Examinations. 1892. With regard to the system of purchase, are you decidedly of opinion that that system cannot be altered with benefit to Her Majesty's service ?-I think any change in anything in the principle of purchase, that would tend to diminish that elastic effect which purchase gives to the army, would be extremely injurious to the interests of the public. 1893. Do you find, according to your experience, both as a regimental officer and a staff officer, at head-quarters, that the practical working of the system is that officers of family possessing patronage and political influence are promoted to the highest, the most responsible and the most lucrative offices in the army, or do you find that officers of merit generally enjoy those situations?—The army, like other professions, is a lottery; the length of the generality of the services of the officers who get promotion to a lieutenant-colonelcy by purchase, may be stated as about 12 years; some few, very few, may get it earlier; but I have, now the question is so pointedly put to me, in my eye an officer of very high rank and family, who has recently purchased a lieutenant-colonelcy, and that officer, beyond all question, has claims that no other officer has in the army, arising from his family, of a very peculiar description-that officer did not obtain his lieutenant-colonelcy under a length of service of 14 years, 12 of which were passed in constant service; I take the liberty to name that officer, Lord Charles Wellesley. I should not have given that instance, but, pressed as I am upon these questions, I thought it right to mention it. 1894. Was Sir Robert Brownrig, your predecessor as quartermaster-general, a person of any political influence, which caused him to be brought forward?-I believe none whatever. 1895. In your own instance?-In my own instance, I take the liberty to say, I purchased the greater part of my commissions with money, at that time not my own; I have been employed in every way in which an officer can be employed, in every regimental situation, in every staff situation, and in almost every part of the world. I had then no family influence, nor influence of any other kind than what I could obtain by the approbation of the officers under whom I served; and it is that which has brought me to the distinguished post which I now fill. 1896. Were Sir William Fawcett, or Sir Harry Calvert, or Sir Henry Torrens, or the present adjutant-general Sir John Macdonald, who have filled the important office of adjutantgeneral of the army, during war and peace, officers of any political or family influence, or did they obtain those offices by their individual merit ?-According to the best of my belief, speaking of other people, I should say that they were circumstanced very much like myself, without any adventitious aid of fortune or family, or political influence. 1897. In the same manner, as regards the officers of the army, who in the Peninsula very much distinguished themselves, was their promotion attributable to their professional merit, or to any political influence or family connexion?-If you take those who have been the most highly distinguished or the most rewarded, I believe none could say that any part of that distinction was owing to any other merit than their own; but upon the subject of purchase I will state this-I have said that I purchased my commissions, most of them, with money not my own-I obtained my lieutenant-colonelcy 37 years ago. Had that money been put by as an accumulating fund, I should have had a very large amount of money at this moment, that is, supposing I got the promotion without purchase, and of course the money that you pay for your purchase is to be made good. 1898. When you mentioned certain officers having been 20 years in India, had they not been home at all in the mean time?-Two of them had not. [The witness withdrew.] Lieutenant-General Sir John Macdonald, K.C, B., adjutant-general, examined. 1899. As adjutant-general of the army, will you be pleased to put the Commissioners in possession of any information in your power, touching the regulations and discipline of the same, as effecting the condition of the officers of the army, or upon any other matter which your experience may enable you to suggest, which may, in your opinion, have the effect of bettering their condition ?-My opinion is, that the regulations of the army as they stand at present are quite sufficient for every purpose of military discipline; but I conceive that with regard to the condition of the officers in some respects it admits of improvement. I am at the same time aware that the subject is surrounded with difficulty, and that no very substantial improvement can be effected in their condition, but by incurring a considerable public expense. It appears to me that the thing most wanted now in the service, with a view to increasing its efficiency, and placing its superior officers upon a more satisfactory footing, is that of increasing the encouragement to old officers to retire from regimental duty. That encouragement might be increased to a certain degree by advancing the price of commissions, by relaxing the regulation with regard to widows' pensions and by increasing moderately the provision allotted to a general officer upon attaining that rank. 1900. The regulation as to price is not strictly adhered to at present, is it ?