CONSOLIDATED FUND—HALF PAY OF THE ARMY. (Hansard, 7 October 1831)

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that there was a most invidious clause in the Appropriation 349 Act, which prevented officers in the army receiving their half-pay if they accepted any civil appointments; while officers in the navy were exempted from such regulation. He did not blame the right hon. Baronet, the first Lord of the Admiralty, for introducing a clause allowing officers holding civil situations about his Majesty to receive their half-pay, but he wished to see the same indulgence extended to officers of the army. He was confident, both as a matter of economy and policy, it would be right to allow half-pay officers in the army to fill civil offices without mulcting them of their pay. Before the year 1828, officers in the army were not obliged to give up their half-pay if they filled civil offices; but in that year the Finance Committee recommended that course to be adopted, and an Act was passed for that purpose. He knew it was the opinion of Mr. Huskisson and Lord Palmerston, that an exception ought to have been made in favour of officers of the army holding civil offices in the colonies. If a Captain in the army, with 7s. a day for half-pay, was appointed a Barrack-master abroad, at a salary of 7s. 6d. a day, he was compelled to give up his half-pay; and many officers had refused to accept of employment, in consequence of which the service had been greatly injured. He should move that officers in the army on half-pay be allowed to fill the office of Magistrates, or any other civil office, without being deprived of their half-pay. He asked the House whether there was anything like a semblance of justice in allowing the officers of the navy to have their half-pay, and to fill civil situations, while the officers of the army were precluded from doing so? Such a course could but be the means of creating unfounded jealousies in the minds of the members of the two services. Why, he would ask, should a Captain in the navy receive his pay, and also his salary, if he was appointed to an office in the King's household, while the officer in the army must give up his half-pay? From 1806 to 1828, there was no such limitation, and the Finance Committee had recommended the stopping of the half-pay of officers in the army on their obtaining civil situations, without hearing evidence on the subject, and to make the distinction in the two services was most invidious. Why should the civil service be treated with great liberality while the officers of the army, 350 whose services appeared to have been almost forgotten, were neglected, and why should a Commissioner of Bankrupts, who had only been appointed a few weeks, retire for life on a pension of 200l. a year?

§ Sir Henry Parnell
said, that, simple as these propositions appeared to be, it involved the consideration of no less a sum than 73,000l. a year. Up to 1820, the law had actually deprived officers in the receipt of any civil salary of their half-pay. The Act then passed was an innovation, and the Finance Committee of 1828 recommended that the old law should be revived. The members of that Committee were satisfied, from documents laid before them, that the consequence of acting upon the indulgence of 1820 had been, to put the public to the additional expense he had mentioned. The question did not turn upon the merits of the officers, but upon the principle of economy. The report had been drawn up by a Cabinet Minister, and had been agreed to by all the Committee, with one exception; it said, with reference to this question 'The half-pay cannot properly be considered as a remuneration for past services, for the service of a single day gives a claim to it as complete as the service of twenty years. That they feel themselves called upon to express the strongest objection to the changes which have of late been made in the rules and conditions under which half-pay has been received, and that they are decidedly of opinion, that the abandonment of the restrictions was an ill-advised measure, and that it was not more at variance with a due regard to economy than opposed to the very principle upon which military half-pay was established.' The Committee then added that the increased charge by altering the law in 1820 had been, 73,000l. a year for the army and navy, and they further say, When military men adopt the civil service, the Committee conceive they should receive the same remuneration for it as civil servants would receive, and no more.' Although he admitted that individual hardships would result from acting upon that recommendation, yet it must be clear, that as a question of economy the rule laid down should not be departed from. The opinion of Mr. Huskisson would be at all times of value, but it should not govern the House in a matter of the saving or expenditure of 73,000l. His right hon. friend had been fully heard before the 351 Committee of Salaries, and with every disposition to attach weight to his authority, it had come to the determination that it was inexpedient to alter the decision of the previous Committee which had sat in 1828. He had felt it his duty to recommend the fulfilment of the recommendation of that Committee, and he trusted the present Committee would agree with him in sustaining the views which he had stated.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
denied that any such sum as 73,000l. would be saved to the public by the adoption of the proposition. Quite the reverse. If army officers were not employed in the civil service, other gentlemen would be, who would receive the same or higher salaries. There were about 300 officers on half-pay who held civil appointments, and as it was probable two-thirds of these would give up their offices if deprived of their half-pay, how, in such circumstances, could any saving be effected? By a regulation which he had introduced on finding there were abuses relating to the receipt of half-pay, the country was saved no less a sum than 32,000l. a year. The indulgence of 1820 had been granted inadvertently by the House of Commons, but then the services of the army were fresh in their remembrance.

