HC Deb 25 April 1870 vol 200 cc1742-69

Order for Third Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Cardwell.)

MR. J. FIELDEN

, in rising to move that the Bill be read the third time upon this day six months, said, as an explanation of his reason for taking the unusual course of proposing the rejection of a measure on the third reading, he must remark that he was, in the first instance, led to suppose from the title of the Bill that it merely related to matters of detail connected with the management of certain Departments of the War Office, and therefore he did not suppose it would be necessary for him to oppose it. But, on examining the Bill in Committee, he found that it proposed to appoint two new Under Secretaries at the War Office, and was in that respect a most important measure. It had not been discussed fully and properly on its merits, because many Members on both sides of the House were not aware of the nature of the proposition; and several hon. Gentlemen had asked him about it, and, on learning the grounds of his opposition, were much astonished at the conduct of the Government in the matter. This was, in reality, a Bill to create a Clerk to the Ordnance and a Financial Secretary, each with a seat in the House and a salary of £1,500 a year. At the time of the Crimean War there was a Board of Ordnance; but the effect of the divided responsibility of management during war was such, that it was found to be essential for the salvation of the Army to abolish the separate establishment, and appoint the Secretary of State for War as the solely responsible Minister. It was now proposed to return to the former imperfect arrangement, and to reproduce the old evils at an increased cost to the taxpayers of the country. He objected altogether to the appointment of these now Secretaries; and even if such officials were appointed, he considered that there was no necessity for their having seats in that House, for the Secretary of State for War was quite capable of answering any Questions which might be put in the House as to the conduct of his Department. The duties in the War Office might be onerous; but those in the House could be discharged by one man. This was the worst possible time that could have been selected for the creation of new Offices, and the proposition came with a very bad grace from those who were such professors of retrenchment and economy—who had been dismissing dockyard, labourers by hundreds and thousands, and who had reduced the number of soldiers and sailors in Her Majesty's service. It was true that by the proposed appointments that party would gain two votes; and he supposed they were looking forward to the time when their majority would be gradually waning away. The cruelty of the hardship imposed upon the dismissed labourers, soldiers, and sailors, could not well be exaggerated. The proceeding might have been necessary; but the Government had not shown much consideration for the feelings of the poor people. It might be very well to cut down national expenditure in this way in order to make a great display of economy; but if the effect was merely to transfer the main- tenance of those persons from the general taxes to local rates, there was no saving to the country. On the contrary, an additional burden was imposed; for when people were reduced to the rank of paupers it was difficult for them to regain an independent position. What would the labouring people of this country, so many of whom had been discharged, say when they fully understood the scheme contained in this Bill, which would, doubtless, eventually create two more pensions? Would they not characterize it, and truly, as a Whig job? But apart from the objection on the score of the time at which the proposal was made, he maintained that the change was not called for, because more head clerks could not be required when the establishment had been reduced. No manufacturer, who was compelled by badness of trade to reduce his establishment, would dream of engaging new higher clerks. He believed, further, that even if more assistance was required in the War Office, the proposed officials were not the men for the work. Men who had to sit in that House from four in the afternoon until two or three o'clock next morning were obviously not the persons to attend an office from ten o'clock in the forenoon until five or six at night. The proper persons to transact office business of that kind would be clerks at £500 or £600 a year, who could devote the whole of their time to the business of the Department. They would not, however, be able to give the Government two votes, which, he contended, was the object of the Bill before the House. For these reasons, he begged leave to move that the Bill be read the third time upon this day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)

