The Press. — London, England, 1856-02-23 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 23, 1856. Vratttbings Varlianicnt. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND THE SECRETARY FOR WAR. The Earl of DERBY moved, on Thursday, for the production of any papers limiting or defining the respective duties of the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-iu-Chief of the Army p 1 need hardly say (ohm - I-red the noble earl) that, when two departments are in the slightest degree connected, two things are absolutely essential to the due administration of the public service, and without which it is quite clear the public service must sustain serious injury. First, the duties of the two departments should be so distinctly and clearly defined, their responsibilities so ascertained, and the limits of their authority so clearly set forth, that there can be no possible conflict of authority between the two de• partments in matters which relate to both. And, next, in carrying on the business of those departments there should be a mutual desire on the part of the heads of each to faci litate that business by carefully avoiding encroaching either on the authority of the other, while at the same time they should be prepared, on all occasions, to afford every ass.st ance in performing their joint public duties. I need hardly say, also, that the necessity for these two provisions becomes the more absolute in proportion as any two departments are brought into habitual and daily contact. In propor- tion as business intermingled one with the other brings them into constant conference ought their relations to be of a more confidential and unreserved character. That such joint action and co operation had not existed between the different war departments during the operations in the Crimea the sufferings of our army sufficiently proved. The recent changes in those departments induced him at the time to en deavour to extract from Lord Aberdeen what were the precise functions to be given to the Secretary for War, bat all he could learn from the noble earl was, what the Secretary of State for War was not to do ! Since that office had been established, other impor tint changes in the War Department had taken place, considerably altering the position and increasing the duties of the Secretary for War. Those duties of control over military expeditions previously per formed by the Secretary at War were now thrown upon the Secretary for War. He mu-t also be responsible to the Crown and country for the con duct of the war. He was responsible for the appoint ment of officers to chief commands, and for the selection of those to command umbr them. He must have entire control of the Commander-in-Chief, of the Admiralty, the Commissariat, the Transport Service, and even the Treasury itself; in fact, the recent changes had so increased the authority of the Secretary for War as to make in time of war, almost a dictator over his colleagues. What cEct these changes had upon the authority of the Commander-in-Chief was the question to be an swered : Thereto s, my lords (continued the noble earl), I wish to be informed whether the distinction which I understood to prevail in the first instance is still maintained and rigidly acted upon—namely, that with regard to the discipline, the patronage, the promotions of the army, and, conse quently, also of the Ordnance, the sole and absolute autho rity rests with the Commander-in-Chief, uninterfered with by the co•ordinate authority of the Secretary for War. That is a principle which I think it important should not be for a moment in doubt, so that, in point of fact, we should know to whom for support, protection, and promo tion the officers of the army are to look—whether to the Queen's Commander-in-Chief, or to the Secretary for War. who is responsible not alone to the Crown, but also to Parliament. When I state this, don't let me be mis understood so far as to say that either the Commander in-Chief or any other person can be free from the respon sihility which misconduct or mismanagement in his high office would expose him to in the opinion of Parliament. (Helix.) There can be no office where malversation or misconduct can fitly or properly he withdrawn from the cognisance of this or the other House of Parliament, but that is a very different case from the constant daily super intendence of Parliament, and the interference of a Minis ter responsible to Parliament for the ordinary execution of the duties of his deeartment. ( Hear.) Therefore, my lords, the first point which I wish to have distinctly decided is whether, as in former times, with regard to the Patronage, the first introduction into the army, the subse quent promotion, the conferring of honours and distinc tions, the movement of troops, and the appointment of foreign garrisons, the authority rests now, and indisputably rests, with the Commander-in-Chief, and not with the Secretary for War. __— With regard to the appointment of officers to per • manent situations, he wished also to know whether the responsibility of the appointment of the Earl of Cardigan and General Airey rested with Lord Hardinge or the Secretary of State. Again, it was to the Commander in •Chief the officers of the army looked for Promotion ; from him they were to expect censure ; he was the guardian of the character of