—No, I apprehend not. 1901. It is even departed from in the way in which I am about to describe under the sanction of authority; that is to say, an officer, a major for instance, purchases a lieutenantcolonelcy upon half-pay, and he pays for that commission the full regulated price, and then he purchases back again upon full pay, by paying the regulated difference between full and half-pay, consequently he lands finally in his full-pay commission of a lieutenant-colonelcy, having paid the regulated difference twice over. Would it be possible to add to the regulated price of commissions under those circumstances?—I think, as I said at the outset, that the Examinations. Sir J. Macdonald, General. 31st July 1838, subject is attended with great difficulty; but on the other hand it is consistent with my own knowledge, and I apprehend that every military man of experience must, in the course of his service, have met with many officers commanding regiments, who, from age, bodily infirmities, and other causes, were anxious to retire from the active duties of their profession, but were restrained from doing so solely and exclusively by the meagreness of their prospect of subsistence from the interest of the present regulated price of their commission. 1902. Adverting to the circumstances stated in the last question put to you, would not the price of the commission of a lieutenant-colonel, supposing nothing more had been given to get to the rank of major than the regulated price, cost the purchaser about £6,000?-I conceive that if the price of a lieutenant-coloneley was brought up to £6,000 by regulation, the object that I have in view would be completely answered. 1903. The question is whether, supposing the circumstances which I have stated in the former question to be accurately true, the price paid by the purchaser would not be about £6,000; that is, supposing that he, being a major upon full-pay, purchases first of all upon half-pay, and then pays the difference between full-pay and half-pay, will not he have paid pretty nearly £6,000?—Yes, he will. 1904. Then what does he receive from the public as his subsistence as a lieutenant-colonel? -He receives about 20s. a day. 1905. That is supposing him to be in command?—Yes; and he must be in command if he is an effective lieutenant-colonel. 1906. So that he would give £6,000 for 20s. a-day?—That is my conception according to the arrangements at present existing. 1907. Do you believe it possible that this price could be augmented beyond that which has been already stated, giving the purchaser no more than the sum stated for his service, in addition to the price of his commission?-I conceive that young men anxious for promotion would give any price, and if the object is to improve the condition of the retiring officer from the head of the regiment, and to give additional efficiency to the regiment by bringing younger men in succession to command, there would be no difficulty in obtaining purchasers, even at the advanced price; but I wish the Commissioners distinctly to understand that this is a subject which I am not prepared to recommend, for I see great difficulty attaching to it, and that I merely suggest it as one of those expedients which is practicable, although attended with much difficulty, to facilitate the retirement of the old officers, and to bring in more efficient successors. 1908. But the system of purchasing from full to half-pay would still be continued ?—I conclude so. 1909. And the purchasing likewise from half to full pay, paying the difference?—I conceive so. 1910. Would not that bring the price of a lieutenant-colonelcy of infantry to something near £8,000?—I conceive that it would bring it to between seven and eight thousand pounds to the major, between the time of his purchasing and getting to the head of the regiment. 1911. Is not that a sum that there may not be more than one or two instances hitherto of its having been paid in the service?—It is an enormous price for an infantry commission, and I do not know of any instance in which I have heard of so much having been paid. 1912. Would not the consequence of such an augmentation of price as that be a check to promotion, excepting in the case of one, two, or half-a-dozen individuals, who might be able to afford to give those very large prices for commissions?-It appears to me that it would be likely to have that effect; but I must at the same time observe, that even with the junior ranks of the army, as far as my humble experience goes, and even amongst those who are not themselves able to purchase, a change of any kind in the regimental succession is popular; and there is no member of a regimental society so unpopular as he who proclaims his determination not to exceed the regulated price, thereby standing as an obstacle to promotion by purchase, in the regiment to which he belongs. 1913. Were you a member of the commission of which I was a member, and Lord Rosslyn was a member, and Lord Hill I believe was a member, for fixing the regulated price of commissions in the year 1821?—I was not a member of it. 1914. Are you aware that the regulated price was fixed after very detailed consideration of the pay of the several ranks, of the prices which had been given, and of all the circumstances attending the condition of the service?-My information respecting the labours of that commission went to this, viz., that no subject could have undergone more careful consideration than that which the commission in question was charged with the investigation of, and that its report and opinion were framed with the most anxious desire that they should be satisfactory to all, and beneficial to the army. I remember having had conversations with the late Lord Rosslyn upon the subject, and I know that the impression upon his mind was, that it was impossible to make a better arrangement for the army than that which the Commission recommended. 