§ Sir Henry Parnell
said, he made no mistake; he had only repeated the Report of the Finance Committee, which said, there would be an annual saving of 41,682l. on the army half-pay, and 31,370l. on the navy, making together about 73,000l.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
asked how it could be explained that half-pay officers holding civil situations would cost the country more than civilians holding such offices? For it was clear, that if officers were to forfeit their half-pay they would not accept such situations.

§ Sir Henry Parnell
said, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was, that the officers now holding civil situations should receive among them 73,000l. more than they had at present.

§ General Phipps
said, the question here was, why should any distinction be made in case of holding civil offices between the army and the navy?

Sir James Graham
said, that there was a different arrangement as to the half-pay between the officers of the army and the navy, and in granting a favour to naval officers it would merely apply to those in the service of his Majesty's household. 352 But this favour cost the public nothing, for the expense was defrayed out of his Majesty's Civil List. It did so happen, that in the case of a Vice-Admiral receiving the post of Equerry to his Majesty, his half-pay exceeded the salary attached to his office, so that he gave up his salary and took his half-pay, by which he received no remuneration for his services about the King; an absurdity so glaring gave rise to the arrangement alluded to. The restriction in the Appropriation Act of 1828, then, would be a saving of some 73,000l. a-year, and for this reason, that naval and military officers upon half-pay now held civil situations amounting to such a sum as that: if they were to receive their half-pay in addition to their civil offices, the country would be burthened for that amount in addition.

Mr. Maberly
admitted, that Military Officers who had purchased their commissions were certainly entitled to very great consideration, and that the right hon. and gallant Officer had made out a strong case in their favour. He knew that civil servants had retired pensions for abrogated offices while they held situations, particularly in the Treasury, to the amount of hundreds and thousands a-year. He would mention one, that of Mr. F. Brooks-banks, who held three offices, the united salaries of which was 2,100l. per annum—and who, at the same time, received a retired allowance of 500l. a-year from another office. Why then not allow the military men to hold civil offices while they continued to enjoy their half pay? He thought that the whole question deserved to go to a Committee for inquiry, in order that substantial justice should be done. Such a Committee should examine into the superannuation and retired allowances of all departments, in order as much as possible to lessen that enormous dead weight to which no other country but this was subject.

Mr. Hume
admitted, that no distinction should be made between Naval and Military Officers as to holding civil situations while they also received half-pay; but the object of the Finance Committee was, to reduce the public expenditure as much as they could without any detriment to the public service. The facts that had been submitted to the Finance Committee were these: that the Navy, Army, and Ordnance cost 13,500,000l.; and the dead weight upon them was 4,794,000l.; making, 353 with the Civil dead weight of 484,000l., a total dead weight of 5,400,000l.—while the whole amount of the charges for all these services amounted in the year 1792 to 5,000,000l. only, being no more than the present annual amount of dead weight. In recommending retrenchment on these points, and on every other, the Committee had reference alone to bringing the expense down to the scale of that period, as near as circumstances would permit. Hence they agreed, that half-pay officers should not hold civil situations at the same time, although, upon surrendering their half-pay, their civil appointments would not be disturbed. He often thought of the hardships which military men endured, but it should be recollected, that at the close of the war in 1814, the half-pay of Military Officers was increased, upon the ground that they could not hold civil offices. It would be a departure from the principles of economy laid down by the Finance Committee, if they were to agree to the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Hardinge). Indeed, he also objected to that of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), although it was less objectionable than that, of the gallant Officer, inasmuch as the country would not have to pay the salaries of Naval Officers holding situations in the household of his Majesty; but, nevertheless, it might so happen that some of the officers holding such situations might be in the receipt of full pay.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, he thought this resolution would be as injurious to the public service as it would bear hard upon individuals. A half-pay officer well calculated to fill an office of trust and confidence with a small salary, was unable to accept of it because he would have to give up his half-pay, so that the office, instead of being held by men of honour and education, went to some person of an inferior description, to the great injury of the public service. Justice was as strongly opposed to the rule as policy. If a person was qualified to discharge the duties of an office, and did discharge them, he ought to receive the emoluments attached to it, without the consideration of any other funds he might be in the receipt of; 73,000l. was certainly a large sum; but the public service might be injured by such economy.

Mr. Hume
said, that he would relieve the half-pay officers by placing them in active 354 service, in preference to young boys, who knew nothing of the hardships of war. If they had pursued such a system since 1815, all the old officers would by this time have been absorbed by the public service.

