COMMITTEE MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 3 July 1860)

COLONEL LINDSAY
said, he rose to move— For a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the claims of seven major generals to the pay of general officers, who are now receiving only the half-pay of brevet majors, and who accepted substantive rank upon half-pay upon the terms and engagements contained in the House Guards Memorandum of the 25th day of March, 1826, and General Order of the 25th day of April, 1826. He had a short time since called the attention of the House to the subject, in the hope that the Secretary for War would meet his proposal with respect to it half way. Not, however, having obtained a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, he felt the best way of dealing with the question was to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee. Now, in order to give the House a just idea of the origin of the claims of which he was the advocate, he might mention that, so far back as 1824, promotion in the army had been described both by Sir H. Taylor, and in a memorandum of the Horse Guards as being at the time extremely slack in consequence of the great number of officers that were unattached. Some majors, it was found, had served twenty years in that rank, while promotion in the lower ranks of officers had also gone at an extremely slow rate. The consequence had been that it had been found necessary to allow the sale of half-pay Commissions, with the view of relieving the several regiments of old officers; and an order had been issued by the Horse Guards with that object, acting upon which 1337 a great number of officers had gone upon half-pay. After a year's experience of the operation of the order, however, it was not found to be beneficial to the service to the full extent desirable, inasmuch as there was a great number of brevet field officers serving in the rank of captain, whom it was expected to get rid of, but to whom no sufficient temptation to retire was held out. In April, 1856, an order issued from the Horse Guards, founded on a memorandum sanctioned by the Secretary at War and the Prime Minister, authorizing officers serving on full pay with brevet rank to go on half pay with substantive rank equal to that in which they were serving with brevet rank. The memorandum which established their position had been laid before the House; it stated that the whole question turned, first, on the convenience of the service, and, secondly, on the propriety of giving these officers some boon. It was, therefore, proposed that officers so circumstanced should have the option conferred without forfeiting their claims on the service, either as regards themselves or their families. This amounted to a pledge on the part of the Government that the officers who accepted half pay under the memorandum and general order would be entitled to put forward their claims under the regulations of the service. A rule was established in 1822 that six years' service as field officer should entitle to the pay of a general officer. But the memorandum was issued in the face of that order for the convenience of the service. There were only seven officers in the position he had described; three of them had been senior captains, and, he would ask, was it consistent with common sense to suppose that, being in the receipt of 13s. 7d. per day, they would have accepted half pay of 9s. 6d. a day except with the hope, under the conditions of this memorandum, of returning to full pay, when their promotion would have gone on? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said that these officers were eating their cake and trying to keep it, and that when they accepted half pay they did so with all the conditions attached. But the conditions attached were those of the memorandum, and those conditions in their view of the question were, that they were to go back to full pay, if the Commander-in-Chief saw fit so to place them, and that, at all events, they were to be entitled at least to the minimum pay of the rank to which they advanced. The question was a finan- 1338 cial one, namely—whether they should continue to receive 9s. 6d. a day or £400 a year, and he moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the claims of these officers; first, because he conceived them to be founded in justice, and in the next place, because two great authorities on the question differed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War under the late Government, when the facts of the case were represented to him, came to the conclusion that the claim of the officers was a just and sound one, and sent it to the Treasury. The Treasury, however, declined to accept their view of the question, and the answer which they gave was based upon the system of unattached pay in general. He was not particular as to the constitution of the Committee. The Secretary of State for War and he might nominate one Member alternately, and the Committee of Selection might name three more. Two days would suffice for the whole inquiry. He hoped the House would accede to the appointment of the Committee.

COLONEL NORTH
seconded the Motion. The right hon. and gallant General the late Secretary for War had admitted that justice was on the side of the officers, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War had owned that there was a doubt upon the subject. Under these circumstances these officers ought to have the benefit of the doubt, or, at all events, their claims should be submitted to the judgment of a Select Committee of that House. A bargain had been made with them, and whether it was a good or a bad one, it ought to be honourably fulfilled. He had himself examined the case, and he thought that it was one of great hardship.

