§ COLONEL ALEXANDERrose to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which certain Officers proceeding with the Expeditionary Force to Egypt have been allowed to retain staff appointments at home. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said: It may be said, probably will be said, that the course which I am taking with respect to this question is somewhat exceptional and unusual. I admit, Sir, that it is unusual, and, perhaps, also inconvenient; but then the circumstances which induce me to take this course are also very exceptional and unusual. An Expeditionary Force is sent to Egypt, and no fewer than 16 of the officers composing that Force hold, at the same time, high appointments at home. That, perhaps, may not of itself be a very remarkable coincidence; but when I add that all the officers in question are allowed to retain those appointments, you have a state of things which, I venture to pronounce, is unique and unprecedented in the annals of the British 974 Army. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may be able to point to one or two instances in which officers proceeding abroad have been allowed to retain appointments on the Staff at home; but of this I am quite sure—that never before has the practice been reduced to a system, never before has it been carried out in so wholesale and, I am bound to add, so audacious and unblushing a manner. If I might offer a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, it would be that he should inscribe in letters of gold over the portals of the War Office the words, Beati possidentes, for no motto could be more appropriate in a building where the Scriptural maxim is literally carried out—"To him that hath to him shall be given, and he shall have it more abundantly." Pluralities have disappeared from the Church; but the system, it would appear, is to be revived in the Army. Perhaps the House will allow me to relate an anecdote more familiar to men of the last than to those of this generation. During the Crimean War, Lord Panmure, then Secretary of State for War, anxious to promote the interests of his nephew, Major Dowbiggin, sent the following curt but significant message to Lord Eaglan—"Take care of Dowb." The phrase—"Take care of Dowb," has since passed into a proverb. The right hon. Gentleman has improved on the practice of his Predecessor, for he takes care, not of one, but of 16 Dowbs. It is curious to note the tendency of history to repeat itself, and to observe how, when Liberal Governments are in power, Dowbs multiply and abound. The right hon. Gentleman excuses his action in this matter on the assumption that the expedition will probably return three months hence; but on what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman base this assumption? On grounds probably as substantial as those which induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1854, to lay on the Table of the House an Estimate for taking the Guards to Malta and back. But, even assuming the prophecy of the right hon. Gentleman to be fulfilled, is that any reason why, during the next three months, all the Military Departments of the State should be undermanned and, in some cases, deprived of their responsible heads? The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that, during a great war, and especially at the outset of a great war, the labour devolving on those De- 975 partments is enormously increased; and yet this is precisely the time chosen by him for crippling and enfeebling their action. The right hon. Gentleman is in this dilemma. If the services of the Adjutant General and his Colleagues were required three months ago, à fortiori they are required now; and, if they can be dispensed with now, they can equally be dispensed with three months hence. The right hon. Gentleman told me the other day that he could not send General Feilding to Egypt because his services were required at Malta; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the services of the distinguished officer who now commands the troops which General Feilding trained were not equally required in the Intelligence Department at home? The right hon. Gentleman may possibly say that in many of these Departments there is an excellent locum tenens; but I need hardly remind the House that work performed by a locum tenens is never so satisfactory as work undertaken by a responsible head. I am told, although I can scarcely believe it, that the right hon. Gentleman defends the grace of three months accorded to these fortunate officers on the ground that a similar indulgence is granted to officers appointed to the Staff before being seconded from their regiments. There is, however, no analogy between the two cases—a period of three months is granted to an officer before being seconded in his regiment, to enable him to make choice between Regimental and Staff Service; but surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to apply this principle as between one Staff appointment and another—surely he does not mean to lay down the rule that a man, having accepted one Staff appointment, is to have three months in which to say whether he would not like another better. Besides, some of these officers have already been seconded from their regiments, and have had one period of grace given them; but now the right hon. Gentleman actually proposes to give them another. The right hon. Gentleman is departing from all the principles which he laid down last year when fixing the new Establishment of General Officers. On June 24, 1881, the right hon. Gentleman said—
