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

THE SIN t\i DON, FRIDAY vF, 1 FEBRUARY 22

MARKET NEWS.—(This Day.)

stating, it has reference merely to those ordinary rela-
tions which are understood as subsisting between the
Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief.
I would say, however, that since that office has been esta-
blished there has been undoubtedly another change made
which has considerably altered the position and increased
the duties of the Secretary of State for the War Depart-
ment, because on him has been thrown the duties for-
, inerl,e performed by the Secretary at War, the c nsequence
of which has been that he has to exercise in future the
control formerly exercised by that minister over the
financial affairs of the army ; and, indeed, the control in
matters of expenditure over all military departments.
That, however, is merely a transfer of the authority of
the Secretary at War, who is sometimes not always a
Cabinet Minister ; but the relation in which he stands
to the Commander in-Chief is in no degree different to
the relation in which the Secretary at War stood. There
has been another alteration—viz.. the abolition of the
office of Master-General of the Ordnance. What ar-
rangements have been made in regard to that office I
confess I am not personally or practically acquainted
with, but I apprehend that the principle upon which
that change was effected—and I am sure it was so an-
nounced at the time—was to transfer to the Commander-
in-Chief the same control over the Ordnance department
as he had previously exercised over the rest of the
army. Therefore, my lords, I wish to be informed
whether the distinction which I understood to prevail
in the first instance is still maintained and rigidly acted
upon—viz., that in regard to discipline, the patronage,
the promotion of the army, and consequently with re-
gard to the Ordnance, the sole and absolute authority
rests with the Commander-in uninteifsred 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 it is that the officers of the army should
look for support, protection, and promotion, whether to
the Queen's Commander-in-Chief, or to the Secretary of
State for the War Department, who is responsible not
alone to the Crown, but to the Parliament also. When I
state that, do not let me be misunderstood so far as to
say that I consider either the Commander-in-Chief or any
other person can be free from responsibility, which mis-
conduct or mismanagement in his high office would expose
him to in the opinion of Parliament. (1-lea.r, from the
Ministerial benches.) There can be no office where neal-
versation and misconduct can fittingly and praperly be
withdrawn from the cognisance of this or the
other House of Parliament ; but I say that that
is a very different case from the constant daily superin-
tendence of Parliament and the constant daily interfer-
erce of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament
with the ordinary execution of the duties of that depart-
ment. Therefore, the first question which I wish to
have answered distinctly is, whether it is still under-
stood, as it used to be in former tieles, that over the pa-
tr. page, the fitet introduction into the army, the subse-
quent pi o.notien, the arrangements for promotion, the
conferring of honorary distinctions, the tnevement of
troops, the appointment to foreign garrisons—in all
these cases, does the authority now rest, and
indi-p st-
ably rest, as it has been accustomed to do, in the Com-
mander in-Chief, or in the Secretary of State for the
War Department ? My lords, there is another class of
cases in which I desire to know where the authority
rests. Supposing it to be intended to increase, or
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 fer the
accomtno fation 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 course 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 Colin:eat:-
der-in-Chief ; that to him the inspector-general of forti-
fications 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
in 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 rec nnmendations for the
greeting of honours in the fie!cl 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.) Then I wish to know whether, as the
Commander-in-Chief—who, I presume, may exercise his
responsibility and discretion with regard to the recom-
mendation of the officers on the spit—may exclude some
and include others not so introduced to his notice, the
Secretary of State for the War Department claims the
same power of disregarding recommendations that come
to him from theCominander-in-Chief, having received his
sanction ? If there has been any instance in which the
Secretary for War has thought proper to disregard the
report of the Commander-in-Chief, withholding distinc-
tions from some who have been so recommended by him,
and granting theta 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 prevail
in 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 explei; declara-
tion from the Government should be made upon this sub-
ject. If I am not mistaken, 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 For.:es
or with the Secretary of State for War ? I admit thet
there may be a great distinction drawn between honours
to be conferred and offices to be conferred in conse-

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'cloxii.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented seve-
ral petitions against the opening of the Crystal Palace
on Sundays,

The Earl of CA.RNA.RVON presented a similar
petition,

Lord MONTEA.GLE presented petitions to a similar
effect.

Lord REDESDALE presented similar petitions from
places in Yorkshire__

Lori DUNGANNON presented a petition praying
that Church rates may not be abolished until an equiva-
lent is provided, and also one in favour of the opening of
the British Museum, the National Galery, and Crystal
Palace on sundays.