§ GENERAL BUCKLEY
said, he thought the House ought to grant the Committee of Inquiry, as there appeared to be some doubt about the question. It seemed to him rather an unfair thing that these old officers, having taken their promotion at the time they did, should find themselves no better off when they arrived at the rank of general officers than they were as majors.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, he fully agreed with what had been laid down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that as far as this was a matter of bargain, the bargain ought to be adhered to, and if justice required that those officers should receive an increase of pay they ought to have it. 1339 The claim was not one of very great magnitude, relating as it did to the case of seven officers only, receiving the difference between 9s. and 25s. a day; but, as he did not think it founded in justice, he could not give it his sanction. These officers went upon half pay at their own option, and whether the arrangement was for the benefit of the service or not was immaterial, as they must be taken to have accepted it for their own advantage. They obtained a step in rank, having been made substantive majors instead of brevet majors. [Colonel LINDSAY: It was not a step.] A similar example had occurred recently. Certain officers who received brevet rank for distinguished services in the Crimea accepted the substantive rank of major in lieu of brevet rank, regarding it as a great boon to themselves, and of course expecting to exchange back upon full pay again, and so realize the benefit. Well, that was what these officers in this case did; and, although the state of the list made it more difficult for them to get back upon full pay, they took that risk upon themselves. They had one advantage which the Crimean officers had not in respect to the provision for their widows; and, although it was said none of them were then married men, they were not so old but that they might have married afterwards. The rule then as now existed, by which no man could rise to the position of a general officer, with certain advantages as to pay, unless he had served six years as a field officer. That regulation was established to insure the efficiency of the service; and it was putting a forced and non-natural construction upon its terms to say that that condition was to be suspended in favour of officers who had never served since 1826. The demands to be admitted to half-pay had been pressing and numerous. It was regarded as a great favour. Some of these officers had succeeded in getting back again upon full-pay; and of course no complaint was heard from them. Others had not been so fortunate; but they were no worse off than many officers in the navy who were anxious to get upon full pay, and could not. It was now proposed however, that, having had the benefit of half-pay, a step in rank, and a prospective provision for their widows, they should be placed upon the higher pay of general officers, as if they had served six years as field officers. That reading could not be fairly put upon the regulation. If he had said that any doubt existed on the point, it was 1340 simply because the right hon. and gallant Member opposite took a different view of it. But in his own mind there existed no doubt whatever on the matter, and he had, therefore, felt bound, on the part of the Executive, to decline to accede to the request of these officers. He must frankly say, too, that he did not think a Committee of that House a proper tribunal to decide the question. As long as the right hon. and gallant General opposite was in office no such inquiry as that was moved for; but, when another Secretary of State succeeded him, taking a different view of the subject, then the Committee was asked for. He had given his opinion on the question for the third time. To that opinion he firmly adhered, and he trusted the House would not accede to the Motion.

GENERAL PEEL
said, he had no wish to set his opinion in opposition to that of his right hon. Friend. He only claimed to have acted as free from bias in this matter as the right hon. Gentleman. He never heard of the case of any one of these officers until it came before him officially, and he did not act upon his own judgment alone in regard to the subject, but upon the advice that was given to him. He had no doubt in his own mind that these officers were entitled to be placed in the same position as the other officers of a corresponding arm of the service who had been put upon half-pay. They could not have imagined, from the terms offered them, that they would suffer any detriment by accepting the arrangement. There was no question as to the claim of their families, if they had any, at their death. If it could be shown that any of these officers had refused to return to full pay, of course they would not have any claim; but such was not the case. If the case against them was so strong, why should the right hon. Baronet refuse them the satisfaction of a Committee? He himself, when in office, assented to the appointment of a Committee to consider the claims of the Land Transport Corps, although he entertained no doubt upon the matter. He believed that this was a bargain, and although it was a bad one for the country, it ought to be carried out.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, it appeared to him that Government had not kept faith with these officers. A good case required only a plain and complete statement, and the very elaborateness of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) showed that his case was a bad 1341 one. If the gallant Colonel pressed his Motion he should go into the lobby with him.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he was always unwilling to submit military questions to a Committee of the House of Commons; but as the late and present Secretary of State for War were at issue upon the subject, and he could not obtain a military tribunal to decide between them, he should support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.