We have fixed the number of General Officers at about double the average number 976 who will be employed in ordinary times, leaving, therefore, ample margin for times of great wars.… We have brought that number down to what is considered by those who advise me on this subject an efficient number with respect to the requirements of the Service."—[3 Hansard, cclxii. 1233.]When the right hon. Gentleman said this he could not have intended that one man should occupy two places, for in that case the number of General Officers proposed would be unnecessarily large. Sir, I have asked myself, over and over again, what do these favoured officers require? Is it not enough to be commissioned to sustain the honour of the country abroad—to receive, perhaps, the thanks of both Houses of Parliament—to be created, it may be, Lord Rosetta or Lord Damietta—to return home in a blaze of glory and constellations—is not all this enough, without requiring unfortunate officers at home to act as their warming-pans? These officers are well known in the Service as the "Mutual Admiration Society," from the mutual respect they entertain for each other's talents and abilities. Their doctrine is that—"Outside the Ashantee ring there is no salvation." If I might give advice to a young man entering the Army, it would be to cultivate the Ashantee ring—their favour is the via prima salutis, the only sure road to honour and preferment. They are more formidable than the most formidable Caucus, for they ruthlessly "Boycott" all who do not share the opinions they espouse. If they pronounce in favour of short service, you must carefully conceal your preference for long, otherwise you will be relegated to honourable banishment, like Sir Frederick Roberts, or hopelessly shelved, like Sir Lintorn Simmons. Let not the right hon. Gentleman deceive himself. Let him not think, because discipline prevents the expression of discontent, that no discontent exists. On the contrary, a feeling of profound dissatisfaction prevails with respect to a system which bars every road to promotion; which blocks every avenue to preferment; which foils the honourable ambition of an officer abroad; which disappoints his legitimate expectations at home; and which condemns him, while yet in the prime of life, to premature supersession, which he feels to be unmerited, and which he knows to be unjust.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that under cover of complaining of certain arrangements which had been made as to the temporary employment of certain officers, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander) had thought fit to make a violent attack upon Sir Garnet Wolseley, and had spoken of the "Ashantee ring;" and everybody who knew what the gossip of the Clubs was, knew that that only meant the distinguished officers who were classed with Sir Garnet Wolseley. He did not think the House would be led aside by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to sanction any attack on one of the most distinguished officers of the present day. The hon. and gallant Member had asserted that Sir Frederick Roberts was relegated to honourable banishment; but the hon. and gallant Member knew perfectly well that Sir Frederick was offered the second best Staff office in the British Army, and that he preferred to retain the appointment which he now held at Madras. It was, therefore, the greatest act of injustice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done the Government and himself (Mr. Childers) in insinuating that he was unwilling to have to propose to Her Majesty that Sir Frederick Roberts' services should be at her disposal in this country, when he knew that he had been offered the second greatest post in this country. He thought he had reason to complain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had, under cover of remarks on another subject, introduced this matter, and then made a statement with regard to Sir Frederick Roberts, the true facts of whose case were perfectly in his possession at the time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that on this occasion they had sanctioned a system under which a certain number of officers had been employed on an Expedition in Egypt, and that they, when they returned, would be allowed to go back to their Staff appointments. He had already very frankly stated to the House that, with respect to some of those officers, that was the case. It was not anticipated that the Expedition to Egypt would be a long one; and if it should prove such, the circumstances under which these officers had been allowed to expect to return to their offices would, of course, be reconsidered. It was only in consideration that the Expedition would be a short one that Sir Garnet Wolseley—who, of 978 course, was the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attack—would be allowed to retain the office in question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked him the other day why they had not employed General Feilding, and he had replied that that was not a matter which should be discussed in that House, and that General Feilding would have quite sufficient duty at Malta. The hon. and gallant Gentleman now asked how it was that Sir Archibald Alison had been allowed to retain the prospect of returning to the head of the Intelligence Department, although he had gone to Egypt. He had already explained that when Sir Archibald Alison ceased to hold that office, it would not be filled up, and that the Quartermaster General could very well superintend the Intelligence Department. