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

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