COMMISSION MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 14 July 1863)

COLONEL NORTH
said, he rose to move an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the realization of army prize property, and its mode of distribution, and into the cause of the extraordinary delays: which bad, in most cases, occurred in its distribution to the captors, with a view to a remedy for the same. As the case was one which was free from party considerations, he felt some hope that he should carry with him the support of the House. He needed not to say that he did not pretend to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown to give or withhold prize property; but his desire was to have some rules or regulations established, which should come into operation when the Royal prerogative ceased. His attention had been drawn to the subject by the universal dissatisfaction which pervaded the army, both officers and men, who had taken part in those glorious campaigns, which resulted, owing to the gracious consideration of the Sovereign, in their right to receive prize money. What they complained of, was not only the small amount received, but the immense length of time which elapsed between the time of the capture and the period when the money was distributed to the captors. He had endeavoured to make himself master of the details, but considerable mystery appeared to exist on the subject. He naturally applied in the first instance to Chelsea Hospital for information, but the answer he received was, that that establishment was only the depository of unclaimed or forfeited shares after distribution was made. Without wearying the House by a reference 793 to very distant campaigns, and confining himself only to campaigns with which they were all conversant, and almost all of which had occurred in India, he should be able to show that most unreasonable delays had occurred in the distribution of prize money. He had moved for a Return of army prize money granted, stating the name and date of capture, and the date when the distribution in India was authorized in general orders. The first on the list was the Isle of France, and the date of the capture was 1810, while the first award for prize money took place on the 2nd of February 1819. But not to go so far back, he would refer to the Burmese war in the years 1824, 1825, and 1826; and he found that the order for the first payment of prize money was dated December 19, 1836, or just ten years after the war was closed. In July 1839 the capture of Ghuznee took place; but no prize money was distributed until March 17, 1848, or nine years after the event. Then came the case of Khelat, in November 1839, and six years elapsed before the prize money was paid. With regard to Pegu, the contest terminated in 1853, but the prize money was not paid until March 1863, after a delay of ten years, and he understood that the prize money to each private soldier only amount ed to about a couple of rupees. No one, then, could be surprised that the soldiers were disgusted at the treatment they experienced in the matter. From a Return it appeared that the amount of cash, arising from forfeited and unclaimed prize money, was no less than upwards of £1,100,000; and what he particularly objected to, on examining that Return, was to find that a considerable sum, arising from soldiers' prize money, had been expended on the purchase of land near Chelsea Hospital, and in opposing a proposed railway through the ground. No less a sum than £40,000 had been paid to Commissioners, in virtue of an Act of Parliament, for the purpose of purchasing a site for the Royal Military Asylum, and for improving that site. In 1854, it was brought under the notice of the House that 120 boys had been turned out of Chelsea Hospital in order that schoolmasters for the army might occupy their apartments. The House would not hear of such an arrangement, and the boys were Bent back to the Hospital again; but it now turned out that a very large sum had been taken from the soldiers' prize money to erect a building for those army schoolmasters. Those sums, 794 instead of being in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to be placed in the hands of the Commander of the Forces, the Secretary of State for War, and the Paymaster General, to be laid out for the benefit of the army. Last year, they asked for a Vote of £2,000 only, to provide means of recreation for the soldier in camp and barracks, and after fighting for it like dogs over a bone, they only carried it by a small majority. When money was required for any similar purpose, the officers were obliged to go to their private friends cap in hand, and solicit their contributions. In the capture of places where there was rich booty, officers had to depend on the honour of the soldiers. At Delhi the soldiers could have carried away valuable jewels; but on the call of their officers, who stated that the value of them would be given as prize, they gave up costly necklaces and other articles of great value. That being the case, it was to be regretted that the sum received by the men as their share of the Delhi prize money was so miserable as to cause great dissatisfaction. The House and the country ought to remember a dictum of the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that we should not only treat the soldier with justice, but make him understand that we did so. He felt assured that the matter could not be in better hands than those of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government; and his reason for moving for a Royal Commission was, that it would enable the noble Lord to select those who, from their services, their ability, and their name, would be qualified for the task and ensure the confidence of the army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the realization of Army Prize Property and its mode of distribution, and to inquire into the cause of the extraordinary delays which have, in most cases, occurred in its distribution to the Captors, with a view to a remedy for the same.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
Sir, I rise to state to the hon. and gallant Officer and the House that Her Majesty's Government have no objection whatever to urge against the Motion which he has made. And, in fact, I am quite of the same opinion with him, that an inquiry into the matter may be attended with advantageous results to both the army and navy. I should suggest to him to leave out one word—the word 795 "extraordinary." I am afraid that word does not represent the fact, for the delays are "ordinary" and not "extraordinary." Besides, the word implies censure, and we want inquiry, and not to prejudge the matter. There can be no doubt that a length of time always elapses between military and naval operations and the distribution of the prize money that arises from them. That is a very great evil. I have often inquired about it, and I have always been told that there are things to be done which require time. Especially when ships or regiments are abroad you require accurate Returns, and there are difficulties in getting them as well as in procuring other particulars; but I cannot help thinking, with the hon. and gallant Officer, that a thorough investigation into these circumstances will tend to, at all events, a great abridgement of the delays which now take place. Those delays are a great evil to the parties whose rights they ultimately establish; because, when ten years elapse—as in the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Officer—men get dispersed, men die, and men who by their own valour and achievements have established a claim to booty do not receive it. Some die; and then their families have to establish their rights as inheriting from the soldiers themselves; but it very often happens—I believe more frequently in the navy than in the army—that men who have claims are tempted by an immediate offer to sell their chances by anticipation for a small and inconsiderable sum. In that case the parties who receive the prize money are mere speculators, and not the parties who were originally entitled to it. I shall have great pleasure in concurring in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer; and I assure him that in the composition of the Commission we will take care that it shall contain within itself those elements of experience, information, and authority which will render its recommendations satisfactory to the army and navy, as well as to the country.