PAPERS MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 15 May 1860)

§ SIR HENRY STRACEY
said, he rose to move for correspondence on the subject of officers recommended by the Indian Government for the Companionship of the Bath. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would have relieved him from the necessity of making the statement which he now felt it to be his duty to make to the House. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had recommended him to make another Motion, which would not have answered the purpose he had in view. It would be in the recollection of the House that a short time since he questioned the right hon. Gentleman with reference to those officers who were recommended by the Governor General and Lord Clyde for the Companionship of the Bath, and asked why they had not yet received the decoration. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that the limits of the statutes had already been exceeded, and consequently that though he hoped before long new names would be inserted, he could not speak on the matter with any certainty. This answer being indefinite, and therefore unsatisfactory, he (Sir Henry Stracey) had felt it to be his duty to put forward the Motion he had done. He wished to ascertain from his right hon. Friend when there was a prospect that those officers whom the Governor General and Lord Clyde had recommended would receive the order. He understood that in 1841 the number of Companions of the Bath was 485, whilst now it was over 600. A revision of the statutes had taken place at that time, and there was no reason why there should not be another revision now. There was an idea that some partiality had been shown to the officers of the Queen's army in the distribution of this honour, to the detriment of the Indian army. It might be urged that Lord Clyde had sent home a very large number of names; but, as when he left England no restriction was placed on him, there was no reason why he should have been sparing in his re- 1305 commendations. It might he said, too, that Lord Clyde had sent home as many names for his short campaign as the Duke of Wellington sent home during the Peninsular war; but besides his well known contempt for these honours, which might induce him to think that other officers would despise them also, it must be remembered that the Duke had but 30,000 or 40,000 British troops under him, while Lord Clyde had 110,000 British troops, to say nothing of the Indian army of at least 250,000 men. Lord Clyde had so many to recommend that it was not to be wondered at that the proportion he recommended should exceed that recommended by the Duke of Wellington, especially when it was recollected that if the great Duke had a failing it was an indisposition to recommend officers for such distinctions. These honours were not hereditary, and thould therefore be conferred as soon as possible after they bad been fairly won. In the French army distinctions were continually conferred at the moment they had been merited; and they were the more appreciated when they could be en oyed in the full vigour of life. It was well known that Her Majesty loved to see Her subjects honoured, and it seemed extraordinary that these officers, who had been so strongly recommended, were still without their rewards. In addition to the in justice done the officers recommended by Lord Clyde, the very worst compliment would be paid to that noble and gallant Lord, if on his arrival in England he found that his recommendations in favour of these officers, who assisted in bringing the conflict with the Indian mutineers to a successful end, had not been attended to. He moved for a Copy of any Correspondence which has taken place between the Indian Board and the Secretary of State for War on the subject of Officers recommended by the Governor-General of India and Lord Clyde for the Companionship of the Bath.

COLONEL DICKSON
seconded the Motion. He was, he said, as anxious as any one to see that our brave officers of the Indian army obtained all deserved honour, but still he could not help thinking that the decoration of the Bath had recently been distributed with rather too much profusion. The correspondence, if produced, would prove the truth of this assertion. At the same time he would admit it was necessary to avoid taking any step which might seem to infringe upon the prerogative of the Sovereign.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that it would be 1306 also satisfactory if the Secretary for War could give any information in respect to the honours recommended to be given to the civil service in India.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he quite agreed in the observation that Companionships of the Bath had been rather too lavishly distributed; and this put him in mind of a naval saying that there were a great many more C.B's than A.B.'s.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, that before he said anything in reference to the particular Motion before the House, he was anxious to disabuse the mind of the hon. Baronet by whom it had been brought forward of the impression under which he seemed to labour, that the Queen's officers had been treated with some partiality as compared with the local officers in the distribution of distinctions for services in India. So far from that having been the case, there had been a very remarkable preponderance in the number of honours bestowed upon the Indian army. To the officers of that army there had been given, down to the month of August last, 69 companionships of the Bath for services performed during the Indian mutiny, and 24 more officers had been selected for the same distinction, and were to receive it as fast as vacancies occurred; so that the total number of officers of the local force thus honoured amounted to 93. But in the Queen's army, three times as numerous, the whole number of companionships and crosses distributed was only 90, and consequently, if there were any reason for complaint in that case on the ground of numbers, it must be on the side of the members of Her Majesty's service. He had no doubt, however, that the recommendations had all been made with the strictest impartiality, and that the disparity of numbers was to be attributed to the fact that some corps had been more fortunate than others in meeting with opportunities for distinction. Comparing the services for which these recommendations were made with the services formerly thought necessary for the honour, it was impossible to deny that the distinctions were now distributed with a more lavish hand, the standard of service being lower. In 1847 the statutes of the Order of the Bath were revised, and an addition of 50 was made both in the Queen's and in the Indian service. Nevertheless, the number recommended had been so great, that the limit had been exceeded, and on that account the Government, without refusing the recommendations, had recorded the names of the officers 1307 who would receive decorations as vacancies occurred. It was obvious that it would be very wrong to distribute these honours with so lavish a hand as to destroy their value. The hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the distinction of the Legion of Honour being conferred on the spot, when the Sovereign in command bestowed the distinction, drawing it from his pocket. He did not think, however, that the people of this country would like to see the Order of the Bath made so common in England as the Legion of Honour was in Prance, where it was conferred almost indiscriminately on every civil functionary of a certain grade, and on every military man who had attracted the notice of his commanding officer. With regard to the correspondence asked for, he thought its production would be objectionable, as it would have the appearance of interfering with the prerogative of the Crown in respect to the choice of persons to receive these distinctions, and of teaching individuals to look to the House of Commons rather than to the Sovereign for the acquisition of honours. He also felt persuaded that the correspondence which passed between public departments ought not to be laid before the House, except in cases which implied some marked impropriety of conduct. The officers who engaged in that correspondence took it for granted that as a general rule it was not to be published; and any departure from that rule would only impose upon them an inconvenient reserve, and lead them to conduct their communications either verbally, or in some private and confidential form. Looking, then, at the nature of these honours, the source from which they flowed, and the anxiety with which they were looked to, he did not think it would be consistent with his duty to produce the correspondence moved for by the hon. Baronet. He had no desire to withhold any information on the subjeet; he had stated the facts of the case, and under these circumstances he hoped the House would not sanction the Motion.