The Committee are of opinion, that in consideration of the great and glorious military services of the Duke of Wellington, an exemption should take place in his person from the operation of this rule, and that no change should be made in the emoluments of the 1st Guards so long as his Grace shall continue to hold the colonelcy of that regiment.

In the regiments of Horse Guards, and Life Guards, where the off-reckonings and other allowances have been commuted, the Committee recommend that the Colonels should receive an annual sum of 18007. (being a small diminution of their present regimental income) in lieu of pay and all other emoluments.

The Committee are also of opinion that the extra allowance of about 8007. to Colonels of cavalry in India, for wear and tear of accoutrements, ought to be discontinued.

In the amount of the pay and emoluments of the colonels of the two West India regiments, and of the Ceylon corps and Malta Fencibles, the Committee do not recommend any immediate alteration, but that the two former should hereafter undergo a similar reduction to the infantry of the line, and that as the two latter corps are not clothed by their colonels, and are from their constitution and the nature of their service wholly independent of any connexion with those officers, the colonelcies of them should be abolished on future vacancies.

Should the reductions above recommended take place, they will produce an immediate saving on the allowance of Colonels of regiments of about 97007. a year, and of about 15,5007. more as vacancies of regiments occur.

III.

The Staff Pay of General Officers has undergone no change since 1685, and it is a fact worthy of notice, that those who fought at Waterloo received just the same rate of pay as those at Minden and Blenheim*. The Committee therefore certainly cannot propose any reduction on this head, nor are they prepared to suggest any in the number of the staff employed at home or abroad, which appears already to have undergone a considerable reform, as it is stated in evidence that 103 persons at a charge of above 27,000. were reduced between the years 1828 and 1830. With respect to the allowances of General Officers, serving as Governors of Colonies, the evidence which the Committee have heard leads them to doubt whether, in some instances, reduction has not been carried too far, which must assuredly be the case if the officers so employed cannot suitably maintain the dignity of their stations without injury to their private fortunes, and if the Government are thereby limited in their means of selecting the fittest persons for the discharge of those important trusts.

In connexion with these colonial appointments the Committee desire to notice the heavy fees attached to some of them, and indeed to other military appointments also ; and as it appears that all the fees formerly payable on appointments and promotions in the Navy have been recently abolished, they beg strongly to urge the propriety of placing both services in this respect on the same footing.

In the Staff at Head-Quarters (comprising six officers with the rank of general, five of whom are colonels of regiments), though the Committee do not feel competent to lay down any specific plan of reduction, and though it would appear from the evidence of those who have had considerable experience of its duties, that the existing establishment is not more than sufficient for their execution, they cannot avoid adverting to the opinions of the two last Secretaries at War on that head, and calling on the Government to consider whether a diminution may not be effected without detriment to the public service in the rank, numbers, and emoluments of this large and expensive portion of the home staff.

They are also of opinion that if these, and indeed all other staff situations at home and abroad, except that of the Commander-in-Chief and his personal staff, were generally subjected to a change of holders every four or five years, whilst the honours and emoluments of the army would thereby be more widely diffused, and meritorious services more amply rewarded, the country would, at the same time, gain a greater number of officers thus better qualified by experience for situations of trust and command.

It appears that by the King's warrant of the 8th of August, 1814, large additions

* Evidence of Lord FitzRoy Somerset, 1998, 1999.

+ Evidence of Lord FitzRoy Somerset and of Mr. Collin, 2573.

Evidence of Lord FitzRoy Somerset, 2003 to 2006; Sir W. Gordon, 2099, et seq., Sir John Macdonald, 2287, et seq. to the end of his Evidence.