the army : and hence he wished to knowg it were true that Lord ar dinge never received the report of the Crimean Com mission till it reached his hands as a member of that house ? It appeared to have been withheld from him, though in possession of Lord Panmure in June last. In conclusion, the noble earl alluded to the additional confusion of authorities caused by the abolition of THE PRESS. the Board of Ordnance, and again urged the neces sity of a distinct definition of the functions of all the departments connected with the army ; if there were no documents defining those powers, they ought to be prepared. Lord Barium: repeated his statement that the portion of the Crimean report received in June was too meagre in detail to act upon. There was not a word of evidence accompanying that portion of the report, and from it there was no possibility of draw ing any conclusion. With respect to the relative functions of the War Minister and the Commander in -Chief, the noble lord gave an outline of the duties of each ; and though lie admitted in practice it was very difficult to define precisely the line of demarca tion between the duties of the two departments, yet to the Secretary of State for War belonged exclusively the administration and patronage.of the civil departments of the army. With regard to the present state of the Horse Guards, all that he had to say might be summed up in three words, viz. : The Commander-in• Chief still continued to admi nister the discipline of the army uninterfered with and uncontrolled by the Secretary of State, and the Commander-in Chief still continued to admi nister the patronage of the army uninterfered with and uncontrolled by the Secretary of State, further than this— that, with respect to all the superior appointments, regi mental and staff, the Commander-in-Chief consulted the Secretary of State before he took the pleasure of the Crown, and thereby the Secretary of State made himself responsible for the acts of the Commander-in Chief. With regard to the first appointments made to the army, and the promotions in the *limy generally, the Secretary of State did not interfere ; but, at the same time, he was not prepared to deny that he ought to be considered legally responsible for all acts done by the Commander-in• Chief which did not directly and constitutionally come within the revision of Parliament. As to what was the intention of the Government with respect to the relative duties of the two departments, he believed, from experience, that the present system was the best calculated to give satisfaction. It was a mistake to suppose that the Commander in Chief was not responsible to Parliament, and equally erro neous, while Parliament granted the estimates, and annually passed the Mutiny Act, to assert that Par liament had not sufficient control over the army. It was a great mistake to suppose that no responsibility existed at the Horse Guards, or that the patronage .was exercised, without reference to fairness, under the secret influence of the Crown. For the appoint ments of the Earl of Cardigan and General Airey, he (Lord Panmure) was fully as responsible as Lord Hardinge. In conclusion, the noble lord denied that placing the army more under the power of the Ministry, and less under the authority of the Crown, through the Commander-in-Chief, would benefit the nation, and warned the house to think well before they sanctioned such a change. Lord HARDINGE, in a brief speech, approved the nomination of a board with respect to the Crimean Commissioners' Report, and defended the appoint ments of Lord Cardigan and General Airey, as when made, no allegations appeared against the conduct of the gallant officers. Erni GREY was satisfied with Lord Panmure's ad mission of the Lull responsibility of the Government fur every act of military administration. The EARL of DERBY also exi ressed his satisfaction with the explanation, and withdrew his motion. THE CRIMEAN COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. Lord PANMURE, on Thursday, stated that a board of general officers had been appointed to inquire into the matters adverted to in the report of the late commissioners to the Crimea, and to receive any explanation that 'nigh: be offered by officers whose conduct was impugned by the report of Sir J. and Colonel Tulloch. Lord HARDWICKE thought that this course should have been adopted long since, and complained of the conduct of the Government in allowing so many gallant officers to be exposed for such a length of time to the invidious attacks consequent upon an ex parte and nnexplaint'd statement of facts. Lord PANMURE delended the Government from the charge of delay. The lull report was onl; received on the 22nd of January last. The board appointed would consist of officers who had not served in the Crimea, and they would examine witnesses. After some further conversation, in which the Earl of Derby, Earl Grey, Lord Granville, and Lord . Brougham took part, the subject dropped. _ _ _ _ In the Commons, Mr. F. PEEL, in reply to Colonel North, stated that the report laid on the table of the House, with the exception of a few statistical de tails of Crimean diseases, was identical with that re ceived from the commissioners. Further, in reply to Lord W. Gi abam, Mr. Peel said the report, he presumed, had been distributed to Lord Hardinge as member of