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

to alter in any way, the fortifications of this
country, or in the colonies,' either by the erection
of new works, whether for the defence or for the
accommo lation of troops, no doubt the Secretary
of State for the War Department exercises
that financial control which is inseparable from his office
in the erection of such works, which must of cour3e have
his concurrence in a financial point of view ; but I wish
to know whether in all these cases it is definitively un-
derstood that the first initiative rests with the Commat-
der-in-Chief ; that to him the inspector-general of furti-
Ecations makes his report, that to him the director ge-
neral of artillery would make a report, and that he sub-
sequently receives the financial assent of the Secretary
of State for the War Department for those works which
be a military capacity he judges to be important to the
country ? My lords, there is another subject upon
which I should wish to ask a question ; which is with
regard to the bestowal of military honours in the field.
I believe the course is, that recommendations for the
granting of honours in the field proceed generally from the
officers commanding upon the spot ; those recommenda-
tions are reported to the Commander-in-Chief ; they re-
ceive his sanction, and he forwards them to the Secretary
of State for the War Department, by whom the pleasure
of the Crown is signified. Am I mistaken ? (No, from
Lord Panmure.) a Then I wish to know whether, as the
Commander-in-Chief—who, I presume, may exercise his
responsibility and discretion with regard to the reconi-
Mendation of the officers on the spot—may exclude some
and include others not so introduced to his notice, the
Secretary of State for the War Department claims the
lame power of disregarding recommendations that come
to him from the Conamander-in-Chief, having received his
'wection ? If there has been any instance in which the
Secretary for War has thought proper to disregard the
leport of the Commander-in-Chief, withholding distinc-
tions from some who have been so recommended by him,
and granting them to others who have not, I hope it
will be answered. This is a point upon which great mis-
conception, great doubt, and great uncertainty prevai.
it the public mind, and that uncertainty prevails both
with respect to what is and what is intended. It is, there-
fore, most important that a distinct and explicit declara-
tion from the Government should be made upon this sub-
ject. If I am not rnietaken, in 1812, or thereabout, some
document was actually drawn up distinctly defining the
limits of the authority of the War Office and the Secre-
tary of State for War. With regard to the appointment
to a foreign station, does the selection of the officers rest
with the Commander-in-Chief of her Majesty's Forces
or with the Secretary of State for War ? I admit that
there may be a great distinction drawn between honours
to be conferred and offices to be conferred in conse-
quence and in reward of distinguished services ; but I
wish to know whether there is a single and undivided
responsibility upon the Commander•in-Chief, or whether
that responsibility is shared by the Secretary of State
for the War Department ? Then, again, with regard to
the appointment of such officers as the quartermaster
general or the adjutant-general, I ask whether such
appointments are in the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Commander-m-Chief, or whether the consent
of the Secretary of State for the War Depart-
loent is necessary—in fact, whether he can, if he
thiake fit, exercise the power of disapproving
the recommendations of the Conimander-in•Chief
and interposing his own authority to prevent or secure
the appointment of any particular officer. This subject
is not very remote from one which formed the topic of
eonversation in the eerier part of the evening. In the
course of the last few months two appointments, at
least, have been made with respect to which a good deal
of discussion has arisen, and on which, I think, some
misunderstanding has taken place in the public mind.
I Allude to the appointment of my noble and gallant
friend behind me (Lord Cardigan), as inspector-general
of the cavalry, and to the appointment of another gallant
officer (Sir Richard Airey) to the office of quartermaster
• general. (Hear, hear ) The appointment of my noble
and gallant friend took place in February, 1855, and,
as I understand, was made by the Commander-in-Chief
00 the strong recommendation of the noble duke (Ne a'-
castle) who at that time filled the office of Secretary for
the War Department. The appointment of Sir Richard
Aires to the office of quartermaster-general took
Place in—(Lord Panmure—Last December). Now I
see that there have been many attempts made, in the
Eret place, to impugn these appointments, and, in the
next place to throw the dud vidual responsibility of
"ow,
upon my noble friend the Commander-in-Chief.
"'eve, I wish to know distinctly from her Majesty's Go-
vernment whether the responsibility of these appoint-
coents, be they good or bad—for upon that point I say
nothing at present—rests exclusively upon my noble
friend the Commander-in-Chief, or whether they are ap-
Pointments over which the Government can exercise
Government,
influence, and in respect to which her Majesty's
`Yoverument, and more especially the Secretary of State
for the War Department, must take a full share of re-
&Ponsibility ! I mention the quartermaster-general's
appointment, not unnaturally, because it bears upon a
question which was the subject of discussion a short time
agn- I mean the report which has been laid upon
the table of both Houses of Parliament, impugning the
conduct of certain officers in the Crimea, and I must say
that on this suhject I fully concur with the observations
Which fell from the noble earl, that unless her Majesty's
Government wore prepared to adopt the recommenda-
tions in that report, the noble lord (Panmure) ought, in
justice to the officers impugned in it, to have abstained
Ora laying it upon the table of your lordships' house
Until he had given those officers an opportunity of being
heard in their defence ; and his not having done so had
been the means of inflicting serious injury upon them ;
,n(1, not only that, but had placed a serious impediment
'la the way of her Majesty's Government in justifying
the error into which, as I think, they have fallen by per-
mitting the premature publication of this report. But
if the statement which I have heard be true, I think
that there is another point in this case which bears
reediately upon the question which I have to put, and
°as which I should like to hear some explanation of.
