§ On the Motion that the House resolve into a Committee of Supply,
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the Resolution relating to military organization which was adopted by the House on Tuesday the 1st day of June. He was exceedingly unwilling at that hour to offer any opposition to the Motion that the Speaker leave the chair, but he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the 551 House to the somewhat unsatisfactory and almost unprecedented position in which the Resolution passed by the House stood, in consequence of the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 3rd of June to a question asked by an hon. Baronet (Sir J. Walsh). The question was, whether it was the intention of the Government to take any notice of the Resolution adopted by the House on the Tuesday preceding, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that, considering the importance of the question, the comparatively small number of hon. Members who divided, and the bareness of the majority, it was not the intention of the Government to take any steps with respect to the Resolution. To a further question, whether it was the intention of the Government to give the House any opportunity of rescinding its Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman stated that he did aot understand the question, at the same time repeating that it was not the intention of the Government to take any steps with respect to the Resolution either in or out of the House. He did not now intend to detain the House by any lengthened remarks on the merits of the Resolution adopted on the 1st of June, but he would take this opportunity to remove the impression that it was the intention of those who supported the Resolution to do away with the office of Commander in Chief, and to place the whole control of the army under a civilian. It was said that in consequence of this supposed intention the army was entirely opposed to the change proposed by him. He was certainly not in a position to say what were the entire opinions of the army on the subject, but he had had the advantage of communicating and conversing with many gentlemen of the military profession of all grades, and though he should be wrong in saying that they unanimously concurred in opinion with him, in respect to the change he proposed, yet he might say that the majority of opinions was decidedly in favour of some such change, and in condemnation of the present system. And why should the army be in its favour? Had it been found so efficient in times of emergency, and so perfectly organized as to administer to the army even the common necessaries they required? The army did not forget the misfortunes of the Crimea, and attributed them, he believed rightly, to the want of proper organization in the military departments at home. The army knew that while they were almost starving on the heights before Sebastopol, heaps of provi- 552 ions of all kinds were locked up in the harbour of Balaklava, but that those provisions could not be circulated among them because a proper system was not organized among the various departments whose duty it was to circulate them. There was one voice, now silent in the grave, which he wished could still be heard in that House. He wished that one who had made it his study to observe what occurred at the time were now present to describe the wretched scenes he witnessed in the hospitals at Scutari and in the Crimea; for he would repeat, what he had often stated, that the whole medical system of the army was totally and entirely wanting in efficiency, the result of the want of proper organization. When the army found our military system to be in such a condition, why should they wish that it should continue? Why should they desire a system in which advancement was owing to interest rather than to merit? He did not blame the present Commander in Chief, who had done all in his power to remedy the evil, but who was rendered powerless by the system. The army was for efficiency and justice, and they cared not whence they came so that they obtained them. He did not seek to transfer the duties connected with the command and the discipline of the army from the Commander in Chief; but he believed that the present position of the Commander in Chief must be unsatisfactory to himself, and certainly was very unsatisfactory to the country, for the highest authorities differed as to the point whether that officer was or was not responsible to the Minister. His right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (General Peel) considered the Commander in Chief entirely irresponsible as regarded the military control and discipline of the army; but the right hon. Member for Wiltshire declared that the Commander in Chief was completely under the control of the Minister for War. The Duke of Newcastle, on the other hand, considered neither of those authorities right, and thought that the present position of the Commander in Chief involved the Minister for War in legal though not moral responsibilities. Only the other night a question was asked as to whether the old power vested in the Commander in Chief of selling Commissions for certain purposes existed or not. His right hon. and gallant Friend opposite replied that the practice had been discontinued. He (Captain Vivian) ventured to ask whether it was in the power of the Commander in Chief to sell commissions, 553 and his right hon. and gallant Friend replied in the negative. The hon. and gallant Member might be right in his view, but if that were the case, he (Captain Vivian) thought it was a strong argument in favour of the concentration of authority which he advocated. The Commander in Chief was dealing every day with large sums of public money; he was giving away, day by day, commissions which represented public money, because every commission so bestowed must eventually be sold, or the recipient would be entitled to half-pay from the public purse when a reduction of the army took place. It appeared, however, that the Commander in Chief, who could give away these commissions, had not the power of selling them for the public advantage, if he thought it advisable to