§ Mr. Humerose, pursuant to notice, to bring before the attention of the House a subject of considerable importance, in moving for returns of all officers who have been permitted to sell their full-pay, half-pay, and brevet commissions, since the last return in March; also a return of the money received and paid for the same. It would be necessary for him to recall the attention of the House to the steps taken by a noble lord (Castlereagh), now no more, in the year 1817, exertions in which the House anxiously co-operated, to establish a distinction between the effective and non-effective military establishments, and to provide means for the support of non-effective establishments, in such a manner as might relieve the country from maintaining them as a heavy and permanent burthen. In 1817, as appeared from an abstract of the amount of half-pay, superannuated allowances, civil and military, the amount chargeable to the army was 2,800,000l.; and, so far from a decrease having taken place in these allowances since that period, there had been, on the contrary, a very considerable increase. He would not go so far back in his calculations as 1817; and would only remark upon the statement he had just made, that, unless some controlling check was exercised to keep down the expense of this and other departments connected with the non-effective force of the country by those who had the management and direction of them, it was impossible that the expenditure should be ever constrained within due and proper limits. The period which he would select for a comparison with the present, as to the amount of the charge of the dead-weight, was the year 1822, when Mr. Vansittart brought before parliament the notable expedient to pay 185 for the dead-weight, whereby it was proposed, that by the decrease of life, which was likely to be the more rapid in a department connected with services in foreign countries, it would be gradually decreased, and finally annihilated. At the time of the bringing in of the deadweight bill by that right hon. gentleman in 1822, the half-pay and retired superannuated military allowances were 2,907,835l. Now, in 1817, the amount chargeable under the same head, was 2,800,000l., and at that time, the House would bear in mind that lord Castlereagh had said, that after twenty years of war, we were necessarily encumbered with a large half-pay list, which, by the prolonged continuance of peace would naturally be diminished, and consequently the charge of maintaining them. Taking the years 1822 and 1825 to shew what a little tendency there was to a reduction of this charge upon the nation, it appeared that the charge of the half-pay and retired superannuated allowances, in 1822, was 2,907,835l.—in 1825, 2,906,940l. The charge under this head, together with the charges under the head of Navy, Ordnance, civil, and miscellaneous departments, in these two years 1822 and 1825, shewed, that, instead of a decrease, there was a great and material increase. The account stood thus: dead-weight in 1822, 5,289,087l. — dead-weight in 1825, 5,302,499l.—increase, 13,412l. Now, this showed a clear tendency to an increase of the dead-weight, although assurances at the time of the introduction of this notable expedient were held out, that there would be an annual diminution of the charge of at least 5 per cent. Calculations were also at the time laid before the House from the Tontine Tables. These calculations were prepared by Mr. Finlayson, a clerk in the Sinking Fund Office, and by these calculations the country were induced to believe, that in forty-four years the whole of the deadweight would be annihilated by the gradual decrement, by death, of the persons to whom the allowances out of it were payable. Lord Castlereagh held out a still further reduction, not only by the decrease consequent upon death, but by the transfer of officers from half to full pay, according as vacancies might fall, to afford opportunity for such transfer. But what was the fact? The half-pay, in 1817, was 647,922l. It increased in 1818 to 186 651,903l.; in 1819 to 737,372l.; in 1820 to 783,387l.; in 1821 to765,781l.; and it went on increasing, in like manner, till 1825, when it amounted to 100,000l. more than it was in 1817. And this, although the report of the finance committee stated, that by the year 1821 a reduction on that branch of the expenditure might be expected of five per cent.