Evidence of Sir J. Hobhouse and Sir H. Parnell.

were authorized to be made to the pay of general officers, and that, owing to a mistaken liberality, this warrant was indiscriminately applied to those who had been reduced, or had retired on half-pay before the last war, and who would not have been enabled to establish a claim to the increased rate of half-pay, granted by warrant of the same date to officers of other ranks reduced at the close of the war in 1814, or placed on half-pay owing to wounds or infirmities acquired in service*; that if this warrant had not been cancelled in 1818, a further charge to the public would have been incurred of about 300,0007., and that 39 of those officers are now receiving such addition to their pay, at an excess of no less than 15,6227. beyond what they received previously to the issue of that warrant, and beyond what they would have been entitled to, if their services had been subjected to the same test as those of other officers of the army, to whom the increase of pay was given, on the special ground of merito. rious service in the war immediately preceding the date of the warrant‡.

The Committee are of opinion that this increase of pay to those officers, though it seems to have been sanctioned at the time by the general concurrence of the House of Commons, was not justified by any good grounds of public expediency, and that it ought now to be discontinued. They, therefore, recominend that those officers should revert again to their former rates of half-pay, subject to such exceptions as the Government, with the assistance of the Commander-in-Chief, may think it just to make, on a due examination and liberal consideration of the circumstances of the parties whose income may be so reduced, or of the efficient services of any of the generals included in this list; but that they shall have the option of selling out of the army at the regulation price of their unattached full-pay commissions, wherever, in the opinion of the Secretary-at-War, such sale shall not, from the age or health of the parties, be injurious to the public interest.

In suggesting the above reductions in the pay and emoluments of general officers, the Committee cannot forbear noticing the scanty provision of those unattached majorgenerals who, under the present regulations, receive only the pay of their last regimental ranks. Considering the great pecuniary sacrifices in the purchase of commis. sions as well as the length of service to which officers are subject before they can attain to be major-generals, the Committee are of opinion that the emoluments of that rank ought not to be less than 4007. a year, and as it could be made up to that amount at an annual charge of somewhat under 7000, they venture to recommend that it should be so increased immediately to all those who receive no other public emoluments, subject to such exceptions in this respect as may appear justified by distin guished service]].

But they must desire, at the same time, to call the attention of the Government to the large number of General Officers now on the list, and to express their anxious hope that no addition will be made to it except upon very strong grounds of public necessity.

The Committee cannot close the military branch of their inquiry, without stating the favourable impression which they have derived from it as to the general economy and management of the army. They would have been happy if, in the performance of the duty intrusted to them, they could have effected any greater saving to the public; but taking into view the peculiar circumstances of our military service, as pointed out in various parts of the evidence, and particularly by the Duke of Wellington in the Memorandum already referred to; and taking also into view the fact, that whilst the salaries and emoluments of most branches of the civil service have considerably increased since 1792, those of the superior officers of the army are, with few exceptions, the same as they were a century ago; they hope, that in the alterations which they have recommended, they will be found on the whole to have carried the principle of reduction as far as they could, "without detriment to the efficiency of the public service, or to the just reward of professional merit."

IV.

Of the Appointments in the Navy which have been referred to the Committee, those of Vice-Admiral and Rear-Admiral of England, and Lieutenant-General and MajorGeneral of Marines, are held by flag-officers, and those of Colonels of Marines by post captains.

Their salaries amount altogether to 69101. 16s. 8d., subject, however, except the two

* Evidence of Mr. Collin, p. 2483, and List, p. 211.

+ Evidence of Lord FitzRoy Somerset, 1577.

Evidence of Mr. Collin, p. 212.

§ Duke of Wellington's Memorandum; Lord FitzRoy Somerset, 1609, 1610, 1611; Sir W. Gordon, 2191. || Mr. Collin, 2557 to 2571.

first, to a deduction of the half-pay of the officers holding them, whereby the net receipt is reduced to 4565l. 148.*

There being no naval appointments analogous to the governorships of garrisons or colonelcies of regiments, these are the only professional honours or emoluments, unconnected with active duties, at the disposal of the Crown, for the reward of distinguished merit in the naval service.

The two first are venerable from their antiquity, and still more so from the names of those who have held them. They are distinctions immediately connected with the naval service, and have always been reckoned among the highest professional honours to which a naval officer could aspire.

