CHAPTER III.

THE MILITARY AND NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND DEFENCES OF THE COUNTRYThe Army Estimates-Proposed reduction in the number of the forces-Objections taken to this step in the House of Commons-Explanations given by the Marquis of Hartington-Decrease of Military Expenditure as compared with 1863-Statements as to the health, discipline, and equipment of the troops-Discussion respecting guns used in the army and the experiments in progress as to artillery-Omission of the Vote for the Yeomanry Cavalry-After some debate the Government concede the grant -Debate on the comparative rate of military expenditure in England and France.The Navy Estimates-Reductions in the amount as compared with the preceding year-Motion of Sir John Walsh in favour of increased efforts for naval efficiencyStatement of Lord Clarence Paget, Secretary to the Admiralty-Discussions on Dockyard Expenditure, iron-clad and cupola-armed ships, the Armstrong and Whitworth guns, naval barracks, schools for naval instruction, and other mattersSupplementary Estimate for giving increased pay and retirement allowances to naval officers-Personal discussions affecting Mr. Stansfeld, one of the Lords of the Admiralty-Mr. Stansfeld resigns his office and makes an explanation to the House-Remarks of Viscount Palmerston on these proceedings.-The Civil Service and Miscellaneous Estimates-Resolution respecting the progressive increase of these charges proposed by Mr. Marsh-Explanations given by Mr. F. Peel, Secretary to the Treasury-The Resolution is withdrawn-Important discussion upon a Resolution moved by Mr. Cobden condemning the large extension of the Government manufacturing establishments for the public service-He censures the great outlay recently made upon the Armstrong guns-The Motion is supported by Sir M. Peto, Mr. Laird, Colonel Barttelot, and other Members-The proceedings of the Executive are vindicated by the Marquis of Hartington, Mr. Childers, Lord Clarence Paget, and Mr. Monsell-The Resolution is not put-The annual vote for the fortification of the docks and arsenals is passed without opposition.

THE Army Estimates for the year were moved on the 3rd of March by the Marquis of Hartington, Under Secretary of State for the War Department. Previously to the House going into Committee on these Estimates, Mr. Baillie called attention to the contemplated reduction of the strength of the army, to which he objected on several grounds-first, because the army was not now sufficiently large to afford the necessary reliefs for the troops serving abroad, by which the public interests were jeopardized; and, secondly, because he believed a reduction of the military force in the present state of our foreign relations was untimely. Formerly England's voice had influence in the councils of the world. Now, it was true she still occupied the position of one of the five great Powers, but her influence had gone; and in Europe and America it was believed that Englishmen valued their money more than the honour of their country. He entered his protest against the reduction of the military force, which he indicated was the cause of this contempt of England.

Major Edwards, on the same occasion, moved a Resolution

E

declaring that the discontinuance in the present year of the assembling of the yeomanry cavalry for six days' training would be detrimental to the efficiency of the force, and inexpedient. He condemned the course taken by the Government in the matter as being dictated by a spirit of pitiful economy, and he urged that in the present disordered state of Europe, it was more than ever necessary to attend to the efficiency of the volunteer forces.

The Marquis of Hartington said the war in New Zealand had caused considerable pressure upon the Estimates, and as the Government did not think it desirable to increase the expense of the army, they had come to the conclusion that they could best prevent this by not calling out for one year the yeomanry cavalry, which were in a high state of efficiency. The Government had the highest possible respect for the yeomanry cavalry.

General Peel declared this to be a penny-wise and poundfoolish economy, and said if the Army Estimates were looked through, many items would be found in which economy could be practised more advantageously than in this matter.

