RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 9 June 1870)

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he rose to call attention to the position of officers holding highly-paid Staff appointments under Vote 16. In alluding to a Return presented to the House on this subject he begged to state that he wished to avoid all personal observations. He desired to speak of the system, not of individuals. The first named on the list was that of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. The salary of His Royal Highness as Commander-in-Chief was £4,431, which he (Mr. Anderson) did not consider unreasonable; but, in addition, His Royal Highness received £2,200 for regimental pay; and to that he decidedly objected, thinking it anomalous that the Commander-in-Chief should be paid in all £6,600 from the Army Estimates, or more than was received by the Secretary of State for War, under whom he was placed, and who only had £5,000. Was it any wonder that a doubt had arisen as to who was the superior officer? They had been of late repeatedly assured in that House that the Secretary of State was the superior, and the other only subordinate, and, if this Motion was carried, it would remove the anomaly of the subordinate officer being paid higher than his superior. The next office, that of Military Secretary, received £2,243, a salary which he had no hesitation in saying was so extravagant in proportion to the duties as to be a great abuse, yet the present holder had, in addition, £1,000 1822 for regimental pay; but, according to the evidence given before Lord Northbrook's Committee, the Military Secretary was only the mouthpiece and amanuensis of His Royal Highness, and did nothing more than collect the Papers and regulate the business for the Commander-in-Chief, just as the Private Secretary at the War Office did for the Secretary of State, receiving for this duty £300 a year, as contrasted with £3,340 paid to the Military Secretary. There were also two Assistant Military Secretaries. One attended to the confidential department and the other to the promotions. Both had to lay their work before the Military Secretary, who in turn placed it before his Royal Highness. The Commander-in-Chief, in fact, and the Military Secretary were one and the same. The Military Secretary himself said so in his evidence, and, therefore, the way to get rid of the anomaly was to amalgamate these two offices, and so get rid altogther of this awkward name of Commander-in-Chief. It was this name of Commander-in-Chief which was at the bottom of all the difficulties of the dual government, as to which there had been so much discussion. The awkward Memorandum of October, 1861, grew out of this name of Commander-in-Chief—[An hon. MEMBER: There is no such name.] It did not matter whether the name was Commander-in-Chief or Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, the proper thing was to amalgamate the offices, and make the Secretary of State really and truly the Commander-in-Chief. Then there were aides-de-camp almost without number, and their pay was calculated in a very extravagant manner. There were two with £173 half-pay, but receiving £584 each. There were two others receiving £200 each half-pay, and the full-service pay, therefore, would be £400 each, but the actual payments were made up to £611. There was another aide-de-camp with £237 5s. half-pay, and who received a certain sum from the Indian Council. Another was paid £173 half-pay, which was increased by £410 for acting as aide-de-camp to the Commander-in-Chief, and £365 for acting as Private Secretary to the Commander-in-Chief, the whole of his pay amounting to £949. He next came to one Adjutant General, who was paid £1,877—£877, and £1,000 extra for his regiment; a Deputy Adjutant 1823 General with £1,074, and £100 for distinguished services—which, he should be sorry to interfere with—and £200 half-pay, making altogether £1,375; and an Assistant Adjutant General who received for acting in that capacity £568, in addition to his half-pay, and £100 for "mustering the guards"—whatever that might be. The next was a Deputy Assistant Adjutant General, whose half-pay was £173, but whose income was made up to £576; and there was yet another Assistant Adjutant General connected with the clothing department, who received £769. Then came a Deputy Adjutant General of Artillery, who received £1,535; an Assistant Adjutant General of Artillery, who received £855; and a Deputy Assistant Adjutant General of Artillery, who received £603. And once more in the Engineers, there were a Deputy Adjutant General and an Assistant Adjutant General, with proportionate salaries. Yet Lord North-brook's Report said of these Artillery and Engineer Offices, they were little better than regimental orderly rooms. The list was still not exhausted, for there figured in the list a Quartermaster General, a Deputy, an Assistant, and a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster General, all with salaries mounting up in the way he had described. Surely, there were a great many of these that might be cut down. As to some of them, distinct recommendations had been made in the Report of Lord Northbrook's Committee, which stated that a much larger administrative Staff is employed in this country, in comparison with the regular and reserve forces than in any of the principal nations of Europe. He maintained that while gentlemen held these extremely well-paid appointments, the duties of which in many cases were very light, they ought not at the same time to be drawing half-pay. His Motion only dealt with a sum of £9,000, and as it contemplated the giving of six months' notice, it could make very little difference in the present financial year; but it would inaugurate a right principle to regulate future appointments.

