COMMANDER—IN-CHIEF SITTING IN THE CABINET. (Hansard, 27 February 1843)

§ Lord John Russell

said, that as the House was about to proceed to the consideration of the army estimates, he wished to offer a remark with respect to the office of Commander-in-chief being now held by a Member of the Cabinet. Since the House had last had under its consideration the army estimates, the office of Commander-in-chief had been accepted by the Duke of Wellington. On military grounds no one could find any fault with such an appointment, because no man could compete with the Duke of Wellington in fitness for the office. But it was another question whether, after he had accepted the office of Commander in chief, the noble Duke should likewise hold an office in the Cabinet, and continue to fill a situation of considerable influence as the leader of those who were the advisers of her Majesty in the other House of Parliament. He believed it had very seldom been the case, that a Member of the Cabinet had been entrusted with the executive office of Commander in chief. It was true, that General Conway was for some time Commander in chief and a Member of the Cabinet but since his time, no instance of a similar kind had occurred. With respect to the Duke of York and the noble Lord, whose recent decease every Member of the House must unite with him in lamenting; although both of these persons had their political sentiments, yet the Duke of York, from his great impartiality and his love of the army, was above all political considerations; and Lord Hill, from his great zeal for the military service, and his general kindness to persons of all ranks, might be 1348 regarded as one equally uninfluenced by' party considerations. The Duke of York and Lord Hill were in that situation that, whatever their political opinions might be, their military character was their only distinction; so that those who agreed with them in those opinions, and those who differed from them might at any time have recourse to them without any difficulty, and with a perfect confidence in their impartiality with respect to any application that they might wish to prefer either to the favour or justice of the Commander-in-chief. The Duke of Wellington, with all his great qualities as a military man, which would peculiarly fit him for the office, had yet for some years taken a very decided part in the politics of the country, had been a very leading man in one of the great political parties, and of course could not be considered exempt from the political partialities and political dislikes to which a life much devoted to politics was likely to give birth. The Duke of Wellington, holding the high station that he did in the political councils of her Majesty, was now entrusted with the important executive duties which devolved upon the Commander-in-chief. When he stated, that a person in that situation was liable to be influenced by political considerations, he was only stating that which the Duke of Wellington had himself declared with respect to the same office. In his evidence before the commissioners, appointed to inquire into the practicability and expediency of consolidating the different departments connected with the civil administration of the army, the Duke of Wellington expressed an opinion which had the greatest weight, with his noble Friend, Lord Melbourne, who was at that time Prime Minister. At the end of his statement with respect to the various departments of the army, the Duke of Wellington made this declaration:— I have always been of opinion, that the Commander-in-chief ought not to be a Member of the Cabinet; my reason for thinking so is, that he ought not to be supposed to have any political influence or bias upon his mind, particularly upon the subject of the promotions in the army. That was the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, as expressed in 1837, and it would be remembered, that in 1828, when the noble Duke became Prime Minister, it was represented to him by the whole of his colleagues, that he ought not to hold 1349 that high office in conjunction with the office of Commander-in-chief. The noble Duke, accordingly, at that time resigned the office of Commander-in-chief. Now, however, that the noble Duke had again taken the office of Commander-in-chief, and at the same time held a seat in the Cabinet, he owned he should like to have some explanation upon the subject. He wished to know whether the Duke of Wellington had changed his opinion upon the point, or whether the Government were now of opinion that the very great influence and authority and means of promotion in the hands of the Commander-in-chief should be added to the political influence of the Government.

§ Sir R. Peel

apprehended that there was no constitutional rule against the tenure of a seat in the cabinet by the Commander-in-chief. There were instances in which the Commander-in-chief had formed part of the Cabinet, and of these, the case of Marshal Conway, to which the noble Lord had referred, was one. It was true that in recent times there had not been a Commander-in-chief in the Cabinet. Sir David Dundas and Lord Hill were not political characters, and it was not remarkable that they, considering their occupation, should not have had a seat in the Cabinet. In the case of the Duke of York, it was not probable that a prince of the blood, holding the relation that he did to the throne, should have a seat in the Cabinet. As far as constitutional analogy was concerned, he did not see any reason why the Commander-in-chief, in the same way as the Master-general of the Ordnance, should not be allowed to hold a seat in the Cabinet. The Duke of Wellington, whilst he was Master-general of the Ordnance, had always held a seat in the Cabinet. He presided over the whole of the concerns of that uepartment of the army, and no one thought that the tenure of that office was a reason why he should not hold a seat in the Cabinet. Take, again, the instance of the Admiralty. The authority which presided over the whole of the naval service, and superintended the whole of the promotions in the navy, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was not excluded from a seat in the Cabinet; nor were the lords of the Admiralty disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons. Lord Hill, to the great regret of the Government, had on account of 1350 growing infirmities signified a wish to retire. For some time he had retained his high office rather in accordance with the wish of the Government than his own desire, but at last he had been compelled to resign. It then became the duty of the Ministers to advise her Majesty as to who should fill the post. Under the circumstances, he (Sir Robert Peel) had not the slightest hesitation in recommending to her Majesty, that he who had so often led the armies of this country to victory, should now be placed at their head. Whatever even might be the general custom, he appealed to the House whether, in this particular case, the whole course of the conduct of the Duke of Wellington, when in command of the army, rendered it in the least probable that political motive would influence him? He (Sir Ro-beat Peel) had thought that the Duke of Wellington was most eminently qualified for the office of Commander-in-chief; but such also was his sense of the high qualifications of that noble Duke for civil as well as military services, that he (Sir R. Peel) should have thought it highly disadvantageous to the country if the military services of the Duke of Wellington had been secured at the expense of his resignation of a share in civil councils. It was quite true that formerly her Majesty's Ministers had entertained the opinion that the holding of the office of First Lord of the Treasury and of Commander-in-chief by the same individual was open to objection. The painful duties of both those offices were more than human strength could sustain. But it was entirely a different question whether the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Commander-in-chief could be united, and whether a Peer like the Duke of Wellington, not holding office, but having a seat in the Cabinet, should hold the command of the army and yet retain his seat. He (Sir R. Peel) did not know whether the Duke of Wellington retained his general opinion with regard to the union of the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Commander-in-chief, but he (Sir Robert Peel) claimed for himself the whole responsibility of the late proceeding. At the same time, the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet was conveyed to the Duke of Wellington that it was desirable for the public service that he should accept the command of the army, and at the same time retain his seat in the Cabinet. The whole responsibility 1351 for that advice fell upon him (Sir R. Peel); and he believed that the Duke of Wellington had taken that course which was in unison both with the public feelings and the public interests.