COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She would be graciously pleased to grant the pension of a major, in place of that of a captain, to Lieutenant-Colonel Henry, Royal Artillery, who had lost his arm when in command of an important battery before Sebastopol, he holding at the time the rank of brevet-major, which rank had been conferred upon him for distinguished conduct in the field; and to assure Her Majesty that that House would make good the same. Colonel Henry had performed the most distinguished service while in charge of a large and important battery which was placed in advance during the arduous siege of Sebastopol, and upon which the whole force of the Russians was turned. On the 17th of August, 1855, he had, while in command of that battery, had his right arm carried away by a round shot. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, who had been an eye-witness of the operations in the Crimea, in a letter which he had written, stated that "not only were the duties which Colonel Henry performed on the 17th of August, 1855, equal, but if anything superior to those of a field officer of infantry." The battery under Colonel Henry threw in upon the enemy nearly 1,000 32-pound shot in one day. On the 17th of November his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief again wrote that "Lieutenant-Colonel Henry's name was omitted to be placed on the roster of field officers when he received the brevet of major for distinguished service. Had that omission not occurred, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry would have been detailed as a brevet-major for the identical duties which he performed for the identical duties which he performed on the day he lost his arm." His Royal Highness recommended this case as one of peculiar hardship, and stated that Colonel Henry "was only prevented 995 from serving as a field officer by the impossibility of other corps sharing in the professional work of the Royal Artillery, and that his duties as captain of a large and important battery in the advance were quite equal, if not superior, to those of a brevet-major of the Line." Sir Robert Dacres, who commanded the Artillery in the Crimea, as well as other competent military judges, had also given their testimony that Colonel Henry was a brave and most meritorious officer, and every way entitled to the boon which the present Motion sought to confer on him. He trusted, therefore, that the House would take the matter into their consideration.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he never knew of a case which seemed to him better worthy of consideration. He had not the the pleasure of knowing Colonel Henry, but he knew that the gallant officer stood very high in the estimation of his corps. He was persuaded that the decision which had called for the Motion did not originate with the heads of the department. He thought the warrant was a fair and liberal regulation, but who was it who had interpreted the relative duties of the several ranks to which it referred? He had had some experience of services rendered in the field, and he could say, without hesitation, that Lieutenant-Colonel Henry's services were greater than those usually performed by field officers. He (Sir de Lacy Evans) was not an artillery officer; but, without making any invidious distinction in its favour as against other branches of the service, he must say that it was probably and most distinguished corps in the army, and entitled to high consideration. The question was one, however, which affected the whole of the army. The noble Lord the Secretary for War was not now in the country—they all lamented the cause —but as there was evidently some mistake, he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give some explanation on the subject.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he must, in the first place, beg to inform the hon. and gallant Colonel who had brought the matter forward that the was mistaken in supposing that the case of Lieutenant Colonel Henry had not been brought under the notice of the noble Lord the Secretary for War. It had been brought under the noble Lord's notice on several occasions; and the papers showed that he had gone very carefully into the facts, and given a very decided and deliberate opi- 996 nion on the claim itself with a knowledge of all the circumstances. Before going into the merits of the case itself, he would beg the House, and also the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, to consider whether, under all the circumstances of the case, it was in order that the Motion should be put to the House, involving as it did an expenditure of public money. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North) had not put the Motion in terms similar to those in his notice. The question of order was too important to be passed over. In all cases involving the expenditure of public money, it was the order of the House that two opportunities of considering such question should be afforded; first, on the Motion that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to consider the case; and then, in Committee, upon a Motion for an Address to the Crown, praying that such a pension should be directed to be granted, and assuring her Majesty that the House would make good the same. The position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was, in his opinion, therefore, clearly wrong, for his Motion had been made and seconded for an expenditure of public money contrary to the rules of the House. With respect to the Motion itself, he thought the House must feel that it would be extremely unadvisable for it to pronounce a judgment on individual cases contrary to the rules of the service. The hon. and gallant Colonel was himself the originator of the Pension Warrant. It was drawn up in consequence of some changes which he had advocated, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman expressed himself perfectly satisfied with its terms; yet he was the first man to bring the authority of the House of