THE HULL PACKET & EAST RIDING TIMES
Fri 25 Jun 1880
THE
HULL ARTILLERY
SCANDAL
------------
QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT
------------
HULL CORPORATION AND THE CORPS
------------
COMMENTS OF THE LONDON PRESS
In the House of Commons on Monday night, Mr Norwood asked the Secretary of State for War
– whether his attention had been called to the statement that, at a meeting in Hull on Wednesday evening last, at which about 800 officers and men of the Fourth East York Artillery Volunteers were present, it was resolved, with a single dissentient, to withdraw from the corps and brigade, that the brigade orders are accordingly rescinded;
– whether it was a fact that Lord Londesborough, the hon. colonel of the Fourth East York Artillery and of the Hull Battalion of Rifle Volunteers, has resigned his command;
– whether he was aware that charges having been made against Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey by certain of his officers, an official Court of Inquiry was held, which fully acquitted Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey, and recommended that Lieutenant-Colonel Saner and three captains, who had made or supported the charges, should be required to resign their commissions;
– whether he was aware that those persons were called upon to resign, and that the three captains promptly did so, but that Lieutenant-Colonel Saner was permitted by the late Secretary of State for War to retain his commission for several months, when he retired with permission to retain his rank and to wear the uniform of the corps, although the consent of his commanding officer was not asked or obtained, as prescribed by the volunteer regulations;
– whether he was aware that, notwithstanding that Lieutenant-Colonel Commandant Humphrey was fully and honourably acquitted from the charges above referred to, and that no complaint or charge had since been preferred against him, he was ordered by the late Secretary of State for War to resign his commission;
– whether he was aware that the reason given by the 800 members of the Fourth East York Artillery Volunteers and by the Honorary Colonel, Lord Londesborough, in retiring from the service is their dissatisfaction at the course pursued by his predecessor at the War Office and their sympathy with Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey under the circumstances above stated,
– and whether he was prepared to state the steps, if any, he proposed to take in consequence of the practical disbandment of the brigade.
Mr Charles Wilson had a question down on the notice paper having relation to the same subject.
Mr A M Sullivan asked how, should the circumstances be as stated, they would affect those officers who had not taken part in the proceedings of the others or sympathised in their actions.
Mr Childers, in reply, said he would at once answer the question of the two hon. members for Hull, and that of the hon. member for Meath, for which notice had been given for Tuesday. It was difficult to state fully within the compass of an answer the exact nature of the proceedings of the War Office, and which took place a few days before he became Secretary for War. The main facts of the case were these.
– For some time past, there had been great dissensions between Lieut-Colonel Humphrey and Lieut-Colonel Saner, and which culminated, in 1878, in a decision of his predecessor in office (Colonel Stanley) that in the dispute between Lieut-Colonel Humphrey and Lieut-Colonel Saner and his adjutant, that the latter should be called upon to resign; and the Secretary of State expressed his regret that he did not think it was in the interest of the corps that the former should remain in command.
– On an appeal in June, 1878, the late Secretary of State for War did not consider that the resignation of Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey would be enforced if a properly qualified adjutant were willing to accept a position under him, but if any further adverse reports were received his removal would be called for.
– In May, 1879, a Court of Inquiry assembled at Hull to consider charges brought by Lieutenant-Colonel Saner and three other officers of the brigade against Lieut-Colonel Humphrey, but the charges were dismissed as unsupported or frivolous. Upon this the late Secretary for War requested Lieutenant-Colonel Saner and the three officers to resign, and Lieut-Colonel Humphrey was informed that it was desirable he should withdraw from the command agreeable to the view he (the Secretary) expressed.
– Against this decision Lieut-Colonel Saner appealed in December, 1879, and the late War Secretary in January last decided that Lieutenant-Colonel Saner's resignation might be held over until the 28th March [1880] in order that he might retain his rank, and that Lieut-Colonel Humphrey must resign on March 31st [1880]. This decision, the late Secretary declared, was irreversible.
Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey was allowed to remain in office until the end of July [1880], and on an appeal being made to him (Mr Childers), a few weeks ago, he decided that the order for Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey's resignation could not be reversed.
– On Wednesday last a meeting of the corps, in plain clothes, took place at Hull, at which Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey notified his resignation and that of Lord Londesborough, hon. commander of the corps and of the Hull Rifle Brigade, upon which a majority of the officers, and nearly all the men, withdrew from the corps.
