THE BREVET PROMOTION.

HC Deb 11 March 1837 vol 37 cc286-93

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report of Supply.

Mr. Hume

said, in submitting the motions of which he had given notice, he had no wish to take up the time of the House. All he wanted was, the names of the officers contained in the late brevet, with the names and dates of their commissions, and their periods of service. These data he thought would show, that in the late brevet the public money had been unnecessarily expended, and that the promotions had been made with partiality, and had not depended on the merit of the individual as it ought to have done. The object of his motions was to obtain information on these points, which would show this partiality. He would, therefore, move for "a return of the number of officers in the army of each regimental rank, on full pay, on the 25th of December, 1836; distinguishing the number in each class who held brevet rank in addition to their regimental, and stating also what brevet rank; together with an abstract of the total amount of pay of such officers, for the year 1836."

Viscount Howick

had no wish to with-, hold any information on the subjects to which the hon. Member referred, which could be given consistently with the despatch of public business in the offices from which the returns were to be made. All the information relevant to the points on which the hon. Gentleman had sought it, he was most willing to give with that restriction; but he submitted to the House whether, consistently with the despatch of ordinary business in the respective offices, returns could be made such as were sought for in the present, and the other resolutions of the hon. Member, which were to show the particular services of all the officers included in the late brevet. Let the House recollect that in that brevet there were included 440 officers of the line, 129 in the artillery, and 16 in the marines, making in all 585. How was it possible that, in any time which could be available for the object which the hon. Member professed to have in view, these returns could be made? Some of the officers included in the brevet had entered into the service as far back as the year 1774, and one part of the hon. Member's motion required the accounts of the services of each officer in that period; but, supposing these could be given, it would not still comply with the hon. Member's motion, for it would not include the services of staff officers. He would admit that the late promotion did not depend on services, but on seniority. Many officers were not included in the brevet because they had deprived themselves of its advantages by going on half-pay or retired allowance; but all the others were included, according to the general regulations. He repeated, that he had no objection to furnish all the information on these points, and also the regulations on which the late brevet promotion was made, but some parts of the hon. Member's motion he could not comply with, for they were utterly inconsistent, from the time and labour they would take, with the performance of the public business of the offices to which they applied.

On the first resolution being read,

Sir George Sinclair

said, that the only fault he had ever heard out of doors with the late brevet promotion was, that it had been deferred too long—until many deserving officers, both naval and military, had gone to their graves who ought to have participated in the promotion. He was not desirous to discuss the general question at present. He wished, however, to ask the noble Lord—and he had to apologize for not having given notice of the question—why the name of Sir W. Tuyll had not been included in the brevet? That officer, as he understood, had distinguished himself during a long period of active and laborious exertion in every part of the globe, and was highly esteemed by all those with or under whom he had served. He thought it a case of singular hardship if any regulations existed which could deprive so meritorious an officer of his well-earned meed of reward.

Viscount Howick

said, that the case of the officer whom the hon. Baronet had named did not fall within the regulations by which the brevet promotion had been decided; but he admitted the hardship of the case, and it would be a matter of consideration whether the particular injury in this case should not be remedied.

Sir George Sinclair

begged to express his satisfaction at the explanation given by the noble Lord, and he trusted he would lose no time in introducing some measure to remedy the hardship. He had not the honour of ever being personally known to Sir W. Tuyll, and had never seen him to the best of his knowledge; but he was induced on public grounds to notice this case, which had casually come to his knowledge, and he should rejoice in being in any way instrumental in obtaining justice for an officer whose merits were universally acknowledged.

Return ordered.

Mr. Hume

then moved for a "Return of the names of all officers in the army, promoted by brevet since the 1st of January, 1837; distinguishing those on full, from those on half and on retired pay, at the time of promotion, &c."

Viscount Howick

would ask the House whether it was fair to take up the time of the clerks, a department already fully employed, with the details which the hon. Member required as to 580 officers. The hon. Member suspected that the late promotion was not fair in three or four instances, and he brought forward this fishing motion, which extended over not alone the officers whom the hon. Member had in his eye, but the whole 580 included in the brevet. Another reason why the hon. Member's motion ought not to be pressed was, that if he (Mr. Hume) intended to found any motion on it this Session, he would defeat his own object, for the Returns could not be ready in the present nor even in the next year. He repeated, that he had no objection to give information relevant to the subject of the brevet which could be given without interrupting the whole business of the departments from which they were to be made.