— There was another novel practice to which the attention of the House ought to be called. He meant that of allowing officers on half-pay to sell their commissions. Whether the half-pay had been granted as a reward for past services, or as a retaining fee for renewed services, up to the year 1825, it had never been understood that the half-pay was a permanent charge on the country, or that those by whom it was enjoyed had any thing beyond a life-interest in it. By general orders from the Horse Guards, of the 2nd of May, 1825, and the 25th of April, 1826, officers on half-pay were empowered to sell their commissions, as unattached half-pay commissions, provided they were not above sixty years of age, that they had purchased their commissions, and that they had served twenty years in the whole, if lieutenant-colonels, majors, or captains; fifteen years, if lieutenants; or twelve years, if ensigns. The result had been highly detrimental to the public; for it appeared, that twenty-four lieutenant-colonels, forty-five majors, one hundred and eighty-two captains, sixty-one lieutenants, and fifty-eight ensigns, on half-pay, had sold out. Of those officers, who had thus sold out, there were four lieutenant-colonels, five majors, seventeen captains, and numerous lieutenants and ensigns who had been on the army-list for forty years; eleven of the officers, who had sold out, had been on the army-list above forty-five years; and two above fifty years. And to whom had these commissions been sold? Principally to young men who had been only a few years in the army. The consequence was, that the public, who had been paying this half-pay for twenty, thirty, or forty years, had entailed upon them, by this novel order from the Horse Guards, another payment, in many cases, of twenty, thirty, or forty years; thus perpetuating a description of allowance which was intended to terminate with the lives of those to whom it had been granted. The standing on the list of the army, of the 187 twenty-lour lieutenant-colonels who had sold their half-pay commissions, was on an average thirty-two years; whilst the average standing of the purchasers was only twenty years: the sellers of the forty-five majorities had served on an average thirty-one years, whilst the purchasers had served only fourteen years: the sellers of the one hundred and eighty-two half-pay companies had served on the average twenty-six years, whilst the purchasers had served only 8¾ years; the sellers of sixty-one half-pay lieutenancies had served on the average 17½ years, while the purchasers had served only 2¾ years; and the sellers of the fifty-eight half-pay ensigncies had served, or been on the list, 16½ years, while the purchasers had not served one day. Now, the country lost the amount of difference between these two averages; for it was quite clear that, if the several officers in the list he had read had been obliged to retain their half-pay till their decease, the country might expect to be released from the weight of their half-pay many years sooner than it now could by the demise of the much younger men by whom they were replaced. The substitution of young lives for old was a plan which would have the necessary effect of perpetuating that burthen on the country; for, if it were allowed to the parties he had alluded to, to sell, he did not see why purchasers might not expect the same indulgence at some future period; and thus that which was in its institution intended to be temporary, might be made permanent.—Another practice connected with the army, which tended much to increase and continue the burthens of the country, was that of giving so many new commissions while the half-pay list continued as full as it did. It was, he was told, the prerogative of the Crown to issue such commissions. That might be true; but he would contend, that it was a gross abuse of this prerogative, that there should be six hundred promotions yearly, and that so very few of them should be from the half-pay. To let the House sec the extent to which this was carried, he would state, that when his majesty's ministers, in the year 1822, pledged themselves to the decrease of our military establishment, the number of officers from the rank of colonel to that of ensign on full pay, was 4,393; on half-pay 6,887; making a total of ll,280. It might naturally have been supposed, 188 when the half-pay officers exceeded by a third the effective officers, that in all future promotions the officers would have been taken from the half-pay list; and, consequently, that the total number of officers would, at the present moment, be much smaller than in 1822. But what was the fact? It appeared that in the present year, 1826, though the number of officers on half-pay was only 6,373, being a diminution, as compared with the number in 1822, of 514; the number of officers on full-pay was 5,096; being an increase of 703. The aggregate number of officers at present therefore was, 11,469, being 219 more than in 1822. Was that a proof of the sincerity of the professions of economy and retrenchment which his majesty's government, in 1822, had returned in answer to the Address of the House of Commons? If the opinion of the committee of finance, that an annual reduction of 5 per cent might be justly expected to take place in the army list had been acted upon, that army list would now exhibit only 8,000 officers, instead of between 11 and 12,000. It would be easy to show that the public had been saddled with an expense of 100,000l. a year by these unnecessary promotions. He had stated the numbers from the rank of colonel to that of ensign: the numbers of all ranks, from that of colonel down to that of apothecary's assistants, stood as follows:—In 1822, there were on full-pay, 5,379; on half-pay, 8,342; making a total of 13,721; in 1826 there were on full pay 6,173, on half-pay 7,666, making a total of 13,839; being an increase from the year 1822 of 118 officers of all ranks, from that of colonel to that of apothecary's assistant. Now, if his majesty's government had paid any ordinary attention to economy, could such a state of things have been permitted?