HC Deb 28 June 1872 vol 212 cc405-12
MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

, in rising to move for a Select Committee To inquire whether the intended promotion to the rank of Regimental Major of First Captains of Artillery and Engineers, at an annual cost to this Country of over £20,000, and at a further addition to the Indian Military Expenditure not yet stated to Parliament, is justified by any commensurate advantage to the Public Service, said, he believed that the intended pro-motion of first captains of Artillery and Engineers to the rank of regimental majors in the manner proposed by the Government would involve a large and impolitic expenditure, while it would cause great inconvenience to the public service, in consequence of the faulty organization by which it would inevitably be attended. The grievance that it would cause had been brought before the attention of the other House of Parliament, and the in-tended promotion of the 420 officers in the Engineers and Artillery to this rank would involve the supersession, if he might so term it, of 560 officers in the infantry and cavalry; 141 officers of 19 years' service would be superseded by 79 officers of Artillery and Engineers of shorter service, and 50 officers of 22 years' service would be superseded by 134 officers in the Artillery and Engineers who had served in the Army for a shorter period. The money recently voted by Parliament, moreover, would in a few years cease to cause a flow of promotion such as now existed, and therefore it would be unfair to forecast the future by the existing state of facts. The intended promotion had been attempted to be justified by the importance attached to field batteries of artillery; but if hon. Members would take the trouble to com-pare the numbers and distribution of the men composing the other branches of the service, they would find that at the Present moment the Artillery had by far the largest number of field officers in Proportion. In fact, so numerous were the officers of field rank in the Artillery that it not unfrequently happened a large proportion were on permanent leave, receiving full pay, in addition to those who were absent from duty on sick leave. Thus, in the Royal Artillery there were 29 brigades with 1,525 officers, of whom 174 were field officers, and it was proposed to add other 283, making 457 in all; while in the infantry branch of the service there were 4,760 officers, of whom 423 only were field officers, so that the Artillery, as would be seen, possessed field officers in much larger proportion than the infantry arm of the service. In the course of the discussions on this subject a great deal of use had been made of certain actuarial calculations—documents upon which the Secretary of State for War generally fell back when he desired to commit some gross injustice. Those calculations were of no value whatever in reference to the present question, because they related to a time when promotion by purchase was the rule in the Army generally, what were called the Scientific Corps being alone excepted. Actuarial calculations, therefore, could only possess value when an uniform system of promotion all through the Army had been in practice sufficiently long to allow of its effect being accurately judged. If selection were good for one branch of the service, surely it was good for the other; and he was unable to imagine on what ground the right hon. Gentleman could defend the system of retaining the officers of Artillery until they were willing to take retirements, without attempting to subject them to the rule which he intended to apply rigidly to the other branches of the service. It was no small matter, moreover, that this change had been carried out by a Royal Warrant without any discussion in Parliament, for from the Estimates it was impossible to ascertain that the money had been asked for or voted, because it was not included as it ought to have been in the item for ordinary regimental daily pay, but in the Miscellaneous Vote for additional pay. He challenged any Member unconnected with the Government to say he was aware that the promotion of these 420 officers from the rank of cap- tain to that of regimental major had ever been shown on the Estimates. It was proposed to abolish the privileges of the Guards; but the right hon. Gentleman was erecting in the Royal Artillery and Engineers a still greater close corporation, and one that would be more prejudicial to the rest of the Army. Piece-meal legislation like that for the Artillery would therefore certainly lead to applications being made for alterations in the organization of the infantry and cavalry. The instance of the Indian Army ought to have induced the right hon. Gentleman to act with extreme caution, and the warning given by Lord Sandhurst in the other House of Parliament would assuredly have made any prudent Minister pause before introducing such a change. The right hon. and gallant Member con-cluded by moving for the Select Committee of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the intended promotion to the rank of Regimental Major of First Captains of Artillery and Engineers at an annual cost to this Country of over £20,000, and at a further addition to the Indian Military Expenditure not yet stated to Parliament, is justified by any commensurate ad-vantage to the Public Service,"—(Sir Percy Herbert,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. OSBORNE