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that there was something very unusual in the present arrangements; but, without raising any question as between one Government and another, it would be found there was no reason for the suggestion on comparing what was done now with what had been done previously. When Sir Garnet Wolseley went out with the Ashantee Expedition he was allowed to retain his office at home; and the only difference was that he returned to a considerably higher office, and was made Inspector General of the Auxiliary Forces. In the same way his Predecessor allowed General Newdigate, on returning from South Africa, to revert to his former appointment.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he did not say that instances could not be quoted. His contention was that these cases had never occurred in such a wholesale manner before.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not think that this time the numbers were by comparison excessive; but when the service abroad was expected to be a short one it was never understood that there was any objection to the arrangement. There seemed to be a misapprehension as to what had really been done. As in the case of the Zulu War, now, in every instance except one, a locum tenens had been appointed, and the officer abroad would receive only the emoluments of one office. He could not find anything approaching to the number suggested unless it were intended to include aides-de-camp and officers of that rank— 979 [Colonel ALEXANDER: No, no!]—to whom the epithet used could be applied. No doubt, Sir Archibald Alison was in Ashantee; but he belonged to a different Army school from Sir Garnet Wolseley. He did not think there was a single one of the General Officers who had been appointed who could be said to have been appointed under the influence which he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman had qualified in a manner that was very unusual in this House. But this he wished to say distinctly, that if the Expedition to Egypt should last longer than they expected when they sent it out, the whole of those temporary arrangements would be reviewed, as they would have been reviewed, no doubt, in 1879, when similar arrangements were made. But he could not think it would be for the benefit of the Public Service if, in some of the highest places in the Army, those who were capable of administering those offices with the greatest success were compelled to resign until it was quite clear that the Expedition would not be the very short one that they at present anticipated. On these grounds, he hoped the House would allow that in the arrangements they had made they had done what was best for the Public Service.
§ LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he did not wish to prolong the discussion of a painful subject; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had been a little hard on the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander), whose object was of a public and net of a private character, and who had no intention to reflect on any of the gallant officers sent out on high command in the Egyptian Expedition. If the hon. and gallant Member did mention the fact that a certain name had been given to the officers of the Ashantee Expedition, it was more with the idea of giving force to his argument on public grounds than with the view of making any reflection on these officers. Without saying a word against them individually or collectively, while there were many officers who had equal claims to service of this kind, it was right on public grounds that something should be said in regard to the extraordinary appointments of officers that had been made by the War Office. He had understood, from the reply to a Question he had put, that the officers were to receive the pay of two offices; 980 but he was glad to hear it was not so. Offices of the nature of Adjutant General and of Surveyor of Ordnance were very important in time of peace, and it was a hazardous thing to put them in commission when operations were going on. The precedent was one which could not be followed with advantage to the Public Service. The number of officers taken out of The Army List, and as they stood now at the War Office, were no less than six, and there were at least five or six more who had recently held appointments at the War Office. There were officers anxious to place their services at the will of the Government, and it was very hard that they should find themselves ousted out of these appointments by gentlemen, however gallant and capable, who already held at headquarters important offices, the duties of which, in time of war, it was most desirable they should discharge. When Lord Cardwell's scheme was under debate it was said that in the future appointments would be made by seniority tempered by selection, and it was replied that in practice the system might become stagnation tempered by jobbery. As regarded some of these appointments, they did seem to be within a measurable distance of jobbery. It was against the system, and not against the officers, that his remarks were directed. It was necessary, in the interests of the Army, that officers who had claims based on long and meritorious services should not be made to feel that the only avenue to promotion was through the War Office, where officers were brought under the immediate notice of the highest authorities.