§ Sir George Clerk
said, he had heard with great satisfaction the opinion delivered by the hon. member for Kirkcudbright. It was true, that since 1828 about 7,000l. per annum had been saved to the public in the half-pay of officers holding civil situations; but if the regulation had prevailed previous to that time, few such officers would have accepted situations. Several of the Chief Constables of Ireland were half-pay officers, but none of them would have taken such employments if they must have resigned their half-pay. Why should officers not be capable of holding civil situations as well as other persons? Why should they have no reward for their toils in foreign countries beside a scanty and miserable half-pay? If Naval Officers in the household of his Majesty were also to hold half-pay at the same time, why should not the same privilege be extended to officers in the Board of Ordnance, and other public establishments? Why should the Lords of the Admiralty receive half-pay together with the salaries attached to their civil situations? All he sought was, justice to the different classes of Naval and Military Officers, and he hoped this Committee would not fail to perform their duty.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, he would give one instance of the hardship of the regulation now proposed to be enforced. Sir H. Fane held the office of Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, with a salary of 1,200l. a-year; that officer had served upwards of forty years, and had spent 10,000l. upon his commissions, and had received as a reward for his services and his expenses a regiment, which was worth about 1,000l. a-year. This, however, he had to give up on taking a civil situation, and he went through all the drudgery of office for 200l. a-year. It seemed that while the services of the officers of the army were fresh in the recollection of the House, it was willing to grant this indulgence, but in a season of peace the officers were to be deprived of it. He was most anxious to press his opinion upon the Committee, although he would not divide upon the subject.

§ Colonel Fox
said, he considered that the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the 355 Admiralty, had made a most invidious distinction between the two services.

Sir James Graham
said, the whole of the Naval half-pay was regulated by the King in Council; that of the Army was subjected to Parliamentary restrictions. He must again repeat, that Naval Officers in the household of his Majesty would cost the public nothing, as they would be paid out of the Civil List; but under the Appropriation Act they could not receive their half-pay, which it was the object of his clause to remedy. If the income of the Civil Office were to fall upon the country he would be one of the first persons to oppose it.

§ Sir George Clerk
said, it was for the benefit of Naval Officers that this clause was introduced into the Appropriation Act.

§ Sir Henry Parnell
said, his great principle was, never to take money out of the pockets of the public without an evident necessity. He thought in the case before them that necessity did not exist.

Mr. Hume
said, no information had been afforded on this subject. The clause itself had not been printed. He thought that if his Majesty employed half-pay officers he ought to pay them out of the Civil List. He hoped the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed to put both services on the same footing.

Sir James Graham
said, in reply to his hon. friend, that in 1822 an alteration was made in the Appropriation Act, in consequence of an opinion delivered by a Committee, that all officers in the receipt of half-pay should be permitted to hold civil situations with two exceptions, which were staff appointments and civil situations in the Colonies. The existing regulations, however, operated only upon the Army, the Naval half-pay not being regulated by Act of Parliament. The object now proposed was, to extend to the Navy the exception of which the Army had had the advantage, so far as regarded official situations in his Majesty's household.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, he entirely approved of the hon. Baronet's regulation with regard to the Navy; but what he desired was, that the Army should be placed on the same footing as it was between 1822 and 1828. It was the opinion of the Committee appointed in that year, that it should be so restored, but in consequence of the early prorogation, the Committee had made no Report. When this 356 clause was brought up, he should move an amendment to effect that object.

Mr. Maberly
wished the gallant Officer would not propose any such amendment, because he was sure at no distant day the superannuations to the different branches of the public service must come specifically before the notice of this House.

§ Lord Althorp
admitted, that the country was equally indebted to the Naval and Army services, and he would be one of the last men to make any invidious distinction between them.

Mr. Hume
said, he would divide the House rather than allow that any particular favour should be granted to officers, merely because they happened to be in his Majesty's household. Why was not the Appropriation Act, or clause, or by whatever other name it was called, printed like every other which was submitted to the House?

§ Sir George Murray
said, that during the time he presided over the Colonial Department, great inconvenience was felt in the Colonies in consequence of Army and Navy Officers being restricted from taking civil offices. They were the class of persons best qualified to fill them, but they in general refused when they found their half-pay must be relinquished. It was a mistaken notion to suppose such a regulation produced any saving to the public service, because, in every instance in which half-pay officers had declined to accept civil offices in the Colonies, other persons must, of course, be appointed, and thus the public had to pay their salaries as well as the officers' half-pay. He wished the defect to be remedied as soon as possible.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, any officer would prefer receiving 6s. 6d. half-pay in England, to 7s. 6d. as Barrack-master in the West-Indies. The Government, therefore, had been compelled to appoint persons who were ignorant of the duties, and they could have no security for the honesty of such persons; but with a half-pay officer, if he was guilty of any default, you could appropriate his half pay, or sell his commission if necessary.