§ * LORD CHELMSFORDMy Lords, I rise to draw attention to the recent appointment of a General Officer of Artillery as Governor of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst; and to ask the Secretary of State for "War whether the appointment of Governor of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, will in future be open to general officers of Cavalry and Infantry. The matter I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to is one which has caused no little surprise to all who are interested in this question. Everyone I have met, whether connected with the Artillery, Cavalry, Infantry, or Engineers, have viewed this appointment with universal disapproval. It has been severely commented upon by the Press, and is one which I think I may venture to call your Lordships' attention to without being considered as showing any disrespect to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. As no doubt your Lordships are aware, the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst have quite distinct offices. The one is entirely for the education of cadets who will eventually join the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery, and the other is for cadets who will join the Cavalry and Infantry. The 1248 Governorship of the Military Academy at Woolwich has never, so far as I am able to ascertain, been filled but by a Royal Engineer or by a Royal Artillery Officer, and the Governorship of the Royal College at Sandhurst, in the same manner, has been filled up by an. Artillery or Infantry officer. There is one exception, however, which proves the rule. In 1858 Sir Harry Jones was appointed Governor of the Sandhurst Military College, and since that time—a period of 40 years—the position has been invariably filled by officers of the Cavalry or the Infantry, until the present occasion. Of course, if there had been exceptional circumstances which showed-that there was no General Officer belonging to the Cavalry or Infantry who was fitted to fill that important place, my question is answered at once, and I should be the last to dispute it; but I challenge the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to state that this is the case. If he looks down the list of generals he will see that there are 20 or 30 officers who are absolutely fitted to fill the post of Governor. There are also peculiar circumstances connected with the appointment of Sir Edward Markham, who is the present Governor of Sandhurst, which I think necessary to bear in mind. Sir Edward was filling the appointment of Lieutenant-Governor of Jersey in 1895, and would have retired as a major-general, having reached the age of 67 in March of that year. The day before he would have reached that age he was made a Supernumerary Lieutenant-General, which, of course, gave him another five years of active employment. A month after that he was transferred from the Lieutenant-Governoirship of Jersey to the important post of Inspector-General of Ordnance. It is presumed, of course, that Sir Edward Markham was considered the fittest officer to fill that important post, and he has remained or did remain in it for three and a half years, when, to the surprise of all the officers who talked over the matter, he was transferred from a superior appointment to an inferior one—inferior in pay and inferior in position—to that of Governor of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. The emoluments of the Inspector-General of Ordnance amounted to £2,100. The pay of the Governor 1249 of Sandhurst Royal Military College is £1,500. One does not understand, why, if Sir Edward Markham was fitted for the post of Inspector-General of Ordnance, he should have been removed just at the very time when you would suppose his services would be most valuable. But there are other circumstances connected with the appointment which I think I ought to bring to your Lordships' attention. I do not see Lord Harris in the House, but he was Under Secretary for War in the year 1887, and was the chairman of a Special Committee which was appointed to inquire into the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich and the Sandhurst Military College with a view of seeing whether any alterations should be made for the governing of those two institutions. The report has never been published so far, in the Parliamentary Paper, but it has been printed as a confidential document. The changes which were recommended then were made. It was also understood that there was to be a new departure. Hitherto a very old general officer had been appointed to the governorship so that he could end his career in comfort and peace, but it was decided to appoint a young major-general, who would be more in touch with the old regiment instinct and the manner of preserving discipline, in order that lie may be able to control cadets at Sandhurst in a proper manner, and make them understand what kind of discipline and administration they would find in the regiment to which they would go. The first appointment after that recommendation was that of General Clive, of the Grenadier Guards, who had only recently left the command of the Grenadiers, and Who was an ideal officer because he carried with him the old instincts of regimental command. Ever since that time, up to the present, that principle has been adopted, and all the subsequent Governors since General Clive's time have been younger officers. Now an officer has been appointed who ought to be retired next year on reaching the age of 67, and I wish to know—and I should be obliged if the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would inform me—whether Sir Edward Markham will be retired next year on reaching the age of 67, or whether he has had a special permission that he shall be allowed to retain his 1250 appointment for five years, which will mean that he will not retire until he reaches the age of 70. Now, my Lords, great injury is being done by this appointment of an Artillery officer in the place of a Cavalry or Infantry officer. Under present conditions there is a five year non-employment clause. The consequence is young officers who would have been fit for the appointment of Governor of Sandhurst may, and will in all probability, be put on the retired list simply because there is no appointment for them. Sir Edward Markham, an old officer, who has really had a distinguished career, so far as staff appointment is concerned, is keeping out and destroying the career and retirement prospects of a younger officer belonging to the other service. I therefore ask the Question of which I have given notice, and apologise for detaining your Lordships so long.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANS-DOWNE)My Lords, the Question of the noble and gallant Lord has reference to two appointments—the Governorship of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst and the Governorship of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. The noble and gallant Lord considers an irregularity was committed when Sir Edward Markham was given the Sandhurst appointment. The noble and gallant Lord suggests that this appointment cannot properly be held by a general officer of Infantry or Cavalry. Now, as to that I may say that there is nothing in any warrant or regulation by which these appointments are governed to limit its tenure to an officer of the Infantry or Cavalry. As a matter of fact, the noble and gallant Lord himself cited a case in which the appointment was held by a general officer of Engineers. It was so held by Sir Harry Jones from 1856 to 1866—ten years altogether—and there is nothing, so far as I have been able to ascertain, in the duties belonging to the Governor of Sandhurst to prevent those duties being efficiently performed by an officer of the Artillery such as Sir Edward Markham. When the appointment became vacant I selected Sir Edward Markham, in consultation with the Commander-in-Chief, as an officer in every way fit for the appointment. 1251 The noble and gallant Lord asked whether he can be allowed to hold the appointment for live years? My answer to that is in the affirmative. Then the noble and gallant Lord suggests, as compensation for the appointment of an Artillery officer for Sandhurst, that the appointment of Governor of Woolwich should be thrown open to officers of the Cavalry and Infantry. As to that I have to say that in the case of Woolwich also there is no rule under which the appointment is tenable only by officers of the Artillery and Engineers. There is no vacancy in the appointment at this moment, and it is of course impossible for me to say in what manner the next vacancy, when it occurs, will be filled up. I have no doubt that we shall select; a general officer thoroughly suitable for the post. I am afraid I cannot give the noble and gallant Lord any more decided answer as to Woolwich than that.