INDIAN OFFICERS—BOUNTIES—NAVVIES FOR THE CRIMEA. (Hansard, 3 May 1855)

§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, as I see the noble Lord the Minister for War in his place, I wish to ask him some questions which relate to subjects which have excited a great deal of interest. The first question relates to the position of the officers of the army of the East India Company as compared with that of the officers in the service of Her Majesty's army. A memorandum, dated the 25th of April, has been issued from the Horse Guards, and has appeared in the Gazette, which states— That in order to remove any doubt which may exist as to the rank and precedence of the officers of the Hon. East India Company's Service, it is Her Majesty's pleasure that officers of the Hon. East India Company's Service, whose commissions shall be signed by authorities duly deputed to do so by Her Majesty, shall have rank and precedence with officers of Her Majesty's regular army, according to the dates of their commissions, in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions or elsewhere. Now, he felt great gratification at finding 2 that an arrangement had been conceded which would be agreeable to the officers of the Indian service; but the officers of the Indian army have by common courtesy always held in this country the same rank and precedence, which they would have had had they been entitled to hold in England the rank they held in India, and no doubt it will be agreeable to them to have their right to such rank and precedence properly established, instead of merely holding it by courtesy; but what I wish to know is, if this memorandum relates merely to their position in society, because, if so, I should have thought that it would have more properly proceeded from the office of the Earl Marshal, or of the Lord Chamberlain, than from the War Office. I cannot help feeling that this memorandum, instead of raising hopes of further advantage to the officers of the Indian army, will rather tend to disappoint hopes which may have been entertained that the Government were prepared to go further, and to give to all officers holding brevet rank in India the same brevet rank in Her Majesty's dominions here and elsewhere. Your Lordships must be aware that, from the year 1838, for nearly ten years great wars raged in our Indian dominions, and that therefore the officers of 3 the Indian service have had the opportunity of making themselves masters of the practice and science of war—an advantage which has not been enjoyed by the officers of Her Majesty's army, with the exception of those who have served in India—and there obtained the same advantages as were enjoyed by the Indian officers. I rejoice, my Lords, that some officers of Her Majesty's army now employed in the Crimea have had the advantage of witnessing operations on an extensive scale in India. General Simpson, the head of the Staff, General Pennefather, General Sir Colin Campbell, all holding high command, and enjoying to a considerable extent the confidence of those under their command, and also Colonel M'Murdo, who has been placed at the head of the Land Transport service, and Colonel Harding, the Commandant at Balaklava—who is, I believe, no relation of my noble and gallant Friend opposite—all these officers have seen service in India, and all of them acquired a knowledge of war under the late Sir Charles Napier. But there are other officers in the Indian service who have enjoyed similar opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of their profession, and who have commanded with distinction brigades which contained regiments of Her Majesty's troops, and who have obtained great distinction in the Quartermaster General's department. It does appear to me to be contrary to all reason that, when we have at our disposal officers who have acquired distinction in command where war has been carried on on a great scale, we should decline to avail ourselves of their services, and should employ in preference the services of officers who, whatever the claim to distinction they may hereafter acquire, have had no opportunity of showing their talents for war. It cannot surely be held that to appoint Indian officers to command would be an invasion of the privileges of Her Majesty's service. At a recent period, and contrary to all former rule, a regulation of the East India Company has been made, permitting officers of Her Majesty's service to hold Staff appointments of a particular description, and not less than twelve officers of that service now hold appointments which they could not formerly have held. Why, then, should there not be a reciprocity, and Indian officers be admitted to Staff appointments, from which they have been hitherto excluded, and which they would fill with great advantage to the country, as officers 4 of Her Majesty's service are admitted to such appointments in India? I cannot conceal from myself, nor do I think that any of your Lordships can be blind to the fact, that a great and growing feeling of dissatisfaction exists throughout the country with regard to the conduct of the war, and that feeling is assuming proportions which are extremely alarming; and I much fear that, unless it be determined by Her Majesty's Government to place the fittest men who can be found in command of all the divisions and brigades of the army, and in situations on the Staff, I much fear, I say, that a feeling will grow up with respect to persons in authority, which will be fatal, not only to Her Majesty's Government, but which will go much further, and which will endanger the constitution of Government, by which authority has hitherto been administered in this country. I wish to ask the noble Lord another question, relating to a different subject. I see there is a memorandum, dated April 30, which, under the authority of an order in Council, raises the bounty given to men enlisting for two years to the same amount as that given to men enlisting for a longer period. Now, with regard to that memorandum, I wish to know whether it is to be understood as establishing the principle