"1-f say theory be correct, the Commander in-Chief is the
guardian of the character of the officers of the army—
(cheers)—it is to him that they are to look for protec-
tion. (hear, hoar) —it is from him they are to
"Peet praise and promotion, or to dread censure
e*--(eizeers)—and I say that if it be true, as I cannot
until I hear it stated by my noble friend the
Commander-in-Chief, that until he received that report
as x peer of this house, he had never been shown it,
although it was in the hands of the Secretary of State
for the War Department so long ago as the month of
`lune, to say nothing of that sond one in the month of
aouary—l must say that to withhold such a report
from the Commander-in-Chief is an injustice to him, an
injustice to the army, and an injustice to the public
service. (near.) That, my lords, even if it stood alone,
would be sufficient ground for putting those questions ;
but when the noble lord (Panmure) says, with reference
to that report, that it contained merely some general
statements, and that it was put into his hands as re-
ferring to the commiesariat, I am quite sure that the
noble lord must have forgotten that in that first
report is contained a series of charges that were
Made with regard to the cavalry led by the noble earl
(Cardigan) behind me ; and it is only in this report
that the charge is made. It is contained in this passage
When the supply began to fail them the cone
tniesariat officer referred to, who appears to have done
'everything in his power to meet the difficulty of the case,
Promised, as he knew there was plenty of provender at
Jaalaklava, if a detachment of the horses was allowed to
to down, that he would engage to bring enough in for
the rest of the brigade. This proposition was substan•
Vally made known to Lord Cardigan by Col. Hay, who
at rtes that his lordship declined to accede to it."
.rteord PANMURE—That is all they say.
The Earl of DERBY—Now I think, my lords, that
none of your lordships would say that passage, standing
alone, is not of the utmost importance, as reflecting upon
the dhiceretion and conduct of an officer, and you will have
the less- hesitation in taking that view when it is recol
lected that the starvation of the horses is recorded. I
ask whether when such a statement was made, it was not
a fitting subject for the Secretary of State for the War
lieparteneti t to communicate to the Commander•in-Chief
--(hear, hem r)—for I should be very much surprised if
the Commistideren-Chief, on receiving such a communi-
eetion or complaint, did not call upon the officer for an
explanation of his conduct, which explanation he has
not hitherto, had any opportunity of making. I say,
therefore, in regard to this—as in regard to every other
case to which, I have called your lordships' attention—
that the duties of the Secretary for War, and his relation
with the Commander-in-Chief, ought to be clearly defined,
so that there should Tee no question either as to the autho-
rity or jurisdiction of one or the other, it being essential
to the public service that a good communication should
Subsist between then*, because it bears upon the disci-
the conduct, t he character of the army, and upon
the officers commani eine the army. Nothing of such a
wature should be wiithheld for an hour from the know-
ledge of the Commeolder-in-chief, who is responsible for
the conduct of his o fficers. It is quite clear to me that
the Commander-in-C thief never can fulfil the duty of
superintending the conduct of the officers of the
armyif documents of this character are to be with-
by the Secretary of State for the War Depart
"went, and which are tot brought to his notice until they-
are laid before Parliament, and consequently the public.
I do not know, my lords, that I need add anything to
What I have said in putting these questions to the noble
lord opposite. I had not intended to enter into the
details of arrangemen is with which, not being a mili-
tary wean, I am by no means conversant, but I am afraid,
from what I have he ard, that considerable confusion,
'uncertainty, and doubt have occurred with respect to
the two departments, especially in the ordinary exercise
of their functions, this t there has not been such a com-
plete regulation of the, respective duties of all their offi•
cers as could have been desired, and that consequently
much confusion has arisen among subordinates, and some
obscurity as to whom they should look for support or to
receive their orders. I should be glad to hear from the
noble lord opposite a 'distinct statement of the mutual
responsibility both of I iimself and the Commander-in•
Chief. It will be still more satisfactory if he can lay upon
the table any such doc urnent as that to which I have
referred definitive of Cie relative duties. Such a docu-
ment ought to exist, anel I think that no changes should
be made so extensive in their character as that of consti-
tetiag a Secretary of St ate for the War Department by
the consolidation of two offices, without having upon re-
cord in the most authentic form the duties that are to be
done and the reeponsibe'ity that is to be borne by the
Person to whom has beem transferred the duties which
were performed by another department. Such a record
might be embocUed in the order of counoil. If it were
not it was impor tent that it should be ; and if it were,
he was sure that the noble lord would have no objection
to produce it. stet all events, it will be readily admitted
that such a conflict of authorities as that to which I
have alluded csienot long exist without serious conse-
quences both t o tile Government and the country ; and
t,aking that vi ev I beg to put the question of which I
gave given no tice to the noble lord the Secretary of
state for War, And also to niove for the production of the