HL Deb 07 June 1872 vol 211 cc1327-32
LORD ABINGER

asked the Under Secretary of State for War, What steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to remedy the injustice to the captains of the Purchase Corps in consequence of their supersession by the first captains of the Scientific Corps? He understood it to be proposed to make the first captains of Artillery majors, and also to give captains of Engineers higher rank. That proposition, if carried out, would be very unjust to the officers of the rest of the Army. By the system adopted in Woolwich garrison batteries were interchangeable with field batteries, and the number of field officers in the Artillery and Engineers would be very much larger than that of the field officers in the Infantry or in the Cavalry, and the proportions of officers in the several branches would be altered by this change. There would be a great supersession of officers in the Line and Cavalry. The officers of the Scientific Corps had taken their commissions with the knowledge that their promotion would be slow, but as against that disadvantage they had received their commissions without purchase. In the case of the other branches the officers had purchased their rank, while the Government still retained the purchase money. If the Secretary for War did not step in to prevent such an injustice, 331 officers who had not purchased would supersede 831 officers who had paid for their commissions.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, he did not admit the existence of the alleged injustice. The subject had been for a considerable time before the public, and had several times been brought to their Lordships' notice, and therefore it would not be necessary for him to dwell upon it at length. In 1867 a Committee of the House of Commons reported on this subject, and recommended a very elaborate and, he believed, a very expensive system of retirement as the best remedy for the stagnation in the promotion in these corps. That recommendation had been under the consideration of the then Secretary for War, but no action had been taken on it, he believed, because of its expensiveness. On the accession of the present Government further inquiries were made, and it appeared to the Secretary of State for War and to the military authorities, that it would be both more economical and more conducive to the efficiency of the service, if, instead of devising a system of retirement only, they could create the flow of promotion which was desired without, of necessity, losing the services of valuable officers. As to the Scientific Corps, he might observe that in most foreign armies the commanders of batteries were field officers, and in all countries were looked upon as holding more important posts than they were in the British Army. It must be moreover recollected that the number of men in an Infantry company was about 60 or 70—that in a cavalry company about 50; while a first captain of Artillery had about 200 or 250 men under his command, together with very valuable materiél. During the Autumn Manœuvres it was seen to be very desirable that the officers in command of batteries of artillery should act with greater independence than they had hitherto done, and the Commander-in-Chief had determined to allow them a wider discretion than they had formerly possessed, and he had issued an Order to that effect. Under these circumstances, the Secretary of State thought that he would be justified in giving these officers higher rank than they had hitherto held, and for the future the first captains in the Scientific Corps would hold the rank of majors. Then, as to the question of injustice. The War Department had inquired into the matter with the greatest care, and they found the average service of officers of the Line on attaining the rank of major was, on full pay, 17 8–12ths years; unattached, 18 6–12ths; and that the service of the senior captains in the Line next for promotion was 20. The average of those three classes together was 18 6–12ths. The service of the senior officer in the Scientific Corps now to be promoted was in the Artillery, 24; and in the Engineers, 25 10–12ths. The service of the junior was, in the Artillery, 16 10–12ths, and in the Engineers, 16 years. The average length of service of officers in the Line on promotion to the rank of major would not, it was estimated, in future exceed 18 years. The average length of service of officers of Artillery, on attaining the rank of major, would be, in the normal state, 20⅛ years. It would thus be seen that the supersession would be slight and temporary; and his answer to the noble Lord, therefore, was that the Government did not see any injustice, and did not propose to apply any remedy such as that indicated in the noble Lord's question.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he thought the speech just delivered by the noble Marquess one of the best he had ever heard in favour of the purchase system. He only wished that he had had half the arguments employed by the noble Lord to adduce last year when he opposed the abolition of that system. The officers who had paid for their commissions had done so in the belief that they would improve their position in the Army; but it now appeared that advantages were to be given to the officers in the Scientific Corps at the expense of officers who had purchased. The injustice of the charge was shown in the fact that the Government were giving the benefit to officers of the Artillery at the expense of officers of the Line. The proposal involved the placing of 330 officers of the Artillery over 830 officers of the Line, all of whom had purchased their commissions upon the faith that, by so doing, their promotion would be more rapid. He must express his protest against such a system, as calculated to interfere with vested rights in an unjust manner.

