ARMY— CASE OF SURGEON-MAJOR CLARKE.—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 6 August 1878)

§ MR. MELDON
was very averse to troubling the House with anything like a grievance; but, from the facts connected with the case he was about to mention, he thought it would be of opinion that there were certain special and public grounds which justified him in calling attention to the matter. He wished to draw attention to the case of Surgeon-Major Clarke, who was passed over for promotion under very extraordinary circumstances. In 1876, when his promotion was stopped, Surgeon-Major Clarke had been in the Service 28 years and four months, of which period 17 years and five months had teen passed in foreign service. He was engaged in Dublin, in connection with the Recruiting Department, and in August, 1876, when his turn for promotion came, he found that two officers, much his juniors, were promoted over his head. The testimonials of Surgeon-Major Clarke, laid before the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief, showed that from the day he entered the Service up to the present moment his conduct had been exceedingly good, and every commanding officer under whom he had served, except one, had given him the highest praise. When he found that he had been passed over, Surgeon-Major Clarke put himself in communication with the Director General of the Army Medical Department, and, subsequently, with the Commander-in-Chief. After a long correspondence, he succeeded in inducing His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief to tell the Director General to state the grounds on which his promotion was stopped. It was a very unusual thing for the Director General, who had the power of selecting from among a number of officers, to state the grounds on which any particular officers were passed over; but, in this particular case, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief thought it right that the grounds on which Surgeon-Major Clarke had been passed over should be stated. On 26th September, 1876, a letter was written by an official, on the part of the Director General, stating the reasons in question. Several grounds were alleged by the Director General; but before he read them, he (Mr. Mel- 1403 don) wished to say that he did not seek to justify the position that an officer who had been passed over had any right to know the reason, or to complain to Parliament, merely because the discretion rested in the Director General of the Medical Department had been exercised. But, in the present case, the grounds had been disclosed, and enabled Surgeon-Major Clarke to complain of the manner in which he had been treated, and made it proper to bring the matter before the notice of the House. The first ground stated by the Director General of the Medical Department was that Surgeon-Major Clarke had been charged with insubordination; and, secondly, that recently, Surgeon-Major Clarke had been guilty of carelessness in the examination of recruits in his district. With respect to the first ground stated, the facts were that in 1853, while Surgeon-Major Clarke was on duty in India with the 90th Regiment, to which he was attached, some dispute arose between him and his commanding officer as to the way in which the sick should be treated. Surgeon-Major Clarke thought the commanding officer was inferior to himself in the matter of knowledge, and wished to take his own course. Surgeon-Major Clarke was eventually reprimanded, and removed from the 90th Regiment, in consequence of this dispute. Subsequently, he returned to this country, and demanded an inquiry into the reason for his removal from the 90th Regiment. The Military Secretary wrote to the Director General with reference to his case, and on a reply being received, Surgeon-Major Clarke was informed that His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, having considered the matter, thought there was nothing in the circumstances connected with his retirement from the 90th Regiment to prejudice his reputation or interfere with his future promotion in the Service. Thereupon, Surgeon-Major Clarke withdrew his application for an inquiry. Thus, they had the Commander-in-Chief, on the one hand, saying that his future promotion in the Service was not to be interfered with, and the Director General alleging the incident in India as a ground for passing him over. If his promotion were refused upon that ground, Surgeon-Major Clarke was most unjustly and most unfairly dealt with, and 1404 the Director General of the Medical Department had no right to refuse promotion by reason of a charge which the Commander-in-Chief had declared to be unfounded. Moreover, that incident occurred in 1853, and it was not until 1876 that Surgeon-Major Clarke was informed by the Director General that it was a reason for passing him over. If the matter remained there, no sufficient ground for passing over Surgeon-Major Clarke was shown, and in justice to him he ought to have been promoted. But another reason was stated. The Director General stated— It appears, further, that you have recently been removed from the recruiting district in which you have been stationed, owing to your carelessness in the examination of recruits. The fact was that Surgeon-Major Clarke was not removed from the recruiting district at Dublin for some weeks after his promotion was passed over. Therefore, there must have been some error in asserting that as a reason for super-session. He would now read to the House one or two of the testimonials that Surgeon-Major Clarke had received. On the 29th of August, 1876, the Assistant Adjutant General for Recruiting wrote to him— My dear Clarke,—In reply to your note, it gives me very great pleasure to state my approbation of the way in which you have performed your duties. You have at all times shown your anxiety to give me every assistance and to promote the welfare of the Service. Another letter, from Surgeon-Major Clarke's commanding officer during 1873 and 1874, said— I have very great pleasure in acknowledging the assistance you have given me. It has relieved me from very much responsibility in approving recruits, and the ability and judgment you have displayed enable me to bear my hearty testimony to your professional knowledge and to your zeal for the Service. Yet, in the face of these letters, Surgeon-Major Clarke was passed over, because he did not discharge his duties, with reference to the passing of recruits, in a satisfactory manner. The supersession took place long before Surgeon-Major Clarke's position in the recruiting department had ceased; and yet he was told that his promotion had been stopped in consequence of the occurrence of 1853, and of his removal from the recruiting department. With reference to the charges of insubordination laid against 1405 him by the Director General, Surgeon-Major Clarke could show testimonials of the highest character from all the commanding officers under whom he had served, with one exception. But, besides having been passed over when his turn for promotion came, the result of the interference of hon. Members in his case had been that Surgeon-Major Clarke had been removed from Dublin, and sent to India, and had, further, been subjected to a great many petty annoyances. Under these circumstances, and taking into account what he had stated to the House with reference to the assurance of His Royal Highness the Commander - in - Chief, that Surgeon-Major Clarke's promotion was not to be interfered with by reason of what occurred in 1853, he (Mr. Meldon) hoped that the present Secretary of State for War would give his consideration to the case, and that this very meritorious officer would get the promotion he most justly deserved.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, that the hon. and learned Member had clearly spoken under a misapprehension of the facts of this case. He had argued as if this were a case of supersession, and the hon. and learned Member had spoken several times of Surgeon-Major Clarke's having had his promotion stopped. The truth was that there were certain officers in the Medical Department—a very small number—who were administrative officers. When an officer had attained the highest rank in the executive branch in the Medical Department, he had a probability of succeeding to the administrative branch of the Service. The number of officers in the administrative branch was very few, and they were not appointed by seniority, but were chosen by selection. Without saying anything unduly in disparagement of Surgeon-Major Clarke, yet he might observe that there were officers who, by reason of their professional acquirements and their zeal in the Service, were more fit for the post in question than Surgeon-Major Clarke. He did not want to give any reason, and he did not think it was necessary that they should go into any of the charges that had been made against Surgeon-Major Clarke. As he understood, they had. been condoned by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief; but as this was a case of selection, Surgeon-Major Clarke could not 1406 complain if other officers were thought more fit for the post than he. His Predecessor in Office had left a Minute that this was a case of selection, and not of supersession. The matter had been most carefully gone into; and, for his part, he could see no reason for altering the decision that had been arrived at, and he must, therefore, decline to reopen the case.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, that as the appointments in the administrative branch of the Medical Service were made by selection under the regulations recently issued, and however much he might regret to see a good officer suspended, yet it must be recognized that Surgeon-Major Clarke had no reason to complain of the authorities for adhering to the Orders of the Service. He was, however, of opinion, that it would have been better if no reasons had been stated by the Director General for not appointing Surgeon-Major Clarke. This reticence would have prevented the pain which the words used must have given to a good officer.