§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, under the Warrant appointing the Commander in Chief of the Army, any doubt arises as to the relative position of the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of State for War; whether it is or is not the case that the authority of the Secretary of State is supreme in all that relates to the administration of the Army, and that it can, if necessary, be brought to bear upon minor promotions as well as upon the higher military appointments, and also upon matters connected with the discipline of the Army; whether, in the present administration of the Army, there is any approach to dual Government other than that which necessarily arises from the Secretary of State for War and his Staff being in one building, while the Officer charged with the discipline of the Army is with his Staff located in another; and, whether any steps are being taken, or are about to be taken, with a view to the more speedy and economical transaction of business, to concentrate the War Departments in one building?
§ MR. CARDWELLIn answer to my noble Friend I have to state that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge is not Commander-in-Chief of the Army. His proper designation is Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. As such he is appointed, not by warrant, but only by what is technically called a letter of service addressed to him, by command of Her Majesty, by the Secretary of State for War. It is the case, to use the language of my noble Friend, that the 204 authority of the Secretary of State for War—that is to say, the authority of Her Majesty's Government exercised, by him is supreme in all that relates to the administration of the army, it is brought to bear on minor promotions as well as on the higher military appointments, and I entirely concur with the opinion implied by my noble Friend, that it ought to be brought to bear, if necessary, in matters connected with the discipline of the army. Having stated that the authority of the Secretary of State is supreme, I, of course, agree in the opinion indicated by my noble Friend that there exists in principle no dual government, and I concur in the belief that when the question of the amalgamation of the public offices is settled, a great improvement in the transaction of business will result from having the two Departments of army administration associated in the same building. I have only further to say that I beg to reserve to myself entire freedom to use my discretion with regard to any changes in the two Departments which experience may prove to me to be desirable in the interest of the public service.