The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-22 00:00:00

a
ample employment to the new war minister, inasmuch as
on all occasions of a foreign war it had been the . duty of
the Secretary of State to conduct the correspondence
with the generals commanding the troops abroad, who
all took their orders directly from him. That was en
much the case that the Commander-in-Chief did not cor-
respond officially at all with the commander of the forces.
But it v. at found, from the very commencement of the
war, that difficulties arose in consequence of the collisions
which took place between different departments, all con-
ducting different branches of the military administration.
At tuat time the commissariat was under the direo-
tion of the Treasury ; the Ordnance was a distinct depart.
ment in itself, and the Secretary of State and the Secre-
tary at War hail two distinct and separate offices. Before
I had been very long in the office of Minister of War I
found it was absolutely necessary that the Ordnance should
be under my sole and entire control, as far as its civil
branches were concerned, and that I should have. the su-
perintendence of all the arrangements connected with
stores and contrac of the army, and so strong were my
convictions upon those points that even in the midst of war
at a time when great changes could not be made without
considerable inconvenience, I deemed it indispensable that
those additional branches of military service should be
brought within my immediate jurisdiction.. All ;the civil
departments of the army—all that relates to the Ordnance
Department—all that relates to the clothing of the army
—all that relates to the store-keeper's department—all
that relates to the contracts and to the snppliee—and
all that relates to the manufacture of those supplies,
are now under the control of the Secretary for
War; and I may add that since that control .has been
committed to my hands I have been enabled, with the
assistance of the gentlemen engaged in the War Office, to
secure for the British army abroad ample supplies not only
of all the materials of war, but also such supplies of the
necessaries and even comforts of life as must render the
condition of that army an object of deep gratification to
year lordships en I the country at large. (Hear.) After
all the civil departments of the army had been brought
under one and the same control, 1 took care that all the
military departments should be placed in their proper re-
lative positions; and the result of the important changes
that have been accomplished in the latter direction is,
that now for the first time the Conanaander-in-Chief of the
British army is commander, in fact as well as in name, of
every arm in the service—of the artillery and engineers,
not less than of the cavalry ant the troops of the line. In
carrying out these extensive reforms, it was impossible to
lay down on paper any rules which should establish a dis-
tinct line of demarcation applicable to every case between
the civil and military departments of the service. It is
true that an attempt was made to lay down some such
line of demarcat'ea in a paper drawn up in the year 1812.
A very long controversy had at that time arisen between
the then Secretary at War and the Commander-in-Chief.
I have read at the War-office the correspondence through
which that controversy was conducted, and I may observe
that I have found therein exhibited on the part of a noble
friend of mine (Lord Palmerston, we believe), that talent
which has since so signally developed itself, and a hich has
been productive of so much benefit to his country. But
the controversy to which I am referring was solved by an
order in council in the year 1812, which laid down to a
certain extent a very broad line of demarcation between
the War-office and the Horse Guards, and that line of
demarcation has bean observed ever 'since. But the
line'is not rigidly defined, and it is quite impossible it
could be so, because questions arise every day in which
points of discipline and points of administration are so
nicely mixed up, that it would be utterly out of the
power of any man, however skilful, to determine pre-
cisely where the one jurisdiction should commence, and
where the other should end. Many of these questions aro
settled by means of private communications between any
noble friend the Commander-in-Chief and myself, as simi-
lar questions had been settled at la former period between
me and tl e Duke of wellington, when I had been engaged
in the office of Secretary at War. Those questions are
settled amicably between the two departments ; and I can-
not conceive that any such rupture should arise between
the Commander-'n-Chief and the Secretary for Wur
as
could lescl to the necessity of having recourse to that ap-
peal to the First Lord of the Treasury provided in the do-
cument of the year 1812. But it is Impossible that some
difficulty should not occasionally arise in drawing the lino
of demarcation between the two. offices. For instance, that
difficulty presented itself in the very case of an inspector
of fortifications to which the noble earl had referred, for an
inspector of fortiscations had civil as wellas military duties
to petforrn—civil duties in the erection of i arreces, and
military duties in the erection of places of mere defence.
