MR. RIDLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government now to confer any mark of distinction upon those Assistant-Surgeons late in the service 1280 of the East India Company who formed part of the Garrison during the whole of the Siege of Lucknow, and who were recommended in the Despatch of General Inglis, of the 26th of September, 1857, to the particular attention of the Government of India; or, if the rank of Assistant Surgeon does not allow such distinction to be conferred at the present time, whether he will cause that recommendation to be noted in the Books, so that on their obtaining the rank of full Surgeon they may receive a corresponding distinction to that already conferred on the four Surgeons named in the above cited Despatch? General Inglis, in his despatch of the 26th September, 1857, recommended that a mark of distinction should be conferred on certain Surgeons and Assistant-Surgeons. Some of them had received their reward by being appointed companions of the Bath, and Mr. Boyd had been promoted to the office of full Surgeon. But the Assistant-Surgeons in the East India Company's Service had not yet been noticed. Their position was a peculiar one. They could not receive the distinction of Companion of the Bath because they did not hold the rank of full surgeons, and they could not be made full surgeons because they belonged to the seniority service, and could not be promoted as Mr. Boyd had been. He wished to obtain from the noble Lord at the head of the Indian Department some public recognition of their services, and an assurance that at the proper time some distinction would be conferred upon those Assistant-Surgeons.
LORD STANLEYSir, the Assistant-Surgeons who were named in Sir John Inglis's despatch of the 26th of September, 1857, were five in number. I am glad the hon. Member has given me an opportunity by his question, of paying, however tardily and casually, a tribute of respect to these gentlemen, who did their duty and did it well, under circumstances of very peculiar difficulty and danger. With regard to the mark of honour which the hon. Member suggests should be conferred upon them, he is, I think, aware that, holding the rank of Assistant-Surgeon, they are not eligible, according to the existing rule, for the distinction of the Bath, This disqualification they only share with other subalterns. With respect to the recommendation that they should be noted in the books so that on attaining the rank of full surgeon they might receive corresponding distinctions to those already bestowed on the four surgeons 1281 mentioned in Sir John Inglis's despatch, I have to state that the practice of recording names for future distinctions which the persons in question are not at the time qualified to receive, is one to which great objections on general grounds are entertained, and which is very rarely followed. At any rate, it could not be adopted without a previous recommendation from the Governor General and the Commander in Chief; and in the present case we have nut received any such recommendation. But though I am compelled to give the hon. Member this answer, which he may deem unsatisfactory, I have no hesitation in saying, on the part of the Government of India, that they will be glad to take every opportunity which may offer of recognizing, as they deserve to be recognized, the services rendered by these five gentlemen.