On the report of this reaching the War Office, Lieutenant-General Willis, the Commander-in-Chief for the Northern District, and the District Inspector, were directed to proceed to Hull and make inquiries without delay. Upon their report being received by the Commander-in-Chief, General Effingham, Deputy-Adjutant General, was sent to assist in making a full inquiry into the proceedings of the 16th, and in the meanwhile the resignation of the twelve officers, their proceedings being prima facie insubordinate, were refused and returned. On the report of the inquiry being received by the Commander-in-Chief, it will by him be submitted to Her Majesty (hear, hear).
---------------------
A special meeting of the Hull Corporation has been called by and with the consent of the Mayor (Alderman King, M D) for today (Friday) owing to a requisition presented to him by several members of the Council, "to take into consideration the disbandment of the Hull Artillery Corps, and to pass such resolutions thereon as may at such meeting be considered advisable."
Mr Field has given notice that he will move the following resolution:–
"That this Council, having learnt with great regret that nearly every member of the 4th East York Artillery Volunteer Corps, one of the finest in the kingdom, has tendered his resignation, respectfully request that Her Majesty's Government shall at once institute the most searching inquiry as to the cause of such resignation."
------------
THE TIMES ON THE SITUATION
The Times has had the following remarks [maintaining an Olympian impartiality as to the facts]:–
The loyalty of the volunteers as a body is unquestioned. But it cannot be denied that the obligations involved in a volunteer's oath have received, to say the least, an inopportune interpretation at Hull. The volunteer corps of the northern counties are famous for their drill, discipline, and general efficiency. The energy and earnestness of the northerner come to the front here, as they do in other departments of life. The Hull Artillery Volunteers, in particular, are, or rather were, second to no other artillery corps in the country.
It is all the more to be deplored that in a regiment which, in other respects, set an example to every other [,] a mistaken notion of honour among volunteers, or, perhaps, rather pure pique, has led to the resignation of almost all the members. The case was of sufficient importance to be made the subject of questions in the House of Commons last evening, and Mr Childers explained the circumstances.
It seems that there was a serious feud between the commanding officer and his brother lieutenant-colonel. The War Office, being referred to, ordered a Court of Inquiry, the result of which was that Colonel Stanley required the resignation of both officers and of three others who were concerned in the quarrel. An appeal by Colonel Humphrey against this decision only obtained a concession of delay in the time of that officer's resignation, and Mr Childers, on taking office, confirmed the decision of his predecessor.
Colonel Humphrey then made known his resignation to the men under his command, and about 850 of them, having passed a resolution that they would serve under no other commanding officer, followed suit by themselves resigning, with a majority of their officers, including Lord Londesborough, the honorary colonel. Technically speaking, the men were within their right. There is no hindrance to a volunteer resigning during peace whenever he thinks fit.
But a resignation en masse, like that of the Hull corps, is a virtual disbandment and a breach of discipline in the broader sense. Perhaps there was room for a little more tact and consideration than was shown by the War Office. But the duty of this artillery corps was clear. Their loyalty was due, not to their commanding officer, but to their Sovereign; and, even if the War Office was in the wrong, they have put themselves doubly in the wrong, and have deprived themselves of all outside sympathy, by this mode of resenting the supposed injury.
The occurrence is, indeed, an untimely example of the essential instability of a volunteer force. It is well that the national instincts and the national good sense have prevented it from being more than a solitary example. But even in its solitariness it is startling, and there is a danger that it may serve as an unwholesome precedent. Mr Childers states that there is to be a full inquiry on the spot into the proceedings of Wednesday, when the meeting of the corps was held, and meanwhile "the resignations of the twelve officers, their proceedings being prima facie insubordinate, have been refused and returned to them."
It is difficult to acquit Colonel Humphrey of all blame in the proceedings of last Wednesday, though his fault would seem to have been of omission rather than commission. He cannot have been unaware that his men intended to resign. It was, therefore, distinctly incumbent upon him to address himself to that intention, and recall them, if possible, to a proper sense of their duty. But though Colonel Humphrey strained etiquette by calling a meeting of the regiment in plain clothes and making a farewell speech, he omitted to secure that continuance of the corps which a few well-judged and forcible words of exhortation would have secured.
There appears to be as little excuse for the officers who forgot their position as holders of the Queen's commission in their ardour to take up his personal quarrel. Their influence, if properly exerted, might easily have averted the disruption of this serviceable body of coast artillerymen; and, assuming that the volunteer force has any meaning as a part of the military organisation of the realm, their want of patriotism and breach of duty are not to be lightly condoned.
------------
In the House of Commons on Tuesday night, Mr C H Wilson said:–
I beg to give notice that tomorrow I will ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in reference to the inquiry to be held at Hull by Generals Elkington and Willis into the conduct of the officers and men of the 4th East York Artillery Volunteers on Wednesday last, he will consider the advisability of extending the inquiry so as fully to ascertain the causes, political or otherwise, which led to the resignation of the officers and men.