said, this was a most important Motion, and it was to be regretted that it should have been brought forward at such an hour of the night, and also at so late a period of the Session. He understood, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that at the beginning of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War gave notice, that it was his intention to do that to which the right hon. and gallant Officer so much objected, and that provision was made in the Estimates for the purpose. Now, he was surprised to hear an officer of such great ability and distinction as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman treat this subject as he had done, and talk of these distinguished corps—one third of the Army—the Royal Artillery and Engineers, as "a close corporation." What were the facts of this case which had been so carefully obfuscated at that hour of the night by the right hon. and gallant Officer? It was notorious that for years past there had been a total stagnation in the Scientific Corps. And what was that stagnation owing to, but to a want of a due flow of promotion? so that what was a private grievance among the officers of the Artillery and Engineers became almost a public danger. In 1867 the grievance rose to such a pitch that a Committee, of which Mr. Childers was the Chairman, was appointed to inquire into the subject. That Committee spoke of the "despondency" of the Force in consequence of the want of promotion, and proposed a plan of retirement so expensive that this House would not listen to it. In 1872 there was a War Office Committee, and what did it say of this "close corporation?" It spoke of the despondency of the officers of the Royal Artillery and Engineers as being injurious to their efficiency. It should be remembered that majors of Artillery existed formerly, but were abolished in 1827. And now, there being no majors, there were first and second captains. A second captain scarcely ever obtained his distinguished rank until he was 40; and as for the first captains he was afraid to say what their age might be. The right hon. and gallant Officer opposite talked of "supersession" by these officers. But what was the average of their commissions taken from the day the first commission was obtained? Promotion meant the supersession of somebody, and if these captains were promoted at once to be lieutenant-colonels they would supersede every major in the service. The real question was this—ought a field battery to have a field officer in command? Now, he deprecated all comparisons between the brother branches of the service. He thought it mischievous to talk of any set of officers "tapping at the door of the Horse Guards." He lamented that the right hon. and gallant Officer should have followed a mischievous example in "another place," because the noble Lord who set it, and who was in very high command, ought not to have cast any reflection on a most important branch of the British Army. Did not everyone know that as science advanced, the importance of Artillery became greater and greater every day. Let hon. Gentlemen look at the responsibility of an officer in command of a battery of Artillery. He did not mean to draw any invidious distinctions—the experience which he had was derived from another branch of the service; but he could not shut his eyes to the great importance of Artillery, and he could not understand any officer of the Line being jealous because his brother officers were about to regain that lost ground which, for 40 years they had been deprived, of. A captain of the Line had two subalterns under him and 80 men. The first captain of Artillery had under him one captain, three subalterns, 195 men, and 188 horses.

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

remarked that a captain of the Line would in time of war have 100 men under his command.

MR. OSBORNE

But was that equivalent to 195 men and three subalterns? In "another place" it had been attempted to be proved by Lord Sandhurst, the Commander of the Forces in Ireland—which, by-the-by, he very seldom visited—that there was a distinction between the colonel of a regiment of infantry and the captain of a field battery, because, as the noble Lord said, the latter did not select the position for his guns. But did the colonel select the position for his regiment? And yet people talked of a "close corporation."

MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERT

explained that he spoke of "the close corporation" of the Guards, and said that that expression had been applied to the Guards in times past, but now it was proposed to make a similar "close corporation" in the Artillery.

MR. OSBORNE

How were they making a close corporation in the Artillery? Was it by giving back rights of which these men had so long been deprived? Had the right hon. and gallant Officer forgotten the conduct of the Artillery on many occasions—in Scinde, in New Zealand, and elsewhere? The fact was, they were doing a tardy justice to that great body of men, and he hoped the House would stand by them and support them in this most necessary and efficient measure of reform.