Mr. Hume

said, that if he had called for an account of the services of three or four officers it would seem invidious. He, therefore, moved for an account of all, and the answer he now got from the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, was, that he could not tell the services of any one officer.

The Earl of Darlington

opposed the motion, to comply with which would require the labour of some hundreds of clerks for many months. There was no service in the world in which less favour was shown in promotion than in the army of England.

Sir J. Wrottesley

objected to the late brevet, particularly to that part of it by which colonels were promoted to the rank of major-generals, when we had twenty times more generals than we could possibly want. Out of nearly forty colonels who were so promoted, only nine were in actual service.

Sir H. Hardinge

would not delay the House by going into the details of the motion, but he would say, that since the peace there had been a reduction of about 6,000 officers, and a saving thus made to the public of 1,800,000l. a-year.

Sir J. Elley

regretted that the hon. Member for Middlesex should have selected Major-General Sir Charles Thornton, and called for an account of his particular services. Why not have selected some general officer who was a Member of that House, and could have defended himself against the charge implied in such a motion of having been unfairly promoted? He could tell the reason why this invidious selection had been made of Sir Charles Thornton—it was because he was a dutiful, affectionate, and loyal subject to his Sovereign.

Mr. Hume

. Who is not a loyal subject?

Sir J. Elley

. Joseph Hume. ["Order."]

Mr. Hume

. Sir, I must say, that if ever the hon. and gallant Officer told an untruth, that which he has now uttered is one. I ask, why should the hon. and gallant Officer dare impute to me that I am a disloyal subject? I ask of you, Sir, whether the hon. and gallant Officer has not been guilty of a gross breach of order?

The Speaker

. There can be no doubt, that for one Member to impute to another, that he is a disloyal subject, is highly irregular, and the hon. Member who has made that imputation, is bound to retract it.

Sir J. Elley

. I did not mean to charge the hon. Member with disloyalty. I spoke of comparative loyalty.

Mr. Hume

. I rise to order. The hon. and gallant officer did not use any terms to qualify his allegation. He stated, that the reason why 1 selected the instance of Sir Charles Thornton, in the return of which I gave notice, and which I intend to move with respect to that officer, was, that he was a dutiful, affectionate, and loyal subject to his Sovereign. I then, perhaps irregularly, interrupted the hon. and gallant Member, by asking—who was not so? To which the gallant officer replied, "Joseph Hume." Sir, I contend that that was a gross breach of order, which fully justified the term I applied to it, and which the gallant Officer is bound to retract.

Sir J. Elley

. "If what I said was wrong, I beg pardon of the House, and I assure the hon. Member that I had no intention of imputing disloyalty to him in the words which, I admit, I hastily used. I meant to speak of loyalty only in the comparison as between him and the gallant officer Sir C. Thornton." The hon. and gallant Officer then went on to speak of the great services of General Thornton, who had lost an arm in defence of his country, and who was, in every respect, fully entitled to every promotion he had received. The merits of that gallant Officer had had the testimony of one who was almost adored whilst living, and universally regretted at his death—he meant the late General Sir Ralph Abercromby.

Several returns relative to the army were ordered.

Mr. Hume

then moved for "a return of the names of all midshipmen and officers of the royal navy promoted since the 1st of January, 1837, distinguishing those on full pay and employed, from those on half-pay and retired pay, at the time of such promotion; stating the date of entry of each into the navy, when passed their examination for lieutenants, the several ranks or ratings they have held, the dates thereof, the names of the several ships or vessels wherein they so served, the time each has served on full pay in each rank, and the dates thereof, showing the aggregate time served, the time each officer was on half and on retired pay of each rank, and the aggregate time on half-pay, or retired pay; also the age of each officer at the last promotion, as returned by himself."

Mr. Charles Wood

objected to the motion, on the same grounds as those urged by his noble Friend (Lord Howick) against some of those already moved.

Mr. Hume

defended the motion. The information for which he sought was absolutely necessary, and he could not consent to withdraw the motion. The hon. Member (Mr. C. Wood) had not stated any ground why the House should refuse the motion.

