Report and evidence taken by the Committee appointed to enquire into the pay, status, and conditions of service of the medical officers of the army : with evidence concerning the Indian Service and some of the more important appendices. April 1890.

  • Great Britain. War Office. Committee on the Pay, Status and Conditions of Service of Medical Officers of the Army [and Navy].
Date:
1890
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report and evidence taken by the Committee appointed to enquire into the pay, status, and conditions of service of the medical officers of the army : with evidence concerning the Indian Service and some of the more important appendices. April 1890. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    30/156 (page 14)
    Saturday, March 30th, 1889. SECOND DAY. Present— The Right Hon. The Earl of Camperdown in the Chair. Major-General Sir William Crossman, K.C.M.G., M.P, Rear-Admiral C. F. Hotham, C.B., R.N. Surgeon-General T. Graham Balfour, M.D., F.R.S., F.R.C.P., Q.H.P. N. C. Macnamara, Esq., F.R.C.S. R. H. Hobart, Esq., C.B., Secretary. Major-General Sir George Bvng Harman, K.C.B., examined. 239. The Chairman. You are Military Secretary to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief ?—I am. 240. The Committee would like to know your opinion with reference to the question relating- to rank which has arisen in respect of the officers of the medical staff in the army. The Warrant in 1887 did away with relative rank, which had been conferred by the previous warrants relating to the army, and at the present time the medical officers contend that there is some doubt as to whether they have any rank in the army. I daresay you have heard that statement?—Yes, I have heard of the question. Since I was warned that I was to give evidence before the Committee, I have prepared a short statement, which perhaps would be of service to the Committee if I was to read it, and then you might, if you thought proper, ask me any questions upon it. 241. Certainly.—The term relative rank has been in existence for a very long period (I may say I have papers that go as far back as 1811). It was used as expressive of the ranks in the combatant grades which corresponded to the departmental grades held by officers in the various departments of the army. It was never in itself a rank, but it governed the precedence and regulated the allowances and other privileges of these departmental officers. By degrees, certain of the departments, such as the Commissariat Staff and the Ordnance Store Department, having- become more military in character, it was found necessary to give actual military titles to them, and honorary rank was largely introduced. As honorary rank only carried a title and not allowances, except in the Army Pay Department, it was still necessary when carrying allowances as well as rank to Gazette officers to honorary and relative rank, a cumbrous method of proceeding. When the Royal Warrant of 31st December, 1886, was in course of preparation, it was decided to remedy this state of things, and accordingly the term “ relative ” was abolished, the officers of the departments not having honorary rank continuing as heretofore to rank as corresponding grades of the combatant branches, and taking pre- cedence with them according- to seniority, the allow- ances being provided for by a classification list inserted in the Allowance Regulations. “ Relative rank ” seems to have been considered by officers of the medical staff as having been actual rank, which, as explained above, is not the case; and the abolition of the word “relative” has in no respect altered their position or rights, and their supposed grievance on this account is purely sentimental. As regards the wearing- of badges of rank, instructions on the point are laid down in “ Dress Regulations,” paragraph 1; but these require amendment to meet the cases of officers of the Medical Staff—the Chaplains’ and the Veterinary Departments. It has probably been a little oversight in the Dress Regulations. As it stands at present it states that officers shall wear the badges correspond- ing- with their honorary and relative rank: it ought to have been, in accordance with their classification ; that is a minor detail. 242. Sir William Crossman.—They do wear them now, do they not ? — Yes, they do wear them. There is no question about their wearing them. 243. The Chairman ?—You have just said that the Commissariat and certain other departments of the Army had honorary rank and relative rank ?—Yes. 244. Did those departments hold both honorary and relative rank previous to the Warrant of 1884?— I cannot give you the exact date. No, it was esta- blished in 1885, when honorary and relative rank was substituted, till January, 1887. 245. The complaint of the medical officers, as I understand it, is that under the Warrant of 1884 they were precisely in the same position as officers of the Commissariat and Ordnance; but that subse- quent to 1884, while the officers in the other depart- ments received honorary rank, relative rank was abolished, and therefore they themselves ceased to figure in the Army Warrant as having any real rank ?—I cannot say no real rank, because they have departmental rank; they are shown as Sur- geons, Surgeons-Major, Brigade Surgeons, and Sur- geon-General ; they hold a distinct rank. 246. But am I correct in supposing that as compared with officers of the Commissariat and Ordnance, the medical officers stand in a less favour- able position than they did previously to 1887 ?—I cannot admit that they stand in a less favourable position at all. Their position is entirely distinct. The Commissariat Department is now purely a mili- tary body, and is named the Army Service Corps; their organisation is regimental, and as such if is absolutely necessary that they should have army rank. 247. But still those departments now have honorary rank and the medical officers have not, whereas previously to 1884 they stood exactly in the same position, neither of them having honorary rank ? —That was the case formerly. 248. Should you see any objection to placing the medical officers on the same footing as the officers in the other departments?—Yes; I see very great objection. The medical officers have exceptional advantages. When a medical student joins the army he is at once g-azetted a Surgeon with rank as Captain; you could not possibly accept a young gentleman joining the Service as a Captain in our army, I mean to give him the title of Captain; it would create too much feeling. As it is there is a very strong feeling, as I ain aware, amongst the officers of the army who have been perhaps ten or