MR. HOLMS

regretted that there should have been any comparison between the different branches of the service, and advocated a system of retirement such as that which had been re- commended by the Committee which had considered this subject, instead of the course recommended by the Government. The question that must shortly force itself upon our attention was the advisability of giving a captain of the Line the command of a much larger number of men and a greater share of responsibility. In the Prussian service a captain had the direction in time of peace of 160 men, and in time of war of 250 men. Compared with the Prussian system, the number of officers of the higher grades in our service was out of all proportion, being as 5,317 to 3,251; and it was now proposed to still further increase that proportion by the promotion of 349 additional field officers—namely, 283 as by the proposal now under discussion, and 66 in connection with the depôt centre scheme. It had been stated that we had reduced the number of our officers by 1,200, but of these 700 were subalterns, and the course thus pursued was directly opposed to that adopted in business and in other departments of Government, where the endeavor was not to make the necessary reductions in the lower grades, but to keep down the expenditure in the more responsible and more highly paid branches.

MR. STACPOOLE

suggested that the officers who were necessarily passed over should receive brevet rank without additional pay.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that his right hon. and gallant Friend opposite had made one or two curious mistakes during the course of his speech, and he appeared to be much surprised that when the Estimates had been framed no provision was set down in them for majors of Artillery and Engineers. He would remind him, however, that when the Estimates were framed no such rank was in existence and that it had been found necessary to frame them in accordance with the Royal Warrants then in force. His right hon. and gallant Friend had taken upon himself to say that the alteration had been smuggled into the Estimates, [Major General Sir PERCY HERBERT said, he did not say so.] That was all very well, but it was the old story of "Don't duck him in the horse pond." He would remind his right hon. and gallant Friend that, so far from smuggling it into the Estimates, his explanations regarding it were very copious, and required three pages of Hansard; and that if there had been no discussion, it was not his (Mr. Cardwell's) fault, but the fault of his right hon. and gallant Friend himself. What had his right hon. and gallant Friend done since the time when he (Mr. Cardwell) had introduced the matter? Why, nothing. Yet, neglecting to discuss the matter at the time, his right hon. and gallant Friend, after an interval of four months, came forward to ask for an inquiry. Nothing was more common than to ask for an inquiry when the matter was new and anything required examination; nothing less common than to ask for an inquiry upon a subject four months after the House had decided upon it. The fact, however, was that the subject had already been inquired into. A Committee, of which his right hon. and gallant Friend was a Member, sat upon it in 1867, and the recommendations made by that Committee involved a larger expenditure than that which his right hon. and gallant Friend now regarded as excessive. His right hon. and gallant Friend had complained in his Motion of the expense which the Government scheme would entail on the Indian Revenues; but on inquiry at the India Office, he learnt the proposal made by the Government would not involve any considerable additional expenditure. When his right hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the impolitic expenditure and faulty organization of the scheme, he evidently overlooked the fact that the expenditure was smaller than that which he had himself recommended. The truth was that it was a bare act of justice to the Artillery and Engineers that the responsible position which they held should be filled by field officers. The question of supersession he did not feel disposed to enter on at any length, since it must be evident that in an Army in which promotion ran, not in one, but in several lines, supersession must be of constant occurrence, but as his right hon. and gallant Friend had referred to particular cases of supersession, he might mention the case of a captain of the Bengal Artillery, who had 27½ years' service, who had served through the Punjaub campaign, who had received a severe gunshot wound, and who was still a captain. Supersession, he would remind his right hon. and gallant Friend, was felt quite as much by one man as by another, and it was not the more agreeable because it had been effected by purchase or privilege, or by a combination of both. Those who served in the Engineers or Artillery had quite as good an objection to be superseded as other men, and he was prepared to defend the arrangement made by the Government on two grounds, the first and main ground being that of organization. He contended that the commands of field batteries and garrison batteries were services which ought to be in the hands of field officers; and in the second place it was, he maintained, an act of bare justice to the Artillery and Engineers to give them the promotion which they would obtain under the proposal of the Government. He did not, he might add, believe that there was any general feeling in the Army hostile to the course which the Government proposed, and it would indeed be a matter of regret if justice could not be done to two eminent branches of the military service without creating any such feeling.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.