HL Deb 15 July 1867 vol 188 cc1492-6
EARL DE GREY

said, he rose to ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War a Question, of which he had given him private notice, relating to the conduct of the officers who commanded the troops that recently marched from Aldershot to Hounslow to attend the proposed review in Hyde Park. He understood that rumours were abroad that a certain degree of blame attached to these officers, and particularly to the General officer commanding the brigade for moving the troops at too early an hour in the morning. He hardly expected to hear from one who had had so much military experience as the noble Earl that any officer was to blame for moving his troops early in the morning in hot weather. He believed that that was in accordance with the regulations of the service, and it was the proper course to adopt during the months of summer. Then it was said that the officer in command should have supplied the troops with rations before starting, and that it was frequently the custom so to do. The noble Earl would be able to tell him whether this was really the case—whether there was any regulation in the service to that effect—or whether the practice was sufficiently general that an officer should be censured who had neglected that duty? He should further like to know from the noble Earl whether it was true that a Staff officer had been sent to Hounslow in advance of the troops to make arrangements, and had found on arriving that no Commissariat officer was there. It was quite right that those who were in fault should be reprimanded, but it was unfair that aspersions should be cast on those who had not deserved them.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, this march had become almost as famous as the march of the Guards to Finchley; but the illustrations of the period show refreshments on the Finchley road, which appear to have been wanting at Hounslow. The facts were these:—On the 25th of June a brigade of cavalry was ordered to march from Aldershot to Hounslow Heath on the 3rd of July, and after having taken part in the proposed review in Hyde Park, to return on the following Saturday, the 6th. Instructions were at the same time sent to the Deputy Commissary General in London to supply the troops during their stay at Hounslow with rations and forage. It appeared that troops on moving from Aldershot sometimes drew their rations for the day before they started, consuming part and taking the rest with them. It was, however, not unusual for troops to wait for their rations until they finished their march. In this case, the Deputy Commissary General, although he had a week's notice of the march, made no inquiry, but assumed that the troops would be supplied before starting. He, consequently, made preparations at Hounslow to issue rations on the 4th, not on the 3rd; and when a Staff officer was sent from Aldershot, on the evening of the 2nd, to communicate with the Deputy Commissary General, who, it was expected, would be at Hounslow, he found that his mistake and consequent absence had overthrown all arrangements, and that no preparations had been made for the next day. Under these circumstances the Staff officer did his best—telegraphed to the proper authorities, obtained the assistance of a subordinate Commissariat Officer, and in the course of the day the supplies were obtained. The march from Aldershot was commenced at a proper hour, and nothing, as far as the reports went, could have been more regular than the proceedings of the officers at Aldershot. All that could be said was that there had been a blunder on the part of a Commissariat officer; and the Secretary for War had marked his sense of the Deputy Commissary General's conduct by removing him from his appointment. He hoped it would be understood that there had been no conflict of authority between the Horse Guards and the War Office, and no conflicting or contradictory orders between Departments, nor that the Commissariat Department was in any way deficient or incapable of carrying out any duties that might be imposed upon it. Indeed, the fact that the department was for some years more or less under the control of the noble Earl (Earl de Grey) was a pledge for its efficiency.

THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE

said, he had no desire to throw blame on any department of the War Office for what had occurred, nor on the Commissariat Department in particular; but what had occurred certainly reflected no credit on it. When it was found that, owing to the neglect of an officer connected with the Department, a body of troops had been left for some time without provisions within ten miles of London, certainly some inquiry was necessary. He could not conceive how the Deputy Commissary General could offer such an excuse as he had made. His simple duty was to carry out his orders, and on the 25th of June the following instructions were sent to him by the Horse Guards:— The undermentioned troops (giving the number and description of them) will be encamped on Hounslow Heath on Wednesday, the 3rd prox., and will return to Aldershot on Saturday, the 6th idem., and it is requested that the necessary arrangements may be made for the issue of rations and forage to the men and horses during their stay at Hounslow Heath. Nothing could be more plain, clear, and simple. This was eight days before the march; and on the 28th another letter was addressed to him, notifying him of an alteration in the numbers of the troops. No instructions could have been more explicit, and his excuse was, he must say, perfectly ridiculous. How an officer like the Deputy Commisary General could say that he did not know that the troops would require supplies at Hounslow he was at a loss to comprehend. He could not allow any blame to rest upon the officers commanding the troops, who had simply done their duty. There was nothing unusual in marching troops early in the morning—if he were to find any fault at all it would father be for the lateness of the hour at which they were sent—particularly in the summer, when there were 1,200 men to encamp, and there was a distance of twenty-six miles to march. Then it had been said that the Commissariat ought to have been made acquainted with the hour at which the troops were to arrive. In his opinion, that was not necessary. When due notice was given of the march of troops it was the business of the Commissariat to have everything prepared by the time the men arrived. If the Commissariat officer could not do so he was quite unfitted for the position. The rations ought to have been ready. As for troops taking their rations with them, he had asked general officers and colonels commanding regiments what they thought of it, and their answer was that they had never heard of such a thing in the whole course of their experience. If troops ever took their rations with them the circumstance was entirely exceptional. He contended, therefore, that no blame of any sort attached to the officers commanding the troops. He hoped that it would be understood not only by that House, but by the public generally, that the General officer commanding the brigade and the officers commanding the regiments in question did everything they ought to do to carry out the instructions which they had received. The fact was the Commissariat officers in London ought not to be attached to the War Office at all, but to the Horse Guards, exactly as were the Commissariat officers at Dublin, Portsmouth, and elsewhere. If that had been the case the Commissariat officer could have come to the Horse Guards and been instructed directly and promptly; but being attached to the War Office, it was impossible that the military authorities could have that frequent communication with him which might be necessary. He quite admitted it was proper that the Commissary General should be attached to the War Office, but the Deputy Commissary General in London ought, as he said, to be attached to the Horse Guards, and if that were done, it would be almost impossible to have a repetition of what had occurred in this instance.

THE EARL OF CARDIGAN

said, he had never heard of troops being expected to carry their rations with them on the march, except under very extraordinary circumstances. Though the Deputy Commissary officer was to blame for what had occurred, and had been very properly removed from the London district, one thing struck him and it was this—if the officer commanding the brigade determined to march from Aldershot at an unusually early hour—and the earlier in the summer months the better—it would have been well that some Staff officer should have written a letter or some messenger have been sent to say such was his intention.

THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE

said, that an officer was sent by the General commanding, and when he arrived at Hounslow there was no Commissariat officer of any description there to whom he could apply, and the answer he got was to that effect.

THE EARL OF CARDIGAN

agreed with the illustrious Duke that it was quite clear that the fault lay with the Commissariat officer.

LORD REDESDALE

said, he did not wish to express any opinion of his own upon the subject, but he had been requested by Major-General Lord Henry Percy to state what he knew and felt with regard to the gentleman who had been so much blamed in this matter. Lord Henry Percy wrote to this effect— He served under me when I was organizing the Italian Legion (at the time of the Crimean war), and I can testify to his energy and efficiency under very difficult and unpleasant circumstances. If I were ordered upon any expedition, he is the man I should select to take with me.

Back to