Mr Childers: I will answer that at once. In the first place, tomorrow, being Wednesday, it may not be convenient to answer the question then; and, secondly, because I should distinctly refuse to go into any such matter until a question of greater gravity, and concerning a grave breach of discipline, which occurred on Wednesday last, has been fully enquired into.
Mr Wilson: When will the inquiry be held at Hull?
Mr Childers: The inquiry will, I believe, be held on Friday; that is the day upon which it was intended to hold it. I have not heard today whether the notices have been given or not, but Friday was the day intended.
------------
LETTER FROM LORD LONDESBOROUGH
The following letter has appeared in the Times:–
Sir, – As the hon. colonel of the Fourth East York Artillery Volunteers, whose conduct on Wednesday evening last was the subject of questions in the House of Commons yesterday, and of comment in your leading article this morning, permit me to say that when I communicated to Colonel Humphrey my intention to resign my commission, I was unaware of the step about to be taken by the corps.
My determination to resign was arrived at months ago, and communicated unofficially to Colonel Stanley, assigning as my reason my sense of the injustice which would be inflicted if Colonel Humphrey's resignation were insisted upon.
You have fallen into a misapprehension in connecting this unfortunate occurrence with Colonel Humphrey's "feud" with his adjutant in 1878. That matter had been definitely settled, a new adjutant appointed, Captain Pemberton Harrison, with whom Colonel Humphrey's relations have been most satisfactory.
The difficulty that has now arisen originated in charges made by certain officers of the corps, respecting which an official inquiry took place last year, and which were declared last night by Mr Childers either unsupported or frivolous. The extreme course of requiring Colonel Humphrey to resign after such a vindication of his conduct appeared to me wholly unaccountable, and is to the present unexplained.
The inquiry promised by Mr Childers appears only to refer to the events of last Wednesday, but will not touch the main causes of dissatisfaction in the course pursued towards Colonel Humphrey. I fully concur with you that the course taken by the officers and men on the 16th was precipitate and ill-judged, but I attribute it entirely to a strong feeling of indignation at the supposed injustice of Colonel Stanley's treatment of Colonel Humphrey, and I cannot but think that a full investigation and reconsideration by Mr Childers of the events of the past two years would best tend to recall the members of the corps to a sense of duty.
Yours faithfully,
Londesborough.
38 Berkeley Square, W, Tuesday June 22.
------------
PREJUDGING THE CASE
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "HULL PACKET"
Sir, – It must appear obvious to everyone that, until the inquiry which the Government has ordered to be made into the circumstances of this unfortunate disbandment is over, and until the result is known, it would be manifestly unfair to comment on the incomplete evidence that has so far been made public. I regret to see that this view is not entertained by your morning contemporary.
It is impossible to [turn?] from the [actual?] facts, if we take Mr Childers' reply to Mr Norwood's question in the House of Commons, and Lord Londesborough's letter in the Times of yesterday, and attempt to reconcile them with the comments it is pleased to indulge in; but, I suppose, the Press is in a position sometimes to obtain information that does not flow through ordinary channels.
That vague hypothesis, however, should be built on unsubstantiated assertion, for the purpose of biassing the public mind, is to be deplored. As an instance, Mr Childers distinctly stated, on Monday night, that in May, 1879, a charge was brought against Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey by Lieutenant-Colonel Saner and three other officers, which was dismissed as unsupported and frivolous. Yet, in face of this broad assertion, we are told in the E M News that upon the three junior officers alone fell the onus of this imputation, and that Colonel Saner was not one of the parties making the charge in question.
Now, since the issue is between Lieutenant-Colonel Humphrey and Lieutenant-Colonel Saner, it is unfair to employ such language, which, up to the present, is unsupported by evidence and in direct contradiction to a ministerial declaration. It looks like an attempt to prejudge the question upon which a War Office Inquiry is indirectly ordered, and under the circumstances it is a matter of regret that Mr Childers has not seen his way to make so full and exhaustive an investigation, which to most people it seems the case requires.
There would then be some chance of explaining this among other points, how it comes that after the 1879 inquiry pronouncing the charges against Lieut-Colonel Humphrey as "unsupported and frivolous" Colonel Stanley saw his way to further add that it would be desirable for the officer to withdraw from the command.
There has been a lot of talk about allegiance to Queen and Country, about military discipline and military law. Volunteers are after all civilian soldiers, who have consented to make a sacrifice of so much of their spare moments for the good of their Queen and their homes. That even in this corps there was the genuine spirit of the soldier we have only to remember that when a few months ago the country was alarmed at the rumours of what seemed an inevitable and lasting war they were the first volunteers in the kingdom to offer themselves for active service abroad.