—It had been said, that the practice which had been introduced was beneficial to grey-headed officers, men who had been many years in the service. From all that he could observe, the reverse was the case, and veterans benefitted very little indeed from it. It occasioned officers of twelve or fourteen years' standing to be superseded by individuals of only two or three years' service. Such a circumstance must be any thing but satisfactory to the army. It appeared, by a reference to a list in his possession, of a few of the officers of various ranks, who had been allowed to 189 sell their half-pay commissions and retired full-pay, that lieutenant-colonel Cunningham, who was a lieutenant-colonel of the guards, at the age of thirty-two, a full colonel by brevet, and a general in the army, had been allowed to sell out, after having been forty-five years in the army, and twenty five years on half-pay; and had been allowed to sell all his commissions: that lieutenant-colonel M'Kenzie, after having been forty-six years an officer, had been allowed to sell all his commissions: that major M'Rea, who had been forty years on half-pay, after only three years of actual service, had been allowed to sell his half-pay commission. There were some cases still more surprising. General Clavering was promoted to be ensign, lieutenant, captain, and major, in 1794, and was put on half-pay in 1798; and yet was allowed to sell out in 1825. The same was the case with regard to several of the captains. He by no means imputed to the noble secretary at war, that he was actuated by any improper motives; but it was clear that in most, if not all, these cases, the officers who had sold out had been succeeded by young men. The plan, therefore, of thus allowing the half-pay to be sold, was nothing more nor less than a plan by which young officers were enabled to rise in the army over the heads of old ones; and no far from being lair or satisfactory, was distinctly the reverse. When it was considered, that the regular army in the united kingdom and the colonies amounted to 86,764, in the East Indies to 25,539, and engaged in recruiting to 476, making in the whole 114,779 men, it would be apparent, that if promotion were allowed to go on in the regular way, it would proceed with sufficient rapidity. It was true, that no officer was said to be allowed to purchase who was not at the time on full pay. But if he had merely attended the muster for a day or two, it was sufficient, and he might thus go on purchasing, step by step, until he had acquired what rank he wished. He did not say that the army ought not to be open to men of fortune; but he maintained, that throwing the door so widely open to patronage was extremely injurious in its effects on that House, as well as on the country. He had no hesitation in saving, that on several occasions members who had been disposed to support motions which he had made respecting the army, had not done so in consequence of their 190 prospects, or those of their friends in that profession. He wished, therefore, that a check should be applied to the present system; and it was on the necessity for such a check that he grounded his present motions: one thing more he wished to state. In April, 1826, not satisfied with the enormous means of promotion which already existed, an order was issued from the horse guards, allowing regimental officers on full pay, who held brevet rank in the army superior to their regimental rank, to have the option of retiring upon an unattached commission on half-pay, of the next effective rank above that which they held regimentally; and permitting them afterwards, if so disposed, to avail themselves of the regulations of the preceding year, by selling that unattached half-pay commission. As long as such practices as these were permitted, it was impossible to expect that this part of our military expenditure could be materially diminished. He would now move for "Returns of all Officers who have sold, their Retired, Full-pay, or Half-pay Commissions, specifying their names, rank, when they obtained their first commission as ensign or cornet, and when placed on half-pay, and of what corps; whether they purchased any and how many of their commissions, and how long they served in each rank; and whether they ever were on foreign service, and how long—since the return to this House, dated Horse Guards, 31st March, 1826."