Viscount Palmerston said the Government was fully sensible of the value and efficiency of the yeomanry cavalry, and what was now proposed was not calculated to diminish that efficiency. It was, in fact, a disparagement of the force to assume that the absence of training for one year could strike at its efficiency. The only motive for the step which had been taken was economy. On a division, the motion was lost by 158 to 157. Majority, 1. The Government, however, eventually gave way upon this question, and the Marquis of Hartington, on a subsequent day, presented a Supplementary Estimate that included a vote of 39,2001. for training the yeomanry. The noble lord then stated that since the defeat of Major Edwards's motion, advices had been received from New Zealand of a saving effected in the military establishment there which would place at the disposal of the Government a sum sufficient to cover the yeomanry charge. Some members objected to this vote being now passed, and a division took place, when the proposition was carried by 119 to 29.

The Marquis of Hartington, in moving the Army Estimates, premised that he should have to lay before the House a Supplementary Estimate of about 400,000l. The Estimates he now had to introduce to the Committee, he said, amounted to 14,844,8887., those of last year being 15,060,2377., a decrease of 215,3497. He compared the net amount of this year's Estimates with the Estimates of 1862-63 and 1863-64, and adverting to the observations of Mr. Baillie, and to the impression that seemed to be felt by some that the Government had gone too far in the direction of a reduction of the Estimates, he justified that reduction on the ground that they were Estimates for a time of peace. He then went through the details, observing that they bore upon two points-the improvement of the efficiency of the troops, by instruction or in the character of their weapons; and the amelioration of the condition of the soldier. The number

of men to be maintained during the year was 145,654, exclusive of establishments (including the depôts of regiments in India), being a decrease of 1464 compared with last year. He proceeded then to reply in detail to the objections of Mr. Baillie, repeating that the Estimates of the present year were peace Estimates, framed without any contemplation of the country becoming involved in war, the Government believing that they were consequently at liberty to reduce the expenditure for the army without impairing its efficiency. The reduction was a very small one, and would not cause the disbanding of a single soldier. After explaining the reason why the vote for the number of men was proposed in the form of a Resolution, the same course having been adopted last year, he went over the several votes, entering minutely into the details of each, especially those relating to the manufacturing departments, warlike stores, and particularly the large ordnance, stating the point which the experiments in the new artillery had attained, and observing that, although we had not yet got the best possible gun, great progress had been made towards that object. He remarked. that no science had undergone such rapid improvements as the manufacture of cast steel, which was making daily advances. He admitted that he could not give a perfectly satisfactory account of our position as regarded guns; but he endeavoured to show that, if we were not in possession of a more perfect gun-more perfect as against iron plates-the fault was not that of the Government, or the advisers of the Government. They had prosecuted with the utmost diligence a series of experiments and they were still going on with them. The fault-if fault there was-was with the manufacture of iron plates and projectiles to be fired from guns. There must be a limit to the thickness of iron plates, and he thought they had proved that there was scarcely any limit to human science and improvement. In concluding his statement, Lord Hartington acknowledged that the present, although a peace Estimate, was very large compared to those they had been in the habit of voting a few years ago. Still, he could assure the Committee that the greatest care and pains had been taken in framing these Estimates, not only to effect an apparent saving, but a real economy. General Peel had stated, when supporting an additional expenditure of 43,000l. which the Government wished to reduce, that if they looked carefully over these Estimates they would find they might effect savings sufficient to cover that amount. He could only say if the right hon. and gallant officer, looking over the Estimates, could point out an item which could be reduced without much greater loss of efficiency to the army than that involved in the discontinuance of the six days' training, he should be very glad to adopt it. He did not deny that we had been incurring a large expenditure since 1857. He did not deny that the reorganization in almost every branch of the army might have been in some instances extravagant, and that some of our establishments were not conducted in the most economical manner;

but he could assure the House that the heads of the Department had every disposition to enforce real economy. Investigations were going on, having for their object the reduction of expense. He could only appeal to the Committee to point out where they thought a real reduction might be made without a diminution of efficiency, and to support him if he were called on to resist, as no doubt he should be, solicitations for increased expenditure. He had endeavoured, very imperfectly, to lay before the Committee the condition of our army and the manner in which the votes had been framed, and he had now only to place in the hands of the chairman the Resolution-that a number of land forces, not exceeding 146,766 (including 9347, all ranks, to be employed with the depôts in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of regiments serving in India, but exclusive of the numbers actually serving within Her Majesty's Indian possessions) be maintained during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865.

