of the Berkshire police was £5B per man,
the Kent £57, and the metropolitan the same, so that the
army actually cost less than the police. The cost of our
colonial army depended upon the political exigencies of the
moment, and therefore varied greatly. Thus Malta cost us
in 1853, £359,464; in 1855 it rose to £496,046; but in 1857
it fell again to £412,722. So the Cape of Good Hope cost us
for troops in 1853 the sum of £527,514; and in 1856 that
amount rose to £924,000; but in 1861 it was little more
than the charge for Malta. The increase in the estimates
since 1853 had principally arisen in the item of materiel,
for which, in consequence of the enormous revolution that
had taken place in the art of war, they must expect in-
creased charges for some time to time.
Col. DICKSON then withdrew his motion.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to ask how that portion
of military expenditure which was voted by the colOnies
themselves was accounted for ?
Mr. CHILDERS said that that question was under the
investigation of the committee sitting upstairs on the subject
of military colonial expenditure ; and he ventured to suggest
that the Under-Secretary for War should not commit him-
self to any distinct statement, for the answers the commit-
tee had at present received were very unsatisfactory.
Col. NORTH begged to ask if it was intended to carry
out the recommendation of the select committee on military
organisation, as proposed in the scheme of the Secretary of
State for War, for reorganising the War Department ?
Mr. T. BARING said the Government were engaged in
carrying into effect the recommendations of the committee.
In answer to the question of the hon. member for Evesham
he could not altogether shelter behind the recommendation
of the hon. gent'eman (Mr. Childers). The allowances made
to the troops by the Australian Government, for example,
were extra, and consequently did not come into the accounts.
With respect to the questions of the hon. and gallant mem-
ber for Chatham (Sir F. Smith), no steps had been taken
with regard to the central depot because the *rvey had not
been completed. With regard to the state of the fortifica-
tions he would tell the hon. gentleman exactly what had
been done. [The hon. member then read a report, the de-
tails of which did not clearly reach the gallery.] The Se-
cretary of State for War would take care that the house
was not pledged beyond the estimate which was already
sanctioned, and which was not £10,000,000 or £11,000,000,
as the hon. and gallant member said, but £5,345,000.
In answer to Sir F. SMITH,
Mr. T. G. BARING said that Netley Hospital was not
yet. finished, and that there was no intention of removing
the Medical School.
Mr. OSBORNE said that the noble lord's digestion
'seemed to have been a little disturbed by the dinner at the
Mansion -house. The explanations that had been given were
evasive and unsatisfactory. Did the Under-Secretary for
War mean to tell the house that works were in progress,
the plans for which had not as yet been approved of ?
Mr. T. G. BARING said that it was the plans which he
had said were in progress.
Mr. OSBORNE—Then it appeared that the plans had
been altered for which the money had been voted. If he
had said thus much he would have been set down by the
noble lord as light and violent. Ho thought it was the
noble lord who was light and violent. He (Mr. Osborne),
as an independent member, and one who had not been re-
turned by the influence of the noble lord; would take the
liberty of criticising even the noble lord's own pet subjects
when they were extravagant. The noble lord talked as if
he (Mr. Osborne) had been merely expressing his indivi-
dual opinion ; but the fact was that he had for-
tified himself with the opinion of the Director-
General of Fortifications, who had said they were
unnecessary and extravagant. He fortified himself with
the opinion of the eminent engineer officer opposite, whose
word was quite as good as the ipso dixit of the noble lord.

He repeated that the explanations given by the Under Se-
cretary for War were most unsatisfactory. AU he could
gather was that five millions were t) be spent, as he be-
lieved, in a." light and violent" way. (A. laugh.) It ap-
peared that they were not to be allowed to consider the
estimates. They were to go into committee forthwith, and
then, their business was, not to consider, but to vote. It
was for holding a different opinion he was lectured by the
noble lord, who was perhaps suffering under large doses of
colchium, and wished to give him (Mr. Osborne) a share of
the twinges he was suffering himself. (A. laugh.)
Lord PALMERSTON was sorry that anything he had
said should have so much disturbed the equanimity of his
hon. friend. Perhaps it would be advisable if hiebon.

friend t )ok a dose of colchitim himself, as it was supposed
to be of a very sedative quality. His hon. friend ran off
on a mere play of words. What his hon. friend the Un-
der-Secretary for War had said was, taat the plans were
under consideration, but the plans were not what they were
going to discuss. The fortifications were distinct from the
army estimates. It was obvious that before works of such
iinpoit ince as the fortifications were undertaken, it was es-
sential that the scientific working of the plan should be
most carefully considered, and should be subjected to the
opinions of scientific and capable men over and over again.
What his hon. friend had said was, that the detailed plans
was not so far advanced as to enable them to take the con-
tracts.

Colonel LINDSAY expressed himself still dissatisfied
with the Government explanations.

Sir F. SMITH wished to know what were the works, and
where they were to be placed. They knew that a million
and-a-half of money was to be spent, but they were not
told how or where.

The house went into committee.
The first vote was the balance of the vote for pay and
allowance of her Majesty's land forces, £1,780,000.
Lord W. GRAHAM objected to the manner in which
the expense of the military force in the colonies was set forth
in the estimates, in some cases the total expense requiring
to be looked for under different heads.

Mr. WILLIAMS noticed an increase in several of the
minor votes.

Colonel D' NNE complained of the annual increase in
the expLitse of the recruiting department, and yet the result
was never more than an average of 18,000 men. There was
also an increase this year in the number of supernumeraries,
although he knew that the majors coming home from India
were to be left on the strength of their regiments.
Colonel DICKSON believed that the army estimates this
year would be nearer 16 millions than 14 millions, and that
the alleged reduction was fallacious. The reduction of
£427,000 in fortifications had nothing to do with this year's
estimates. Besides, there would be a supplementary esti-
mate for the militia of £.500,000. He found an increase of
.£9,227 in the expense of the medical staff, and an increase
of £40,000, and another of £50,000 for food for the hospital
department. Every one knew that seven per cent. 'tas a
large rate of sickness for the army, and there was an addi-
tion of £lO per man. He thought that this required some
explanation.

Colonel LINDSAY considered there were great defects
in the medical department of the army. He should much
rather have the assistant-surgeons attached to regiments
than to the staff. (Hear, hear.) He regretted that there
had been a reduction of one assistant-surgeon in each
regiment. The evidence taken before the committee was,
that the medical men had done their work well. He could
hear testimony that the increase of medical officers in

regiments had been productive of great benefit to the se;
vice. With regard tl London, in which there were five
regimens, and in which the barracks were permanently
divided, there were only ten medical officers. They had
three detached hospitals in the district, and while in the

country medical officers were allowed t) reside away from
the hospitals, in London ono medical man was obliged to

reside in the hospital. The medical men were insufficient
in number, and ought; o- be increased. With respect to

•
corporals and lance corporals in regiments, he begged to
say •their number was by no means sufficient for the require-
rants of the regiments, and their duty was consequently