§ House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD SANDHURESTMy Lords, in consequence of what I have heard since I made some remarks in this House on Friday evening, I find that a misapprehension exists in the public mind in regard to the intention of those remarks, and I am anxious to make a short explanation. In the first place, it is said that I was making an attack on the administration of the Army; and, in 463 the second place, it is said that I had reflected on the honour of some of the officers of the Army. I am happy that these circumstances have been brought to my notice, because I am able to refute in the most direct manner both imputations. In the first place, with regard to the administration of the Army, what I said was this—that it appeared to me to be inconsistent with security that the execution of a very important measure should rest on the responsibility of one individual, and that it should be declared that solely according to the opinion of that individual we should be guided in estimating what might be the state of the Army hereafter. I illustrated my point by referring to the administration of the Army when it was conducted by the Duke of Wellington, and it appeared to me that if abuses arose under the administration of such authority as that—for the practice of the Army under that administration was analogous to the practice introduced by the Bill about to become law—I do say that the illustration I used was sufficient for my point, while at the same time it shows how very far it was from my mind to attack the administration of the Army. What was the illustration? It was this—When I was a young man, in 1844, my regiment was ordered to India. Under these circumstances, exchanges were very freely permitted under the orders of the Duke of Wellington. The other night I spoke from memory; but I have since exactly verified the facts, and I find that on that occasion four new captains joined the regiment under the process of exchange, and five subaltern officers. I think there was a sixth, but owing to the promotions in the regiment, I do not exactly remember. That appears to me to be a great number of exchanges, and the effect on the regiment, as I stated, was very serious. What were the circumstances of the country and of the Army at that period? In July and August, 1844, it was deemed necessary by the Government of this country, at the requisition of the Government of India, to send three battalions of Infantry to re-inforce the Army of India. In those days three battalions, numbering upwards of 3,000 men, was a very large re-inforcement of the British Army in India. What was the reason? The reason was, that Maharajah Runjeet Singh had lately died, there was a mu 464 tiny in his army, our frontier was threatened, and there was danger of war. Therefore, the Army was re-in-forced. But the circumstances were not known to the public—and I beg your Lordships' attention to this. Although, of course, present to the minds of the authorities, they were not known to the regimental officers, who embarked completely according to the rights and privileges offered them and consistently with the rules of the Army as understood in those days—a system bearing a very close analogy to what will be introduced by this Bill. When I stated these facts, I beg your Lordships to understand that there was no reflection, direct or indirect—no insinuation against the honour of those gentlemen with whom it was my great privilege to be associated in early life, and the survivors of whom are among my dearest friends. I will, therefore, take this opportunity of asking the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) not to consider that he has a monopoly of regard for the honour of the officers of the British Army. Let me beg of him to recollect that there are others who feel as keenly as he does in this matter, and old officer as I am—having served, with a very brief interval of time passed in diplomatic employment, during 40 years—I venture to think that the honour of the Army, the honour of its officers, and the discipline of its regiments, are at least as dear to me as to the noble Duke opposite. We on this side have sought to introduce improvements into the system of the Army; I do not wish to exaggerate their importance, but I am confident we have appealed to a higher motive—we have sought to inculcate the principle of duty, while perhaps we have disregarded that of private interest; but at least it cannot be said that we have been regardless of the honour and interests of the Army.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDMy Lords, as the noble Lord has alluded so directly to me, your Lordships will, I am sure, allow me to make a very few remarks after what has fallen from him. The noble Lord takes me to task in a manner which would lead your Lordships to believe that I assumed the monopoly of regard for the honour of the Army. My Lords, I have never attempted to monopolize such a feeling or to say that I had a right to do so; but in common 465 with your Lordships, I have a right to feel very keenly for everything connected with the Army. I have every right to have a strong feeling of regard for the Army, for my own father fought and bled with the Duke of Wellington: my grandfather, also, was engaged in the Battle of Waterloo, and I have many relatives and intimate friends in various ranks and grades of the Army. Therefore, I say I have a perfect right to feel keenly everything that is said about the Army; and because the other evening the noble Lord made remarks in connection with the Army, and the officers of the Army, which I did not think altogether well-founded, I took the liberty of asking him the question which I am extremely glad I put to him, because it has enabled him to give your Lordships the version he has now offered of the meaning of the remarks which he made on that occasion. I will venture to remind him of what he said; and I think your Lordships will see that, at all events, the mode in which he addressed the House on that occasion was such as might give rise to the impression among those who heard him that he spoke in no very respectful terms of the particular regiment in which he was a captain. I accept his explanation to-night, that he did not intend to say anything disrespectful of his own regiment; but, with your Lordships' permission, I will read the very few words which fell from him the other night. He stated that on the occasion to which he referred very great inconvenience arose from the system of exchanges. He said—
When he was a young man, a captain in a Line regiment, what happened? It was a time when the saying was 'That officers must either sell or sail.' … At the very time they were about to sail, 10 young officers walked into the harbour in the place of 10 officers who exchanged—four captains and six subalterns."—[3 Hansard, ccxxiv. 252.]He said—Their Lordships might judge of the disorganization which existed in that regiment for many months afterwards. That occurred under the great Duke of Wellington. He was talking of the year 1844, when war was threatening in India. The regiment to which he belonged, within a few months after its landing, found itself in the presence of the enemy—those 10 officers had actually exchanged from a regiment which, in a brief period, was engaged on the frontiers of India."—[Ibid.]What the noble Lord has said now is that these officers profited by the system 466 of exchanges which was permitted, and that none of them had any notion they would be brought very shortly after their arrival in India in face of the enemy. He says it was well known that this system of exchanges had demoralized the regiment. But if those officers in England could not know anything that was likely to happen in India, then the system of exchanges could not be complained of; and if it had demoralized the regiment, I think the noble Lord will admit the demoralization lasted but a very short period, and that by the time they got to India there was very little demoralization left, if we may judge from what occurred in that regiment at that time. The noble Lord talked as if we were then in a state of warfare in India. It was not so. In the beginning of 1844 Lord Ellenborough was recalled; and the father of my noble Friend the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge) behind me went out in June. It was not for 19 months afterwards that there was anything like an engagement with the enemy.
