The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-18 00:00:00

in a condition to act immediately on the spur of the mo-
ment in this matter, or not at all. The report to which he
has
came to
Well, what
uin pn
happened
o
the case? the
subject, but there were one or two reports drawn up by
referred
was
The committeepublished
different members of that committee; and when the com-
mission sat which subsequently reported, they dissented
from those views, and substituted ono of their own. At
any rate, therefore, the subject was not so easy of decision
as the right hon. baronet seems to think, This commission
attempted to carry that report into effect—and why ? having reported, no Government that succeeded it has ever
Be-
cause they felt the change was so great, involving as it did
the remodelling of every military department, and their
consequent consolidation, that unless they had a great deal
of concurrence of opinion in favour of that specific plan,
and unless there was a great change of feeling, in would be
in vain to attempt to carry it out. Four Governments suc-
ceeded to the appointment of that commission, but none of
them attempted to make the change which had been sug-
gested. It might be possible to do a great deal, and I hope
it is, at the present moment ; but I must say at the mo-
ment when every department was strained to its utmost
for the purpose of sending out, on a great emergency, a
force amounting to nearly 40,000 men, under very great
difficulty with regard to ships, but I hope and believe in a
state of very great efficiency, if we had chosen that as the
time, as suggested by the right hon. baronet, for carrying
into practical effect certain theoretical improvements in
this and that particular subject—if we had, regardless of
delay, and of the great emergency, set about squaring all
these departments to a model suggested 25 years ago, the
Government would have been unworthy of the position
they hold, and unworthy of the confidence of the country.
(Cheers.) The Government felt, and justly felt, that the
first thing to do was that which pressed most. There is
no doubt about it that the duties of a Minister charged
with the management of the colonies are so great as to be
incompatible with those of carrying on a war. In former
years, when this country was at war, the Colonial Mini-
ster, it is true, carried on the war, but for the simplest of
all reasons, that he neglected the colonial business. But
that cannot be done now. That, as I have said, was the
first thing to be done, because it was necessary to the effi-
ciency of the service, and therefore we did that first. The
noble lord stated the Government would then take care,
after due consideration, and step by step, to put the new
department on another system, which should free them
from the recurrence of acknowledged evils ; but he declined
to state exactly how he would distribute the various duties,
and what changes he would make in the different depart-
ments. And he was quite right in acting on general prin-
ciples, for I may remind the right hon. baronet that this
paragraph appears in the report of the committee which
sat three years ago :—" Your committee refrain from
pointing out any detailed course of action on this subject,
leaving the responsibility of that to those whose official
position and authority can alone guide them in applying
a remedy to the present state of things." I stated at the
commencement of the session, when the hon. gentleman
the member for Montrose raised this question, what
were my views on the subject generally, and what were
the views of the Government. From none of those views
have I seen any reason to depart. We have already
taken this great step ; we have disconnected the co-
lonies from the War Department. We have, there-
fore, one responsible head, who can supervise all these
establishments, and who can supervise all the changes
which are to bo effected in these departments. He will at
once have the commissariat put under his authority. That
is a great and important step. He will then have the means
of examining to what extent the consolidation of the mili-
tary and civil portions of the Ordnance can be carried into
effect. But if you ask us to put the whole machinery out
of gear—(hear)—for the sake of introducing some theory
which the right hon. baronet might easily in a few mo-
ments sketch out on a sheet of paper, I say I think the
subject is by far too important to be treated so lightly as
that ; and on such an emergency the Government are
bound to feel their way as they go on. They would not
risk the efficiency of those departments, on the efficiency
of which the safety and success of our arms at this moment
so materially depends. The right hon. gentleman says he
cannot understand how you can have two Cabinet Minis-
ters both engaged in military departments. But I beg
him to bear in mind that the duties of the Secretary-at-
War are not of an executive character. His duties are
delegated to him by the Treasury. (Hear, hear.) The
Treasury has the great financial check and control over all
the expenditure of the country, but the expenditure of the
country is too great and too minute in its details to be sus-
ceptible of being checked by any officer of the Treasury,
and therefore they delegate to the Secretary-at-War, with
reference to the army, all the powers which they exercise
themselves in respect to other departments of expenditure,
and he checks and controls the expenditure with a view to
proper economy and efficiency. If, therefore, you have
him doing the duties of both departments, he ceases to
have any check or control. (Hear, hear.) I have heard
the hon. member for Montrose constantly complain that
the management of the navy was far more expensive than
that of the army. I have no doubt the management of the
army has been far more closely looked into than that of the
navy, because in the case of the army one man expends
the money and another holds the purse ; not a regulation
can be made by the Commander-in-Chief without the con-
sent of the Finance Minister, in the person of the Secre-
tary-at-War ; and that is the secret of much of the eco-
nomy in the department of war which had been practised
for a great number of years. If, therefore, you combine the
two things, you do away with that whole system of econo-
mical control in the management of the army which has
done so much to enhance its efficiency. Again, the right
hon. baronet says you ought not to have two Cabinet Mi-
nisters. But why does he assume you are going to consti-
tute the departments with two Cabinet Ministers ? He says
the office is useless, and if it is useless why not abolish it?