The Committee, therefore, recommend that the situations of Vice Admiral and Rear-Admiral of England should remain on their present footing, the whole emoluments of both being together less than 8007. a year.

They do not, however, consider, that the same reasons exist for keeping up the Generals and Colonels of Marines, but that they may with propriety be abolished as they severally become vacant. In recommending this, however, they feel bound in justice to propose, that a sum equal in amount to the salaries of these appointments should be continued at the disposal of the Crown, for the reward of distinguished naval and marine services, subject to the same condition as the grant proposed to be made for the like purpose to the army, and that all pensions so granted should be tenable with the half-pay of the officer holding them.

The Committee beg leave, in conclusion, to express their anxious hope that no addition to the number of Flag-Officers in the Navy, any more than to that of General Officers in the Army, will in future be made, except upon very strong grounds of public necessity.

12th August, 1833.

The following individuals constituted the Committee:

Lord Viscount Ebrington, Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Sir Henry Hardinge, Mr. Abercromby, Sir Ronald Ferguson, Sir Alexander Hope, Mr. Wilbraham, Sir John Wrottesley, The O'Connor Don, Sir John Byng, Mr. Bonham Carter, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Morgan O'Connell, Mr. Hedworth Lambton, Sir James Graham, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Williams Wynn, Sir Henry Parnell, Mr. Pendarves, Mr. Hume, Colonel Davies, Mr. Fazakerley, Colonel Maberley, Sir John Sebright, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Carew, Admiral Fleming, Mr. Richard Oswald.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON TO LORD HILL.

Strathfieldsaye, March 7.

In order to elucidate the question of the military Governments, it is necessary to consider the constitution of the British army, the establishments and mode of promotion of its Officers, particularly to the higher ranks, and the amount of their pay. I should wish to compare the real pay and establishments of Officers of the British army with the pay and establishments of Officers of other armies, and with the pay and establishments of the British navy; but I have not by me the means of stating accurately the amount of either of the latter.

The British army is one of which the officers obtain their commissions by purchase up to the rank of Lieut.-Colonel inclusive. This practice is so general as to be almost universal. It extends to at least three-fourths of all the officers appointed to fill commissions; and it would be universal if the King did not claim the right to dispose of the commission of an officer who is promoted without purchase, or who dies or is killed in his service; which cominissions such officers, in three-fourths of the instances, had previously purchased.

The detailed effect of this purchase of commissions upon the payment of all officers for their service will be shown presently. It is obvious that in calculating the remuneration which any officer receives for his service, the amount of the interest which he loses upon the sum paid as the price of his commission must be taken into the account; it is a direct deduction from the pay of the officer. This fact must never be lost sight of; and it will be of great importance in the comparison between the amount of the pay and allowances of the officers of the British army and those of foreign armies, and those of the corresponding ranks of the British navy.

The promotion of an officer by purchase cannot be made after the rank of Lieut.Colonel; after having attained that rank, officers of the British army are usually

Evidence of Mr. Barrow, 2086, and Return, p. 256.

promoted by brevet, or being made Aides-de-camp to the King, to the rank, but not to the pay, of Colonel, Major-General, Lieut.-General, General, Field-Marshal.

No pay is attached to any of those ranks, according to the ordinary regulations of the service, unless the officer holding such rank should be appointed by his Majesty to be Colonel of a Regiment. In that case he has the pay of a Colonel, and the advantages derived from the contract to clothe and equip the regiment of which the Colonel holds the command.

At the close of the late war there was a deviation from the ordinary regulations, and in June, 1814, it was settled that Generals were to have pay as such, amounting£. s. d.

Per diem, to
Lieutenant-Generals

Major-Generals

1 18 0

1 12 6

15 0

But in February, 1818, this rate of pay was restricted to 120 General Officers, at 17. 58. each per diem.

