§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, How the officia announcement "that promotion to the rank of Captain is to be regimental" is to be reconciled with the "Gazette" of the 8th inst., in which three Lieutenants of Cavalry are promoted to troops in other regiments than their own; whether there are not Cavalry Officers in India senior, in the same rank, to the Officers above referred to; whether in the two Regiments of Cavalry of the Line, in which such appointments were made, the selection of the Officers promoted was due to the fact of those Officers being in England, and the regiments in which the vacancies occurred being also in England; whether the manner in which the vacancies have been filled up is due to motives of economy; and whether it is intended that promotion for the future is to be localized, Officers in India being promoted to vacancies in India, and Officers in England to those in England?
§ MR. CARDWELLI think, Sir, it will be agreed that when Questions with regard to selection are put, it is desirable to found them as far as possible upon correct information. The Question is to be answered with reference to the Royal Warrants; and on referring to Clause 11 of the Royal Warrant of the 30th of October, 1871, it will be seen, under Paragraph A, that a certain class of 122 vacancies shall be filled by the senior qualified officers in the next lower rank in the regiment, "unless it is expedient that the vacancies be otherwise filled;" and under Paragraph B, that another class of vacancies shall be filled by "a qualified officer of our Army, who shall be selected by our Commander-in-Chief, with the approval of our Secretary of State." It is to the latter class that the vacancies in cavalry regiments referred to belong, and they were filled accordingly. As to the second Question, there are cavalry officers in India senior in the same rank to the officers referred to; but at the same time there are cavalry officers in England not senior in the same rank to the officers before mentioned. Therefore, the two lieutenants in India whom His Royal Highness considered to have the greatest claims were asked if they would accept promotion to troops at home. The one declined; the other expressed the hope that he might be promoted in India. As to Question 3, the answer is—"Yes," consequent on the foregoing circumstance. Then, in reply to the fourth Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that economy as regards the individuals has been considered, but not as regards the public, upon whom no charge will devolve; and, lastly, that no such arbitrary rule as is referred to in the last Question is intended. Having answered those Questions, I take the opportunity of answering at the same time the Question upon the same subject of selection, put to me the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). He said on that occasion—
It was only right, however, for him to mention, in order to invite an explanation on the subject, that since coming into the House he had been told of three instances in which promotions in the Army had been carried out in a manner wholly inconsistent with the plan. In The Gazette of Friday last there appeared three promotions in cavalry regiments, two of them in light cavalry regiments and the third in the Household Brigade. The lieutenants in those regiments were promoted to the rank of captain without their knowledge and consent in the case of the two light cavalry regiments, and in the third case with the knowledge but without the consent of the officer promoted. These promotions were described by the officers concerned as being effected by the exercise of an arbitrary and tyrannical power.Now, I have made inquiries, and this is the result of my inquiries. The three promotions referred to are— 123Lieutenant Hayward, Royal Horse Guards, to be Captain in 2nd Life Guards; Lieutenant Heaviside, 2nd Dragoon Guards, to be Captain, 6th Dragoons; Lieutenant Bushman, 7th Hussars, to be Captain, 9th Lancers.Let us now see how far these are instances of arbitrary and tyrannical power. With regard to the first, Lieutenant Hayward, Royal Horse Guards, applied, through his commanding officer, to be permitted to retire from the service by the sale of his commission, if he could do so with the rank of captain, to which he considered his long service entitled him, and the colonel of the regiment, General Lord Strathnairn, waited on his Royal Highness at his levée to prefer the same request on Lieutenant Hayward's behalf. Accordingly this officer has received the rank he desired and is now about to retire. Lieutenant Heaviside, 2nd Dragoon Guards, came up from Aldershot and waited on the Military Secretary, to say that the remarks made in the House of Commons did not apply to him, for he was much gratified by his promotion, though sorry to leave his regiment, and he expressed himself very grateful to His Royal Highness for having selected him. The third, Lieutenant Bushman, 7th Hussars, came up from Aldershot to attend the Military Secretary's levée to express his grateful thanks to his Royal Highness at being selected for a troop in the 9th Lancers, in which he commenced his military career.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONWe have heard a good deal lately about the system of Questions. ["Order!"] I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has answered a Question, or has made a speech: I can only say he has taken me entirely by surprise by the statement he has-just made. ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERAs I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State he was answering a Question which had already been put to him. The proper course, however, for me to pursue now will be to proceed with the Questions upon the Paper, and I therefore call upon Lord Bury, as next in order of precedence, to put the Question he has placed upon the Notice Paper.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI wish to speak upon the point of Order, and must ask the House for fair play. A statement has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to which I am prepared to give an answer. ["Order!"] Am I 124 not at liberty to answer him? He has put a Question, and surely I have a right to reply.
§ MR. SPEAKERI did not understand the right hon. Gentleman as putting a Question to anybody in the House, but as answering a Question put to him.
§ MR. HUNTI understand the facts to be these—["Order!"]—I am speaking to a point of Order, and am entitled to be heard on this question. I repeat, I understand the fact to be this—that the Secretary of State for War has been replying not to a Question asked by my right hon. Friend, but to a part of a speech of his. If that be so, I submit, on the point of Order, that a Minister is not entitled to reply to a speech as though he were answering a Question.
§ MR. CARDWELLOn the question of fact, I may say that the subject was mentioned by my right hon. Friend in order to invite an explanation. I stated, in reply, that having been put to me without Notice, it was not possible for me then to reply to the Question. Since then I have made the necessary inquiry, and have now given the answer.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONAt least I shall be in Order in now putting to my right hon. Friend a Question on the same subject. It is within my knowledge that recently two officers of Dragoons have been transferred to other regiments without their previous knowledge. I therefore wish to ask my right hon. Friend, first, Whether this system of transferring officers from one regiment to another without their consent is to be continued; and, secondly, if it is to be continued, whether it is the intention of the War Office that these Officers shall be held harmless from the great expense in point of uniforms and other things which must attend these unexpected changes?
§ MR. CARDWELLMy belief is, that the answer which I have given is complete and full. Without reference to His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief and the Military Secretary it is impossible for me to answer as to what may have been done in other cases. The reply I have given is the reply to the case put by the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwas understood to give Notice that he would ask the Question on a future day.
§ MAJOR ARBUTHNOTsaid, that the Secretary of State for War implied that he had misquoted the Royal Warrant. Now, he had not alluded to the Royal Warrant, but simply and solely to the right hon. Gentleman's own speeches last year.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, that that explanation did not give an accurate representation of the hon. and gallant Member's Question as it stood on the Paper.