HC Deb 30 March 1836 vol 32 cc846-54
Sir William Molesworth

said, he wished to aska question of the noble Lord the Secretary at War. Having read the decision of a court-martial, in which it was stated that there had been introduced into the 15th regiment of Hussars "a practice which (the court-martial said) cannot be considered otherwise than revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman, and as being certain to create disunion and to be most injurious to his Majesty's service;" having read, likewise, in a general order from the Horse Guards, that "his Majesty has been pleased to approve and confirm the finding of the court;" and likewise that "his Majesty has been pleased to order that Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the command of the 15th Hussars;" he wished to ask the Secretary at War whether, without this decision being previously cancelled, without its being solemnly proclaimed to the army as being most unjust and false, it can possibly be true that the noble Lord in question is appointed to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons? If it be true that such is the case, he wished to know likewise whether the Secretary at War had approved of and sanctioned this appointment?

Viscount Howick

, in answer to the question put by the hon. Baronet, could only say, that it certainly was true that the noble Lord referred to had been appointed to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons. Having stated this fact, which the hon. Baronet was equally aware of before from having seen it gazetted, in answer to the second part of the hon. Baronet's question—namely, whether that appointment had taken place with his (Lord Howick's) sanction, he could only say that the hon. Baronet, by the fact of asking such a question, had shown himself to be quite unacquainted with the practice adhered to in making these appointments. The duty of a Secretary at War, as many hon. Members from experience knew, and particularly the gallant officer opposite, was confined to watching over the arrangement of the finances appropriated to the army. He had no concern or right whatever to interfere in any respect in army promotions, appointments, or in anything connected with the discipline or internal management of the army; for all that related to such matters, the Commander-in-chief, and he only, was responsible. According to the usual practice, the Secretary at War was never made aware of any intended promotion or appointment until the Horse Guards minute had actually been approved by his Majesty, and sent by the Commander-in-chief to the War-office. The Secretary at War had no more to do with military appointments than the hon. Baronet had. This was the usual course; but in the present instance he could not say that the usual practice had altogether been adhered to, for in point of fact he had been aware, before the appointment in question was submitted to the Crown, that such an appointment was intended. When he was apprised by the Commander-in-chief of the contemplated appointment, his answer was, "It is for your Lordship to determine upon it: I have no means of judging whether the appointment is right or wrong; your Lordship is the responsible party, and it, therefore, rests altogether with your judgment. If you think proper to make the appointment, I have no possible grounds upon which to object." He (Lord Howick) had said, that he had no grounds upon which to object, because he had found in the records of the War-office, that a few months before the court-martial took place which led to the removal of the noble Lord from the 15th Hussars, a correspondence had taken place between his right hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, then Secretary at War, and the Commander-in-chief, the result of which had been the full acquiescence of that noble Lord in the rule very properly laid down for his adoption by the right hon. Gentleman—that no officer "should be removed from full to half-pay but who was not considered by the Commander-in-chief fit— from his character and conduct—to be called again into active service, if the Commander-in-chief should think proper." This being the principle fully admitted by Lord Hill in November, 1833, and the noble Lord now in question not having been put by him on the half-pay list in March, 1834, it was manifest that the noble and gallant officer must at that time have been considered by the Commander-in-chief as eligible in every respect to be called into active employment when the occasion should be considered by him to arrive. He (Lord Howick) had therefore considered that he had no right whatever to object to the appointment, and that it might be very possible, for all he was entitled to know to the contrary, that among all the candidates for employment, the noble Lord had made the most fitting selection. Upon this point there were no documents within the reach of the Secretary at War which might enable him to form an opinion. He would repeat, the appointment had certainly taken place, and with his knowledge, and without any objection on his part; but at the same time without his sanction—in this sense, that, as he had before said, as Secretary at War, he had not been called upon to give or withhold his consent.

Mr. Hume

said, that the noble Lord having very honestly and candidly stated that he was not responsible for these matters, he should beg leave to ask the noble Lord, in the name of the Commons of England, who was. It was fit that somebody should be responsible to the country for the management and control of the army, and moreover, that the country should know who that responsible person was. The government, responsible to the country for the general conduct of its affairs, intrusted to a noble Lord the management and superintendence of the internal affairs of the army. He (Mr. Hume) wished it to be understood, whether that noble Lord was independent of all responsibility, and whether his acts, as Commander-in-chief, were to be subject to no control from any quarter whatsoever? Was the Secretary at War, in point of fact, as he (Mr. Hume) had really stated the case to be, merely a clerk to the Commander-in-chief? It was necessary that the country should be put in possession of the real nature of the case, and that it should be understood whether the party exercising the entire control and management of the army was or was not subject to the same responsibility which attached to Ministers themselves.

