HC Deb 05 March 1866 vol 181 cc1514-7
CAPTAIN VIVIAN

, in putting the Question of which he had given notice, To ask the Secretary of State for War a Question relating to the wording of the Patent by virtue of which the Secretary of State for War holds his Office, said, he thought the House would agree that he could not have selected a more fitting occasion for asking the Question of which he had given notice than the present. It concerned the amount of authority which the Secretary of State for War possessed over the other branches of the military administration. The present was the first occasion on which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) had the opportunity of addressing the House as Secretary for War—a position for which there was every reason to believe he was eminently qualified, from the admirable manner in which he had performed the duties of Under Secretary. Having made these preliminary remarks, he wished to observe that he had brought forward the subject to which he was about to call attention, because in 1859 he had moved the appointment of the Committee on Military Organization, and had himself the honour of being a Member of that Committee. The Committee went very fully into the question of the authority which the Secretary for War exercised over the other branches of the Military Department, and very strong opinions were expressed, both by Members of the Committee and by gentlemen qualified by rank and position to pronounce an opinion on the subject, as to the wording of the Patent of the Secretary for War. He need hardly add that a very strong opinion had also lately prevailed out of doors, and the subject had been much discussed in the public press, that there were some restraints placed on the powers of the Secretary for War beyond those contained in his Patent. It was unnecessary, in dealing with the matter, that he should go into a detailed history of the War Department, beyond stating that as now constituted it was a comparatively new Department of State, dating as it did only from the period of the Crimean War. The old system had broken down under the pressure of that war. Up to that time the War Department and the Colonial Department had been associated together, and were presided over by the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies. When the separation of the two Departments was made, the new office of Secretary of State for War was created, Lord Panmure was appointed, and a new Patent was made out, The Patent gave to the Secretary of State for War The administration of our army and land forces of every kind and denomination whatsoever," with the important reservation, "always so far as relates to and concerns the military discipline of our army and land forces, as likewise appointments and promotions in the same, and so far as the military command and discipline thereof shall be committed to our Commander-in-Chief of the Forces or our General commanding in Chief for the time being. Such was the nature of the Patent under which Lord Panmure exercised the duties of the office. To him succeeded his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel). When his right hon. and gallant Friend had been in office nearly a year it was discovered that the Patent issued to him was simply a Secretary of State's Patent without the reservation which he had just read. His right hon. and gallant Friend thought the matter of such importance that he took measures to obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether he was not responsible for the military control of the army, as well as for the civil administration of it. Before, however, the question could be settled by the Law Officers, a change in the political atmosphere obliged his right hon. Friend to retire from his post. He was succeeded by the late Mr. Sidney Herbert, afterwards Lord Herbert, whose Patent contained the same reservation as that of Lord Panmure. During his administration it was that the Committee on Military Organization, consisting of Gentlemen of eminence from both sides of the House, and who discharged their duty in the most searching and admirable manner, held its sittings. The question of the Patent was gone into, and it was by them recommended that the reservation which he had just mentioned should be expunged from the Patent. After that expression of opinion it did not surprise people generally that when Lord de Grey succeeded to the office of Secretary of State for War his Patent did not contain the same reservation as those of his immediate predecessors. Some surprise would be expressed, if it were true, as he had heard, that there was in existence a document of some kind which was sufficient to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State for War, in the same way as the reservation of the Patent to which he had called attention. It was not his purpose to enter at that moment into the important question of military organization. It was a great and important question, and well worthy of the consideration of that House, but this was not the time to discuss it. He would, however, say that he did not believe the noble Lord the Secretary for War would find it of any avail to attempt to make any great reforms in army administration unless he was prepared to grapple with that question. He wished to ask his noble Friend to give an explanation of the rumour which prevailed out of doors, and which had been discussed in the public press; to tell the House whether or not the patent which Lord de Grey held contained the reservation which the patents of Lord Panmure and Mr. Sidney Herbert did; and, if not, whether Lord de Grey was restricted by any Memorandum or document of any kind whatever which was or had been in his Department? The Question, the House would see, involved a matter of constitutional importance; because, if the reply should be in the affirmative, we should clearly have a great officer ostensibly unlimited in the administration of his Department, but substantially controlled by a document not of a public or official character. He intended to move for the production of the document itself, if there were any such document; but he felt assured the answer which he should receive from his noble Friend would be so frank and explicit as to render it unnecessary that he should move any further in the matter.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I shall have great satisfaction in giving my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Vivian) and the House all the information which I possess on this subject. My hon. and gallant Friend has, I think, not with perfect, but perhaps with sufficient accuracy, stated what were the alterations made in the Office which in former times enrolled a army. He has also stated correctly the nature of the Patent held by the first Secretary of State for War. It is true that Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who succeeded Lord Herbert, received a Patent which did not contain any reservation whatsoever as to his responsibility or power; but Sir George Lewis himself drew up for the signature of the Queen, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee to which my hon. and gal- lant Friend has referred, a document regulating the responsibility and authority of the Secretary of State for War and of the Commander-in-Chief. That document was, I believe, signed by the Queen, and it remains in force until it shall be revoked, whatever changes in the individuals at the head of the Office may take place. I am perfectly willing to lay, if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes me to do so, a copy of that document on the table of the House, and I think that if he compares it with the Report of the Committee on Military Organization he will no longer regard it with surprise, but will perceive that it is of the nature corresponding to the recommendation of the Committee. From this Report it will be at once seen that the Committee thought some document of this description was needed, for they say— It may be questioned whether these supplementary patents are at all needed. They only indicate the pleasure of the Crown, under seal, which, notwithstanding the patent, may always be conveyed in the ordinary manner through the Secretary of State; and they do not absolve the Secretary of State from his constitutional responsibility in regard to all matters where he is the Minister by whom and through whom the commands of the Queen are received and given. Further on they call attention to a document, signed by the Prince of Wales, and countersigned by Lord Liverpool in 1812, defining the respective duties of Commander-in-Chief and Secretary for War, and they say— Your Committee are of opinion that this document points out the best and most satisfactory form for regulating the authority of the Secretary of State, and for defining the extent of the departmental functions of the Commander-in-Chief. It is quite clear, therefore, that the Committee contemplated that the respective powers of Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of State should be defined by some document, and Sir George Lewis thought this view of the ease so evident that he at once prepared a document embodying their recommendations. I think my hon. and gallant Friend did well not to raise on this occasion the important subject of the respective duties of the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief; and it would also perhaps be better that I should follow his example, and should not now make any remarks on the general question, but wait until the document to which I have referred is in the hands of the House.