"The most important question of all remains to be considered—a question which, I am persuaded, can never have presented itself to those Hon. members of the House of Commons who would advocate the disbandment of our household corps. By what description of troops, and by what course of service, are the military duties of this metropolis to be regulated and carried on when the household corps shall have ceased to exist?
"It has already been explained that the battalions of the line, which are stationed from time to time in the United Kingdom, are, generally speaking, amongst the least effective of any of Her Majesty's service. The evil is unavoidable, owing to the inefficient state in which regiments usually return home from colonial or other service abroad. Such, then, would be the description of troops to which the London duties would be assigned in the event of the household corps being disbanded. Moreover, it is the general rule of the service, that regiments shall change their quarters every year; but suppose an exception were made in favour of the regiments performing the London duties, and that such regiments were retained in London two years, instead of one, still what would be the consequence?—That just as they were beginning to be inured to the duties of the metropolis, they would be marched off, and be succeeded by other regiments, whose apprenticeship would then have to commence. Woe to this vast and opulent metropolis upon the day of riot or of actual disturbance, when the public peace and the protection of property shall be committed to raw and inexperienced troops; and all troops must be accounted raw and inexperienced (however high their qualifications in other respects) which shall have been nowise initiated in the peculiar duties which they are called upon to perform. Had the celebrated light division of the lamented Moore—had the famous fighting division of the gallant Picton, landed at Portsmouth at the termination of the late war, fresh from the fields of all their glory, flushed with the pride of all their victories, and thence been ordered to take the London duties—had they been accompanied with the cavalry brigade which La Marchant led in the onset at Salamanca, or by the cavalry brigade which Ponsonby headed in their charge against the column of 12,000 at Waterloo, I would have accounted the whole of those distinguished corps, from the moment they had crossed Westminster-bridge, as raw and inexperienced troops in respect to the duties upon which they were about to enter, so utterly different are the military duties required by the garrison of London from the military duties performed by the British army in any other part of the world. You are aware that no portion of my military service has been passed in the household regiments. I entertain no favour or affection towards those corps above that which I bear towards the whole army. I set no higher value, as soldiers, upon a battalion of Guards than upon a battalion of the line. It is solely on account of the apprenticeship they have served—it is because, in addition to their general duties as soldiers, they have been trained from their enlistment to the peculiar duties which belong to a London garrison—because they have been instructed in the delicate and the critical position in which they are often placed whilst on duty—because they have been taught to bear and forbear—because they are conversant with all the arts, and intrigues, and temptations of a London populace—because they are familiar with all the public departments, the public offices, and the public authorities, as well as with all the localities within the bills of mortality,—it is on these grounds that I pronounce the household corps to be by far better fitted for the London duties than can ever be the case with any other portion of her Majesty's troops. To the foregoing advantages, I would add the perfect understanding which has been established and cemented between the household corps and the metropolitan police. The beautiful manner in which their reciprocal duties are blended on every occasion of being brought together amounts to a piece of mechanism, which no exertions could ever preserve under a continued introduction of fresh and inexperienced troops.
"The household corps of the British army represent a body of troops which, for appearance, for discipline, for intelligence, and for respectability, are unequalled by the troops of any other nation upon earth. They reflect credit upon the Sovereign, upon the Government, upon the service, and upon the nation at large. They serve to impress every foreigner who visits this country with a high opinion of our military character, and of our military power. Yet have propositions been entertained for disbanding these household corps. The result that would follow upon their disbandment is manifest. That, whereas the military duties of London are now, and have been hitherto, conducted in a manner the most perfect and the most efficient, they would be committed henceforth to different portions of Her Majesty's troops, which, by reason of their frequent relief, and their consequent want of experience, could at no time be expected to carry on the military duties of London with equal efficiency for the maintenance of the public peace, and the protection of public property; and in the event of any serious disturbance arising (which God avert!) the disbandment of our household corps, and the dissolution of that unity of service which is at present so happily established between the military and the civil forces of the metropolis, might be productive of consequences fatal to the security of the metropolis itself, and to the interests of the empire at large.—I remain, my dear Sir Henry, with the greatest respect, yours most faithfully,
"J.C. Dalbiac, Lieutenant-General.