The Duke of ARGYLL presented a petition against
the opening of places of amusement on Sundays.
LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES

BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill. The
whose of the clauses were agreed to, and the report was
ordered to he received to morrow.
TRIAL OF OFFENCES BILL.
This bill was reported with amendments.

quenco 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, aga.n, with regard to
the appointment of such officers as the quartermaster
general or the a 4jutant-general, I ask whether such
appointments are in the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Commander-in-Chief; or whether the consent
of the Secretary of State for the War Depart-
ment is necessary—in fact, whether he can, if he
thinks fit, exercise the power of disapproving
the recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief
and interposing his own authority to prevent or secure
the appointment of any particu'ar officer. This subject
is not very remote from one which formed the topic of
conversation in the ear ier part of the evening. In the
course of the last few months two appointment., 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 (Lnel Cardigan), as inspector-general
of the ca-airy, and to the appointment of another gallant
officer (Sir Richar4 Airey) to the office of quartermaster
general. (`fear, hear ) The appointment of my noble
and gallant friend took place in February, 1855, and,
as I underst md, was made by the Commander-in-Chief
on the strong recommendation of the noble du'le (Ne
castle) who at that time filed the office of Secretary for
the War Deprrenent. Toe appointment of S'r Richard
Airey to the office of quartermaster-general took
place in—(Lced l'aernure—Last December). Now I
see that there have been many attempts made, in the
first place, to impuge these apointmenta, and, in the
next place to throw the ind vidual responsibility of
them upon my noble friend the Commander-in-Chief.

Now, I wish to know distinctly from her Majesty's Go-
vernment whether the responsibility of these appoint-
inent3, be they good or bal—for upon that point I sly
nothing at present—rests exclusively upon my noble
friend the C anmander•in-Chief, or whether they are ap-
pointm.lnts over which the Government can exercise

any influence, and in respect to which her Majesty's
Government, and more especially the Secretary of State
for the War Department, must take a full share of re-

sponsibility t I mention the
.quartermaster-general's

appointment, not unnaturally, becalm) it bear; 22p-m a
question which was the subject of disc:ssion a short time
ago. 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 subject I fully concur with the observations
which fell from the noble earl, that unless her Majesty's
Government were prepared to a lopt the recommenda-
tions in that report, the noble lord (Panrnure) ought, in

