§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the appointment of the Duke of Connaught to the command at Aldershot, the fact was considered that His Royal Highness was gazetted a General as recently as 1st April in the present year; and whether, in view of the fact that Aldershot is the principal training school at home, it is usual for the command to be held by a General who is likely to be chosen for command in the field?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe command at Aldershot is a Lieu-tenant's-General's command, but tenable by a General, and therefore the Duke of Connaught was eligible. He was selected, as I have said, on account of his fitness for the duties of the command. The selection of General Officers for command in the field must depend on the circumstances of the emergency when it arises.
§ MR. DALZIELMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the plea that seniority entitled the Duke of Connaught to this command is not based on the fact that he was appointed a General on the 1st of April.
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo, Sir. He was appointed a General 1729 on the 1st of April in his ordinary turn, and that appointment gave him no increased seniority with regard to other officers. The Duke of Connaught has ever since he has been on the Generals' list been supernumerary to his rank. He has gone up on the list from grade to grade with officers who were above and below him, so that there has been no supersession on his account.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONWill the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what are the military qualifications of the Duke of Connaught?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANEverybody acquainted with the Army knows them.
§ COLONEL MURRAY (Bath)With respect to the latter part of the answer, the Duke of Connaught having served with distinction under fire in one campaign, is there any special reason why he should not do so in another?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI have already said that the selection of officers for any future campaign would depend on the circumstances and requirements of that campaign.
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)Will the Duke of Conuaught's leave of absence in his new career be as long as it was at Portsmouth?
§ [No answer was given]
§ MR. DALZIELMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a reply to the second portion of my question, whether it is not usual for the command at Alder-shot to be given to a General who is likely to be chosen for command in the field.
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThere is no rule on the subject whatever.
§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Roberts is one of the one or two General Officers, senior to the Duke of Connaught, who, as he has stated, in one sense might be available for the command at Aldershot, but who are at present discharging duties from which it is not desirable that they should be removed; and what duties is Lord Roberts now discharging?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo, Sir; Lord Roberts is not one of the officers to whom I referred. Lord Roberts was not eligible for the Divisional command at Aldershot, because his appointment to it would have been derogatory to 1730 the dignity of the great office which he has for so many years filled with the highest distinction and public advantage. The office of Commander-in-Chief in India is a General's command; it is perhaps the highest in the Military Service of the Empire, with the sole exception of the office of Commander-in-Chief at home, and it is in some senses even more important than that great position. It would be impossible that an officer who had just quitted the Command-in-Chief in India should be appointed to the Division at Aldershot, which is a Lieutenant General's command, and which, I may add, is more than any other such command subject, in the interests of the service, to the immediate supervision of the headquarter staff of the Army.
§ MR. HANBURYDo I understand that, while it is derogatory to the late Commander-in-Chief in India to hold the command at Aldershot, it is not derogatory to offer him the command at Malta or Gibraltar, one or other of which, I believe, has been offered to Lord Roberts?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo, Sir. There are three, and possibly four, appointments, more or less military in their character, which are tenable by an officer who has been Commander-in-Chief in India. There is the Adjutant Generalship, which is the one I reckon as somewhat doubtful; there is the command in Ireland; and the Governorships of Gibraltar and Malta. [An hon. MEMBER: Chelsea Hospital.] Chelsea Hospital is a retired position, and is not an active command of the kind I have spoken of. We were fortunately able, although through a most melancholy circumstance, to offer Lord Roberts immediately on his return to this country one of these high commands—namely, the Governorship of Gibraltar, which had become vacant through the lamented death of Sir Lothian Nicholson. At the same time, it was conveyed to Lord Roberts that if he desired to spend a few mouths of rest in this country the Governorship of Malta would he vacant at the beginning of next year, and that it would be reserved for him if he desired it; but Lord Roberts declined both of these appointments.
§ MR. HANBURYIs it not a fact that there are a good deal more that twice as many troops at Aldershot as at Malta or Gibraltar?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe dignity of a command is not to be measured by the number of troops included in it. Each of the two appointments at Malta and Gibraltar is that of the Governorship of a Colony, and is of the very highest dignity and importance. Those Governorships are precisely those which are fitted for an officer who has held so exalted a position as that of Commander-in-Chief in India.
§ MR. DALZIELBefore this appointment was made, were any steps taken to ascertain whether Lord Roberts was prepared to accept it?
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI believe that at the time Lord Roberts would have been willing to accept the appointment—that is to say, he would have been willing to waive in his own person the considerations to which I have referred. But we have something more to take into account than the personal feelings of an individual; and I think it will be generally agreed that it was desirable to do nothing in the least degree derogatory to the great position of Commander-in-Chief in India.