the House of Peers. Lord PALMERSTON announced that it was the in tention of her Majesty to appoint a Board of General Officers to receive explanations from officers desirous of giving any, and to report thereon to her Majesty. In reply to inquiries, the noble lord further stated that, as the functions of the board would be confined 173 to receiving explanations from officers of the army touching their military conduct, it was deemed proper and right that the board should consist of military men only ; that no officer lately serving in the Crimes would be a member of the board ; and that the pro ceedings would nut be open to the public. The Earl of HARDWII:KE, on Monday, asked when the Government would lay on the table the papers relative to the fall of Kars. Earl GRANVILLE suggested that the question . be addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In the absence of the Under-Secretary, ; he was not prepared to answer the question. The Earl of MALMESBURY pointed out the necessity of producing the papers as speedily as possible., THE ATTACK ON THE RE DAN. Mr. F. PEEL, on Monday, in reply to Mr. Layard, stated the principles upon a hich the brevet promotions had been allotted among the officers of the different divisions of the army engaged in the attack on the bth September last. General Simpson had sent home the reoorts and returns of the different commanding officers, preferring that Lord Hardinge should him self make out the list of officers worthy to be rewarded. The result was the brevet of the 2nd of November. The returns were in Lord Hardinge's office, and were not of a nature usually published. THE SUNKEN SHIPS IN SEBASTOPOL HARBOUR. The Earl of HARDWICKE, on Tuesday, called the attention of the house to the fact that no means had yet been used to ascertain whether the Russian men of war sunk in Sebastopol harbour were destroyed, or were capable of being ultimately floated. He be lieved that if after the conclusion of peace theAe vessels were to be raised by the Russians, great irritation would prevail in this country. He appre hended that operations might be now successfully carried on to complete their destruction. Lord PANMURE, in reply, said that nothing, he felt sure, would be left undone to complete the destruc tion of everything above and below water at Sebas topol. OPENING OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY ON SUNDAYS. After the nception of a mass of petitions from all parts of the country against this motion, and a few in favour of the same, the delivery of which took up wards of an hour, Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY rose to move-1 That, in the opinion of this house, it would promote the moral and intellectual improvement of the working classes of this metropolis if the collections of national history and of art in the British Museum and the National Gallery were open to the public inspection after morning service on Sundays. It was due, he said, to the memory of his late revered friend to state that he (Mr. J. Hume) was was the originator of this. This measure which he proposed was calculated, in his belief, to advance the moral awl religious character of the labouring classes. He wished it to be perfectly understood, that he simply desired the working classes of the metropolis to have an opportunity of visiting the works of art in the British Museum and the National Gallery on the afternoon of Sunday, and that was the full extent of the motion, although he admitted that it had been mixed up, to a great degree, with proposi tions of a different character. It was especially un just to the working classes to exclude them, on the only day they had for recreation and enjoyment, from places which would elevate their taste, develop their talents, and advance their social position. To the objectio❑ that it would lead to a desecration of the Sabbath, lie replied that he could not see the neces sary connection between the desecration of the Sabbath and a visit to the British Museum and National Gallery after divine service. To another objection, that opening these institutions would em ploy labour, he replied that the amount of labour employed, to the benefit and instruction derived would be infinitesimal. He fully believed that by admission to such establishments on a Sunday, vice and immorality would sensibly decrease among the w , irking classes. and they would be rescued from the gross and sensual indulgences now alone left to them. In conclusion, the hon. btu °yet contrasted the mode in which the upper classes generally spent their Sabbath, and pointed out that, with regard to the people, restrictive measures, far from encourag ing a moral and religious tone of mind, nourished a spirit of antagonism to religion. The law, as it at present stood, practically prescribed one measure for the rich and another for the poor. Sir J. SHELLEY seconded the motion. He thought that, atter morning service on Sundays, the labour ing men should have inducements to quit their croNded homes and seek recreation, instruction, and amusement during the afternoon. In this manner, he believed, the real intention of the Sabbiith would be better fulfilled than by the present prohibitive system. Mr. PELLATT moved an amendment, that more frequent opportunities should be afforded for week. day inspection of the National Gallery, Government