adopt such a course. He (Captain Vivian) thought the better course would be to place the power of selling or giving commissions in the hands of a responsible Minister. He by no means wished to vest the patronage of the army in the House of Commons; and if the change he had proposed should be adopted, it would, in his opinion, be necessary by some strict and rigid rule to prevent the patronage of the army from being exposed to the influence of political corruption. He conceived, however, that the Minister for War should have the power, if he thought right, to sell commissions for the advantage of the public. Such a course had been pursued to some extent by the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) when he was Secretary at War. During his period of office he had sold 100 commissions for £45,000, and his conduct in that respect had been very severely criticised in some quarters. He (Captain Vivian, and those who agreed in his views, did not wish to abolish the office of Commander in Chief, or to transfer the control and military discipline of the army to a civilian; but they were of opinion that the office of Commander in Chief should form part of a great military system, which should be under the presidency of a responsible Minister. That was the case in France. It had not been deemed advisable to publish the Report of the British officers who had inquired into the organization of the military system of France, but be believed it was no violation of confidence to state that they had strongly recommended to Her Majesty's Government the adoption of the great fundamental principle of the French military system—the 554 consolidation of authority under one head. The same principle was adopted in Austria, Prussia, and Sardinia. When the Resolution he had proposed on this subject received the assent of the House, he thought that great progress had been made, but his delusion was soon dispelled, for at the very next meeting of the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was not the intention of the Government to take any notice of the Resolution, on account of the small majority by which it was adopted. There were 214 hon. Members present when the division took place, and on the following day he saw in the newspapers a list of about 100 hon. Gentlemen who had paired for and against the Motion. He also observed that some hon. Members had been accidentally shut out from the division, and he had received private communications from many Gentlemen who stated that, had they been present, they would have given him their support. As the question was admitted to be one of great importance, he would ask why, if the Government objected to his Resolution, they had not brought down as many of their ordinary supporters as they could muster to aid them in their opposition. It was not for him to explain their absence; but at all events, he should have expected to see all the Members of Her Majesty's Government present on that occasion. However, five or six of the ordinary occupants of the Treasury bench were absent, and neither the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who on a former occasion made an excellent speech advocating precisely the view he (Captain Vivian) took, nor the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a word in opposition. He could only presume that the absent Members of Her Majesty's Government felt so strongly the force of his case that they were not able to vote against the Resolution. It was said the Resolution was carried by a bare majority; but would not a dangerous principle be established if it were left to the caprice of a Minister to determine what was a majority which justified the action of the Government? If such a principle had been admitted in former times, many most important decisions of that House would have been utterly disregarded. Why, during Lord Melbourne's Administration parties in Parliament were so equally divided that the Government possessed what was ironically called "a good working majority of three." If the Chancellor of the Exche- 555 quer had come down and said the House had been taken by surprise, that he could not regard the vote as a fair reflection of the opinion of the House, and that he intended to take an early opportunity of testing that opinion again by moving that the Resolution be read at the table and rescinded, no complaint could have been made of such a course; but he (Captain Vivian) submitted whether it was not a somewhat discourteous proceeding that the leader of the House of Commons should by one short sentence dispose of a Resolution of which ample notice had been given, which had been fully debated, and which had received the approval of a majority of the House. For his own part, he regarded this question as one of very great importance, and it was acquiring so much interest in the public mind that he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel it necessary to reverse the decision which, on the part of the Government, he had announced. He (Captain Vivian) would await the result patiently. He felt confident that, if not this Session, at all events during the next, the Government would adopt the principle embodied in his Resolution; but if they (did not so, he (Captain Vivian) held himself perfectly free to take whatever course he might think advisable to carry out a principle which had received the sanction of the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; —Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought forward this question with so much candour and temper that I lose not a moment, Sir, in replying to the speech which he has just addressed to the House. I do so the more willingly because I cannot help feeling that there has been a great misconception on his part as to the course which I pursued in reference to the Resolution which he moved some days since, and I think that I shall be able to show to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the House that I have taken no unusual course, and that I have done nothing and said nothing with respect to his Motion which I did not believe it to be my duty both to do and to say. I will not enter