HC Deb 28 February 1862 vol 165 cc866-72
COLONEL SYKES

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the right of Officers of the Native Regiments of Madras and Bombay to succeed by Seniority to the command of Troops or Companies, and to the ultimate com- mand of their respective Regiments, is abolished; and whether Officers who have elected for local service with their Regiments can he sent to general duty notwithstanding their wish to serve with their own Regiments? The question was rendered necessary by what was called the amalgamation; but what might more properly be designated the dislocation of the armies of India. It had reference to the Madras and Bombay army, that of Bengal having been almost totally destroyed by the rebellion; and he would have it to be remembered that the Madras and Bombay native armies remained loyal to the British Crown, and that to that circumstance must largely be attributed the restoration of British power in India. The officers complained, and not without reason, that their rights had been violated by the sending of staff officers who had been long absent from their regular duties back, not only to their own regiments, but to others to which they had never belonged, and placing them over the heads of the regimental officers who had seen long service, and were entitled to the command of cavalry troops or companies of their own regiments. He held in his hand a list of cases which filled two folio pages, and from which he would cite one or two examples. Major Silver, of the 4th Regiment Madras Native Infantry, had been posted to the 31st, to the prejudice of two regimental captains, one of twenty-five years' service, and the other of twenty-four. Major Groube, of the late 5th Native Cavalry, is with the 2nd Cavalry, though Major Taylor and five captains appear to be present. Major Fowler, of the late 8th Regiment, had been placed in the 1st Cavalry, and had thus superseded all the regimental captains. Major Allen, of the 3rd Native Infantry, had been removed to the 12th, and had superseded the regimental major (Halliday), who had served twenty-four years. In the Bombay army Major Johnston, of the staff corps, who had nominally belonged to the 1st Native Regiment, and who was only a captain of the year 1853 and with army rank of 1859, had been removed to the 1st Grenadiers, and had thus displaced two captains of 1842 and 1844, of twenty and nineteen years' service. Captain and Brevet-Major Soppett, of 1842, of the 12th Native Infantry, is in command of the 25th Native Infantry, though two captains, of twenty and nineteen years' service, and six lieutenants are present with the regiment. The practical result of those arrangements was to abolish entirely regimental rights. The 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, guaranteed to the military and naval forces of the Indian service the like pay, pensions, and privileges, as regards promotion and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the Company; and, by Mr. Henley's clause in the Act of 1860, it was also provided that the advantages as to pay, pensions and allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise, should continue and he maintained in any plan for the reorganization of the Indian army, anything in the Act to the contrary notwithstanding. He had thus made out distinctly that these guarantees had been violated and faith broken; and the inference must necessarily be drawn, that regimental succession by seniority, as had been the usage, was to be superseded, and virtually annihilated by the transfer of officers to command regiments to which they did not belong.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, that he had received communications from India to the effect that the greatest possible dissatisfaction on this subject existed among the officers of the late Indian army. Those officers who had availed themselves of the option allowed them under certain circumstances of accepting retiring allowances, had their names printed in italics in a list, and, on the death of any one of those officers, no promotion took place; though by the Act of Parliament it was distinctly provided that the officers of the late native Indian army were to be placed in the same position, not only as regards pay, but promotion also, as they would have occupied had they continued to serve the India Company. It was plain that the pledge given to those officers had been broken, because if they had remained in the service of the Company, whenever a death occurred there would have been a promotion. Their chances of promotion had thus been seriously diminished, and he wished to ask what course the Government proposed to take, and whether they were going to consider the matter? He hoped that no consideration of economy would be allowed to interfere, for he was sure that the feeling of the House would he against saving money at the expense of meritorious officers who had spent the best part of their lives in the service of the country.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, his hon. friend who had just spoken had entirely mistaken the facts of the case. The names of officers who retired were not placed in italics on the list, but were removed altogether. In the room, therefore, of every officer who died, or who would have retired under the old regulation, another was promoted, so that no such state as the hon. Gentleman supposed prevailed. He might add that an extra retirement list had been provided beyond that which existed a year ago for a certain number of officers; but the Government thought they would not be justified in making so many promotions, as they created retirements, their object being to reduce the army as well as to diminish expenditure. They had, however, given a proportion of promotions in respect of those extra retirements, in the ratio of two out of three, or three out of four, he did not recollect which. [Colonel SYKES: Every other.] To the extent to which the change went, he thought it must be looked upon as a boon to the Indian army.