§ VISCOUNT HARDINGEIn the summer of 1845 the first battle was fought.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDThat was in consequence of an aggression from the Sikhs. The noble Lord may contradict me if he is able; but I do not think there is anything in the history of that time which would indicate that we were then under the impression that we were likely to be engaged in warfare. What, then, do the noble Lord's remarks come to? To this—that in 1844, when there was no war imminent in India—when, in point of fact, war did not break out until 19 months afterwards, when there is nothing in history to show that the authorities of this country had the smallest idea that they were to be engaged in war—10 officers exchanged out of the regiment in a legitimate manner—for the noble Lord says so to-night—their places were filled by others, and the regiment went to India. And the noble Lord has not adduced an instance of another regiment going to India in which the same thing occurred. It can, therefore, be only a very exceptional case in which such, a number of officers did exchange at that period. Now, what would have happened if the arrangements of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell) had then been in existence? Exactly 467 the same thing might have happened. Supposing the arrangements of the noble Viscount to have been in operationin 1844, what was there to prevent the officers from exchanging? No doubt, the number was exceptional. I think such a thing is not likely to happen under the present system and the present régime, and therefore I hold that the noble Lord laid a great foundation for the view which was taken of his remarks—not only in this House, but by persons out-of-doors, who, probably, spoke to him on the subject. But after having dealt with this particular case—and I may be permitted to say that in doing so he spoke in very disparaging terms of military men in general—the noble Lord went on to say—
He was only too well able to confirm what had been stated so emphatically by Lord Clyde when he deplored the facilities given to officers to exchange when they were in dangerous foreign climates. If there was one thing which destroyed discipline more than another, it was when a regiment was on a distant frontier, when perhaps every third man was down, and when officers left their men to sicken while they sought healthier or more comfortable quarters. Were not such officers open to the same imputation as though they were actually guilty of misconduct?"—[Ibid.]I say that is a libel on the officers of the Army. And what did the noble Lord go on to say? That "he did not mean to say that such things occurred." Well, then, if he did not, he had much better not have mentioned them; because, if they do not occur, his words mean nothing; and, if they do occur, I maintain that the noble Lord is bound to prove what I call a libel on the British Army. My Lords, I am sorry I have been obliged to trouble you on this subject; but having been so pointedly alluded to—the noble Lord having spoken of my claiming the monopoly of supporting the honour of the Army—I felt called upon to make these observations. I shall say no more at present except this—that I do not think the noble Lord's remarks on that occasion were such as I should have expected from a General Officer on full pay and holding a very high command.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI rise for the purpose of expressing a hope that it may not be necessary to prolong this discussion. If the noble Lord (Lord Sandhurst) found that the impression had got abroad that he had attacked the 468 honour of the officers and the present administration of the Army under the illustrious Duke, he had a right to take the first opportunity of clearing himself of that imputation, and, as a gallant and distinguished Officer, of disclaiming any intention of that character. I do not deny that the noble Duke had a right to reply to the imputation which he supposed had been made of claiming a monopoly of defending the honour of the British Army. But what I believe to be the case is this—we are all equally alive to the honour of the British Army, and that it is perfectly possible, while discussing those passing changes which relate to the discipline and future of the Army, to use arguments to show that one change is more beneficial than another for that discipline and that future, without exposing oneself to the slightest imputation of implying that feelings of dishonour influence the British Army, and without casting upon it one word of censure.
§
Bill reported, without amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, Twelve o'clock.