justice to the officers impugned in it, to have abstained
from 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 ;
and, not only that, but had placed a serious impediment
in 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 im-
mediately upon the question_ which I have to put, and
one which I should like to hear some explanation of.
If my 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, hear) -- it is from him they are to
expect praise and promotion, or to dread censure
—(cheers)—and I say that if it be true, as I cannot
believe, until I hear it stated by my noble friend the
Commander-in-Chief, that until he received that report
as a 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
June, to say nothing of that second one in the month of
January—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 commissariat, 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 com-
missariat 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
Balaklava, if a detachment of the horses was allowed to
go down, that be would engage to bring enough in for
the rest of the brigade. This proposition was substan-
tially made known to Lord Cardigan by Col. Hay, who
states that his lordship declined to accede to it."
Lord rAntuRE---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 discretion and conduct of an officer, and you will have
the less hesitation in taking that view whin it is recol-
lected that the starvation of the horses is i ecorded. I
ask whether when such a statement was made, it was act
a fitting subject for the Secretary of State for the War
Department to communicate to the Caminandeain-Chief
—(hear, hear) —for I should be very much surprised if
the Conernander-in-Chief, on receiving such a communi-
ca!ion or complaint, did not call upon the officer for an
explanation of his conduct, which explanation he Las
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 Comtnander-in-Chief, ought to be clearly defined,
so that there should be 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 them, because it bears upon the disci-
pline, the conduct, the character of the army, and upon
the officers commaneine the army. Nothing of such a
nature should be withheld for an hour from the know-
ledge of the Commander-in-chief, who is responsible for
the conduct of his officers. It is quite clear to me that
the Commander-in-Chief never can fulfil the duty of
superintending the conduct of the officers of the
army if decurnente of this character are to be with-
held by the Secretary of State for the War Depart
meat, and which are not 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 arrangements with which, not being a mili-
tary man, I am by no means conversant, but I am afraid,
from what I have heard, that considerable confusion,
uncertainty, and doubt have occurred with respect to
the two departments, especially in the ordinary exercise
of their functions, that there has not been such a com-
plete regulation ef the respective duties of all their offi-
cers as could have been desired, and that consequently
such 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 himself and the Commander-in-
Chief. It will be still more satisfactory if he can lay upon
the table any such document as that to which I have
referred definitive of the relative duties. Such a docu-
ment ought to exist, and I think that no changes should
be made so extensive in their character as that of consti-
tuting a Secretary of State 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 responsibility that is to be borne by the
person to whom has been transferred the duties which
were performed by another department. Such a record
might be embodied in the order of council. If it were
riot it was important that it should be ; and if it were,
he was sure that the noble lord would hive uo objeeft n
to produce it. At all events, it will be readily admitted
that such a conflict of authorities as that to which I
have alluded cennot Lug exist without serious conse-
quences both to the Government and the country ; and
taking that view, I beg to put the question of which I
have ggiven notice to the• noble lord the Secretary of
State for War, and also to move for the production of the
document to which I have alluded, if srce a document
exists. (Hear.) Tire noble earl concluded by asking
the terms of his motion, what were the respective duties
and.responsibilities of the Seeretary of State for the War
Department and the Commander-in-Chief of her Ma-
jesty's Forces, and moving for any document in which
such respective duties were limited and defined.
Lord PANMURE—The question of which the noble
earl gave notice has now resolved itself into four or five
distinct inquiries ; but I do not complain of that, and will
endeavour to answer them as I best may. Dismissing for a
moment the important questions—and I admit none can be
more so—with respect totherelativodutiesof the Secretary
of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief, I will advert
to the last qaestion put by the noble earl. The noble earl
stated that there was a rumour that the first report which
was seat me at the latter end of Juno, was not placed by
me in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. It was un-
doubtedlynot placed by me in the hands of the Commander-
in-Chief. (The Earl of Derby made a gesture expressive of
astonishment.) The noble earl, I observe, exhibits marks
of surprise at the announcement : but his surprise
will, I think, be lessened when I ask him to road that re-
port through, and point out to me, with the exception of
the single sentence to- which he has alluded, one word of
the report which refers to any single department over
which the Commander-in-Chief had any control, or for
which he was responsible in any manner. Under these
circumstances, I think it need hardly be a matter of won-
der that I did not think it necessary to trouble my noble
and gallant friend with the report ; and in the only sen-
tence quoted, all that is alleged is that the commander cf
the cavalry was asked to send some of his horses down to
Balaklava, and that he refused. Why, my lords, he
might have hal the very best possible reasons for
refusing. (Hoar, hear.) It roust be remembered, too,
that there was no accompanying evidence to the
report, and, therefore, ne judicial conclusion should
be drawn from it; so that even had the sentence
been submitted to the Commander-in-Chief, all that
could have resulted was an ex parts stAlment from
the noble and gallant earl himself. I did not for
those reasons refer to it. The other report, with the
evidence, was placed in my hands for the first tire on the
28th of January. I took up a few days to go over the re-
port and the evidence; and according to my feeling of the
engagement which I entered into with Parliament and
with the country whoa I sent out that commission, I con-
ceived that it was my duty—without binding myself to
statements impugning the conduct of officers referred to in