I think I have satisfied the house that, financially speaking,
the existence of the office of Secretary-at-War is vital to
the efficiency of the army. (Hear, hear.) The Secretary-
at-War now exercises a very wholesome check over the ex-
penditure of the army ; and I am clearly of opinion that
the control which the Secretary-at-War has over the ex-
penditure of the army, under the Commander in-Chief,
ought to be extended to the expenditure which is now
under the Master-General, as the commander-in-chief of
the Artillery and Engineers. It may be true, as the right
hon. baronet says, that the office itself, being quite dis-
tinct in its nature, will, by the creation of a Secretary of
State for War, lose a great deal of its importance. I think
it would be an advantage if the house could see the who'e
expenditure for maintaining the personnel of the army put
before the house from time to time, as much as possible,
by the head. (Hear, hear.) There have been a great many
things done by the Secretary-at-War which did not strictly
devolve upon him, but which the Colonial Minister could
not do—(Hear)--and in that way there is no doubt many
functions have been performed by him of late years which
had better have been performed by some other officer. I
still stand out for this, however, if you mean to continue
the steadiness with which the financial check has been
brought to bear on the expenditure of the army, and
which I have shown is so necessary to its good government
and economy, you must maintain the office of Secretary-
at-War as a separate office. But the right hon. gentleman
says there ought not to be two Cabinet Ministers. I will
not discuss that question with him. I have looked at this
matter with perfect impartiality, I believe, and without
any party feeling—(cheers) ; and so far from attempting
to prevent change I have urged change. I have very freely
expressed before Parliament my own opinions as to what
evils should be remedied, and how they should be remedied.
I have made no secret of those opinions. At this moment
I confess I am sorry to bear the right hon. baronet object to
there being two Cabinet Ministers, one for the manage-
ment of the war, and the other for the interior of the army,
but having been a long time Secretary-at-War, I felt my
knowledge of details might be of some value in enabling
the Government, in the work of fusion, to distribute the
duties of the several departments. (Cheers.) I thought I
should not be justified in asking myself in this crisis whether
the office I hold should be abolished, and I therefore wil-
lingly undertook to continue the duties which I now per-
form. lam sorry the right honourable baronet dis-
approves of my so doing, but I can only say that the as-
sistance which I have given shall continue to be given ;
and while I refuse to accept the challenge to lay on the
table a detailed plan of every change or alteration that may
at present be in contemplation—knowing the danger of
meddling with a great department of the Government, upon
the efficiency of which at this moment depends the safety
and much of the success of one of the finest armies that
ever went forth to confront an enemy—(cheers)—but hav-
ing at the same time a perfectly distinct conception that
the object we ought to aim at is the redistribution of the
duties of the offices in question—l trust the house will not
deprive the Government of that assistance and confidence
which are necessary to enable them to bring these changes
to a good issue, taking care to proceed step by stop ; and if
time and the opportunity be given us for doing that, I feel
satisfied we can eventually introduce into the military de-
partments of the State changes which will greatly enhance
their efficiency, and on which even now depend the honour
and the safety of this country. (Loud cheers.)
Colonel DUNNE said, with respect to the proposed
transfer of the management of barracks, it so happened that
at this moment, when the great body of our troops were
abroad, that subject was of the very least importance.
The Secretary at War had adverted to the separation of
the civil and military departments of the Ordnance. He
thought it would be exceedingly difficult to understand the
difference between the civil and military departments, and
still more to effect their separation. He expressed his
gratification that the management of the militia was not
to be removed from the department of the Home Secretary,
for if the country could not have the services of the noble
lord at the head of the war department, it ought at least
to have the satisfaction of seeing the militia left entirely
in his hands. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. M. BUTT expressed his surprise at the speeches
of the noble lord the President of the Council and the right
hon. the Secretary at War. When called upon to vote the
estimates for this new department, the committee might
at least expect to be furnished with some clear explanation
of the new office and the duties of the officers. Nothing
of the sort had, however, been vouchsafed, and the speeches
to which he had referred could only be understood on the
ground that it was thought necessary to appoint an addi-
tional high officer of State at a large salary, with a consider.
able staff to assist him. He did not think that the coun-
try would consent to the appointment of a second Cabinet
officer, if there was to be no consolidation of the duties of
the various departments.
The vote was then agreed to.