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, that two questions had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend—the one a personal question, the other a question of principle. With regard to the first, he regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend, though, no doubt, in the public interest, had used expressions that possibly might be liable to misconstruction, for there was no doubt there was an ugly ring about the expressions he had used with regard to Sir Garnet Wolseley. No doubt, public opinion regarded Sir Garnet Wolseley as one of our best Generals; and when his hon. and gallant Friend talked of the "Ashantee Ring," that was merely bringing into that House expressions which he had often heard used 981 outside on the part of those who were not the friends, or who did not belong to the Staff of Sir Garnet Wolseley. He had often thought it unjust to accuse Sir Garnet Wolseley of having fostered around him a ring of officers who always went with him. What would a man naturally do? Even his hon. and gallant Friend, who, he was sure, would make a good General, would do the same. Sir Garnet Wolseley had found officers who, in Ashantee, had done their duty efficiently, and he naturally liked to have men whom he could trust around him, and not to have others thrust upon him. But, then, the question of principle was a very different matter, and that was whether officers who held most important posts, for which, presumably, they were the most fit that could be obtained at the time, should be taken away and sent to fill other more important posts. If Sir Garnet Wolseley and Sir John Adye were the most efficient men for the posts from which they were taken, it was more necessary now than at any other time that, instead of going to take the command of troops in the field, they should help at home in the management of the war.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend was led away by his soldierly feeling when he stated that some men received all the rewards, while others were left out in the cold. There was no doubt that officers in the Army felt strongly that men serving in the War Office had a very great pull over them, however good their service might be. If Sir Garnet Wolseley, Adjutant General; Sir John Adye, Surveyor General of Ordnance; and Sir Archibald Alison, head of the Intelligence Department, were so admirably fitted for these posts, why take them away in a time of war, when it must be far more necessary to work out all the details? But, then, the Secretary of State for War said they were the best men to send out to Egypt. Now, he had always advocated that men commanding forces in the field should be connected with those forces. He did not believe that one of those officers who had gone out to command had ever seen any of the men that would be under them. But officers who had commanded brigades, who knew the men, and whom the men had confidence in, were left at 982 home. A grave responsibility rested upon the Secretary of State for War, as he had got to consider, not only those about him and whom he knew personally, but all other officers whose claims were equally great and who were not brought personally under his notice. He had himself known many officers left, he might say, to perish in out-of-the-way places, though they were as capable as any others. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to make his selections as fair and as much in the general interest of the Army as he was able.
§ SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander) felt strongly on this matter, and had been tempted to make use of expressions which he would probably regret when he saw them in to-morrow's report. What the Secretary of State for War had to do was to select the best men for the service; and although a man might have been at the Adjutant General's Department and fulfilled important duties there, it would be very wrong, in the interests of the country and the Army, to say that on that account he was not to be Commander-in-Chief of an expedition. To proceed on such a hard-and-fast rule would tie one's hands most unwisely. He did not say that there were not other Generals who might perform the important task of commanding our Armies in the East as well as Sir Garnet Wolseley. He might point to that gallant officer, Sir Daniel Lysons. But the rule in question would cut off Sir Daniel Lysons, who was now commanding at Aldershot. He thought it would be rather hard to say that immediately a man was sent on service he should be removed from the appointment he held. If the war went on it would be clearly impossible in a few months' time for these appointments still to be retained. He was unwilling to sit there, having himself been recently at the War Office and seen the very thing done which his hon. and gallant Friend had called attention to, without making those few remarks. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would explain that he did not mean anything personal to General Officers, such as Generals Alison, with whom he had served in the Crimea, Willis, and Adye, all of whom were, he believed, friends of his hon. and gallant Friend.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERdesired to withdraw any expression which might be considered offensive to Sir Garnet Wolseley, and he withdrew unreservedly the words "Ashantee Ring." He did not object to the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley as Commander of the Expedition; but that his place as Adjutant General should not be filled up at a time when the duties were more onerous than usual. With reference to what his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) had said about Sir Archibald Alison, the last thing he should think of would, be to reflect upon the distinguished services of that officer.
§ Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.