The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-21 00:00:00

REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON

MILITARY ORGANISATION.

, I The above report, which has been awaited with so
, much interest, was homed this morning, occupying twenty-
three foolscap pages.
, The committee are of opinion that the document or
minute drawn up and signed by Lord Liverpool points out
the best and most satisfactory form for regulating the au-
thority of the secretary of state, and for defining the extent
of the departmental functions of the commander-in-chief.
They consider that there is public advantage in the first ap-
pointments and promotions being conducted by en officer
independent of political pressure. They think it would be
well if the War Office and the Home Guards could be brought
under the same roof. They do not recommend that the ex-
, biting practice should be altered with respect to the three
instant'''s in which alone the Queen's pleasure is now taken
, by the commander-in-chief. The last and great question
remains to be considered—how is the army to be governed!
, We new quote the report :
" Earl Grey recommends a board, with • cabinet minister
at its head, but not the Secretary of State. He seeks to
restore the supreme power to the Secretary of State for
War and Colonies. This board would be a new experiment.
It undoes all that has been done. It throws aside all the
advantages of growing experience and improved practice,
which the last five years have not failed to afford. Instead
of concentrating responsibility, it redistributes it. The
machinery of boards is known to be cumbrous and uncer-
tain in its operation. It only works well when the head of
the bean! acts as if he alone were responsible. A board,
therefore, would be a retrograde measure which your com-
mittee cannot recommend. A council is a board in ismodi-
fied form, and the same objections apply, though in a less
degree. Mr. Herbert has given • scheme for reorganising
the War Department. He proposes that there shall be one
commander-in-chief, as at present, a parliamentary under-
secretary, two permanent under-secretaries, one of whom
shall be • military offioer, and also an assist-
ant under-secretary. A director of ' an
officer of artillery, to superintend the manufac-
ture of all warlike stores. An inspector general of for-
tifications, an officer of engineers, as at present. A military
officer to overlook the commissariat, the clothing, and all
stores not called ' warlike stores,' to be called director of
supplies. A director-general of the medical department,
as at present. A storekeeper-general, as at present. A
commissary-in-chisf, as at present. Au inspector of militia
and volunteers, reporting to the parliamentary under-secre-
tary. An accountant-general, having charge of the finance.
The scheme thus proposed would secure an infusion of
DOW military blood into the Weir Department, which would
give vigour to the system, awl confidence to the army.
The Secretary of State would have around him professional
advisers, whose opinions he might consult, either separately
or collectively, according to his view of the exigencies of
each case. On the whole, your committee are of opinion
that this scheme proposed by Mr. Herbert has the merit of
reducing change to the minimum, while it promises an M-
amas of real efficiency. Mr. Herbert has also declared it
to be his opinion, if one or more of these military heads of
departments had seats in the House of Commons, the pub-
lic advantage would be great. When the Secretary of State
is a civilian, unaided and unsupported by military colleeaagguueset
in the House of Commons, be is exposed to serious difficul-
ties, and his administration of the army is inadequately de-
fended. When be speaks on military subjects, his authority
is questioned ; whale he answers professional questions, it is
known that he retails the opinions of others rather than
that he is pronouncing his own. Hie position in the Howe
of Commove would be far different, if he had by his ride a
colleague, a soldier of distinction, at all times ready to sus-
tain his answers, and to uphold his authority. With refer-
ence to ally difference that might arise as to the relations
between the Secretary of State for War and the Cons- 1
mender-in-Chief, your committee cannot do better than
refer to the memorable observation of the Duke of Wel-
lington. He thus sums up his evidence before the commie-
sion of military inquiry in DIV :--` There can be no doubt •
that the officer/A the head of the army, if he wants to incur
any expense, would naturally go the secretary at war, and
know from him whether he has any objection to incurring
the expense proposed. He must know that if it be not ap-
proved by the civil authorities of the army, such expense
will not be voted in parliament, and will not be allowed.
On the other hand, if the secretary at war should think ,
that any expense which was incurred ought to be &emu-
tinned, he would naturally inquire from the commander-in-
chief whether he thought such expense might he discon-
tinned without inconvenience to the service. That is the '
way in which business is generally transacted. There may
be such a rule as that referred to ; but I have never myself
thought much of such rules ; they must be departed from
when the service readers a departure from them neormary.
These can be but general rules,. as landmarks by which the I
official arrangement of the service ought to he conducted. '
The Lest rule is the mutual good temper and forbearance of
the parties.' "

An opera company, beaded by Madame Ruder's-
dorfr, has set forth to sing and play in the Channel
Islands.