LORD SANDHURST

said, that he could not but consider the reply of the noble Marquess as eminently unsatisfactory. He need not remind their Lordships that he (Lord Sandhurst) had always been an advocate for the abolition of purchase for reasons stated last year, to which it was unnecessary further to allude. But he had never suggested, and he had never conceived, that among the results likely to flow from the abolition of purchase, an accelerated rate of promotion was likely to be found: he must, therefore, take exception to the statement of the noble Marquess in this respect, more especially when he referred to the likelihood of subalterns in the Line succeeding to companies in eight years. He (Lord Sandhurst) believed that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had never made a suggestion to such an effect, or afforded any data according to which the conclusion could possibly be arrived at. It might be true that, as stated by the noble Marquess, field batteries in some countries were commanded by field officers. On this he had no exact knowledge; but this he was able to state, with some degree of certainty—that in some of the Continental armies the batteries were stronger in point of guns than those in Her Majesty's service. He could not say how it was with the German Army; but in the Austrian and Russian Armies there were eight guns to a battery. Thus the command of a battery in those armies was a far more important duty than it was with us. But he was compelled to revert to the figures stated by his noble and gallant Friend opposite. It was impossible not to admit that the facts, thus brought out, were of an astonishing character. Thus, if the proposed change be carried out, the result would be the presence of 14 field officers to a brigade of Artillery. Now, assuming that the brigade of Artillery consisted of eight batteries, they had, then, the proportion of 14 field officers, 8 captains, and 24 subalterns to that brigade, or 14 field officers to 32 captains and subalterns, or about a proportion of 4 to 9. In the Infantry, they had in a battalion of 10 companies, 3 field officers, 10 captains, and 20 subalterns. That was 3 field officers to 30, or a proportion of 1 to 10. In the Cavalry, they had 2 field officers, 8 captains, and 16 subalterns, or a proportion of 1 field officer to 12 other officers. It was thus apparent that at the very time that purchase had fallen away from the Guards and Line, with whatever supposed advantages of promotion it might confer, extraordinary advantages were conferred in the artillery. Now, the leading principle of the abolition of purchase was the abolition of privileges and of privileged corps. All superior means of promotion had, in accordance with this principle, been taken away from the Guards. They had, then, this further corollary—that at the very time that privileges were taken away from one set of corps, privileges of a like character were conferred upon another corps, with the results of disadvantage to the corps that were not favoured. The distinction drawn by the noble Duke opposite between field artillery and garrison artillery was perfectly correct; the horse and field batteries were certainly important commands; but it was impossible to assert the like of garrison batteries. With regard to promotion, it was perfectly well known that Artillery captains when in a campaign were in a position of considerable advantage in comparison with those of the Line. Thus, if they achieved distinction, horse and field batteries were noticed by generals in command in their despatches as if they were separate corps, the officers winning brevet promotion as a certain consequence. It was now proposed to give them a step before they go into action, and so to add to their already considerable facilities of advancement. There was one point to which he must advert—namely, to the assertion that artillery were likely to play a more important part in future wars than they had hitherto done. There were no grounds for such a belief, or that the improvement of materiel generally conferred a signal superiority on one arm. The truth was, that defeat would be inflicted upon an enemy, and victory would fall to one side as heretofore, according to the skilful combination of the several arms, and not because of a fancy for one particular arm, and forgetfulness of the others. Before sitting down, he would take the liberty of reading to their Lordships an answer to an inquiry made by him of a gallant friend of his who had passed the Staff College. The officer referred to had been in many campaigns, and was a distinguished man. The following was his answer:—"My captain's commission is dated May, 1859; my first commission, October, 1854; I have paid £2,300 for commissions; officers, now my juniors, who will supersede me, 213." He must, therefore, beg to express his concurrence with the noble and gallant Lord opposite with regard to the immediate question before the House; but he would further express the hope that the proposed reform might not be carried into execution until time had been afforded for further consideration.

THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORD

said, he was disappointed with the answer given by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), and urged the inexpediency of any course which would convince officers of the Army that they were being treated with injustice. There was an uneasy and distrustful feeling among the officers of the Army at large, because, as it was not known what innovations were coming, every man feared it would be his turn next to suffer injustice. He trusted the Secretary for War would look into this matter carefully, and see if he could not avoid carrying out the measure under consideration.