No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
British Military Reform during the Administration of Lord Grey, 1830–1834
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
Extract
Before gaining office, the members of the Whig-Radical government of 1830 had continually pressed for reform not only of Parliament, but also of the institutions of the kingdom. The reformers complained about numerous branches of royal administration, including the church, the legal profession, and the army. In the years between 1815 and 1830, the army was especially irksome to the parliamentary opposition. As the most expensive item in the national budget and the traditional stronghold of Tory aristocrats with the proper “connexions” it was vulnerable to the favorite opposition demand for “retrenchment and reform.”
During the reform government's tenure of office from 1830 to 1834, relations between the Commander in Chief, Lord “Daddy” Hill, and the Prime Minister, Lord Grey, were not good. Lord Hill openly opposed the Reform Bill and other reform measures, often with the support of William IV. Aggravating the mutual hostility between civilian and military authorities was the position of the Duke of Wellington. He stood as the acknowledged moral leader of the army, as well as the official leader of the Tory party.
In this tense situation, the Grey government made several attempts at military reform. These were related directly to parliamentary and public demands regarding the army and may be grouped under the headings of financial, administrative, and humanitarian reform. Financial and administrative reform were closely linked in the minds of the reformers, who saw reduced expense as a primary aim of administrative change. For many of the Whigs and Radicals administrative reform, other than reducing offices and expenses, simply meant getting military patronage away from the Tories. This was especially important since Tory control of military appointments since the 1790's had made the army into a Tory institution. Financial reform usually meant reduction of expense by nearly any means. For the public as well as the parliamentary reformers, one of the most unnecessary expenses was the “dead weight” in the Army Estimates — the pension paid to retired soldiers and the half-pay given to retired officers. Another important objective of financial reform was destruction of the army sinecure system. Finally, the most popular and almost the onlv demand for humanitarian reform was the campaign against corporal punishment.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1972
References
Notes
1 Sir Herbert Taylor to Lord Grey, 16 and 17 March 1832; Grey to Taylor, 18 March 1832, in Henry, Earl Grey, ed. The Reform Act, 1832: The Correspondence of the Late Earl Grey with His Majesty King William IV and with Sir Herbert Taylor (London, 1867), II, 271–79.Google Scholar
2 For example, Apsley House, London. Wellington to Sir Rowland Hill, 12 December 1842, Wellington Papers.
3 The Secretaries at War were Sir Henry Parnall, Charles W. W. Wynn, Sir John Hobhouse, and Edward Ellice. See my unpublished Ph. D. thesis, “The British Army in the Age of Reform, 1830-1854” (Duke University, Durham, N. C., 1968).Google Scholar
4 Torrens, W. M., ed., Memoirs of the Right Honourable William, Second Viscount Melbourne (London, 1878), I 414.Google Scholar
5 Lord Althorp, Great Britain, Parliament, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., Vol. 2, p. 64 (23 December 1830), p. 404 (11 February 1831).Google Scholar
6 Only 12 lieutenant colonels, 12 majors, 90 captains, 60 lieutenants, and 30 ensigns were allowed to draw full-pay pensions. At no time could the amount paid in full-pay pensions exceed £40,000, but in 1831 those who had been placed on full-pay pensions before this regulation came into effect were drawing a total of £97,352; hence, no more pensions could be granted until the yearly pension expenses had fallen below £40,000. Army. Return of the Number of Generals, Lieutenant Generals, and Major Generals; Specifying the Daily Rate of Pay … pp. 10-11, Parliamentary Papers, 1831 (Cmd. 327), XIII, 80–81.Google Scholar
7 Report of the Commissioners for Inquiring into Naval and Military Promotion and Retirement With Evidence and Appendices, pp. xxiv–xxv ff., Parliamentary Papers, 1840 (Cmd. 235), XXII, 24-25 ff.
8 In July, 1831, there were 303 general officers. “Return of the Number of Generals…,” p. 7, Parl. Papers, 1831, Vol. XIII, p. 77.Google Scholar
9 Report from the Select Committee on Army and Navy Appointments with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, Parl. Papers, 1833 (Cmd. 650), VIII.Google Scholar
10 Memorandum by the Duke of Wellington, Report … on Army and Navy Appointments Evidence, p. 273Google Scholar, Parl. Papers, 1833, VII, 287.Google Scholar
11 Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the System of Purchase and Sale of Commissions in the Army; with Evidence and Appendix, Parliamentary Papers, 1857, Session 2 (Cmd. 2267), XVIIIGoogle Scholar; SirMaurice, Frederick and SirArthur, George, The Life of Lord Wolseley (London, 1924), p. 10.Google Scholar
12 Joseph Hume and Lord Palmerston, 30 November 1826, Hansard, N. S., Vol. 16, pp. 184-86, 190–92.Google Scholar
13 Wellington to Taylor, 11 April 1821, The Duke of Wellington, ed., Despatches Correspondence, and Memoranda of Arthur Duke of Wellington (In Continuation of the Former Series) (London, 1871–1878)Google Scholar, Despatches Continued, I, 167–68.Google Scholar
