§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Captain and Brevet Major Chard, when absorbed from supernumerary into the fixed establishment of Regimental Captains, will stand above those Captains who were senior to him as Lieutenants prior to his distinguished service at Rorke's Drift; if so, whether such supersession is not a breach of faith to officers who entered a seniority Service with the understanding that they could not be Regimentally superseded so long as the Corps continued to be constituted as it was at the time when they joined it; whether any instance can be quoted 14 of an officer of any arm of the Service having been promoted for distinguished conduct in his own Regiment unless he was at the top of the rank in which he belonged; if it be intended that the new principle now adopted shall prevail in the future throughout all arms; and, whether he will endeavour to devise some machinery by which Major Chard and all others who eminently distinguish themselves as Lieutenants may receive their well merited promotion in the Army without prejudice to their seniors of the same rank and on the same Regimental list?
§ COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, the Question of his hon. and gallant Friend seemed to divide itself into five different heads, and it would be convenient if he answered it under those heads. In the first place, Lieutenant Chard would stand above those captains who were senior to him as lieutenants; and in regard to the alleged breach of faith, he had to state that no principle of absolute seniority was recognized by the Royal Warrant. Under Article 59 promotion must be by seniority; but, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary' of State had power to grant promotion. As to the question of precedent, there had been several instances—the cases of Colonel Hume, Sir Fenwick Williams, Sir Lintorn Simmons, and Sir Frederick Chapman being among the number. Whether it was intended that the new principle should prevail in the future throughout all arms was a question of policy which he could not reply to now. It must be left to be decided on each particular case. As to the last part of the Question, it was difficult to see how any machinery could be devised by which Major Chard and others, who eminently distinguished themselves as lieutenants, could receive promotion without prejudice to their seniors of the same rank and on the same regimental list. Super session must be inevitable with selection for promotion. In this case no loss would accrue to others. Lieutenant Chard was trained as an Engineer, and promotion to any other service would take him out of his line; and I think it due to the officers of the Royal Engineers to say that, so far as I am aware, they, who are most interested in this matter, have not foreseen or raised any of the difficulties of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOTtrusted the House would, in common fairness, allow him to say that he had himself intended to make that observation. He took the full responsibility—
§ MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he would not be in Order in pursuing the subject now.
§ COLONEL ARBUTHNOTI wish to ask you, Sir, whether the statement of my right hon. and gallant Friend is not calculated to prejudice me in the eyes of the House—["Order!"]—and whether he has not made an insinuation that I was pressing a crotchet on the House? ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. and gallant Member that his remarks are entirely out of Order.