ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE—VOTE A. (Hansard, 27 July 1882)

§ SIR ARTHUH HAYTER
, in rising to move— That a number of Men, not exceeding 10,000, all ranks, in addition to those already voted, he maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at home and abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to allow this Vote to be taken at once, because it was very necessary to do so, and they would have an opportnnity of saying what they wished on the Army Vote which was not yet passed. The 10,000 men proposed to be taken were the very cream of the Service, not one of them being much over 30 years of age.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a number of Men, not exceeding 10,000, all ranks, in addition to those already voted, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at home and abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he wished to ask a question with regard to the different battalions now in the Ser- 2109 vice. The other day the Secretary of State for War admitted that the Brigade of Guards alone were below their establishment by an average of 50 men a battalion. As there were seven battalions of Guards, that average represented a deficiency in the Brigade of Guards alone of 350 men, and, if the same system had been pursued throughout the whole Army, there was a number of men accounted for almost equal to those which the Committee were now asked to vote over and above the present establishment. There were 136 battalions of the Line; those with the seven of Guards made 143 battalions, and, if the average deficiency, which was acknowledged with respect to the Brigade of Guards, was to be found throughout the whole of the Infantry Service, there was a deficiency of over 7,000 men. He knew that the strength of many of the Cavalry regiments had been below their establishment for a considerable time; and if the Artillery was in the same position, there was actually the whole of the 10,000 men now asked for over and above the existing establishment entirely accounted for by the deficiency in the recruiting arrangements. He believed that the phrase applied by the late Lord Derby some years ago to the Army might be repeated now—"attenuated battalions"—and that was why the Government had to ask for a special Vote to call out the Reserves. He should like to hear a statement from the Government as to the strength of the Cavalry and Infantry battalions?

SIR HENEY FLETCHER
said, he wished to make one or two remarks in correction of statements made by the Secretary of State for War as to the Brigade of Guards. He did not wish to say a word against the appointment of the Duke of Connaught to command the Brigade of Guards proceeding to Egypt; but the Secretary of State for War had stated that the appointment of an officer who had no connection with the Brigade of Guards did not come under the Queen's Regulations. Such an appointment did, however, come under the Queen's Regulations with respect to the command of regiments on foreign service. At page 374, the Regulations said— The Foot Guards from time immemorial, when detached by Brigade, have always 2110 been commanded by officers belonging to the Guards, and the custom will continue for the future. He merely wished to call attention to the fact that this was in the Queen's Regulations. On every occasion on which the Guards had proceeded on foreign service they were commanded by their own officers. In 1801 they were commanded by General Ludlow. When they proceeded to Waterloo they were commanded by Major General Maitland and Major General Banks. In the Crimea they were commanded by Major General Bentinck; and when they went to Canada, although that was not exactly the scene of war, they were commanded by Lieutenant General Fitzroy and Lord John Lindsay. He thought, by stating these facts and quoting the Queen's Regulations, he had shown that when-ever Her Majesty's Foot Guards, which he had the honour to serve, proceeded abroad, they had been commanded by their own officers. He did not pass any reflection on the appointment made in this case; but, for the sake of the Service, he thought it important to mention that this matter was dealt with in the Queen's Regulations.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
, in reply to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), said, the battalions of Guards consisted of 761 rank and file, and with the officers were nearly 800 strong. The Cavalry battalions consisted of 452 men. Men were taken from some battalions to make up for other battalions.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
wished to know whether the Reserves would join the regiments to which they belonged? Although this had been contemplated from the first, it had never yet been done.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
promised to inquire into that matter.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he thought the statement recently made by the Secretary of State for War was inaccurate, and he hoped some explanation would be made by the Government which would be in the nature of a reparation to the House and to the Service for that statement. He had asked whether it was intended to observe the Regulation requiring that when the Brigade of Guards went on active service it should be commanded by its own officers? And the 2111 answer he received from the War Minister was that the Regulation he referred to was only a Guards' Regulation, and not one of the Queen's Regulations for the Army. It was, however, one of the Queen's Regulations for the Army, and from time immemorial it had been observed in the Army. There had been no instance pointed out in which the Brigade of Guards went on active service when it was not commanded by a Guards' General. There had been a serious injustice done in the present case. He did not approach the subject in any spirit of depreciation of the Royal Prince who had been selected; but Regulations were Regulations, and merit was merit. Service ought to count as service, and when the War Minister showed undue influence at the top of the tree, that was an example which was likely to prove destructive in all the lower branches. The Brigade of Guards ought to be commanded by a Guards' General, according to the Regulations, and there were at least three Guards' Generals of distinguished service, one of whom ought to have been appointed. There was General Higginson, General Burnaby, an hon. and gallant Member of that House, and General Gibbs. General Higginson was at present commanding the Home District, and he understood that that officer had waived his right because the Home District was regarded as one of the plums of the Service.

§ MR. MAGNIAC
I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the case that General Higginson has waived his right; he never had the opportunity.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he was glad to receive that correction, and the hon. Member's statement only added to the impropriety of what had been done. Then, besides General Higginson, who was a most distinguished officer of 34 years' service, there was General Burnaby, who was also a veteran in the Service, and had been all his life an ardent friend of the Guards, and a most popular officer among the soldiers; and then there was Major General Gibbs, who had seen over 32 years' service, was wounded at the Alma and stabbed at Inkerman, or stabbed at the Alma and wounded at Inkerman—for the purposes of the War Minister it did not matter how that was, for neither wounds, nor service, nor the Queen's Regulations 2112 could lead him in the path of duty against powerful solicitations. If he had any opportunity on which he could take a precise vote by which the country could recognize and mark the conduct of the Government he should take such opportunity, for he thought it was just as wrong to break the Regulations, and to overlook the rights of gallant soldiers in the interests of a Royal Prince, as it would be in the interests of an inferior person. The Duke of Connaught was a Line officer, and the Government might very easily have given him the command of the Line forces sent out; but it was His Royal Highness's desire to command the Guards without any regard for the Queen's Regulations. Then the extraordinary inaccuracy which had led the War Minister to deny that this was a matter under the Queen's Regulations had about as fishy a look as anything in the administration of the War Office. As it was the Liberal War Minister who had committed this act of misconduct, there would be no burning and boiling protestation from the Liberal ranks below the Gangway; but it was the fact that three gallant officers had had their claims overlooked, and their rights set aside, and also honourable rights on behalf of which they had risked, and, as it turned out, sacrificed very large sums of money. All this had been done purely out of regard for influences which ought not to interfere with the rights and merits of old officers, and with old privileges in the Army.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the answer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Arthur Hayter) was really no answer at all, because he had not asked what was the strength of the different regiments which were to go on foreign service. What he wished to know was, whether it was not the fact that the establishment of the whole Army was not very much below its proper strength; and was it not a fact that the Engineers at home, the Artillery, the Foot Guards, and the Infantry were 100,000 below their proper strength; and whether the Cavalry and Infantry and Engineers in India were not also below their proper strength?

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
assured the hon. Member that he was entirely mistaken, for lately it had been found necessary to diminish the recruiting.