14 Wellington to Hardinge, 4 November 1845, Wellington Papers.
15 Evidence of SirBrown, George, “Report of … the System of Purchase.” Evidence, p. 106Google Scholar, Parl. Papers, 1857, Session 2, Vol. XVIII, p. 106.Google Scholar
16 Royal Warrant, 20 October 1834, printed in The Times (London), 10 November 1834, p. 5.Google Scholar
17 “A Voice from the Army,” United Service Journal (1831), Part II, pp. 446–52Google Scholar. There were 291 half-pay officers who held government positions. Of these, 181 had civil salaries of less than £250 per year. “Half-pay Officers, Army. Return Showing the Number of Half-Pay Officers of the Army Employed in Any Civil Office by the Government,” pp. 11-12. Parl. Papers, 1831-1832, Vol. XXVII, pp. 161–62, Cmnd. 173.Google Scholar
18 “Return of Despatches and Correspondence Relative to Chelsea Pensioners in Upper Canada,” Parl. Papers, 1838, Vol. XXXI, p. 142, Cmnd. 248.Google Scholar
19 Hansard, Vol. II, p. 1199 (2 April 1832).Google Scholar
20 “Return … Chelsea Pensioners in Upper Canada, Parl. Papers, 1838. Vol. XXXI, pp. 142 ff.Google Scholar; Great Britain, Public Record Office MSS, War Office, 43/48 and 49 (letters from Canada complaining about the pensioners).
21 “Editors Portfolio,” United Service Journal (1831), Part III, p. 402.Google Scholar
22 Lord Broughton (Hobhouse), “Diary,” 7 January 1833, Dorchester, Lady (ed.) Recollections of a Long Life (London, 1910), IV, 267.Google Scholar
23 PRO, WO 43/21.
24 Montreal, McGill University, Hardinge Papers, Box VI.
25 For example, London, British Museum Add. MSS., 49478, Grey to Gordon, 30 August 1828, 3 April 1831, 25 July 1832, 19 January 1833; Broughton, , “Diary,” 21 February 1833, Recollections of a Long Life, IV, 287Google Scholar. Grey had tried to obtain Gordon, his relative, as Master General before he turned to the Duke of Richmond. BM Add. MSS, 49478, Grey to Gordon, 20 November 1830; also in Despatches Continued, VII, 369.Google Scholar
26 BM Add. MSS, 49503, Hardinge to Gordon, 20 October 1832 and another endorsed 24 February 1833 by Gordon.
27 “Report from His Majesty's Commissioners for Inquiring into the System of Military Punishment in the Army with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices,” Evidence p. 307Google Scholar, Parl. Papers, 1836, Vol. XXII, p. 331, Cmnd. 59.Google Scholar
28 Ellice, , Hansard, 3d ser., Vol. 21, p. 968 (28 February 1834)Google Scholar; Vivian to Sir William Gasset, 21 February 1833,” Return Respecting the Proposal to Abolish Kilmainham Hospital, p. 405, Parl. Papers, 1834, Vol. XLII, pp. 118–19 Cmnd. 331Google Scholar; Bruce, H. A., Life of Sir William Napier (London, 1864), I, 440Google Scholar; “Army Estimates,” p. 75, Parl. Papers. 1835 Vol. XXXVIII. p. 75, Cmnd. 167.Google Scholar
29 PRO, WO 43/52, correspondence between Hill and various secretaries at war.
30 PRO, WO 43/52, Hill to Viscount Goderich, 19 April 1832, and Goderich to Hobhouse, 22 May 1832.
31 Ellice, , Hansard, 3d ser., Vol. 21, pp. 1019–20 (3 March 1834).Google Scholar
32 PRO, WO 43/53, various correspondence.
33 Herbert, Sidney, Military Education: Speech of … Sidney Herbert in the House of Commons June 5, 1856 … (London, 1856), p. 5.Google Scholar
34 Hobhouse, , “Recollections,” 23 March 1833Google Scholar, Recollections of a Long Life, IV, 295.Google Scholar
35 Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, E/52, Taylor to Ellice, 7 May 1833.
36 “Army Estimates.” 1835–1836, p. 163Google Scholar, Parl. Papers, 1835, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 163.Google Scholar
37 24 July 1835, p. 5.
38 The Times (London), 21 March 1836, p. 4Google Scholar; United Service Journal (1835), Part I, p. 554.Google Scholar
39 BM Add. MSS, 49503, Hardinge to Gordon, 30 August 1834.
40 John C. Herries (Tory Secretary at War) to Sir James Graham, 25 February 1835, and Herries to Taylor, 26 February 1835, British Museum, Herries Papers 69 (Letter Book as Secretary at War).
41 BM Add. MSS, 49478, Grey to Gordon, 20 March 1836.
42 “Report … Military Punishment,” Parl. Papers, 1836, Vol. XXII.Google Scholar