Mr. C. Wood

. One ground on which he objected to the motion, and which he was sure the House would admit, was the immense time it would take to prepare these returns. When he (Mr. C. Wood) saw the notice of motion, he consulted with the chief clerk in the department of Somerset-house, in which the returns were to be prepared; and he said, that they could not be got ready in less than three years and a-half. Another clerk said, that he could not say exactly what time it would take to prepare them, but it could not be less than between three and four years; and let it be understood, that these answers applied to only one-half of the information for which the hon. Member called. He would put it to the House whether it would consent to encumber any public department with the preparation of returns, which must stop all other business? He would contend that the promotions which had taken place, had been conducted on the fairest principles; and in proof of it, would beg to refer the hon. Member to a letter addressed to him by a distinguished officer in the navy (Admiral Napier) who had put the question on its fairest grounds. The hon. Member would there find, that it would be impossible to conduct the service of the navy, unless a number of young officers were kept up. The only thing to object to the late promotion was, that it had been too long delayed. It would be seen that, notwithstanding the promotion, there would be a considerable reduction of the half-pay.

Captain Pechell

supported the motion on the ground that the return would show that a great number of midshipmen, after long and meritorious services in that sub ordinate grade, had attained a very advanced age, without being rewarded by the promotion to which they were entitled.

Mr. C. Wood

had no objection to grant the return, if confined to admirals, as it could then be made out, without any immoderate delay.

Sir E. Codrington

said, that the officers lately promoted had only received the reward to which they were entitled by their long services during the war. There had been no promotion for a long time and it was absolutely necessary to promote young and active officers.

Mr. Bannerman

said, that though he had the highest respect for the King's prerogative, he did not see why a Committee should not be appointed to inquire into the system of military promotion; and if no hon. Member better qualified than himself took up the subject, he would himself submit a motion to that effect.

Mr. Hume

said, that as the Secretary to the Admiralty objected to the return, on the ground of expense, if the documents were submitted to his inspection, he would send a clerk to the War-office, and have the returns made out at his own cost. His complaint was, that many who had fairly earned their promotion, had been passed by. The regulations of 1827, he contended, were ruining the navy; and such was the wasteful expenditure of the public money, that a pension for life was granted to officers for a period of service, on an average, not exceeding three years.

Mr. C. Wood

said, that on the 3rd of January, 1816, the number of officers was augmented to 6,035. On the 1st of January, 1830, when rules were made for the purpose of progressively reducing the list, the number was reduced by nearly 400. Since that period there had been a reduction of 600.

Mr. Lambton

thought, that promotion in the army and navy was obtained too much by aristocratical or political influence, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman's motion would tend to remedy that abuse.

Sir Henry Hardinge

opposed the motion, as he entertained the strongest ob- jections to any inquiry on the part of the House of Commons, into the causes of promotion, and disapproved of any attempt to single out invidiously particular cases.

The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 66: Majority 49.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	O'Connell, M.
Brotherton, J.	Bundle, J.
Chichester, J. P.	Trelawny, Sir W.
Codrington, Admiral	Turner, W.
Dick, Q.	Verney, Sir H.
Duncombe, T.	Wilks, John
Gordon, hon. Captain	Williams, W.
Grote, George	TELLERS.
Hector, C. J.	Hume, J.
Leader, J. T.	Lambton, C.

List of the NOES.
Bailey, J.	Longfield, R.
Baillie, H. D.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Bannerman, A.	Marsland, T.
Baring, H. B.	Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Baring, W.B.	Neeld, John
Benett, J.	North, Frederick
Boldero, H. G.	O'Connell, M. J.
Bradshaw, J.	Paget, F.
Brownrigg, S.	Palmerston, Viscount
Bruce, C. L. C.	Pechell, Captain
Buller, Sir J.	Pelham, J. C.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Chaplin, Col.	Phillips, C. M.
Chetwynd, Captain	Price, Sir R.
Cripps, J.	Rice, right hon. T. S.
Dalbiac, Sir C.	Ross, C.
Darlington, Earl of	Scott, Sir E. D.
Dillwyn, L. W.	Scott, J. W.
Dundas, J. D.	Smith, A.
Elley, Sir J.	Stanley, W. O.
Fleetwood, Peter H.	Steuart, R.
Forster, C. S.	Thomson, C. P.
Fort, John	Thompson, P. B.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Grey, Sir G.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hardinge, Sir H.	Tynte, C. J. K.
Hillsborough, Earl of	Weyland, Major
Hinde, J. H.	Wilson, H.
Hotham, Lord	Wood, C.
Howick, Lord Visc.	Wrottesley, Sir J.
James, W.	Young, J.
Lawson, Andrew
Lefevre, Charles S.	TELLERS.
Lefroy, A.	Baring, F.
Lennox, Lord G.	Smith, V.

The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up.