into any argument upon the important subject of the original Motion, because it is evident that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not invite discussion upon this occasion; but that his wish is to place himself in a clear light before the country. I did not, certainly, express any opinion upon the subject when the hon. and gallant Gentleman brought it before the House, 556 because the division which was arrived at unexpectedly took place after a most complete speech in opposition to the Motion from the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston), and it appeared to me to be awkward and inconvenient that I should rise immediately after the noble Lord to repeat the same arguments with less force and to urge the same views with less authority. It is always a disagreeable thing to follow in debate an hon. Member who takes the same view as yourself, and for me to follow one who spoke with great authority on the subject, and who seemed entirely to settle the merits of the question, was, I thought, unnecessary; and it was out of no disrespect, therefore, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or indifference to the importance of the subject, that I did not speak upon that occasion. Well, Sir, that Motion was carried very unexpectedly; and notwithstanding the ingenious gloss which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has placed upon it, I think that it was carried very much to the surprise of the whole House. I will not analyze the number of Members present, the Members absent, or the Members that may be supposed to have been neither present nor absent. I will only say that the Motion was carried by a very bare majority; and surely a bare majority in the case of a Resolution is not to be regarded in the same light as an overwhelming majority. I admit the importance of majorities. One may go further back than the time of Lord Melbourne, when a slight majority sustained the Government for many years. Some of the most important events in our history, some of the statutes on which our liberties depend, were carried by the slightest majorities. I could refer to many instances of this sort, and no doubt the retentive memory of the noble Lord the Member for London supplies him at this moment with a variety. But they were majorities which sanctioned legislation, and, when legislation was arrived at, every one without a mumur accepted the decision of the House. In cases where repeated opportunities are given for discussion, and every means are taken to prevent measures being hurried to a precipitate conclusion, then, however slight may be the majority—though it should be as slight as that which decided the Act of Settlement, which was one of the smallest I believe in historical record—the House at once bows to that which is the only practical test—the will of the majority. 557 But that is not the position in which a Resolution stands, and it never has been admitted, when the House has arrived at a Resolution, that that Resolution is to be irrevocable or is to bind the decision of the House, except for that particular occasion and that particular stage; and it is quite legitimate, when a Resolution is carried by a bare majority, that that fact should be mentioned in Parliament, as it has often been by those far more competent than myself who have filled the office which I now occupy. Look at what has happened in our own time, and see the cases in which a Minister has not thought it necessary either to act upon a Resolution, or to call upon the House to express an opinion contrary to the Resolution. There was the Resolution, for example, declaring that in the opinion of this House it was desirable that the votes at the election of Members of Parliament should be taken by Ballot. That was carried a few years ago, but no action was taken upon it. Again, the endowment of Maynooth was denounced in this House, and a Resolution embodying that feeling was carried, but no notice was taken of it. Again, my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on more than one occasion brought forward a Motion and vanquished the Government with respect to Irish distilleries, yet no Minister ever acted upon those significant expressions of the House. It may be said that in all those cases the Motion was for leave to bring in a Bill, and that that makes a distinction. Literally there is a distinction, but virtually there is none. No one will for a moment pretend that, if they had been simple Resolutions, the Minister would have acted on them, or would have been expected to act on them. It is hypocrisy to pretend it; but I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the advantage of that objection. But much more recently we have had simple Resolutions carried upon subjects of equal importance with that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has introduced, and in none has the Minister thought it necessary to act upon them. In 1855 there had been a Committee on the salaries of public officers, and they had reported in favour of a great reduction in the diplomatic salaries. No notice was taken of the recommendation of that Committee, and an hon. Gentleman brought forward a Resolution in which he called on the House to express an opinion that the recommendation of the Committee should immediately be carried out. There was a 558 debate. The Motion was opposed by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), and he was defeated by a majority, not of one or two, but of fifty or sixty. What happened? Why, the noble Lord never took any notice whatever of that Resolution. And now we are told that not to take notice of a Resolution is "unsatisfactory and unprecedented." Unsatisfactory it may be, but I think I have shown the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not unprecedented. But not only did the noble Lord take no notice of that Resolution, he did more. The Committee to which I have alluded had particularly attacked the whole of our diplomatic service in Germany, and they recommended that the missions at the smaller Courts should be immediately terminated. After the Resolution was carried in this House, a vacancy occurred