that the bounty given to men who enlist for a longer period is to be the same as that given to men who enlist for two years only; and whether there is no difference to be made between those who enlist for the longer and those for shorter periods of service? If that be so, I fear that the result will be that all persons who are desirous of enlisting will enlist for the short period, because at the end of that period they will have the option of re-engaging for a longer service, and with the certainty of receiving some further bounty. It seems to me, too, that men who enlist for the longer period settle down better to the work and become better soldiers than those who are uncertain whether they shall remain for a longer period than two years only, and I would therefore prefer enlisting men for the longer period. But of this I am quite sure—that, if the same bounty is given to men who enlist for two years as to those who enlist for a longer period, all will be desirous of enlisting for two years. I think that when this memorandum was issued, it would have been advisable to notify that, if the bounty given to men enlisting for two years was to be raised to the same amount as that given to men enlisting for 5 the longer period, the bounty of men enlisting for the longer period would also be increased. I fear, however, that in dealing with this question the noble Lord has made the same mistake with regard to the bounty offered as was made in the case of the militia, and the consequences of which we all so deeply deplore. My own impression is, that, if instead of offering the limited bounty of 20s. to the militia upon reattestation, a higher bounty had been offered, a very large number of men would have been retained in the ranks of the militia who have now returned to their homes. There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the noble Lord. I am told that steps have been taken to engage the services of 1,000 navvies to work in the trenches, and that these navvies are to be placed under a gentleman who is to have a salary of 2,000l. a year—that is, a salary which is superior by 76l. only to the united salaries of a major general and and a lieutenant general, and is superior by about 200l. to the salary of all the officers attached to the Quartermaster General's Department in the Crimea. I take it for granted that those navvies will not consent to serve for the same pay as that given to the Sappers and Miners; and it is a matter of serious consideration whether men employed in the same duties and exposed to the same danger should be paid at different rates. What I desire to know is, whether it is true that it is intended to form a corps of this description, and, if so, whether it is to be of a military or civil character? I can hardly imagine it can be of a civil character, because it must be employed under fire like the rest of the troops; but if it be of a military character, what rank is to be given to this gentleman who is to be rewarded with a salary which surpasses that of the officers on the Quartermaster General's Staff? I desire, also, to know what is the difference between the pay to be given to this body of men and the Sappers and Miners; what authority is to be given to the officers commanding them; and under what authority are the men to serve?

§ LORD PANMURE

My Lords, upon former occasions I have had to complain that when questions were asked notice was not given beforehand of the subject to which noble Lords intended to refer; but I am bound to state that in all cases in which questions have been addressed to me by the noble Earl opposite, I have always received the fullest information respecting 6 the intended question and the nature and extent of the answer which he expected to receive. This has enabled me not only to meet the noble Earl in the same spirit evinced by him to myself, but also to give your Lordships the fullest information in my power upon the subjects to which he so ably refers. With reference to the question which the noble Earl has addressed to me on the subject of the Indian officers, I may state that the memorandum to which he adverts goes no further in its spirit than it does in its letter—namely, to confer upon those officers a social position and authority, which has hitherto been recognised by courtesy, but with respect to which some doubt previously existed. No one can rejoice more than I do at any mark of favour bestowed upon officers of the Indian army, and no one would be more unwilling than myself to say anything which tends to detract from the praise which is due to them. They have for a very long period maintained the honour of the British name throughout the vast terrritory in which that army has served, they have maintained the integrity of the Indian portion of the empire, and they have assisted in extending it; still it is my opinion, as well as that of many others, that the services and distinctions of the Indian officers have been somewhat unfairly used to put in the back ground, by comparison, the services and distinctions of the officers of the Queen's service. I think, in a military point of view, the opportunities those officers have had of practically learning the art of war in the Indian campaigns have certainly given them great advantages; but I do not hold that those advantages ought to entitle them to more than a fair consideration, and they should not he used as an argument to prevent us from giving the officers in the Queen's service the fair opportunities which that service affords of showing by his services to the country whether they are able to carry out in practice the military knowledge which they already possess in theory. I cannot see, my Lords, because the Indian officers have already carved with their swords the way to military distinction, why the same opportunities should be denied to the Queen's officers of carving with their swords the way to the same military distinctions. I have seen it stated that the officers in the Queen's service are now classed in two classes—the Peninsulars, who are said to be too old to be effective; and