§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he had given notice of two or three Questions which he wished to put to the Under Secretary of State for War, but before doing so he desired to make a few explanatory observations. He held the army might be looked upon as an institution which was improvable, or an institution which was 87 doomed; and he confessed he thought that if something was not speedily done to put it on its proper footing its efficiency would be seriously impaired, and great public dissatisfaction would ensue. He thought that the enormous power concentrated in the office of his grace the Field Marshall Commanding-in-Chief demanded serious consideration. He recollected that in what was called the model year the charge for the army, navy, and ordnance together amounted only to £13,000,000; but at that time we had no Royal Duke at the head of the army. He was not, however, disposed to say that a Royal Duke ought not to hold such a position; but his holding it, with an expenditure for the army of nearly £14,500,000, was a very different thing from the office being filled by a man like the Duke of Wellington, or Lord Hill, when the charge was about £6,000,000 a year. Gentlemen below the gangway were, he was afraid, neglectful of their duty in quietly allowing so vast an amount of patronage to be placed in hands which might not administer it altogether satisfactorily. The authorities responsible for the army had lately abolished the office of the Inspector of Infantry—a most important office, because it was the duty of the person who filled it to get the depots into a state of efficiency according to the Queen's regulations. It had been found that in many instances when the men of the depots joined headquarters they were more perfect in drill and general efficiency than the men and officers at head-quarters. Now, however, the Government had thought proper to ablish the office of the Inspector of Infantry Depots, the reason, he supposed, being that that officer had made the depots too perfect for the colonels of regiments. Again, in connection with the important subject as to our power to defend our colonies, it was a great question whether we ought not to have a large force of marine artillery and skilled gunners, instead of some of the troops now under the control of the Duke of Cambridge. The first Question of which he had given notice was, Whether any inconvenience would result from abolishing the grades (as they become vacant) of Lieutenant Colonels of the three regiments of Foot Guards? The three regiments of Foot Guards consisted of seven battalions; they were called, in the aggregate, a Division, and were under the command of one officer, a Major 88 General; but each regiment was under a Lieutenant Colonel, who was to all intents and purposes a Brigadier. Each battalion was commanded by a mounted officer called a Major of the Guards, holding an army rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and the office of regimental Lieutenant Colonel was useless. At present, matters of detail must go through the office of Lieutenant Colonel, causing great delay and confusion, and preventing the exercise of the promptness and decision essential to the proper control of a regiment. In the opinion of many experienced officers, the offices of the Lieutenant Colonels of the Foot Guards ought to be abolished. He would have them abolished as they fell vacant, as he did not wish to touch vested interests. His second Question was, Whether it was for the advantage of the service that Captains of Companies in the Foot Guards should rank as Lieutenant Colonels; and whether it would not be for their advantage, as well as for the interests of the service, that they should reside in barracks, near the men under their charge? There were something like seventy or more of these officers of the Foot Guards (he had heard them calculated to be eighty-seven) who ranked as Lieutenant Colonels. He thought they should not hold the army rank of Lieutenant Colonel, but should be like other Captains. He believed it sometimes happened in the presence of the enemy that, owing to the loss of a Colonel, the command of a corps might fall to a very young person, because he had rank as a Lieutenant Colonel in virtue of being Captain of a Company in the Guards; while an old Major of the line who had seen service in all parts of the world was superseded. The officers of the Foot Guards were not obliged to reside in immediate contact with the barracks of the men; and he was told that a great deal of labour connected with the practical administration of the Guards devolved on the Serjeants. The last Question he had to put was, Whether Colonelcies of regiments should not be given to General Officers in rotation, according to seniority, exceptions being made in favour of officers who have particularly distinguished themselves in war? This was not a question which related to the Guards alone; it concerned the army generally. He believed it would be more satisfactory to the army and to the country if these lucrative appointments were given according to seniority, unless where officers had greatly distinguished 89 themselves in the field. These were the Questions he had to put, and which he had thought it his duty shortly to explain. He hoped the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War would be able to give him a satisfactory answer.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he would answer the questions of the hon. Baronet as shortly as possible. First, with regard to the office of the Inspector General of Infantry, he could only repeat what he stated the other day; the cause of the abolition was that the reduction of the number of depot battalions had been so considerable that a very great part of his duties had been done away with, and it was not considered that those which remained were sufficient to warrant the retention of the office. It was considered that the depot battalions which remained would be equally well administered by the General in whose district they were. The abolition of the office was not owing to any dissatisfaction with the manner in which the duties of the office had been performed by the officers who lately held the appointment, but simply because since the reduction of the depot battalions there was not sufficient occupation for such an officer. With regard to the second Question as to Colonels of the regiments of Guards, he could only repeat what he said the other evening—although the brigade of Guards consisted of seven battalions, yet it did not in reality constitute a Division under the command of a Major General. The present system worked admirably, and he should be sorry to see it altered. With respect to the rank of Guards' officers the hon. Baronet and the House were aware that the privileges in point of rank of Guards' officers dated almost from time immemorial, and he believed it was of great advantage that it should be. It was generally recognized by the army that there should be a privileged corps in the position of the Guards to whom was especially intrusted the protection of the Sovereign, and who were also to be the first troops sent on foreign service in any great emergency. He did not believe that any great dissatisfaction had ever been expressed by the army at the exclusive privileges possessed by the Guards, nor did he ever hear that any practical inconvenience had ever resulted on active service from the youth of the field officers. With respect to the residence of officers in barracks he did not think any change would be an improvement. The non-commis- 90 sioned officers of the Guards were a most excellent and most exemplary class of men; and officers residing as they did within reach of their men, and leaving part of their duties to non-commissioned officers, were practically responsible, and left nothing to be desired. With regard to the last Question he could only say that the rule laid down in regard to the promotions referred to was pretty much that which the hon. Baronet seemed to wish. The rule observed was practically this—the colonelcies of regiments were generally given according to seniority; but two exceptions were made—first, an exception in favour of officers who had performed distinguished service, and secondly, an exception against those officers who had not had the opportunity of seeing active service. He did not mean to say that the latter never got their regiment; but the officer who had had the opportunity of distinguishing himself in service was promoted much earlier than he would otherwise have been, while the officer who had been so unfortunate as not to have had that opportunity was passed over for some time. The rule, as stated, had, he believed, given satisfaction to the army, and he did not think it would be for the advantage of the service that any other rule should be laid down than was in force.