The General Officers removed from regimental commissions in the Foot Guards were to be allowed as follows:

This was altered by a subsequent warrant; and General Officers promoted from commissions in the Foot Guards now receive

Regimental Lieut.-Colonel, per annum
Regimental Major

Regimental Captains and Lieut-Colonels

£600

550

400

If Colonels or General Officers of the army are specially employed on the staff, they are paid the staff allowances of such employment so long as they are so employed. Excepting the Colonels of regiments, and the 120 General Officers, who receive each 4561. per annum, and certain General Officers removed from their regimental commissions in the Foot Guards, there is no officer of the rank of Colonel, or of the different grades of General Officers, who receives any allowance excepting the half-pay or full-pay of the regimental commission of Lieut.-Colonel, or of the last regimental commission which he held previous to his promotion; which commission of Lieut. Colonel or other he purchased in three instances out of four.

It must not be supposed that promotion of the Officers of the army by purchase is merely an abuse unauthorized and unknown to authority. It has prevailed, it is believed, since the wars of the Revolution *. The prices of commissions have been repeatedly regulated by his Majesty's orders; the last regulation was issued in the year 1821. In point of fact, the promotion of the Officers of the army by purchase is a saving of expense to the public, and highly beneficial to the service, although it falls severely upon individuals.

It is not the practice of the Officers at the head of the army to refuse to those desiring it the permission to sell their commissions which they have purchased; and many retire and are satisfied to live upon the interest of the purchase-money of their commissions, or upon an annuity, without other provision or reward for their services, having possibly lost their health in their King's service, and being no longer able to render the active and energetic services required from an Officer of the British army in all climates and situations.

Neither is it the practice of the Officers at the head of the army to refuse permission to sell their commissions to those under the rank of Colonels of regiments, who have served for twenty years, although they have not purchased their commissions. These Officers would probably be bereft of all means of subsistence upon their retirement from the service, rendered necessary by their advanced age or their loss of health. They would endeavour to remain in (and could not be removed from their situations in the service) rather than expose themselves to want.

The permission to sell their commissions to younger, more active, healthy, and energetic and better qualified men relieves the service from a burden, at the same time that it throws none upon the state in the shape of remuneration, reward, or provision for men worn out by the length and arduous nature of the services required from all British Officers.

Not so; purchase commenced in the reign of Charles II., and has continued since.

It is the promotion by purchase which brings into the service men of fortune and education-men who have some connexion with the interests and fortunes of the country, besides the commission which they hold from his Majesty. It is this circumstance which exempts the British army from the character of being a " mercenary army," and has rendered its employment, for nearly a century and a half, not only not inconsistent with the constitutional privileges of the country, but safe and beneficial. On the other hand, an examination of the detailed operation of the system of promotion by purchase, or the remuneration intended to be given by the public to the Officers of the army for their service, will show that those who purchase their commissions, which are certainly three-fourths of the whole number, receive but little for their service besides the honour of serving the King.

The following is a statement of the annual pay* of the Officers of the Cavalry and Infantry of the British Army.

The Foot Guards having been the object of special regulation, the price of their commission and their pay is here stated:

The second column states the regulated price of the commission of each rank.

The third the interest upon that sum, calculated at four per cent.

The fourth column shows the net annual reward of service of each rank, after deducting the interest of the purchase money.

Besides these sums, the Field Officers and Captains (Lieutenant-Colonels of the Foot Guards) receive certain allowances from the stock purse.

It must be observed, that the loss in column three is not the only one to which the Officer who has purchased is, or his friends are, liable.

He is besides liable to the loss of the whole purchase-money for his commission, if he should be promoted to be Colonel of a regiment; to receive 17. 5s. per diem as a Major-General under the regulation of 1818; or if an Officer of the Foot Guards, he should be promoted to be a Major-General, be removed from his regiment, and

* In making out this statement, the allowance for paying a company, repair of arms, mess allowance (fifty guineas a year), to the actual commanding officer of the regiment, are not included. They do no more than provide for the charges; and do not belong, some of them, to the officer not present with his regiment.

The above two notes are, it is presumed, inserted by authority of the Committee.-ED.