General Peel reviewed the statement made by Lord Hartington, complimenting him on the able manner in which it had been made and criticizing in detail the propositions of the Government. He expressed his regret at the contemplated reduction of the Artillery by 1300 men. As recently as 1860 Lord Herbert had added a brigade of Artillery, and recent experience in Denmark had shown that guns and fortifications were of no avail without men. Another reason why he deprecated the loss of a single trained soldier was on account of the Limited Enlistment Act, the probable effect of which had excited great apprehension among military authorities. About ten years since, twenty-six new battalions of infantry were created whose periods of service would simultaneously expire before long. It, therefore, became a serious question whether some further inducement to re-enlistment ought not to be held out. With regard to ordnance, it was evident from many circumstances that both in the army and navy we had not yet hit upon the right gun, and he protested that in that quarter a large increase of expenditure was looming in the distance, which would one day cause heavy demands on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Bentinck also warmly deprecated the reduction of our military force as a false economy and a measure calculated to lower the influence of this country with foreign Powers. The policy of the Government Lord Hartington had said was a peace policy. Now, as far as events had yet gone, the Government had done well not to embark this country in war, but it did not follow that a policy of peace would, under all circumstances, justify peace Estimates. Were the Government prepared to take upon themselves to say that we should not be engaged in hostilities either in Europe or America? He thought not; and, if not, they ought not to have brought forward such Estimates as those introduced that evening. The noble lord said truly that it had been found necessary to repair the deficiencies in our armaments that became manifest

during the Crimean war; but he followed that up with the remark that the country ought now to reap the benefit of what had been done in that way. Did his noble friend mean to say that because we were not at present engaged in war we ought to return to the mistaken system from the effects of which we had found it so difficult to recover?

Mr. W. Williams said that we had already under arms, including Volunteers, no less than 650,000 men for the defence of England, and her dependencies and colonies. What more could we want? No other country had so many men under arms. He could understand the Government maintaining a large expenditure, because it gave them a great deal of patronage; but if any hon. gentleman proposed a reduction this year he should give him his cordial support.

Colonel North warmly regretted the proposed reduction of the army, which together with the operation of the Limited Enlistment Act, he considered would be a great loss to our military strength. The experience of the terrible losses suffered in the Crimean war ought not to be disregarded. It required three years to make a good artilleryman, two years to train a cavalry soldier, and what time to educate a sapper he really did not know; but the proposal of the Government was to weaken these three most important branches of the service. Such a proposal was, in effect, saying to the rest of Europe, "You may kick us as much as you please, but you will not kick us into a fight." If such really were to be our system for the future, it would be well if we abstained from eternally interfering and offering an opinion as to the affairs of every other country.

The Marquis of Hartington in reply noticed most of the criticisms that had been made upon the Estimates. He admitted that the probable operation of the Limited Enlistment Act might require serious consideration, but as yet their experience of the working of that Act was too short to allow them to form any safe conclusions as to its effects. With regard to the reduction of the force he offered some explanatory remarks in regard to the evacuation of the Ionian Islands. If they reduced their army by the exact number of men that was gained by the evacuation of the Ionian Islands, they should make a much more considerable reduction than they did they should reduce it by 4000 instead of 1100 men. As to the reduction of 380 artillerymen, it was well known that if the Ionian Islands were in our hands, in case of war they would take no less than 1000 artillerymen, and, therefore, having given up those islands, we should, in case of war, have that additional number of artillerymen to depend upon. The Government certainly were of opinion that the country was entitled to some relief from the surrender of those islands, and if no reduction had been made, the country would not have been at all better off for having given up the islands. After some further debate the first vote as proposed by Lord Hartington was agreed to.

The discussions upon the various items in these Estimates, which