With respect to the observations of his hon. and gallant friend behind him (Colonel Sykes), he could only say that they had no bearing upon the question of the amalgamation of the two armies. The question which he had put applied in fact altogether to the native army of India, inasmuch as whatever had been done in the direction to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred had arisen out of the reduction of that force. His hon. and gallant Friend in dealing with the subject, had mentioned the case of a particular person who had been out of employment for a considerable time; and who, having been suddenly sent back to his regiment, took rank over the heads of men who had served with the regiment during the period of his absence, and that was conceived to be a hardship, The hon. and gallant Gentleman must, nevertheless, be well aware that under the old system in India, officers who were absent for years from their regiments on staff employment, were, on attaining a certain rank, sent back to take the command of those regiments, superseding all the officers who had from year to year been serving in them, and who had performed signal service in command of them. Indeed, he had before him the case of an officer who had. after an absence of fifteen or twenty years, been thus sent back to his regiment. He would remind the House that they must, in considering the subject, bear in mind the fact that the army in Bengal, and also in Madras and in Bombay, to a great extent had been reduced. In Madras, for instance, four regiments of native cavalry had been discontinued, and an order had been issued to discontinue eight regiments of native infantry. The consequence was that a large number of officers were thrown out of employment; but as to the expediency of the reduction of the native army, which led to that result, he believed no doubt existed. But then arose the question, what was to become of those officers whose regiments bad been disbanded? If his hon. and gallant Friend desired that they should enjoy all those advantages to which they might look forward before the Indian mutiny, it was obvious their expectations could be realized only by continuing the native army on the old scale. But as it had been determined to reduce that army very considerably, the question of what was to be done with the officers of the disbanded regiments remained still to be answered. Allusion had been made to the case of a major in a light cavalry regiment in Madras, who—that regiment having been done away with—had been put to do duty with another; but what rank, he would ask, was an officer so situated to hold in his new position? Was he to serve in the regiment to which he had been appointed as major, or captain, or lieutenant, or subaltern? The view the Government had taken of the matter was, that those officers who were deprived, for the cause he bad mentioned, of their natural employment should be employed again, as far as possible, with the rank their seniority gave them. That he deemed to be the fairest mode of dealing with a large body of officers, such as those of whom he was speaking; notwithstanding the wishes and hopes of those who held a lower rank might not, in some instances, be as a consequence realized. The best answer, however, which he could perhaps give to his hon. Friend, was to read an extract from the Order which had been sent out to India on the subject. Officers of the staff corps will be rarely appointed to do duty with native regiments retaining their regular organization. When so appointed, however, and on public grounds, it would be unjust to deprive them of the privileges attached to their relative regimental rank. Their position in the regiment, therefore, will be similar to that of the officers belonging to the general list formed by your General Order No. 1,637 of 1859, and they will be entitled while so employed to all the advantages of their (original) position as regimental officers. Officers of the staff corps, who while doing duty with their former corps may be promoted in the staff corps to a higher grade, will at once cease to do duty with their former regi- ments, and must remain unemployed until their services are required for staff duty. That was the order which had been issued, and he believed it indicated the best course which could, under the circumstances, be taken.

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, he did not think the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given the House was by any means satisfactory. The case of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen was this:—A practice had prevailed in the Indian army by which officers of regiments got promotion in rotation, but that the Government, having a number of officers unemployed, were placing those officers in the Bombay and Madras regiments over the heads of officers of long service, and were there by violating the practice that had previously prevailed. The right hon. Gentleman had virtually admitted the fact, but had stated, that in order to employ those officers there was no other resource than to place them, according to their rank in other regiments. That might be very true; but what sort of answer was it, he should like to know, to make to the complaints of the officers who were thus superseded? Passing over that point, however, he might be allowed to advert to the question raised by the hon. Baronet below him (Sir George Bowyer) which, as he understood it, turned upon an order issued by the Government declaring that certain officers who wished to retire should have a bonus for so doing; and which was accompanied by a regulation stating that the vacancy so created should not entitle the officer next in rank to promotion. Now, of that order the officers next in rank complained. They contended that previous to its issue old officers who would have been obliged to retire, owing to impaired health or any other cause, would, upon their retirement under these circumstances, have created a vacancy which would enable those under them to obtain a step in rank; but that, owing to the operation of the new order, no such promotion took place.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

in explanation said, that they had given a bonus to officers who were entitled to retire, and a promotion took place on each of those retirements; but that when they created additional retirements, they then gave only a proportionate amount of promotion.

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, that was precisely the grievance, that when officers were induced by the Government to retire, the amount of bonus they received was a proportion only, instead of being the full amount.