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he was glad to have to congratulate his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North) on the success which had attended his Motion; at the same time, he should have been pleased if its terms had been carried somewhat further. As the noble Viscount had consented to the issue of a Royal Commission, he would suggest whether it might not be possible to assign to the Commission the task of investigating some other 796 grievances which had not been touched on in the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend. He thought it would be well to refer to the Commission an inquiry as to whether some proper mode or proper practice could not be adopted for ascertaining who the parties were that were entitled to booty which had to be divided among several claimants. In the distribution of prize money there was a great difference existing between the practices which prevailed in the army and navy respectively. In the navy there was a properly constituted Court to which disputes in respect of prize money were carried, which Court, by decisions extending over a period of more than a century, had established a regular code of laws. In the case of the army there was no such regular tribunal; and the consequence was, that whereas the only questions to be considered with regard to the navy were whether the prize was a good one, and how soon the money could be given, a third point had to be determined respecting the army—namely, what portions of the army were entitled to share. That uncertainty and difficulty had given rise to endless discussions and disputes. For example, in the case of the Deccan prize money, which was captured by an army under Sir Thomas Hislop, when the Marquess of Hastings was Commander-in-Chief of India, a question arose whether the Marquess of Hastings was entitled to a considerable share, and there were two large quarto volumes of papers on the subject. The Treasury then endeavoured to settle the question by some legal or semilegal proceedings; they heard council and took the opinion of their own Law Officers, afterwards disposing of it in the best way they could. Owing to that and to similar difficulties, an Act was passed at the beginning of the present reign for altering some of the functions of the High Court of Admiralty, and in that Act a clause was inserted providing that in any disputed cases of prize Her Majesty should be empowered to refer to the High Court of Admiralty questions affecting the army, just as those relating to naval prizes. If that clause had been acted on, as it should have been, it would have solved all the difficulties which had arisen. But it had never been so acted on, and the result was that among those interested much dissatisfaction, and some suspicion of undue influence, prevailed as to the present mode of determining these disputed questions. For himself, he disclaimed any in- 797 tention of imputing undue influence, but he was very much struck with the inconvenience and mischief attending the sort of discussion that went on in cases of the kind, and he wished to refer the matter to the Commission, that they might see whether it was not possible to devise a remedy in such cases. The case of the Banda and Kirwee prize money was one in point, and though he would not enter into the merits of the question, inasmuch as he had given notice that he would bring it under the attention of the House, he wished to mention it in connection with the present discussion. It arose out of the claims of Sir George Whitlock's force, which marched from Madras during the Indian mutiny, and of the force under Sir Hugh Rose, which marched from Bombay. Both forces had behaved most gallantly in Central India, and that of Sir George Whitlock, by the capture of two places called Banda and Kirwee, obtained a considerable booty. The force under Sir Hugh Rose was also engaged in several severe actions, but at the time of the capture of those two places was 250 miles distant. Sir George Whitlock's force, as the actual captors, claimed the whole of the prize money, and sent in a claim to that effect to the Treasury, fortified by counsels' opinions. They were ultimately informed that the matter had been referred to Lord Clyde, who had drawn up a memorandum on the subject. For some time they were unable to obtain a sight of the memorandum, but, at last they were told that the Government had decided against their claim; and as that decision was founded upon Lord Clyde's memorandum, it would be desirable that they should see the grounds on which the decision rested. Now, without entering into the merits of the case—[Viscount PALMERSTON: You have entered into them]—he contended that the claimants in that case should have their claim decided according to certain rules of evidence and certain principles of law, instead of being left to the discretion of the Treasury. They had reason to know that the opinions of the legal advisers of the Crown were favourable to them; and all he asked was that the Government, having taken those opinions, should either act upon them or should do what was done in the case of the Deccan prize money—hear counsel, or refer the matter, as they had the power to do, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or to the High Court of Admiralty. In distributing prize money care should be taken to satisfy the 798 soldier's sense of justice. Some years ago the noble Lord, in speaking of the China prize money, said that if a soldier thought he had a fair claim to prize money, he naturally felt aggrieved unless some satisfactory steps were taken to test the question. And that was his contention—that a fair hearing should be afforded where those claims existed, and that the soldier should not be left to feel that he had a grievance. It was his intention, when the proper time came, to move a Resolution on the subject, and he promised the House that he would then detain them with very few remarks.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he did not mean to dissent from the proposal of the hon. Gentleman that the case to which he referred should be considered by the Commission. He thought, however, he had reason to complain that the hon. Gentleman had not fulfilled the promise he made on rising, that he would not go into the merits of the question, and that he had impugned the conduct of his noble Friend after he had spoken, and when he had therefore no opportunity of replying. The hon. Gentleman had a Motion on the paper with regard to the Banda and Kirwee prize money, and he should have reserved his remarks on that subject till the House came to it. He did not think that the conduct of the hon. Gentleman was either consonant with the practice of the House or fair towards his noble Friend.