1915. You have suggested to the Commission that there should be some relaxation of the pension regulation for widows, and you have likewise suggested that there should be some addition made to the pay of general officers; adverting to the last-mentioned suggestion, does it not occur to you than that arrangement, instead of inducing officers to retire as that would which you suggested before in respect to the price of their commissions, would rather induce officers to continue in the service in order to obtain that increased pay? -I threw out the suggestion with regard to the increase of the pay of the general officers, as the alternative in the event of the advance of the price of commissions being deemed impracticable; and I still humbly conceive that an officer who had been in the service in the command of a regiment 18 or 20 years, or perhaps upwards (and there are such cases in the army now), would after such a series of regimental service, in many cases bring his mind to a retirement from regi- any one 1917. Consequently that retirement would not give greater facilities of promotion in the army?-I conceive that the prospect which I have now opened to the general officers could only be valuable to men who had attained the rank of colonel whilst in regimental employ ment. 1918. Adverting to what has been said with regard to the purchase of commissions, and a sum being given beyond that which the regulation allows, did you mean to say that such payment beyond the regulation was sanctioned at the Horse Guards?-Certainly not; the authorities at the head-quarters of the army seldom can discover any deviation from the regulations fixing the prices of commissions, except from reports of which it is very difficult to take official cognizance. 1919. Do you ever remember an instance within the last two or three years where it came to my knowledge that more had been given than the regulation allowed, and that I ordered it to be cancelled?-I recollect one or two cases in which it came to your Lordship's knowledge, and more particularly the case of one regiment in which a transaction of that nature was reported to the general commanding in chief; and the evidence adduced in the report having left no doubt whatever as to the facts of the case, the promotions were cancelled, and the individuals in question were, in consequence, put to the most serious inconvenience. The officer in question is now one of the best officers of his rank in the army. 1920. In putting the question to you I did not refer to the actual excess beyond the regulated price, as passed from hand to hand, but I referred to the result of the promotion passing through the half-pay necessarily occasioning to the purchaser a large increase of price, and that that must have been known at head-quarters ?-Certainly; but that did not form any encroachment upon the regulation, because the case alluded to in a former question from your Grace was not the case of a major of the regiment purchasing the lieutenantcolonelcy of the regiment at an advanced price. 1921. Owing to the system adopted of his passing through the half-pay, and afterwards paying the difference from the half-pay to the full-pay, the question was, whether the consequence is not an increase of price to the purchaser, which must be known at the headquarters of the army?-Not only known at the head-quarters, but he is called upon to lodge the difference. 1922. It appears that, according to the existing regulation of paying the difference between half and full pay, if that system were pushed to its full extent, and no further sum given than that which is actually allowed by the regulation, an officer arriving at the rank of lieutenantcolonel might have to pay for a lieutenant-colonelcy of infantry £7,639, according to the existing regulation,-would you, upon the knowledge of that fact, still increase the price of the commissions, bearing in mind that at the present rate of prices the sons of some old officers of the army, less wealthy than others, are not enabled to pay the price required, and that they, if the price were raised, would be totally unable to enter the army as a profession?—I think it would be impossible to go beyond that sum. But another branch is the purchase within regiments, the major purchasing from the lieutenant-colonel; and as I understand that branch of the subject it is this-that the major pays the lieutenant-colonel £4,500. It would, no doubt, be inexpedient to advance the price of the lieutenant-colonelcy beyond the sum now mentioned, it being understood that the major first purchases an unattached lieutenant-coloneley, and then pays the difference to return to full-pay, which brings the price of his commission to nearly if not fully what is now stated. 1923. At present the poorer officer is protected by the regulation, being the senior officer for purchase, no more wealthier officer can purchase over his head?-That is the regulation. 1924. Do not the Horse Guards on all occasions support the first for purchase, if he is only willing to give the sum fixed by the regulation; and if he should make himself obnoxious on that account, which you have stated to be the case, and that great unpopularity may attach to that officer, is he not on every occasion, having strictly adhered to the regulation and insisting upon his right, supported by the Commander-in-Chief at the Horse Guards?—Invariably, Ĭ have cases in my view of the kind. 1925. And in every instance where any unpopularity attaches to such officer, the Commander-in-Chief strongly reprobates such conduct, and uniformly upholds him?-Invariably. 