Lord John Russell

would offer a few observations upon what had been asked, without, however, going much into the question, upon which he rather agreed with the hon. Member, in reference to the powers of the Secretary at War as regarded the Commander-in-chief. But so far as regarded appointments and promotions in the army, the discretion was placed, and he must say by no means improperly placed, in the Commander-in-chief. If the Commander-in-chief, being the person of the highest station in the army, and necessarily acquainted with the merits of the different officers serving in it, did his duty, he was responsible for the appointments and promotions made by him, his Majesty's Ministers, the First Lord of the Treasury, being responsible for advising his Majesty to adopt the recommendations of the Commander-in-chief in such cases. If, on the contrary, his Majesty's Ministers were of opinion that the discretion so lodged in the Commander-in-chief was wrongly exercised, that it was not exercised in such a manner as to benefit the army and do credit to the service, he should say the responsibility, in such a case, fell upon the Ministers, for not advising his Majesty to remove the Commander-in-chief. So that, in his (Lord John Russell's) view of the matter, while Lord Hill continued Commander-in-chief, he was, no doubt, responsible for the due execution of his duties, and for taking care that all the appointments and promotions made by him, should be founded upon his unbiassed judgment of the merits of the respective officers, and their position in the service. For the general discretion, and confidence placed by Government in the person holding the office of Commander-in-chief, he (Lord John Russell) was ready to take his share of responsibility, for he thought that if a Ministry were of opinion that the person holding so important an office was not properly and conscientiously performing his duties, it would be they, and not the Commander-in-chief, who would be responsible, for their clear duty would be to advise his Majesty to make another choice.

Mr. Hume

wished to know whether he were right in understanding the noble Lord to have said, that the Commander-in-chief was responsible for the promotions he made, and the Ministers of the Crown were responsible for the acts of the Commander-in-chief. Then, if so, he wished to ask the noble Lord to inform him whether the act of promoting Lord Brudenell received the Ministers' sanction and approbation.

Lord John Russell

thought he had explained the position of Ministers and the position of the Commander-in-chief. His explanation was, that the Commander-in-chief was responsible for the particular acts which he advised, and the Ministers were responsible for advising the Crown to place confidence in him. With respect to the particular act of the appointment of Lord Brudenell, he would apply to that what he had stated as to the appointments of the Commander-in-chief generally. He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient if on each occasion of the appointment to a lieutenant-colonelcy, or other commission in a regiment, it became the practice that those who held civil situations in his Majesty's service, should intrude their opinions on the Commander-in-chief in respect to the military services of the officer. As to the case of Lord Brudenell, he, like his noble Friend (Lord Howick) was informed by Lord Hill that such an appointment was in contemplation before Lord Hill had decided on making it; but certainly he did not think proper, any more than his noble Friend, to inform Lord Hill that he had formed an opinion as to whether Lord Brudenell should or should not be placed in the situation of lieutenant-colonel of a regiment; but he did make some observations that were similar to those made by his noble Friend. He said, he thought that it was a question for the discretion of the Commander-in-chief. He had understood, from what he recollected of the circumstances, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, who was Secretary at War, asked at the time of Lord Brudenell's removal from the command of the 15th Hussars, whether he was to understand that the Commander-in-chief would not think fit to appoint Lord Brudenell to such a situation as he now held; and he believed Lord Hill stated to his right hon. Friend, that he did consider Lord Brude- nell as a person, whom, at some future time, he should think it a benefit to the military service to employ again under his Majesty's command. Lord Hill having given that opinion in 1834, he considered it was a question for Lord Hill's discretion and judgment whether the removal of Lord Brudenell from active service should be followed by a continuance of that punishment—for it must be considered as a punishment—for a greater or a less period of time. He did not venture to say, that he thought it was fit at this time, or not fit, to remove him; but this much he did say, that he had full confidence that Lord Hill would form an unbiassed judgment on the subject, according to his conscientious sense of duty. Therefore he came back to what he had stated in the beginning, viz., that Lord Hill was responsible for this act, and the Ministers were responsible for confiding in him as a person fit to be trusted in the office of Commander-in-chief.