Commons into play in order to break through it. [Colonel NORTH: No, no!] He would show that the Motion would have that effect. The case was a very simple one. Clause 10 of the warrant declared that, as a general rule, the pension or gratuity should be granted according to regimental rank, but that should any officer, with or without brevet rank, have been employed at the time he was wounded in the discharge of duties superior to those attached to his regimental commission, the gratuity or pension should be in accordance with the regimental rank immediately above that held by him at the time. Under that clause, if a captain was discharging the duties of field officer he would be entitled to the pension of a field officer; but that was not the case made by Lieutenant 997 Colonel Henry himself, for in one of the first letters, if not the first, from him on the subject, he stated that, though not performing the duty of a field officer at the time he received his wound, he was, nevertheless, induced to lay claim to the pension. It, therefore, appeared clear from Lieutenant Colonel Henry's own letter that he was not performing the duties of a field officer, but those of a captain of artillery. He must at the same time observe that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the War Office to disparage the services of Lieutenant Colonel Henry, who had done his duty well and gallantly, and was entitled to all the consideration due to officers who were wounded in service. He had received the usual gratuity of a year's pay, was transferred to the Horse Artillery, and received £100 per annum for the loss of limb. Lieutenant Colonel Henry was at that moment doing his duty and receiving his full pay in the Artillery, and he also received £120 a year for commanding the riding school department. Under those circumstances he hoped the House would arrive at the conclusion that that was not a case in which they ought to interfere with the War Office in the interpretation of a warrant which applied to the claims of so great a number of officers. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would not object to state how he came into possession of the documents from which he had read extracts, and which he Mr. Baring believed were portions of the correspondence that had passed between the General Commanding-in-Chief and the War Office in respect to this case. [Colonel NORTH: They were sent to me. Does the hon. Gentleman deny their authenticity?] He did not dispute their accuracy, but he was not aware they had been moved for or laid on the table of the House or furnished to the hon. and gallant Colonel from the War Office, and he would add that he felt certain that his Royal Highness the General Commanding-in-Chief had not given any authority to any one in his office to publish such letters. The documents, moreover, gave an imperfect idea of the correspondence, and omitted all notice of the objections of the War Office. It was for the Secretary of State for War to decide upon all matters of expenditure, and it was not because claims were put before him in a favourable point of view that he was, therefore, bound to admit their justice.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that having been 998 appealed to on a point of order he was bound to give his opinion. The Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford-shire, as it appeared on the paper, was not one which he could with propriety put form the Chair, because there was a Standing which said that no Motion for any public aid or charge should be presently entered upon, and that they should not proceed to discuss any demand for public money on the same day it was made. He had pointed out the informality to the hon. and gallant Member, who has thereupon altered the form of his Motion. He could not say that the Motion was not in order in that form; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman laboured under the disadvantage of proposing a Motion which in effect pointed to the words which had been left out, and which were themselves irregular.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he could not regard the question as one of money, but one which affected the whole of the Ordnance corps. When the army was ordered to the Crimea there was such a want of artillery that a captain of artillery, though a field officer by brevet could not be spared to carry on the duties of a field officer. Could it, therefore, be supposed that it was the intention of the Secretary of State that the Ordnance corps should be debarred from the benefit of the Pensions Warrant? The General Commanding-in-Chief, it appeared, stated that Colonel Henry had virtually fulfilled the duties of a field officer. [Mr. T. G. BARING: The General Commanding-in-Chief does not say that Colonel Henry performed the duties of a field officer.] In the letter read by his hon. Friend his Royal Highness gave it as his opinion that Colonel Henry had duties to perform greater than those performed by an ordinary field officer. It was well known that the letter read by his hon. Friend was written by Sir Charles Yorke, Military Secretary to the Commander-in-Chief. Colonel Henry had performed the most distinguished services in the Crimea, and his name had been held up to the approbation of the army by the general in command before Sebastopol. On the day he received his wound he had been ordered to draw off the fire of the Russians, and in doing so he fired 1,000 rounds of heavy shot—an action in itself. No stronger case, therefore, could be presented than that of Colonel Henry. And as he was the only officer of Artillery in the Crimea or India who survived the loss of a limb, it could not be 999 said that in granting his claims the country would be put to expense for other claimants. With reference to what fell from the Under Secretary for War, he (Captain Jervis) begged most emphatically to deny on the part of Colonel Henry that this question had anything to do with pounds, shillings, or pence, it was a point of military honour. Was Colonel Henry when he received his wound doing duties equivalent to a field officer's, or was he not? The Commander-in-Chief said he was. The Secretary for War said he was not. But who was the proper authority on such a subject, surely the military one. He trusted, therefore, the House would assert the principle that the civil authorities should not confine themselves to the mere wording of the warrant, but should be guided by what was the real intention of those who drew it up.