Under these circumstances it appears to me that to attempt
to lay down by any definition a strict line of demarcation.
between civil and military duties in the management of
the army would only be to attempt to frame a rule which
should be revised from day to day, nay, from hour to hour.
Charged as lam with the einierintendence of the civil de-
partment of the service, I hold myself responsible for all
the appointments made i' that department ; but I must
neceneirily leave t he ih tails of business to the officers over
whom lam placed. I have great coutidence in their dis-
cretion. I toe satisfied that no man should be introduced
it t r cur of the offices of the department who is not so far
fitted for them as to be able to pass the examinations re-
quired by the civil service entuinissioners ; and I take tare
thas, after he has so passed ho shall rely for promotion on
his merits. and on his merits :Cone. Such is the state of
things with regard to the ilepartment of the Secretary
for War. With regard to the present state of the Horse
Guards, all ti at I have to say may be summed up in
these few words—that the Commander-in-Chief still
continues to adm nist arid the discipline of the army sin-
teterfered with uncontrolled by the Secretary for War.
He still continues L. mita raster the patronage of the army
uninterfered with end uncontrolled by the Secretary for
War, further than that in all the superior eppeintinints,
either ted imental or on the staff, lie consults the Secretary
for War, before ho takes the pleasure of the Crown with
respect to them. and so far time Minister for War renders
himself responsible for the acts of the Commander-in-Chief.
The Secretary for War di es not interfere in the first ap-
pointments to the army ; bus at the same time I do not
deny that I ought, perhaps, to be considered legally re-
sponsible for these appsiutan eats. because there is no act
of the Commander-in-Chief, however small or however
great, that does not consistutionally chine within the
revision my department. (Hear.) That is the pre-
sent state of then) two departments. I have already
said enough to show that I conceive it would be impossible
for time so frame any document which would precisely de-
fine the respective duties of the Commander-in-Chief and
of the Secret:ray for IVer. Bet I must say that in all ma-
terial points the line of demarcation between the two de-
partments Lis so groat that no necessity can exist for
atteinptine to draw up any such document. But there re-
mained behind the important question raised by the noble
earl, es to chat are the iutentious of her Majesty's Govern-
ment with respect te the continuance of the present rela-
tive powers of tho Secretary fur War and the Cowman.
der-in-Chief. My lords, it would be quite useless for na
to attempt now to shrink prom a ca n4deration of that
question. W all know perfectly well that it largely occu-
pies the public mind, and that it is much discussed in
the public prints ; and I believe, therefore, that it is
now high time for the army and the county to be made
acquainted with the views of her Majesty's Govern-
ment upon the subject. Hitherto the Crown has ad-
ministered the patronage of the army through the Com-
mander-in-Chief; aid through him the Crown has con-
(lasted the discipline of Ihe army. But the Crown would
not be able either to almitiister the patronage of the army,
or to conduct its discipline, unless Parliament in the first
instance granted the money required fen' the maintenance
of the troops, and passed the Mutiny Act, by which they
were made amenable to military law. And while Parlia-
ment continues to possess the power of voting the supplies
for the army and of passing the Mutiny Act, it is useless to
say that its constitutional powers over the army is not
ample and complete. But you would final that you would
have to deal with a different state of circumstances if you
were to determine that noble lords and hon. gentlemen, as
well as officers in the army, should have to look to the Minis.
try of the day for the introduction of their eons to the ser-
vice, and for their subsequent promotion while they should
continue attached to it. I say that such an arrangement
would he as fatal to the efficiency of the army as it would ul-
timately be unsatisfactory to the people generally of this
country. (Hear, hear.) An idea has got abroad that the ma-
nagement of the p. trormee and discipline of the army is in
the hands o fen officer not himself directly responsible toPar-
hal-mut, and even that in his casenoiesponsibility atoll
to Parliament exists ; but there never was a norie erro-
neous ioise essiou. An idea has also got abroad that inthe
hands of the Commander-in-Chief the patronage of the
army is exercised unfairly, and even that it is exercised in
obedience to some secret influence ou the part of the Crown
itself; but a greater mistake than this again was nevermade.