§ Lord Palmerstonsaid, that although he did not intend to object to the motion of the hon. member, he would remind the House of the peculiar circumstances which led to the regulation of 1825. The object of it was not so much to save money to the public as to give a scope for promotion in the army. The only expense which it could occasion was the contingent expense of substituting new lives for old ones, in some few isolated cases. The hon. member had objected to the largeness of the half-pay list; but he ought to have recollected, that a large half-pay list was the I necessary consequence of the large establishments which the country had been obliged to maintain during the long and arduous struggle in which it had been engaged. There were but two modes of diminishing that list; namely, the death of the individuals placed upon it, or their appointment to full-pay. Now the House must be aware, that among the retired 191 officers on half-pay, there were many individuals who were neither desirous nor able to return to full-pay, and who were, consequently, in every sense of the words, a dead weight to the public. One object of the regulation was to enable such individuals to sell the annuities which they enjoyed to individuals who were fit to come upon full-pay, and so to effect a saving to the public. The cases referred to by the hon. member, of individuals who had retired upon half-pay, and who had been permitted to sell the annuities they so received, so far from being proofs of the regulation having been improperly acted upon, were proofs that it had produced all the advantageous results which had been anticipated from it; for it had enabled the country to get rid of a certain number of officers who were not eligible to situations on full-pay. He repeated, however, that the great object of the regulation had been to give scope for promotion in the army. Before that regulation was made, a great want of promotion had been deeply felt by the army. Officers of every rank had remained in their rank so long as to lose all hope of further preferment. Now, he contended that, unless the hope of promotion was given to the army, its military spirit would be damped, and it would cease to be that body which, in a constitutional sense, it ought to be. The regulation had, therefore, been most beneficial in its effects, by bringing into the ranks of the army officers who were qualified for their situations, and by giving to those officers a new and effective spur to the performance of their duties. The hon. member had also complained that persons of rank and family purchased promotion with much greater rapidity than it could be obtained by the usual routine of service. He would not deny that they did so: on the contrary, he would maintain, that it was a practice equally good in a military and in a constitutional point of view. He thought it was desirable to connect the higher classes of society with the army; and he did not know any more effective method of connecting them, than by allowing members of high families, who held commissions, to get on with greater rapidity than they would by mere seniority. This method of inducing men of family to enter into the service, was viewed, not with disgust, but with satisfaction, by the army. The hon. member had likewise said, that great partiality had been displayed in dis- 192 posing of the patronage of the army, and that many of the hon. gentlemen who usually voted with him, were deterred from voting with him on subjects like the present, by the fears they entertained of retarding the promotion of their military relatives. Now, he really thought that the hon. member, if he made inquiry on his own side of the House, would find himself mistaken in that assertion. Indeed, he would appeal to the gentlemen opposite, and would ask them whether they believed that any regard was paid by his royal highness the commander-in-chief, in his disposal of military commissions, to the political opinions of those to whom they were given? He contended, that officers on the opposition side of the House received their fair share of promotion, and that the hon. gentleman, in denying it, was labouring under very considerable misapprehension. He believed it would be universally admitted, that no human being could dispose of the patronage of the army more fairly, more impartially, and more advantageously to the public service, than the present commander-in-chief. [Cheers from all parts of the House.] The hon. member had also said, that the power of issuing new commissions ought to cease, and that all vacant ensigncies should be filled up by ensigns taken from the half-pay. If such a proposition were to be adopted, the country would soon have an army inefficient for all warlike purposes. To call from half-pay to full-pay ensigns who had arrived at a mature period of life, and who were perhaps burthened with families, and living as they could in the country on the small pittance allowed them by the state,—to force such men to march about the country with their families, and perhaps to proceed with their regiments to foreign stations, would, instead of being a boon, be an infliction of positive injury upon them. The service would also receive as much injury as the individuals; for, instead of being provided with officers capable of rising from its lower to its higher grades, it would be filled with officers rendered by age incapable of exertion. Such a plan as the hon. member proposed was quite impracticable. Unless the vacant commissions were given to new officers, the connexion between the army and the upper classes of society would be dissolved, and then the army would assume a very dangerous and unconstitutional appear- 193 ance. It was only when the army was unconnected with those whose property gave them an interest in the welfare of the country, and was commanded by unprincipled military adventurers, that it could ever become formidable to the liberties of the nation.—The noble lord then proceeded to show the absurdity of the hon. member's proposition to absorb the half-pay list entirely, by promoting the officers placed upon it to full-pay. The returns lately presented to parliament, respecting the disposal of vacant commissions, showed distinctly, that one out of every three was given to the half-pay list, and that that proportion was as much as could be granted without entirely crushing that list. He then explained the regulations recently made, as to the retirement of officers who held brevet rank in the army. It was proposed to let officers who held such rank retire on half-pay on unattached commissions, and to give them, in so doing, one step higher than the regimental rank to which they had reached. The proposition was agreed to, in order to relieve regiments of old officers, and to give them that promotion to which they were entitled by the length of their services. In conclusion, he contended, that both regulations were calculated to confer benefit on the state, and were not so disadvantageous, in a pecuniary point of view, as had been stated by the hon. member for Aberdeen.