"13, Albany, March 9, 1840."
Sir Charles Dalbiac's letter is certainly a strong appeal to the army and country; and as one of the staff of Picton's division, I particularly feel it. What Sir Charles says, as to the soldiers of that division taking the duties of London, I readily admit to be quite correct. My objection is not to the Guards, but to the unnecessary and injurious privileges possessed by their officers. Perhaps, however, the desirable object I have in view, may not be considered attainable; and should this prove the case, it might not be unreasonable to expect, that these corps should be kept perfectly distinct from the regular regiments; and that no exchange shall ever be allowed between officers of the Guards and those of the regular army. If they must continue a privileged body, to the injury of the service, their privileges ought not to be allowed to hurt even the feelings of the latter.
All regular regiments of cavalry, infantry, and artillery, should, as before observed, be liable to serve in any part of the world, in case of war or commotion; but they should from many parts of it be invariably and immediately re-called, as soon as the causes for which they were sent out had been removed; but these regiments might be stationed wherever it should be deemed expedient, and for any period; for instance, in such countries as North America, the Cape of Good Hope, the islands in the Mediterranean, &c.
Service in the regular army being limited to ten years only, there could be no necessity in future for burdening the country with any other pensions than those already proposed for well behaved non-commissioned officers and soldiers, except in cases of severe wounds, or loss of health in the service; but both these should be placed under very strict regulations; and my object for so limiting the period is, that when the time for discharging a soldier arrives, he would not be too old to return to and resume his former occupation or trade; for, I am sorry to say, that old soldiers, in general, are rather addicted to drunkenness, and consequently have become unfit for the quiet walks of life; and practice in war also teaches us, that experienced officers, and young but well-disciplined soldiers, always achieve the most brilliant and enterprising feats of heroism in battle or at sieges; and even in skirmishing I have never found that veterans were to be preferred. There were exceptions occasionally met with, but those who have seen much of modern warfare, will, I think, coincide with me in these opinions.
To effect some of the objects I have in view, it should be permanently settled, how many corps of cavalry, infantry, engineers, artillery, and marines, are to constitute the regular army of Great Britain and Ireland; and their respective establishments in officers should likewise be permanently fixed upon; for I am most anxious, and I consider it to be practicable, to do away with half-pay to officers; and although the peace and war establishments of corps, as to non-commissioned officers and privates, may vary, I do not see, if officers are not unnecessarily and improperly taken away from their regiments, why their numbers should ever be increased or decreased; for the whole being efficient, and well instructed, they could, in a very short time, with the aid of intelligent non-commissioned officers, train such recruits as it might be found requisite to call out to augment the establishments of corps; and thus a considerable saving to the country may be effected.
Situated as Great Britain now is with regard to other nations; and considering the number of troops likely to be at all times required in some of our foreign possessions, together with the state of Ireland, and also how very few corps are now available for home service; and even bearing in mind our fine army of reserve, but which ought not unnecessarily to be called out, and likewise what I have yet to propose in regard to the East Indies and some of our foreign possessions, I cannot suppose, that our regiments of cavalry ought to consist of less than 1 colonel, 1 lieut.-colonel, 2 majors, 8 captains, 8 lieutenants, 8 cornets, 24 sergeants, 32 corporals, 16 trumpeters, 560 privates. And to insure our having really effective corps of infantry, they ought to have 1 colonel, 1 lieut.-colonel, 2 majors, 10 captains, 10 lieutenants, 10 ensigns, 30 sergeants, 40 corporals, 20 buglers, 760 privates. Both cavalry and infantry should, of course, have the usual number of regimental staff officers and sergeants, including a school-master, sergeant, and a trumpet and bugle major.