§ COLONEL NORTH
said, that nothing was easier than to get up in the House and move that gentlemen be deprived of a portion of their income. But the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion did not even know the A B C of the question which he was anxious to deal with. He had jumbled together the names and duties of the different officers in a most unaccountable fashion. He began by calling his Royal Highness "the Commander-in-Chief," and founded a string of observations upon the name. But there was no such name in the British Army. His Royal Highness was the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and was paid accordingly. Again, he talked of Adjutants General, Quartermasters General, and ever so many other officers. Did he know a single thing about the duties they were called upon to discharge? Did the hon. Gentleman know the duties of the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General? Did he know that the Adjutant General had to confer with his Royal Highness upon the discipline of the Army and the Quartermaster upon the movements of troops? The hon. Gentleman should make himself acquainted with the duties which these officers had to perform before he proposed to deprive them of their regimental and half-pay. Was Sir Hope Grant, for instance—an officer who had served with the greatest distinction—to be deprived of his emoluments on the Motion of an hon. Gentleman who had displayed the grossest ignorance of the service? He regretted that the time of the House should be taken up in this manner, and trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not listen for a moment to such a proposal as that now under consideration.

§ COLONEL STUART KNOX
said, he objected to the hon. Gentleman acting as jackal to the Government in this manner, and giving a hint to a Government who were reducing everything, that a reduction would be advisable in the salaries of officers who were not only distinguished for their services but who 1825 had paid large sums for their commissions. It should not be forgotten that His Royal Highness, though in reality the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, received only the pay of a General Commanding-in-Chief, and yet the right hon. Gentleman proposed that his pay should be still further reduced. No one but the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion would, he thought, contend that the services of his Royal Highness, whether in peace or in war, had not been of great advantage to this country. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department would repudiate the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. CARDWELL
I hope, Sir, I shall be able to maintain my own ground without exhibiting any warmth or exciting any warmth of feeling in others, for I believe I shall have no difficulty in satisfying the House that the Motion of my hon. Friend is one to which it is undesirable that we should agree. The effect of the Motion would be this—You would not be able to get for the offices at the Horse Guards those who had been distinguished for the services they had rendered to their country, and who had been appointed to the command of regiments. Take the case of the Adjutant General, upon whom we rely for the maintenance of the discipline of the Army. In this Return it is stated that he receives £2,877 a year. I am not prepared to say, looking at the salaries which we vote, that you could give to the officer who is responsible for the discipline of the Army anything but a liberal salary. But the effect of my hon. Friend's Motion would be to reduce the Adjutant General's salary to £1,877. He would naturally consider that, as he already received £1,000 for the command of his regiment, the pay for the additional labour which he performed would amount to £877 only, or something like the salary of the chief clerk in his office. Upon reflection, I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) will consider that such a course would be neither wise policy nor real economy. Then take the case of Sir Hope Grant. That distinguished officer receives £3,227. Of that sum he receives £1,350 from the command of his regiment, leaving £1,877 if the reduction proposed by my hon. Friend were carried out; in other words, that distinguished officer would receive 1826 £527 more than would be paid to him if he did not undertake the duties which he performs. On the same principle, the amount paid to Colonel Egerton, who is a distinguished cavalry officer, would be £875, or about the same as received by the principal clerk in his office. I think I need say no more to show that it would be undesirable to agree to a Motion which would have the effect of depriving the country of the services of some of our most distinguished officers.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT
said, he would remind the House that a considerable portion of the salaries mentioned in the Return included the keep of horses, as well as largely increased, expenditure in the form of house rent.