Sir Henry Hardinge

entirely concurred in opinion with the Noble Lord who last spoke, and also with the Noble Lord who was Secretary at War, as regarded their responsibility, for the appointment under consideration. There was certainly a general responsibility, and the special responsibility rested with the Commander-in-chief. He agreed with the Noble Lord that if the Commander-in-chief conducted the affairs of the army in such a way as not to secure the confidence of the Government, it was a fit subject for the consideration of the Government whether they should not advise his Majesty to remove him from his office. He admitted the principle, and thought that was the mode in which the affairs of the army ought to be carried on. But he had heard that night, as on former occasions, that Lord Hill did so conduct himself as to merit the confidence of the Government. Under these circumstances in his opinion the act of Lord Hill was an act which was approved by the Government, inasmuch as the Government did not interfere in the individual appointments of the Commander-in-chief, unless those appointments were such as they disapproved of; in which case they were bound to remonstrate, and, if necessary, apply the remedy of removing the Commander-in-chief from his office. As to this particular case the hon. Member for Cornwall stated that Lord Brudenell was removed from the command of the 15th Hussars in consequence of the sentence of the court martial, and he had quoted the substance of it, from which it appeared that the charge against Lord Brudenell was, that he was in the habit of taking down the private Communications of officers in the orderly-room without their knowledge.

The Speaker

suggested to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the propriety of not entering into particulars.

Sir Henry Hardinge

was not going to enter into the particulars. He was only about to state, that the noble Lord, when he was removed from the command of the 15th Hussars, in consequence of the verdict, did petition the King praying that he would allow him to be tried by a general court martial, and declaring that he never had—

Mr. Hume

rose to order. In his opinion, they ought either to enter into the subject fully and fairly, or not go into it at all. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced details into the debate which were not noticed in asking the question. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it right to enter into a general discussion of the subject now:—in his opinion, the details ought to be reserved for the period when the question came regularly before the House. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman being permitted to go into particulars, unless the other side were allowed the privilege of reply.

Sir Henry Hardinge

said, he did not wish to go into particulars; but the hon. Member for Cornwall stated a fact, and he thought it but fair that he should be allowed to rebut that fact. Lord Brudenell, so far from assenting to the justice of the sentence upon him, petitioned the King praying his Majesty to order that he should be tried by a general court-martial. The King, however, did not acquiesce in his request; thinking, probably, that it would be injurious to the service to do so. But it was intimated to Lord Brudenell, that the case being one of discipline only, he might expect to be reinstated in his original position after a time. The Secretary at War of that day asked the Commander-in-chief if he considered the conduct of Lord Brudenell such that he should be permanently placed on the half-pay list, or temporarily as a punishment merely? the answer was, that he was placed on half-pay for the purpose of being restored to the service on a future occasion. It followed that the sentence of the court, in the estimation of the Commander-in-chief was not such as to call for the permanent removal of Lord Brudenell from the active service of the King. He had taken steps to ascertain what were the impressions entertained on the subject by persons at head-quarters; and he could state them to have been, that there was no intention to fix Lord Brudenell permanently on the half-pay list, but on the contrary to restore him, after a time, to active service. He begged to add, that he never saw an appointment with more satisfaction than he did that by which the noble Lord was placed on full pay. It was an appointment by which the gallant Officer was restored with honour to the service; and he was satisfied that in his future career he would do that appointment credit.

Captain Curteis, as a Member of the court martial referred to, begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether he meant to impugn the justice of the verdict of that court?

Sir Henry Hardinge

had never advocated the system of canvassing the sentences of courts martial in that House, and he had not done so on the present occasion. That being the case, he begged to say, in Parliamentary phrase, that the Gallant Officer ought not to ask him a question of that kind.

Mr. Curteis

disapproved, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, of the interference of that House with the discipline of the army. He was glad the question had afforded the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of making a satisfactory reply.

Lord G. Lennox

said, he had the honour of commanding in the army for twenty-four years, and there was no one transaction in his military life which gave him more satisfaction than he derived from seeing the name of Lord Brudenell restored to the array. He should not feel that he had acted with justice towards Lord Brudenell if he did not make that declaration boldly in the face of military men.

Sir William Molesworth

gave notice that soon after Easter, he should move a humble Address to his Majesty on the subject of this appointment. In the course of this evening he should move for Copies of the Correspondence referred to by the gallant Officer opposite.

Sir H. Hardinge

asked what the hon. Gentleman meant by correspondence?

Sir William Molesworth

The Petition and the Answer.

Sir H. Hardinge

said, he knew of no correspondence but the Petition of Lord Brudenell, and the answer received to it. As to those documents, he had no doubt the hon. Member would be as much gratified as he was on seeing them, if the hon. Member had the feelings of a Gentleman, which no doubt he had.

Lord Howick

suggested, that the hon. Gentleman should not move this evening for a Copy of the Petition, as he (Lord Howick) should not feel justified in concurring in the motion, or, indeed, in any motion for the production of any Papers on the subject, till he had been afforded an opportunity of communicating with Lord Hill.

Subject dropped.