army to distinguish from them, why should the rank of colonel be brevet or army rank only, any more than the rank of lieutenant-colonel, major, or captain?
All sorts of anomalies arise out of the maintenance of this term. Thus, for example, under existing rules every lieutenant-colonel of artillery or engineers is placed on half-pay after five years' service in that rank. He is, however, still eligible for a further term of employ; and being already an "army" colonel, his designation while so employed is that of a "lieutenant-colonel, half-pay, and colonel." So also with regard to the commandant of a brigade depot, or, as it is now called, a regimental district. He is also taken from the list of half-pay colonels who have completed their term of regimental service, and is styled – not colonel commanding the district, but a "lieutenant-colonel commanding and brevet-colonel." Why should an officer by a needless fiction be deemed to be on half-pay when he is on full employment and virtually on full pay, his rate of nominal half-pay being supplemented by additional allowances? And since the rank of regimental colonel, confined now only to the Artillery and Engineers, will soon be a thing of the past, why retain the rank of brevet colonel at all? A man is called a brevet major to distinguish him from a regimental major, but there are no other colonels from which the brevet or army colonels are to be distinguished: the rank is reached under fixed rules, and the appointments which are held by colonels cannot be held by officers of junior rank, so that the rank is not accidental to the position.
It seems clear, then, that the idea involved in the term "brevet," as well as the term itself, for promotions made according to fixed rules should now be altogether abandoned : the promotion of lieutenant-colonel under those rules should be to the rank of colonel simply. But coupled with this change, there should be a great reduction in the present excessive number of colonels. In every other army the number of officers in each grade proceeds in a diminishing ratio, more than that of the next higher rank, and less than that of the next lower. This used to be the case with us too, and a reversion to the rule would be a very healthy change. There should be a fixed establishment of colonels, as of generals, to which officers should be advanced by army seniority, and also, what would be a very valuable condition, by selection. Or, still better, the rank of colonel should be attached to a definite position, which would naturally be the command of the regimental district. Thus the rank of colonel would go with the command of more than one battalion, while, as in other armies, the highest rank of an officer commanding a single battalion would be that of lieutenant-colonel. The charge of the regimental district or brigade depot, including the associated militia and volunteer battalions, would be a very suitable one for a colonel to hold; and this arrangement would be one step more towards the desired object of bringing the militia, volunteer, and line battalions into connection with each other. All battalions would be commanded by lieutenant-colonels only, who would, however, continue to be eligible for brevet promotion for distinguished service. A brevet colonelcy for distinguished service would then become, what it has, now ceased to be, a real and valuable distinction.