in a mission at one of those very German Courts to which the opinion of the Committee particularly referred, and what happened? Why, the noble Lord, whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman so consistently supports, took this notice of the opinion of the Committee, and of the Resolution of the House—that he immediately filled up the vacancy. Then, why did not some hon. and gallant Gentleman come forward and notice the "unsatisfactory and unprecedented" conduct of the noble Lord? The noble Lord complained of me for giving a cavalier answer to a question put to me; but he did not give even that—in words at least—although he behaved much more cavalierly than I ever did, for he acted in direct opposition to a Resolution of the House which was carried by a large majority. But I do not take the same uncharitable view of the noble Lord's conduct which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is so ready to take of mine. I have no doubt that the noble Lord acted from a strong feeling of public duty, and that he took a very different view of the value and importance of those German missions from that which had been taken by the Committee and by the House. The noble Lord therefore—acting, no doubt, upon what he believed to be best for the public service—left the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution to take those further steps which the forms of the House offer in Supply to an hon. Member in such a position, in case the Minister does not carry out a Resolution which has been agreed to. The principles upon which the diplomatic service and the military administration shall be conducted are, doubtless, important questions; but 559 surely the Civil Service of the country is not of inferior importance. The means by which the greatest amount of ability may be infused into the Civil Service, and the principles upon which that service is to be regulated, are questions deeply interesting to the public mind. They became the subject of discussion in the House, and a noble Lord (Viscount Goderich)—who thought the competitive system had not been fairly acted upon by the Government—brought forward a Resolution, which was carried by a majority opposed to the Minister. What happened? The Minister never took any notice of the Resolution, and the Minister was, I believe, the same distinguished man to whom I have already referred. Many persons may have thought it unsatisfactory. No one got up and said it was unprecedented; and surely, when we found a Resolution respecting the military service of the country carried unexpectedly, and, as the hon. and gallant Member admits, by a bare majority, in a not very full House, it was my duty to consider well the course which I and my colleagues ought to take, what was the practice of the House, and what were the precedents which, under the circumstances, ought to guide us. Sir, I cannot find that, in anything that I have done or said, I have exceeded my duty. I might have fenced with the question. I might have given an evasive answer. I might have played with the question for the rest of the Session. I might have kept hon. Gentlemen opposite and the hon. and gallant Member himself (Captain Vivian) quiet by holding out some idea that we were considering the point. But having considered the subject, and having a decided opinion upon it, I thought it was only due to the House clearly and frankly to express what was our opinion, so that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends might not say they had been deceived and lost time in consequence of the evasive answer of the Government. I do not understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Vivian) really complains of my answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh). He cannot deny that it was frank, and I hope the House will not think it was discourteous. But another hon. Gentleman, as I thought, most unnecessarily, put another question, and my answer to him is styled by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton a cavalier answer. I cannot imagine that any hon. Gentleman, wherever he may sit, supposes that I could ever intentionally 560 have acted with discourtesy to any one here. My highest hope and wish have ever been to enjoy, if possible, the respect and the good feeling of all Members of this House, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman must, on reflection, see that, placed as I am here to conduct the business of the Government, I have to depend on the gentlemanlike kindness of Members, whatever may be their opinions, and am the last person, from my own interest, and I hope from disposition, to be wanting in courtesy to any hon. Gentleman. But I will confess that what I said may have been liable to misinterpretation, because neither I nor the Gentlemen on the Treasury bench clearly understood the meaning of that second inquiry. I said that I had a difficulty in answering because I did not understand the nature of the inquiry. I had stated to the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh) that it was not our intention to take any steps upon the Resolution; and being asked whether we should take any other steps than that in this House, I said that neither in this House nor in any other place was it our intention to take any other step. And I am still at a loss to understand why it is supposed, from that answer, that I said anything discourteous. This I will say, that it was not so intended; and if I have ever said anything at any time painful to the feelings of any hon. Gentleman, I sincerely regret it. But let that pass. I have stated to the House the precedents with regard to the order of business in Parliament, which guided us in the course which we adopted; and until I hear a sufficient answer to those observations, I cannot for a moment see that the course which we took was not perfectly regular and straightforward. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to me not to have understood the position in which by a fortunate accident he found himself. I am willing to admit that he showed great ability, and spoke like a man who ought to have carried a Resolution; but it is not the first time I have seen men who really deserve success, and have laboured to attain it, embarrassed by unexpected good fortune. It is said that a bird never makes so much noise as when it lays the first egg; and I can easily conceive that in carrying his first Resolution, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was overpowered with excitement. But, after all, laying the first egg is only a very natural operation. So carrying a Resolution is really in the due course of Parliamentary nature; 561 and although it is not the fortune of many to meet with such good chances, everybody should be prepared fur the success which he may perhaps have never anticipated. What is carrying a Resolution? You have a declaration of the House of Commons to a certain extent, and on a certain occasion, to give you warrant to proceed in the path where you have already been so successful. But, instead of proceeding in the path, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, stupefied with triumph, turns round upon the Government and says, "I call on you to act. I have gained the opinion of the House of Commons in favour of the policy which I recommend. I shrink from pursuing that policy, and I ask you to come forward and rescind my Resolution. I had embarked in an enterprise in which I did not expect to be successful; but, trembling at the possibility of success, I looked forward to the safety-valve of a Minister who should rescind my Resolution." I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think his observations, to use his own language, are unsatisfactory and unprecedented. There have been, indeed, instances of Resolutions rescinded in this House. I remember two, and in both those instances, with regard to the malt duty and the sugar duty, it was absolutely necessary to rescind them, because if left unnoticed, they would have affected the revenue of the country. The Minister must either at once have given up the responsibility of office, or asked the House to take a course to maintain the fiscal system already sanctioned. But this is a different case. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had his choice between acting on the Resolution and introducing a Bill, or retiring into that select circle in which he would meet the hon. Gentleman who carried a Resolution in the diplomatic, and the noble Lord who carried a Resolution on the civil service. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not content with either course. He will neither ask the House to assist in carrying his policy into effect nor rest contented with the barren triumph he has already achieved; but he rates and scolds the Ministers because they will not take upon themselves either to act upon the Resolution or to rescind it in the Journals of the House. I maintain that the course which we have taken has been the Parliamentary course—the course which precedent justifies—the courteous awl frank course—the course which was due to the House from 562 any one who pretended to carry on its affairs, and that we have done only that which is our duty to do throughout these transactions. The hon. and gallant Member has adduced many instances of what is done by France, Austria, and other great military States as precedents, but I cannot forget that the laws, manners, and customs of England are different from those of these great military States. If the Commander in Chief were really irresponsible I should be ready to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman in considering a position so anomalous to the constitution and so injurious to the service. But knowing, as I practically do every day of my life, that he is under the direct authority of a Secretary of State, that he can do nothing without the approval of that Secretary of State, I am not only content, but I rejoice to know that, while the discipline of the army is left to the Commander in Chief, and while its civil administration devolves upon the Secretary of State, yet that the Commander in Chief is practically responsible upon all questions to the Minister of the day, and that Minister to Parliament. That division which confers upon the Commander in Chief the discipline and upon the Secretary of State the civil administration of the army is a system consistent with the responsibility of the Commander in Chief to the Minister, and of the Minister to Parliament, and is more consistent with our constitutional system than would be any of the centralized military systems to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred. I trust that we shall not hear anything more on this subject until the hon. and gallant Gentleman has formed more mature views than I have heard in this House to-night, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that, with regard to the patronage of the army, he should be sorry to see that corrupting element introduced into the House of Commons. What we want in questions of this kind is, that Reformers should come forward with plans. We do not want mere announcements and windy Resolutions upon great changes, with a salvo that when they are discussed the obvious difficulties which surround them will be removed. Let the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends come forward with plans to meet these obvious difficulties, and they will then assume a more commanding position than at present. I wish to speak with respect of a majority of this House, even when it is a majority of one or two. 563 Such a majority might be unanswerable if it occurred, for example, on the last stage of a Bill. But when the hon. and gallant Gentleman vindicates his majority from all criticism, when he says that it ought to guard his Resolution from all further objection, and when he assumes that the opinion of the House so expressed must not be revoked or doubted, there I must join issue with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I trust that the House will excuse me for proving that we are taking no other course than that which has been frequently and properly taken before. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman brings this question before us again, with a fair notice, I will undertake that there shall be no lack of discussion, and that, so far as we are concerned, his Resolution shall meet with that complete and ample deliberation which I admit it certainly deserves.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLThe right hon. Gentleman has said, and has said truly, that the precedents alluded to, of the practice of certain Continental States, do not apply to this country, because we have a free constitution. The difference is, that we have a representative Assembly, the resolutions and opinions of which receive respect. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has also said, that whatever may be the Resolutions of this House, it is for the Minister to decide whether they shall be carried into effect. It is for him to say. This Resolution was carried by a certain number, and in a thin or full House, and we will take this or that course in regard to it. But I do not think that matters ought to rest in their present state. It is quite impossible that the Resolutions of this House can be constantly and continually held at nought by the advisers of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman says, there are precedents for the course which the Government have taken, but they all, except one, turn out to be inapplicable. The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Resolutions passed by the House upon the ballot, and on various other subjects upon which no Resolution would be valid without an Act of Parliament. He then quotes the precedent of the Resolution moved by my noble Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Viscount Goderich). But that precedent was inapplicable, because my noble Friend moved a preliminary Resolution as a preface to another Resolution that was to be carried on a future day. But when that future day came, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a course 564 which was satisfactory to my noble Friend, and he moved a Resolution which I think met with the unanimous concurrence of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted one, I confess, and that is the precedent when a Motion was made that the Government should carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the diplomatic service. My noble Friend the Member for Tiverton opposed that Resolution. I believe that the Resolution was inexpedient, but no doubt it was carried by a majority of this House, and I do not think it was right on the part of the Government of that day to neglect the vote of that majority. In my opinion the Government of my noble Friend was bound to take some action on that vote, or else to come down and ask the House for a contrary vote. The Resolution now in question was not brought forward as preliminary to the introduction of a Bill. A Bill would have been quite out of place, because this Resolution referred to a matter of administrative regulation. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Vivian) proposed an administrative Resolution which, in his opinion, it was advisable for the Crown to carry into effect by an administrative measure. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think it right to carry into effect this Resolution, and if he thought it carried in a thin House, somewhat by surprise, and by a majority of only two, the proper course would be for him to propose to the House to rescind that Resolution. But I submit that it is not consistent with the dignity and position in the constitution of this House that Resolutions upon its Journals should be allowed to remain, and that they should be habitually neglected, despised, and set at nought. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is right in not proposing to carry his Resolution any further during the present Session. The Session was advanced at the time he proposed it, and it is very much further advanced now. But I hope he will feel it due not only to himself, but to the House, next Session to ask the House to inquire what are the relations of the Minister of War and the Commander in Chief, and what ought to be those relations. I took no part in the debate, but I must say this, that my hon. and gallant Friend made a very able speech, characterized by great diffidence, and by no tempt to overbear the House, and that he did not deserve those remarks by which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured 565 to discredit him in the opinion of this House. My hon. and gallant Friend said—and he repeated it more emphatically in his reply—"What I propose is not to take away the command and control of the military discipline from the Commander in Chief." The whole argument of those who opposed my hon. and gallant Friend went upon this supposition, that he proposed that a civilian should take the entire control of the discipline and command of the army. It was evident, therefore, that one party were defending one proposition, and that the other were attaching another and totally different proposition. I think that the matter is one which requires further inquiry. I do not think that any Commander in Chief, who is wise and discreet, is likely to set at nought the opinion of this House. I remember going to the Duke of Wellington at the time Sir John Bowring proposed to move a Resolution on the subject of flogging in the army. Now, you could not more vitally affect the discipline of the army than by introducing into this House a Resolution on such a matter as that; but the Duke of Wellington did not despise the opinion of this House; he knew the powerful influence it possessed, and how much weight attached to the expression of public opinion in this country, and he showed me a proposition he had framed to meet the Motion that was to be made by Sir John Bowling. That proposition was moderate and sensible in itself, and enabled me to meet the Motion when it was brought forward. I hold, then, that the Commander in Chief must always be responsible to the opinion of this House and the country. But then the question is still one of very great doubt as to what the actual condition of the Commander in Chief is. It is irregular to refer to the precise expressions employed, but some hon. Gentlemen, in the course of the debate that formerly took place, used language that seemed to imply that the Commander in Chief should have absolute and irresponsible control. Now, that cannot be the case in this country. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems very nearly to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, for he said the Commander in Chief should always act with the sanction of the Secretary of State for War. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: He does so act.] That makes it stronger. He does act with the sanction of the Secretary for War; but still inquiry would put matters on a sure and proper footing, and pre- 566 vent the confusion and misunderstanding that may possibly arise. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has called forth this explanation. He was perfectly right in the argument he used when he brought forward his original Motion, that you cannot have two authorities to regulate one and the same matter without causing confusion; one authority must be supreme. As to placing the discipline and the patronage of the army under party and political influences, nothing was further from the intention of my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope that next Session of Parliament we shall have some inquiry upon this point. There are other parts of the service that require further regulation and better organization. I have no wish that this matter should be unduly pressed. I remember that the gallant General now at the head of the War Department, when out of office and sitting on the Opposition benches, showed a commendable anxiety for the improvement of the civil department of the army; I have no doubt he shows the same anxiety now, and that he is doing all in his power to improve the position of that important branch of the service; but the authority of this House may be of great value in assisting him in these efforts, and he should not therefore refuse to submit to any inquiry that the House may wish to institute. I hope, in conclusion, that such an inquiry will not be refused, as it will lead to some clear definition of the duties and powers of the several departments of that army, which deserves so highly the admiration and gratitude of the country, and I hope that we shall yet see that army placed in a better and more efficient position than it has hitherto been.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that having had an opportunity of expressing his views when the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Vivian) brought forward his Motion, would not now enter into the general subject; but he must say, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Vivian) and be noble Lord (Lord John Russell) complained of the Government not carrying the Resolution, which had been carried, into effect, that he was utterly at a loss to know how it was possible to carry that Resolution out. His hon. and gallant Friend in his reply on that occasion, and again in his speech that night, said nothing was further from his intention than to interfere in any way with the functions of the Commander in Chief with respect to the command, discipline, and patronage of the army. If 567 that was so, what possible object could he have in view in proposing his Resolution? The Resolution passed on the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend implied that some changes were required with reference to the responsibilities of the offices of Secretary for War and Commander in Chief. He (General Peel) denied that dime was any divided responsibility in the matter. The responsibilities attached to the two offices were so distinctly laid down in the patents by which the two offices were held that there could be no confusion. For the command, the discipline, and the patronage of the army, the Commander in Chief was directly responsible; and he (General Peel) was indirectly responsible for every act of the Commander in Chief. Suppose a case were to arise—not very likely, he confessed—in which the Commander in Chief were to commit some gross offence with regard to the discipline of the army, a question would be sure to be asked upon the subject in that House, and the Minister for War would have to reply to that question. If, on inquiry, he were not satisfied with the explanation of the Commander in Chief, it might be the duty of Government to advise the Crown to remove him; and if the Crown refused to attend to that recommendation, then the Ministers would have to resign their offices. Since he had addressed the House on this subject he had seen the Commander in Chief very frequently. They had their weekly meetings, and so far from any difficulty arising in the discharge of the duties of the two offices they had but one thought and one feeling of responsibility, and that was to promote in every way they could the interests of the magnificent army committed to their charge. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said, he (General Peel) had on former occasions expressed a strong feeling in favour of the improvement of the civil department of the army. He was not disposed to deny that, but it would be remembered that when the Russian war ceased a great reduction of the army took place, and that that reduction had hardly taken effect when the war in China and in India broke out, so that it was almost impossible to judge of the real working of the department. All he would say was, that it contained a staff of officers second to none in any department in this or any other country. No doubt improvements might be made in the working of every department. They were trying to effect these improvements, and if that House would not interfere he had not the slightest doubt that 568 the objects they had in view would be in due time fully accomplished.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) had stated that it was the opinion of the army that the Motion which he had brought forward was a proper one.
CAPTAIN VIVIANI said I was not in a position to say what was the opinion of the army, but with regard to the opinion of those with whom I had communicated, it was decidedly against the present system.
