COMMISSIONS IN THE ARMY. (Hansard, 3 March 1843)

Mr. Bernal

begged to bring under the consideration of the House a case of great interest to the army in general, and especially to that gallant part of it the Foot Guards. The case to which he referred was that of General Sir John Woodford, who had always been attached to that part of the service. Sir John Woodford entered the Grenadier Guards in the year 1800. In 1813 he was enabled to purchase his company, giving for it the regulation price, amounting to about 4,800l., which exceeded by about 300l. the regulation price given for a company in the line. When this purchase was made in 1813 it was not allowable to an officer to purchase a higher grade in the Foot Guards. But by a subsequent regulation of the Horse Guards, it was declared and legalized that the superior grades of major and lieutenant-colonel in the Guards might be obtained by purchase. This being the case, Sir John Woodford, being naturally reluctant to see junior officers step over his head, availed himself of the first opportunity to purchase a majority, for which he gave the regulation sum 3,500l. Shortly afterwards he purchased the step of lieutenant-colonel, for which he paid the regulation price, 700l., so that in the whole, Sir John Woodford had expended in the purchase of different grades in the Foot Guards, no less a sum than 9,000l. In 1837, by the brevet which then came out, Sir John Woodford, 258 with other officers of the same rank, became a major-general. Of course, when he became major-general, he could no longer hold his rank as lieutenant-colonel in the regiment. He could not hold the two together. He was accordingly prepared to go out of the service, fully conceiving that he should receive the whole of the money that he had expended in the purchase of the different grades through which he had advanced. Instead of that he was informed that by the regulations of the service, as applied to the Guards, he could only receive 4,500l. on selling out, which was less by 300l. than the sum he had paid for his commission as captain. This was a plain statement of the case. It might be said that Sir John Woodford should have exercised a greater prudence and discretion, and have sold out of the Guards before he took his brevet rank. But if he had done so, he would for ever have deprived himself of the chance of obtaining a staff appointment. The complaint that he (Mr. Bernal) wished to lay before the House was this; here was an officer of forty years standing in the army, who having paid 9,000l. to obtain the rank he held in the service, only received from the war office when he sold out as major-general, the sum of 4,500l.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge

said, that the case of Sir John Woodford came before his predecessor in office, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), and the late Lord Hill, then Commander-in-Chief, and both the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary-at-War were of opinion that it was not a case which they could entertain. When he came into office, Sir John Woodford had not sold his commission, and his case was referred to him. Being a personal friend of that gallant officer, having served in the same regiment with him about thirty years ago, he of course took an especial interest in the case, and he looked into it with an inclination, if possible, to come to a decision favourable to Sir John Wood ford; but after fully considering the cir cumstances, he thought it impossible to entertain the complaint. Sir John Wood ford's argument was, that he had a positive and vested right to receive from the public that which he had actually expended in the purchase of his commissions. Now he denied that position altogether. But first of all he must observe that Sir John Woodford had not spent so much 259 money as the hon. Member (Mr. Bernal) conceived he had. In 1832, Sir John purchased a company for 2,000l. being at the old rate. He was afterwards allowed to purchase his majority for 3,500l., and he subsequently paid 700l. for his lieutenant-colonelcy, making altogether 6,200l. In 1837, Sir John was promoted to the rank of a general officer, and five years after he claimed to sell his commission in the army. He was then told, both by the Commander-in-Chief and by the Secretary-at-War, that if he did so he could only receive the regulation price, namely, 4,500l. If Sir John Woodford had sold his commission as lieutenant-colonel previous to his being promoted, he would have been entitled to receive the sum he had paid for his lieutenant colonelcy, or he would have been entitled to exchange into the half pay infantry, and have received the regulation difference, while his rank would have gone on. The regulation of the service had been that a general officer who had sold his commission, whether as an officer of cavalry or of infantry, not having any regimental commission could only sell at one price—namely, 4,500l. The fallacy throughout the case of Sir John Woodford was in conceiving that his commission was a vested right, and that he might sell it for whatever he could acquire. That was not the case. It was not till the year 1814 that general officers were permitted to sell their commissions at all, and subsequently the period during which they could do so was limited to sixty years. Under these circumstances he thought the case which the hon. Member (Mr. Bernal) had brought under the consideration of the House, could not be entertained. Here the matter terminated.