RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 9 June 1870)

§ MR. WALSH

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the proposed reliefs for the Royal Horse Artillery in India, said, that at the close of the government of the East India Company the re-organization of the old Indian Army occupied much of the attention of the Legislature. A Commission was appointed to consider the subject; and, spite of the opinions of Lord Ellen-borough and Sir John Lawrence, who strongly urged the retention of the Native Army, the Commission reported in 1869 by a large majority— That nothing could be more unfortunate, not to say dangerous, than so to organize the armed forces of the State as to sow the seeds and form the groundwork of professional jealousies and heartburnings, the inevitable result of a double system. But the double service, although extinguished in name, might still exist in fact, and he thought that nothing could be more dangerous to the good feeling which should exist than the power on the part of the military authorities to maintain invidious distinctions, and to act upon a system of favouritism. The Royal Horse Artillery consisted of six brigades. The A and B Brigades belonged to the old Royal service; the Brigades C, D, E, and F were the old Indian Artillery, which had been amalgamated with the former. The A Brigade, which belonged to the old 1827 Royal Artillery, relieved the C Brigade in 1865, and now, according to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had given him towards the close of last Session, the B Brigade, which returned from India in 1861, was not to be sent out, though the first for foreign service, but the C Brigade, which, as he had stated, had returned in 1865, was to go out, on the ground that one of the old Royal Artillery brigades must always be in England. As four brigades must be in India, it was perfectly evident that if one of the old Royal Brigades was always to be in England, the old Royal Artillery must have a double quantity of home service compared with the old Indian Artillery, and, therefore, they were not amalgamated upon those equal terms which were promised them at the time. Could anything be more unjust that the officers and men of the one should have double the home service of the officers and men of the other? In the C Brigade, which it was proposed to send out out of its turn, there were 700 men who had enlisted imagining that they should be on equal terms with the men of the Royal Artillery. According to the Regulations of the War Office he made out that the F Brigade would not be relieved until 1881. Now, he would ask how many of those officers who gave up their retiring fund and other privileges in 1861 would reap in 1881 the benefit of their amalgamation with the Royal Artillery? Hardly one. He could not believe the House would allow such unfair treatment of men to whom we owed so much for the preservation of our Indian Empire.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN

said, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was a repetition, in another form, of a Question which had been addressed by the hon. Gentle- 1828 man to the Secretary of State for War in the course of last Session; and were it simply confined to that question he might have been excused if he trespassed longer on the time of the House than was necessary to give a repetition of the answer. But the hon. Gentleman now submitted the subject to the House in a more formidable manner. He was surprised to hear the manner in which the question had been brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman, who was an old soldier, and he regretted to hear the terms which the hon. Member had used when speaking of the Horse Guards. The hon. Member said the system was an organized system of favouritism of the Horse Guards. But this assertion could not be substantiated by facts. If it were true there would have been a remonstrance made by the officers connected with the brigade under orders for India; but no such remonstrance had been made, and he believed he was justified in stating that the feeling of those officers was adverse to the Motion. Why, then, did the hon. Member bring forward his grievance? Had the hon. Member been influenced by one of those officers? If so, was he not trenching very much on the opinion they had always held that matters of military discipline should not be debated in that House? The facts were these—It was arranged at first that the general service of brigades should be confined to 10 years in India and five years at home. But afterwards, for reasons which military men would understand, it was determined that, as there were only two brigades of the old Royal Artillery, it would not be right that the two should be in India at the same time, until it was perfectly certain that the new system would work well, but that one of those brigades should remain in England. In 1864 that arrangement was made by the Commander-in-Chief, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for India. At first the Overland Route was not open, and the reliefs were made by half brigades. In 1865 half a brigade of the old English Royal Artillery was sent to India, and the same year half an Indian brigade came home and the remaining half brigade of the old English Artillery went out. The old brigade had only served five years. When the Overland Route was opened the autho- 1829 rities were able to relieve by whole instead of by half brigades, and they did so. In 1867 the 17th Brigade at Madras was relieved; in 1868 the 1st Brigade at Bombay was relieved; and in 1869 another brigade was relieved at Madras. Well, why was the C Brigade going out now? Because it had served its five years in England; and its duty now was, therefore, to go to India. From these considerations he thought the hon. Gentleman had not substantiated his complaint; and he (Captain Vivian) regretted that the Motion had been brought forward, for all the arrangements had been conducted with perfect fairness.