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he supported the Motion. The opinion of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on this matter ought to have been attended to. He was burdened with all the disagreeable duties of holding courts-martial on officers, but had no voice in rewarding them. He could not but express his regret, therefore, that the hon. Under Secretary for War should have opposed the Motion on a mere quibble as to whether the Motion was rightly drawn or not, when it involved the case of one of the most distinguished officers which the country had produced, and who had been fearfully maimed in the service of his country. He should certainly take the sense of the House on the Motion.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the House would consider well before it acceded to the Motion. It was no part of the functions of the House of Commons to administer the details of any department of the Government, and least of all would it be expedient that the House should take into its hands the administration of the military branch of the public service. It was obvious that if it were once understood that an officer whose claims, whether for promotion, or honours, or pecuniary allowance, had not met with the approbation of the responsible officer of the Government, who was answerable for the grants on the subject, could obtain the aid of some influential Member of the House, capable, either by his force of speaking or his position, to give effect to his claim, and that these matters could be made the subject of private canvass in the House there would, in the first place, be an 1000 end of all proper discipline in the army; and in the next place, no limit to the expenditure of public money. If one case was brought forward on very peculiar grounds, and in a manner to enlist the sympathies of the House, a precedent would be established, and upon that precedent other cases of the same nature, though, perhaps, not so strong, but coming within the same limit, would be submitted to the House and argued, and it would be quite in vain for the War Department to establish regulations and try and administer them, if exceptions from those regulations were forced upon them by debates and Motions. The hon. and gallant officer said it was extraordinary that the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, whether here or abroad, should not be taken on the construction of a financial regulation; but, having been for many years the Secretary at War, he knew it was a fundamental maxim that then the Secretary at War (and the Secretary for War now occupied, of course, the same position) was the Financial Minister alone responsible for these grants, and for the interpretation of all regulations involving grants, though, of course, he would naturally pay great attention to military authority as to the conduct and merit of officers. Consequently, he could not admit that, after his noble Friend at the head of the War Department had repeatedly and deliberatedly examined this case, and come to the conclusion that it did not fall within the regulation, his opinion was to be set aside in consequence of other views taken by military officers. It might be right or not that the regulation should be altered so far as regarded the Artillery service; but, so long as the regulation remained unaltered, it was the duty of the Secretary for War to interpret the regulation according to its letter and spirit. A letter written by Colonel Henry had been read, stating that the service he then performed was the service of a captain; and how, therefore, could the head of the War Department set aside that allegation. Notwithstanding the sympathy which the House might feel for the gallant officer in question who had performed such distinguished services, he must say that it would set a bad precedent if it took upon itself to administer these rules and regulations instead of leaving them to be carried out by the public servants responsible to Parliament and the Crown.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, the meanest subject of the realm could bring his grievance before that House. Why, then, should 1001 an officer in the army be debarred from doing so? He would admit that, if the warrant was read literally, Colonel Henry was not entitled to any pension beyond that of of a captain, but it would be a gross injustice to place him in that position. The neglect of such claims as had justly been made by Colonel Henry, had caused wide dissatisfaction in the army at the weak manner in which the interests of deserving officers were supported against the innovations of the War Office. Officers in mere connection with the War Office, who had never seen a shot fired, or who had not seen as much service in their whole lives as Colonel Henry had seen in three months, were in receipt of large incomes, while under the warrant a most distinguished officer was refused that to which he was clearly entitled. He felt assured that if that state of things continued it would ultimately lead to results in connection with the army that would be greatly to be deplored.
Motion made, and Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleases to take into Her most gracious consideration the case of Lieutenant Colonel Henry, Royal Artillery, who lost his arm when in command of an important battery before Sevastopol, he holding at the time the rank of Brevet Major, which rank had been conferred upon him for distinguished conduct in the field.The House divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 63: Majority 29.