It appears to me that it will be rather difficult to prove that their latest action was the result of foolish impulse. In constant contact with their officers it is not likely their eyes were closed to the foolish squabbling always going on amongst them, and when, to a man almost, they issued that protest against what by a conviction they considered an injustice to their commanding officer, the remembrance that they were Englishmen rose above any moral allegiance to the Crown : and, however much their disbandment is to be regretted, it is a significant outburst of feeling, even though it be a breach of discipline, which those who have to judicate in this matter cannot but give due weight to.
I am etc,
TRUTH
Hull, June 24th, 1880.
------------
THE GLOBE'S OPINION
The disbandment of the 4th East York Volunteer Corps is such an exceptional event in the history of the force that the public would like to have a much fuller explanation than has yet been afforded of the circumstances which led to this regrettable climax. The account given by Colonel Humphrey himself to the corps on the night when the members almost unanimously determined to resign left a good deal unexplained.
It seems that some time ago a court of inquiry was assembled by order of the War Office to adjudicate on certain differences that had arisen between the colonel and some of his officers. The latter, who were the complainants, were called upon to resign, while Colonel Humphrey was acquitted, it is alleged, of all blame. Nevertheless – and this is the unaccountable thing – he, too, received a communication from the War Office, desiring him to cease all connection with the corps by a specified date.
On taking counsel with his friends, he had preferred to ask for trial by court-martial, but this was refused, and he then received another order to resign. With this he has now complied, but the vast majority of the officers and men have also given in their resignations, after passing a resolution that they declined to serve under any other commanding officer than Colonel Humphrey.
Such seem to be the essential points of the dispute, but we gather from the confused hurly-burly of accounts which have come to hand that Colonel Humphrey never contested the justice of the War Office's decision in his case. He was willing to resign from the first, and in this he showed a proper respect for discipline.
At the same time, the conduct of the officers and men in disbanding without waiting for the sanction of the War Office is not without excuse. So far as can be judged, they are still unacquainted with the reasons which, in the opinion of the highest military authorities, rendered it inexpedient for Colonel Humphrey to be retained in command of the corps. Had these been placed before the regiment, we doubt not that they would have exercised a salutary influence in checking the impulse to resign en masse.
It was scarcely to be wondered at that, after the decision of a properly-constituted tribunal had exonerated the colonel from all blame, his enforced retirement should have created hot resentment among those whom he had long commanded with equal credit to himself and the regiment. A grave breach of discipline has been committed, but we cannot help suspecting that a little more tact and judgment might have kept the Fourth East York Volunteer Corps together, even if Colonel Humphrey had to give up the command.
------------
THE OBSERVER'S VIEW
We are bound to state that the conduct of the 4th East York Artillery Volunteers, of which Hull is the headquarters, cannot be too strongly condemned. Indeed, the recognised organ of the force has already used emphatic language in condemnation of their behaviour.
It appears that some time ago differences arose between the colonel and some of his officers. A military court of inquiry was held on their dispute, and on receipt of their report the colonel's opponents were called upon by the War Office to resign. It would look as if they had [made] private appeal to the authorities, and brought fresh facts to the knowledge of the latter, for not only was their resignation not insisted upon, but an intimation was conveyed to the colonel that he had better bring his military career to a close.
This amateur soldier thereupon summoned a general meeting – in plain clothes – of his regiment. The meeting was held, and the colonel actually informed his officers and men of the action of the War Office, and allowed them to pass resolutions sympathising with him and declaring that they would serve under no other commander. The result was that the regiment, upwards of 900 strong, resigned en masse, and at once deposited their clothing at the barracks.
These Hull National Guards and their Colonel are, if the facts have been correctly represented, ignorant of the very elements of discipline. Nevertheless, they have done the volunteer movement immense harm. The example set by one regiment may be followed by another; and of what value, it will certainly be asked, is a force which may at any moment, in a fit of temper, deliberately disband itself?
------------
THE FIGARO'S IDEA
The resignation en masse of a corps of Volunteer Artillery, upwards of a thousand strong, is not an event that is likely to take place except under what at any rate is considered to be great provocation. The corps in question, the 4th East York, has thus virtually ceased to exist, because its commanding officer has been called upon to resign by the War Office, and the public will require some very good justification on [behalf] of the latter's strict adherence to a decision which, whilst it may be technically right, is evidently held by 1,000 and more officers and men to be ill-advised and unjust.
Red tape is so profusely used at the War Office that it is always getting the authorities entangled in some Gordian knot which it would not infrequently [be] the better plan to promptly cut with the keen edge of expediency and common sense