that report—to place it before the public on the earliest
possible opportunity. Ipresented it, therefore, on the third
day after Parliament met, and the first printed copy which
I saw, with the exception of the proof, was delivered to me
after it was presented to Parliament. I considered that I
was bound by good faith to Parliament and to the public to
present it immediately ; and if in doing so I have com-
mitted any error I am willing to take on m 3 self the entire
responsibility of it. Having stated thus much I come now
to a question of far greater magnitude, which the noble
earl has put—namely, what are the relations between the
Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief?
In doing this the noble earl has opened a wide subject,
and one which at the present moment is attracting the at-
tention of the public out of doors. I did not wish to anti-
cipate the discussion which must arise when we shell have
to deal effectually and openly with the whole of those ques-
tions in Parliament; but the noble earl's reference to-uight
to the subject leaves me no alternative but to state ono of
two cases, and to avow openly and honestly whether her
Majesty's Government are prepared to abandon the present
system as it exists, or whether we will maintain it iu its
integrity. Now, in considering the relative positions of the
See:etary of State and the Commander-in-Chief, 1 think
it will he necessary first of all to make a slight reference to
the administration of the departments when they were sepa-
rate. My lords, with respect, to the conduct of militery af-
fairs by her Majesty's servants, the Secretary of State for'
the Colonialand\VarDepartrnonts exercised those influences
and those powers over the administration of the army which
have since been transferred to the Secretary for War. Your
lordships are aware that that Minister was the Secretary
of State for the Colonies as well as for War. His duties I
will not recapitulate, because you will find thorn clearly
laid down in the very able report of the commission issued
in 13:37, over which my neb,e. friend behind me presided.
It was the duty of the Secretary of State for the Colonies
to take her Majesty's pleasure as to the establishments of
the army, and having done so to convey the orders to the
Commander-in-Chief- It was his duty also to control all
that related to the movement of troops in the colonies un-
der his charge. If certain troops were required by certain
colonies, he it was who intimated the fact to the Com-
mender-in-Chief, and the Coramander-in-Chief ordered
them out ; it was his duty to sign commissions for all offi-
cers proceeding abroad, and it was further his duty to sub-
mit to the Sovereign the honours which were recommended
to be distributed by the Commander-ie-Chief. I thick
that the noble earl opposite has somewhat confounded
ditties relating to fortifications abroad with certain et'rers.
With respect to fortifications in the colonies, the noble
earl does not seem clearly to have comprehended what the
duties of Colonial Secretary were. If fortifications wore
required in any particul ir colony, ha not only had the
financial control of the amount to be expended on those
fortifications, but if they were recommended to him by the
Master General of the Ordnance, it was presumed that he
consulted his own officer, the inspector-general of fortifi-
cations; and then the Secretary of State was to be the judge,
and to be responsible to Parliament for the erection of the
fortification as wollas the proper expenditure of the money.
If a fortification were erected uselessly, if the design were
bad, or the situation an improper one, then the responsi-
bility rested upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State.
Then, again, with reference to the office of Secretary of
War of what might be called the horns department, he
had, in his capacity of Secretary of State, a certain
control over the Commander-in-Chief. He conveyed to
the Commander-in-Chief his pleasure as to where troops
should be stationed at home, whether in one district or
another, judging where the necessity most existed- He
signed all commissions, appointed to commissions,erparo.
.
moted at home, and in some other mattersheeorercsed u
thority co-ordinateiy with the Commander-in-Chief.i Now
all these powers were transferred to the new Secretary of
State for the War Department. It is his du,Y , to communi-
cate with the Commander-in-Chief as to the stations of the
troops that are quartered either at home or abroad, unless
some sudden crisis should arise which rendered it necessary
eitherfor the Colonial Secretary or the Home Secretary to
order the movement of troops, when it was their duty at
once to communicate with the Commander-in-Cuief, with-
out calling for the interposition of the Secretary of State
for War. Then, my'
lords, the posieion of the Coin-
mander-in-Chief was that which the noble earl has stated.
It was the business of the Commander-in-Chief to con-
duct the discipline of the army. It was his business also
to administer all the promotions in the army, taking
the pleasure of the Crown upon the subject of those
promotions. But I must not omit, my lords, to state at -
the same time, that in respect to all. appoint-
ments to the higher commands, and all the higher promo-'
Cons in the army, it always was, and it still is, the
practice of the Commander-in-Chief before making any of
those appointments or submitting them to the Sovereign,
to consult with and to obtain the consent of the Secretary
of War. Thus the Secretary of State shares the responsi- ,
bility of the Commander-in-Chief, as regards those appoint-
ments, by sanctioning them before they are formally sub-
mitted for the approval of the Crown. I may as well, per-
haps, allude here to the question of those recent appoint-
ments to which the noble earl opposite has directed your
lordships' attention—l moan the appointment of my nob'e
friend opposite (the Earl of Cardigan) to the office of in
spector-general of cavalry, and the appointment of Sir R.
Airey to the office of quartermaster-general of the army.
For both these appointments, whatever may have been
stated to the contrary,' I flan as responsible es my noble
friend the Commander-in-Chief; and I shall be quite ready,
when the proper time comes, to offer such a defence of
them as will, I hope, prove satisfactory to your lordships.
So much for the pest relations between the Secretary of
State and the Commander-in-Chief. I shall now pass to
a consideration of the relations which have been established
between them since the creation of a Secretary of State for
War. When that office had first been constituted there
was no intention, I believe, of carrying the duties attached
to it further than to provide for the transference to the
Secretary for War of all the powers relating to the army
previously vested in the Secretary of State. It was con-
sidered that the exercise of those powers would Alford