§ Mr. Calcraftsaid, that he rose for the purpose of saying a word as to the manner in which the patronage of the army was exercised by the present commander-in-chief. He thought it right, as a member of opposition, to say, that he could bear testimony to the fair and impartial manner in which his royal highness, the duke of York, administered the patronage of the army. He could speak of it, not only with regard to his own family, but also with regard to the families of other opposition members with whom he was acquainted. It was impossible for any individual to dispose more impartially of patronage than his royal highness. If the manner in which the patronage of the army was disposed of were compared with the manner in which the patronage of the navy was disposed of, the comparison would be highly advantageous to the duke of York. He felt it to be his duty to make this statement, because he differed widely in general politics from his royal highness, 194 and because he had been compelled, upon one occasion, to take a part that could not have failed to be personally offensive to the royal duke. Such a step on his part had made no difference in the conduct of his royal highness towards those members of his family who had entered into the army. With respect to the present system of promoting officers in the army, the mode of administering that system more than counterbalanced the expense which it entailed upon the country. It was impossible to have that class of persons which it was desirable to have in the military service, if they were to continue without promotion as long as the peace might last.
Sir R. Fergussonconcurred in every thing which had fallen from his hon. friend, respecting the impartiality with which his royal highness the duke of York administered the patronage of the army. The place which he had occupied for many years on the opposition benches, and which he expected he should retain as long as he had a seat in parliament, had never made any difference in the attention which his royal highness had thought fit to bestow on himself and the different members of his family who were in the army. If his political opinions had produced any effect on the royal duke's mind, he believed that it was to pay greater attention to him than he would, perhaps, have bestowed on a political adherent.
§ Sir C. Colesaid, he should not have troubled the House with any observations, had it not been for the attack which had been made on those who distributed the patronage of the navy. He conceived such attack to be most unfounded, and could bear testimony to the impartiality with which promotion was dispensed amongst the deserving officers of that service.
§ General Gascoynedefended the recent regulations. He contended, that there were not officers on the half-pay list sufficient to fill up the different situations of daily necessity. The half-pay list ought not to be considered as a matter of economy, so much as a matter of utility. Instead of placing officers from it upon the full-pay, it would often be more advantageous to the service to place officers upon it from the full-pay. There was, in one regiment, an ensign who was sixty-one years of age, and several officers who were not much younger. He defended the propriety of the regulation made re- 195 specting officers who held brevet rank, The battle of Waterloo, which had given brevet rank to every officer of a certain rank who was present at it, had consider-ably increased the number of officers of that rank. Indeed, in some regiments, the number of brevet officers had been of great hindrance to the public service. In one regiment, out of eight captains, six held a higher brevet rank, and therefore, by the rules of the service, two of them were only liable to be called upon to perform the usual regimental duty. To get rid of this inconvenience, they were allowed to go on half-pay on their brevet rank; gaining, however, not more than one step above their regimental rank by so doing. He conceived such a measure to be no less useful to the public, than it was beneficial to the service, and advantageous to the officer who thought proper to retire.
§ The motion was then agreed to.
§ Mr. Hume, in proposing his next resolution, commented on the statement made by the gallant member for Liverpool; namely, that there was in the British army an ensign of sixty-one years of age. He would ask the gallant general how long that individual had served? Was it twenty, thirty, or forty years? Let it be which it might, the fact of his remaining an ensign after so long a period of service, was one of the greatest reproaches that could be uttered against the management of the army. He had never accused the duke of York of partiality in administering the patronage of the army. On the contrary, he had admitted that it was fairly exercised, and had said that it was not to the man, but to the system that he objected. All he had done was, to object to his having the power of bestowing patronage, and in such a channel as increased the half-pay list, which the House had shown an anxiety to reduce. Could it be right that the country should have the same half-pay list in the tenth year of peace that we had in 1816. With regard to the comparative abuse of patronage in the two services, he would say, that the abuse in the navy was to that in the army in the ratio of ten to one. He could prove that mere boys at school had been placed in command of ships, when the officers whom they commanded were lieutenants. That was a species of abuse which cried aloud for correction. The hon. member then moved for "a return of all Officer who have purchased the 196 said Commissions; specifying their names, and when they obtained their first Commissions in the Army as Ensign or Cornet; whether they purchased any and how many of their Commissions, and bow long they served in each rank; and whether they ever were on Foreign service, and how long—as far as the same can be complied with, since the Returns to this House, dated the 31st of March, 1826." The motion was agreed to.