HC Deb 27 June 1856 vol 142 cc2084-7
COLONEL NORTH

said, he rose to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War to the operation of the warrant of the 6th of October, 1854, relative to Staff Appointments being held for the term of five years only, except on reappointment. The duties of the higher staff officers, such as assistant-adjutant-general and assistant-quartermaster-general, were such that they were generally filled by field-officers selected on account of their great regimental knowledge and practice. According to the rules of the army now in force, no officer could hold a staff and regimental appointment at the same time, but must on his acceptance of the former go upon half-pay. Under the warrant to which he had referred, such an officer would, after the expiration of his five years' duty on the staff, have no prospect but a continuance on half-pay; and the effect of the warrant would therefore, in his opinion, be to confine the choice of the Commander-in-Chief for Staff Appointments to the half-pay list. It was true that there were in the warrant the words "except upon re-appointment;'' but that slender chance of a renewal of the Staff Appointment would not, he anticipated, be found sufficient to induce a staff-officer to give up his regimental commission.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, he had no doubt that, were it permitted to fields officers to retain their regimental conjointly with their Staff Appointments, they would find many field-officers well qualified to hold Staff Appointments, and that thus they would have those appointments well filled and their duties ably discharged; but if that course were adopted the obvious consequence would be to interfere with the proper performance of the regimental duties. Accordingly, it had been the invariable rule to place field officers on half-pay when they accepted Staff Appointments. He could not acquiesce in the statement that any hardship was inflicted upon field officers in requiring them to resign their regimental appointments on receiving situations on the staff; and he believed there was no field officer likely to be appointed to a staff situation who would not willingly accept that situation, and at the same time resign his regimental appointment.

MR. MILES

said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Under Secretary for War, as to the command of the depôt companies of the army which are to be formed into groups of consolidated depôts, with three regiments in each depôt, and to inquire whether the several lieutenant colonels who may be reduced will be placed in such command. He wished to point out that the second lieutenant colonels of the forty-one regiments coming home from the Crimea would be reduced, most of whom had done good service. There were forty-five of those lieutenant colonels who were subject to reduction; but as the regiment of one of them was ordered to India, he would of course go with it on the full establishment, but the remaining forty-four would be reduced on their regiments being put on the peace establishment. Of those forty-four second lieutenant colonels he found that there were four who had served upwards of thirty years; twenty-seven who had served above twenty and under thirty years; nine had served above fifteen years and under twenty; and there were only four who had served under fifteen years. No less than thirty-eight of them had been decorated, and had medals with one or more clasps; and they also laboured under the additional disadvantage that if they purchased out the other lieutenant colonels, their purchase-money would not go to their families in case of their death under the recent warrant. He, therefore, urged that these lieutenant colonels should be appointed to command the consolidated depôts which were to be formed at home.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, he would also beg to ask whether a Lancashire regiment of militia had not received twenty-one days' back pay, being what that regiment was stated to have claimed as being entitled to under the Militia Act for the time that elapsed between the date of the warrant for embodiment and the day of actual embodiment; and if the regiment alluded to had received this back pay, why should not all other regiments be similarly allowed back pay in case of having similar grounds of claim?

COLONEL LINDSAY

said, it would be satisfactory to the officers of the army if the hon. Gentleman would state what was to be the constitution of those depôts. He wished to know whether there was to be a field officer attached to the depôt of each regiment, to be under the orders of the officer commanding the consolidated depôt?

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel North) was of opinion that when a field officer was appointed to the staff he ought not to be required to relinquish his regimental appointment.

COLONEL NORTH

I said quite the contrary. What the officers are anxious to know is, whether, if they are removed from their staff appointments at the end of five years, they will have only their half-pay to look to.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that it was very hard that when a field officer was appointed to a staff situation, which he could only hold for five years, he should have to go on half-pay, either at the time of receiving the appointment or at the end of the five years.

COLONEL NORTH

Not at all. According to the rule of the army they must go on half-pay when they accept a staff appointment.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

Then, what the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained of was, that when a field officer accepted a staff appointment, which was one that he could only hold for five years, he had to leave his regiment and go on half-pay, and, at the end of the five years, he had nothing to fall back upon but his half-pay-and that, therefore, the choice of the Commander in Chief was likely to be restricted to officers on half-pay, as no sufficient inducement was held out to regimental officers to leave their regiments. Now, he was of a different opinion. If field officers were permitted to hold staff appointments conjointly with their regimental appointments, you would doubtless find good officers for the staff; but, as he had previously stated, you would interfere greatly with the proper performance of regimental duty. For there were only three field officers, one lieutenant colonel and two majors, to a regiment, and neither of them ought to be away from their regiments, whether on full pay or on the staff, because it was a great hardship on those officers who carried on their duty in their absence. The rule was to put officers appointed on the staff on half-pay, and it was one which he was strongly of opinion ought to be enforced. The fact was, that no field officer was likely to be offered a staff appointment who would not be ready to accept it, and to leave his regiment. He would give an instance of a major of the 22nd Regiment, who was going out as military secretary to the officer commanding in Canada, and he was quite willing to resign his regimental appointment. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the present system injured the prospects of regimental officers. The explanation was that it was a great object with field officers to attain the rank of colonel in the army, and that could only he done by serving three years as a lieutenant colonel of a regiment. A major knew, therefore, that he could not be a colonel until he had first served three years as a lieutenant colonel with his regiment; but he could attain to the rank of lieutenant colonel in much shorter time by going on the staff, for some staff appointments were accompanied by a step in rank. For instance, a major appointed to be a military secretary became at once a brevet lieutenant colonel; and assistant adjutant generals and assistant quartermaster generals in three years' time became colonels in the army. The consequence was that, both as regarded the interests of the officers and those of the regiments, the rule as it now stood was the best. With regard to the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Miles), that the depôts about to be established would afford opportunities of employing the second lieutenant colonels of regiments about to be reduced, there could be no objection to that; but the consolidated depots already established were commanded by field officers, and it was not thought necessary that the depôt of each regiment should be commanded by a field officer. There were to be only twelve consolidated depôts, and it would not be right to remove the officers commanding them to make room for the second lieutenant colonels about to be reduced. If, however, any other depôts were formed, there would be an opening for employing those officers. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans), he had to say that it was true that a Lancashire regiment of militia had received twenty-one days' pay in the way he had described, and there was no reason why other regiments similarly situated should not be treated in the same way: he believed that two other Lancashire regiments had received twenty-one days' pay in that manner.