COLONEL NORTHHis hon. and gallant Friend might have consulted half a dozen officers, but he (Colonel North), feeling a deep interest in the question, had conversed with a great number of officers, who one and all felt that a more dangerous Motion for the army was never introduced into the House. He could not help thinking that his hon. and gallant Friend, in order to get an affirmative from those whom he consulted, must have brought under their notice the position of the Secretary of State for War in the different countries to which he had alluded; and he could quite understand that there was not an officer in the army who would not feel that, if possible, in this country, the Secretary of State for War should always be a distinguished soldier, and that the offices of Commander in Chief and Secretary of War should be held by one person. To the interference of civilians with the army its officers attributed much of our disasters in the Crimea, and they did not forget the green coffee which was sent out. They had to thank Sir C. Trevelyan for that. There was quite sufficient interference of civilians with the army already; and he recollected stating that when the office of Secretary of State for War was created, the principal ingredient in the dish was omitted, for in all countries throughout Europe where a Secretary for War was appointed there was not an instance in which he was not one of the most distinguished officers in the service of that country. There was not an officer in the army who would not prefer a soldier combining the two appointments; but, as the noble Lord had stated, under a constitution like our own, the thing was impossible. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Vivian) took some credit to himself for the majority he ob- 569 tained, and said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not supported by his followers. Now, the real state of the case was, that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London intended to make a grand speech on that occasion. He recollected seeing his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bodmin during the previous debate on this question continually jumping up like a Jack-in-the-box, and going over to his commander in chief (Lord J. Russell), like a faithful aide-de-camp. It was generally understood that the noble Lord the Member for London said to his hon. and gallant Friend, "Now is your time—divide," and consequently that division was carried by the enormous majority of two. He (Colonel North) recollected during the administration of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), when he was endeavouring to obtain the commonest justice for some of the most distinguished officers in the army, he was usually met with the observation, "Oh, you canaot do that, you are infringing on the prerogative of the Crown." He believed there never was a greater infringement of the prerogative of the Crown than the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin. He should like to know how the noble Lord the Member for London, if he ever again obtained power, could satisfy his Sovereign that he would protect the prerogative of the Crown. His hon. and gallant Friend referred to a question which he had put, two nights ago, to the right hon. and gallant Secretary at War. He put that question because he could not help thinking that those letters signed "Civilian," which appeared in The Times, had no earthly purpose but to throw discredit upon the statements of his right hon. and gallant Friend. He thought he might say, without the slightest chance of misstatement, that there was no Member of that House who enjoyed the respect and good opinion of every Member in it more than his right hon. and gallant Friend. He believed that no Minister could answer with greater honesty and sincerity every question that had been put to him since he came into office. That most honourable and gallant soldier, Sir Charles Yorke, stated, in reply to a question put to him by the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the purchase and sale of Commissions in the army, as to commissions being sold by the Commander in Chief without the sanction of the Secretary for War; that he was net aware that any Commissions had been sold since 1825. That fact was corroborated by 570 other distinguished authorities. He (Colonel North) was long enough in the army to recollect two or three augmentations and reductions. Those augmentations were effected, not by increasing the officers, but by adding certain companies to each regiment, which saved great expense to the country.
GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he wished to say a few words on this matter. As long as there existed between the Commander in Chief and the Secretary for War that unison which the House was so glad to hear at present existed things would go on smoothly, but points night arise as to which the difficulty would be to decide where the authority of the Commander in Chief and the Secretary for War respectively began and ended. Their respective powers, therefore, should be distinctly defined, in order that the public might know upon whom the responsibility of any proceeding with reference to the army devolved. He should like to see the Commander in Chief made responsible in his own name for his own acts, so that the Minister for War might in Parliament he called upon to remove the Commander in Chief for any reprehensible act if so extreme a course should be thought desirable. It was impossible for the Secretary for War, if a civilian, to be responsible for the discipline, movements, and appointments of the troops. The Commander in Chief would be able to shelter himself wider the civil officer, unless there was a proper division of the departments, It was impossible to compare the management of the army of this country with that of the armies in such countries as France, Sardinia, or Austria, because in them a military man was placed at the head of the army, to whom were intrusted the command, discipline, and patronage of the army.
§ MR. ELLICE (Coventry)said, as he understood the question, he entirely concurred with the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There was no doubt of the fact that the Commander in Chief was not responsible to that House. He thought that the time had arrived when it was necessary to consider whether it was proper that the only person who was to take the pleasure of the Crown on military affairs should be the Secretary of State for War. In his opinion the subject should be taken up seriously by the House at the commencement of next Session. At present the Judge Advocate waited upon the Queen with the reports of the courts-martial, a practice which might be dispensed 571 with, as they had dispensed with the Recorder of London laying before the Sovereign the report of the cases tried at the Old Bailey sessions. He put that as an illustration of his meaning. As far as military matters then stood, he did not think that they could be in better hands than in those of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Every one who had marked his conduct would be satisfied that they could not be in better or safer hands. But his right hon. and gallant Friend must concur in opinion with him, that, in respect to the many departments that were under separate heads, though under his control, the House required much more information to ascertain whether the consolidation principle was going on in the right direction, and whether it was likely to answer its objects. He hoped that a Committee on this subject would be appointed early in the next Session.
SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he could assure the House that the army departments were not in that state in which his right hon. Friend who had just spoken supposed them to be; that great improvements were being made in them from day to day; and he trusted that before the next Session arrived, all the improvements which it was desirable to make would be introduced under the efforts of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for War.
§ Subject dropped.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."