1926. You stated that one of the modes by which you thought that officers might be disposed to go out of the army and make way for younger men, would be by relaxing the regulations with regard to widows' pensions; do many officers, under the existing regulations, decline going out of the army altogether, in consideration of the pensions to which their widows and children would be entitled in case of their death?-I conceive it to be so. 1927. Therefore when an officer, say a lieutenant-colonel, of indisputable service, might be disposed to quit the army if he were allowed, after a certain number of years' service, to retire upon the full pay of lieutenant-colonel, his widow being still entitled to her pension, it is opinion that he might be disposed to leave the army altogether if her right to the pension was continued?-I have not a doubt of it. your 1928. If, instead of going upon half-pay, a regimental lieutenant-colonel was to be allowed, after a certain number of years of hard service, to go upon full pay as lieutenant-colonel, N. M. C. Q Examinations. Lieut.-General Sir J. Macdonald, 31st July 1838, Examinations, and were to be allowed to wait till he arrived at the rank of general officer, having to receive £400 a-year, do you conceive that some such regulation as that which you have suggested would induce him to quit his regiment, making way for younger men, the public Sir J. Macdonald, being saddled with the difference between the full and half-pay of lieutenant-colonel ?can conceive no regulation more beneficial or more conducive to the view that I take of the whole subject. K.C.B., Adjutant- 1929. That was your view of the subject?-Clearly so. My view was, that you should encourage the officer to retire from regimental duty who could not retire under present circumstances without exposing himself to poverty. 1930. Therefore, as the lieutenant-colonel might have several years to wait between the time of his retirement and that of obtaining the rank of major-general by brevet, you would, by regulation, allow him to retire upon something like full pay of lieutenant-colonel during the interval of his rising to be a major-general, when he would have either £400 a-year, or any other reward which his services would entitle him to ?-That is a decided improvement upon my suggestion. 1931. The officer you propose to replace the officer put upon full-pay would, in order to save expense to the public, be a lieutenant-colonel from half-pay?—Yes. 1932. Therefore the expense would be the difference between full pay and half-pay of the lieutenant-colonel ?-Yes. 1933. In regard to the purchase in the army as to raising the price of commissions, would not any advance be very prejudicial to the sons of a great many deserving officers, both in the military and civil services of the state?—No doubt. A man may command £4,500 to advance his son in the army, whilst he cannot, perhaps, command £8,000 or £7,000. 1934. Therefore, if the other suggestions which you have made were to be acceded to, you would not increase the price of commissions, having reference to the general benefit of the army?-My favourite arrangement being that of encouraging the old officers to retire, and having an impression that regimental promotion, upon any terms, is not so unpopular in regiments as many believe it to be, I am not sure that advancing the price of commissions would, taking the service collectively, be an unpopular measure in it. 1935. But would it not be a monopoly of the honours and promotion of the army, to enable only a very few of the most wealthy classes to purchase rank, excluding a great number of the most respectable classes who might not be able to pay those exorbitant prices?-That is the great difficulty attending the measure. 1936. I understood you to say that what Sir Henry Hardinge proposed was the better way of meeting your object?-The better way with regard to the retirement. 1937. That giving him a retirement on full pay is a better mode than the increase of the price of commissions?—Yes, because in the one case the expense is borne by the public, and in the other case by the individual. 1938. Then if I understand you rightly, notwithstanding the inconveniences which it has been stated would attend it in excluding certain persons, you would still rather have the advance of the price of commissions than not ?-I do not think that the advance of the price of commissions as a benefit, could even be a just counterpoise to the exclusion of the class of persons which Sir Henry Hardinge has described from a participation in the honours and benefits of the service. There can be no doubt that, taking them as a body, they are as useful and respectable a class of officers as any other in the service. 1939. What is the number of years at which an officer can attain the rank of field-officer in our service?-Six years. 1940. It appears, on referring to the lists, that Lord Charles Wellesley has been in the army 14 years, of which he has served 12 years, doing regimental duty, before he arrived at the rank of lieutenant-colonel; did that officer, as far as you are aware of, pay for his commissions?-I understand so. 1941. Did he, besides that, according to the regulation, pay the difference between the half and the full pay, upon being brought from half-pay to full-pay?-He has upon the last occasion, the other day. 1942. So that that officer, having great claims from the service of his father, which must be admitted by everybody, has not only paid more than the £4,500, according to the regulation, but has served during a period of 14 years, 12 of which in regimental service, the regulation requiring only six years, and he was not promoted to be lieutenant-colonel before he had passed upwards of double the time required by the regulation ?