the Know-nothings, 7 who are too young to know anything. That is not a fair mode of describing the officers of Her Majesty's army; for, reserving always the opinion that the services which are most calculated to advance the interests of the country ought to be taken advantage of, I know of no reason why well educated and well trained British officers, although they may not have seen service, should not be allowed to go into active service. I am not one of those who would adopt the course of confining the services of the officers of the Queen's army, whether belonging to the establishment or to the Indian army—for they are alike the Queen's soldiers—and I am not narrow-minded enough to think that we ought to make a distinction between the officers of the two services. Although progress in reform, in these matters is slow, it is also sure, and as an instance of the manner in which the subject is treated, I may refer to the fact that in the Act of last Session the office of Commander in Chief of the army in India was thrown open to officers of the East India Company's service. With regard to the appointment of Queen's officers to the staff in India, to which the noble Earl has alluded, I am given to understand that it has arisen more from accident than from any other cause—it happens that the staff situations in India are very numerous, and that they have been filled by officers of the Indian army, very much to the detriment of the performance of the regimental duties of that army; and it was found necessary to recall some of those officers to their regimental duties and on their recall the vacancies on the staff were filled by officers of the Queen's army. Those are the circumstances, I am told, which form the ground of the statement which the noble Earl has just made. I do not believe that the officers of the Indian army were superseded by officers in the Queen's service; but I am informed that the change was made in consequence of the number of Indian officers who held staff appointments, and that the change was necessary, in order that the regiments in India should be made the more efficient. With reference to the next question—namely, the bounty given to the recruits, that is a subject to which my attention was called by my noble Friend the Commander in Chief when the Act was first introduced. My noble Friend asked whether it was intended to sanction the principle that men enlisting under the new Act should receive 8 the same bounty as the men who enlisted under the Act of 1847. After maturely considering the subject—taking into view the fact that the men enlisted under the Act of 1847 were enlisted at the age of eighteen for ten or twelve years, that they had the opportunity, after five years' service, of acquiring an addition to their pay for good conduct, and that they had the opportunity after the expiration of their first term of service, of re-engaging themselves for a second period; taking also into consideration that none of these advantages will accrue to the men who enlist at the age of twenty-four for a service of two or at the most of three years, that the men who would enlist would probably be between the ages of twenty-four and thirty-five, who, from their habits of labour, would be, even if not efficient as drilled soldiers, efficient as strong men—I did not feel myself justified in giving to those men a lower rate of bounty than we gave to a boy of eighteen years. It must be remembered, too, that none of these regulations are permanent, but may be varied according to circumstances; and if I find that that arrangement is such as to create discontent or prevent the enlistment of young men of eighteen years and upwards, I may consider whether some alteration may not be required. With regard, my Lords, to a general increase of bounty, I perfectly agree with the noble Earl that an increased bounty will, at all times, obtain an increased number of recruits, and probably before very long I may have to propose to your Lordships to increase the bounty in order to augment the army; but it is naturally my wish not to take that course until it is absolutely necessary. With regard to the question of navvies, it is under the consideration of the Government to form a corps of navvies, not for the purpose of working specially in the trenches, but for carrying on the general work of the army, which has hitherto been done by the Sappers and Miners and by the private soldiers, and the execution of which I am sorry to say has hitherto been detrimental to the health of the men. Yet this work must be done; and in order to obviate the difficulties suggested by the noble Earl on a previous night, and to carry out the views of the noble Earl of having as many fighting men as possible at our disposal, it is considered that we may attach, under the command of the engineers, a body of navvies of stout working men, who will be sent out for the purpose of working either 9 in the trenches or in the camp, as circumstances may require, while the army is engaged in the siege. No definite sum has been fixed upon as the amount of payment to these individuals; but it is utterly impossible to expect that men will come from civil employments, either in the capacity of labourers or of directors, for the usual pay given to the officers and men in Her Majesty's service. I have only this to say, that I shall endeavour, if I think it for the public service that such a corps should be formed, to obtain proper men at the lowest possible remuneration; and I shall not recommend the adoption of any such corps unless I am convinced that the benefit likely to result from its adoption will be so great as to counterpoise the inconvenience that I cannot but see may arise from employing individuals with the army at a higher rate of pay than that paid to the officers and men belonging to Her Majesty's service. This corps on being formed will be under the command of Major General Jones as commanding engineer, all the arrangements would be directed entirely by him, the men being at the same time under the immediate control of their own superintendents.