It may be, my birds, that in dealing with this question, I
am taking what is at present the unpopular side; but I
am quite sure that if I were to advocate asyste
o which
should place the patronage of the army in the hands
stihche
day
to we should have Parliament interfering from
to day in the administration of the discipline of the troops.tc
(Hear.) I believe we should thus establish aofpraeoriata.
which could not tend to promote the interests and,th there-
tion, onto uphold the dignity of the Crown;
as am from experience that the present y
fore, looking at all the circumstances of con-
vincedthecasesanstdem.the one best calculated to
nide
give general satisfaction,theotnma
t is
my intention to support ti.e autriaosze of
Iycan, the connection
which and to maintain, as
which the Crown at premtnelds through the Commander-
inwith the army. I can see no constitutional ob-
jection jeiohriietof that course. None of the commissions which
have inquired into the state of our -military administra-
tion have seen their way to the abolition of the office of
Commander-in-Chief. The commission of the year 1837
stated that they had no int entiou of altering the relative
positions of the Commander-in-Chief and the civil rtdminise
tration of the army. I saw uo reason myself to change the
opinion I have hitherto always held upon•that. sukject: I
meat further say that during the period when I had the
honour of filling the office of Secretary at War while the
Dike of -Wellington was Commander-in-Chief, I never
knew that great man to have exercised unfairly the pa-
tronage of the army; and having been connected by friend-
ship and by public duties with my noble friend the pre-
sent Commander-in-Chief, I will publicly say that any
charge that may have been made against him of nial-ad-
ministration in dispensing the patronage of the army. is
utterly false as far as my knowledge goes. (Eleasr,)
been
know no man to whose hands so great a trust has
committed that has more worthily used it. Lase
nowt;on
sapnus at
fro. e dm, Ie
will only say that trust if ever this questaiord
ships will
Ur 0
hboypettveitnhosbulefficeiaelnit;dailtailn, citt!(nlicensoicialjugesaic4nune,tai
be brought under our consideration, your
carefully deliberate before you determine
the authority of the Crown over the.dendici through
pn sthr nng-
-1 discipline
danicadthe Cora-
age of the army, as at p
mander-in-Chief, or on reasletenitinegxetrhce" relations which now
d saldressed their subsistlord-
State
obret
War.ween highttcahtee
(Cheers.)
s-) functionary and the Secretary of
Lord HARDINGE then rose an l
:—My l.ordsiev.l.m..eroy_rise for
ships to the following
Earl of Derby). He stated that
(the
the purpose of noticingeff:tobservation such fell from my
he
eobtlhe
ander-in-Chief ought to have taken
officersap whose conduct • was iinpunged
in the report which was lately presented to the house. I
ht theoopCfoosta aiht
erne
the friendu
defenceg
did not read that report until the 30th of Janu'arY, and aa
soon as I read it I put myself in communication- with my '
noble friend behind me (Lord Panmure), and I c Incurred
with him that the means by which we ought to da %al wifils
the questions raised by the report was the appointn tent off'
a court of inquiry, constituted after the manner 0f the,
court which had sat in the year 1808. I told the adjna• ante
general I wished he should state to both my noble fri .ends
whose conduct had been impugned, that I was anxious they
should send me copies of the report, accompanied by 441sT
nt might-have -to make upon it; and :also
comments
dtshiehey
t any officers in this country whet were ire pli-
cated In-Hie report should not return .to. the Crimes ,ja
order that they might be here to facilitate the proposed in
quiry. I felt great difficulty in taking any st "",.
Gating the officers impunged in reply