—That I believe to be the fact. 1943. You have stated that you consider it desirable to make some alterations with regard to widows' pensions; will you have the goodness to state what you think that alteration ought to be?-I conceive that the widow of an officer of good service ought to have a pension, notwithstanding his having received the difference upon going upon half-pay. That I should think would produce a most beneficial improvement in the condition of the officer. 1944. Would you make that good service depend upon the number of years, or any other circumstance?-Upon the number of years of actual employment, and upon the Commanderin-Chief's opinion of the service he had performed. 1945. Has the widow of an officer a claim upon the public for a pension, or is it at the option of the Government to give it or refuse it ?-There is now a regulation which, I believe, prevents the Secretary-at-War from exercising his discretion in a case upon which his decision would formerly have been arbitrary. 1946. Formerly up to a late period the widows of officers of the army claimed their pensions of right, founded on the service of their husbands, subject also to the recommendation to the Sovereign, and not upon any consideration of whether left in poor or in wealthy circum- 1948. What is the nature of that declaration ?-She states the amount of her private income, and having done so, it rests with the Secretary-at-War to admit or reject her claim to the military pension, upon due consideration of her income. 1949. Is there no fixed amount of private income which incapacitates a widow from receiving a pension?—There is not. At least I am unacquainted with the amount, if any is fixed. 1950. Do you conceive that it would be possible to fix the amount of annual income which a widow may receive in order to settle the point whether she ought to have a pension or not, bearing in mind that certain officers, high in rank, holding important offices at the time of their death, and having performed very distinguished services, may not only die very poor but have very large families, and that, under those circumstances, although the income left to the widow might amount to the sum laid down in any regulation, yet from her having to educate a numerous family under the circumstances I have stated, such an officer's widow, from her husband's rank and services, would be under much greater difficulties than the widow of an officer of inferior service, who might have the stipulated income, and who might have no children or any necessity to incur expense upon their account?-I conceive that, as a matter of strict justice between the country and the individual, faithful service performed by the officer should entitle his widow to a pension, and that his private fortune should not influence the decision upon her claim; but I am quite aware that it would be a very unpopular measure, and therefore a measure which could scarcely be borne out, that of giving a military pension to a widow who is left in affluent circumstances. 1951. In order to do justice to a widow who may have an income of £700 or £800 a-year, arising from money left by her husband at the time that the decision of the Secretary-at-War is made, but who subsequently may by her husband's will be obliged to purchase commissions for her sons in the army, thereby diminishing her income and her means of maintaining the rest of the children, would it not be necessary for the Secretary-at-War to take all those circumstances as much as he can into consideration at the time of granting the pension, and could any particular sum be specified as excluding a right to the pension, with justice to the claims of officers ?-I conceive not in such a case. 1952. You are of opinion that it is necessary to leave an unlimited discretion to the Secretary-at-War?-I am, upon the whole, of that opinion. 1953. Is the power solely in the Secretary-at-War, or does it require the confirmation of the Horse Guards ?-It rests entirely with the Secretary-at-War, and depends in no respect whatsoever upon military authority. [The witness withdrew.] Examinations. Lieut.-General Sir J. Macdonald, 31 July 1838. The DUKE of WELLINGTON in the Chair. Lieutenant-General Lord Fitzroy Somerset, K.C.B., again called in and further examined. 1954. The brevet promotion for field-service was originally established in the year 1811, in consequence of a correspondence between the secretary of the Commander-in-Chief in England and myself, and I received an order from the Horse Guards in that year to recommend for brevet promotion a certain number of majors and captains-majors to be lieutenant-colonels, and captains to be majors—who had distinguished themselves in the preceding operations, as well belonging to the British army as the Portuguese ?—Yes. 1955. From time to time afterwards, whenever an important operation took place, I was desired to recommend officers for brevet promotion: the order to recommend generally came before I made the recommendation?-You had found the greatest difficulty in rewarding the officers in any way. There was a correspondence in 1810 between you and Sir Henry Torrens upon the subject, and he, in one of his letters, suggested this mode of promotion. It, however, was not adopted till, as your Grace has said, 1811, and the first instance in which it took place was after the battle of Barrosa, on which occasion Lord Lynedoch recommended all the majors who had commanded corps for promotion in his dispatch conveying his report of the action. They were promoted, and immediately afterwards you |