LORD ELCHO

said, he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper to the effect that this Bill should be re-committed; but, in consequence of the Motion of the hon. Member who had just sat down, the forms of the House would not now permit him to move it. He trusted, however, that the Secretary of State for War would be inclined to adopt the suggestions he was about to offer, although he was unable to make any Motion upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing this measure had complained that, whereas in former times there had been four or five officers in the House to help the Secretary for War, he had now only the assistance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the War Lord of the Treasury, who, in his (Lord Elcho's) opinion, acted rather as a check upon than as a help to the right hon. Gentleman. Though this Bill was the most important measure connected with Army administration that had been introduced since 1855, it somehow or another had scarcely excited more attention than if it had been a road Bill or any other ordinary measure, and had it not been for his protest, to which the Secretary of State for War had so considerately responded, it would have been read a third time some weeks ago, at an early hour in the morning. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Fielden) had said that this was a Whig job; but he (Lord Elcho) could not concur in that observation. This measure was not simply one which empowered the Government to appoint two officers, one or both of whom might have seats in that House, and thus give the Government two additional votes; but it must be read in the light of Lord Northbrook's Report, and of the recent attempt of Sir Henry Storks, who held the office of Controller, to get into Parliament, and it was a Bill which proposed to re-construct the whole of the War Office administration. It would depend upon the acceptance of this Bill, in its present or in a modified form, whether the strength of the Army, and, consequently, of the nation, was to be increased for both defensive and aggressive purposes. Distrusting his own opinions upon a question of such vast importance to the interests of the country, he would content himself by quoting authorities which were entitled to considerable weight upon the subject of the administration of the Army. As the hon. Member who had just spoken had justly observed, this Bill sought to partially undo what had been done in 1855 and 1856 after the close of the Crimean War, during which, the then existing system of Army administration was supposed to have broken down, although he (Lord Elcho) believed that it was possible to show that the misfortunes that then occurred might reasonably be attributed to other causes than the failure of that system, which had not had a fair trial at that time. The keystone of that system was the Master General of the Ordnance; but the Master General of the Ordnance was not here, but was in the Crimea. Nevertheless, as we were in the habit of doing in this country on most occasions, we had rushed to a conclusion at once, and had swept away the existing system root and branch. It appeared from the 2nd volume of Mr. Clode's book upon the administration of the Army that this great change was effected at the first Cabinet in which Lord Palmerston sat as Prime Minister, when the Secretary for War (the Earl of Dalhousie) took away with him on a sheet of note paper the memoranda for the destruction of the old system, and the substitution for it of a new one. The hon. Member who had just sat down had assumed that the change then effected had been a very salutary one, but what had been its results? Broadly stated, the results of that change had been that, whereas in 1853–4 the Estimates for the Army had been £10,114,449, they had increased in 1868 to £15,455,400, exclusive of the cost of the Army of Reserve, and without adding to the military strength of the country in any degree to justify so large an increase in the Estimates; though, no doubt, many things had been done to improve the position of the soldier, and in matters of transport and improved ordnance. Had the present system worked without friction? He found that it was stated in the work to which he referred that the Earl of Longford had said in the House of Lords that, during the 12 years that had elapsed since the consolidation of the Departments, 17 Royal Commissions, 18 Select Committees, 19 committees of officers within the War Office, besides 35 committees of military men, had considered points of policy connected with the Army, while there had been nine different Secretaries of State for War during that same period. Under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must admit that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in attempting, by the introduction of this measure, to take a step towards the reduction to order of the chaos that had existed during the past 12 years with reference to the Army administration. It was proposed by the Bill to appoint two officers—one, who was to have a seat in that House, to be called the Finance Secretary, and the other, who might have a seat in that House, to he called the Clerk of the Ordnance. Now, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Vivian) had been appointed War Lord of the Treasury; but of his duties the House had no knowledge, except that they had been told that he was responsible for the finance of the Army, or something of that kind, but if he were to be appointed Financial Secretary his duties would in all probability be more clearly defined. If the House looked at Lord Northbrook's Report, they would find that in former times the system of supply and checks was carried out by auditors of imports, audit commissioners, controllers of Army accounts, an Auditor General, and an Accountant General, and the hon. Gentleman opposite had been appointed to represent the Treasury and to act as a check upon the Secretary of State for War. It thus appeared, as was stated in Lord North-brook's Report, that Army finance had hitherto been conducted upon the principle that that no trust was to be placed in any of the various departments, and that officers and other departments must be placed over them to act as checks upon their extravagance. It was now, however, proposed that, instead of the various departments being antagonistic, they should work cordially and harmoniously together, and that they should all put their shoulders to the wheel in order to keep down the expenditure, while the efficiency of the Army was secured. In his view such a system would be a much sounder one than that which had hitherto been in vogue. The hon. Gentleman opposite would doubtless discharge his new duties admirably, and, as had been stated in Lord Northbrook's Report, there would probably be but little difficulty at any time in finding among the Members of that House a Gentleman who was qualified to fill the office of Financial Secretary. The office of Clerk of the Ordnance would, however, be much more difficult to fill. According to public rumour, the two offices of Clerk of the Ordnance and Controller in Chief were to be filled by one and the same person, namely, Sir Henry Storks, whose candidature for a seat in Parliament was already spoken of. But what were the duties which were to be discharged by the Clerk of the Ordnance? In France one set of officers were appointed to provide what were called munitions de louche, which included everything necessary for the comfort of the men and beasts, such as food, forage, equipage, &c, while, on the other hand, the Board of Ordnance supplied the munitions de guerre, such as ammunition, &c. This officer would be responsible for everything in the shape of food for man and beast, for medical stores and transport; he would be responsible, also, for the food of guns, the big as well as little guns; for deciding whether the funds in the Exchequer would justify any proposed experiments; and for seeing that sufficient and not an excess of stores were provided for the manufacturing Departments. Would any man cognizant with business or the management of an estate say it was possible to get any single man thoroughly competent to discharge all these duties efficiently? His first objection to the appointment described in the Bill was founded on the finite and fallible character of man; it would be impossible to find a single man competent for the post, and even if such a one were found, on what a slender thread would the whole system hang! The efficiency of the Army would be dependent upon the bodily health of this one man, who might fail, perhaps, at the commencement of a war, the very moment when he would be most needed. The second objection was founded on the experience of all foreign nations. The French had a system of distinct control, and a proper division of duties, separating the commissariat for man from the supply of food for guns. The movements in the Crimea could not be taken as an example of war; they were not in the nature of a campaign; the General had any number of bases, the last being connected with the field by six miles of railway; the line of communication was perfectly safe, and the only thing which could threaten it—the Russian fleet—was under water from fear of capture. There could, therefore, be no comparison between the Crimea and the Peninsula, and the progress from the Peninsula to the gates of Paris was not made under a system based upon unity of control, but upon that division which at present exists in foreign armies. But this matter was inquired into a few years ago by a Committee composed of Lord Strathnairn as Chairman; Sir Hope Grant, Q.M.G.; Sir Duncan Cameron; Sir William Power, Commissary General-in-Chief; Colonel Gambier, Deputy Adjutant General R.A.; Colonel Kennedy, Military Train; Colonel Shadwell, Military Assistant, War Office; Mr. Brown, Accountant General. In substance, this Committee recommended the appointment of a Controller, whose duties would correspond with those of the French Intendant, who made all provision for man and beast, including forage, fuel, light, and clothing, but had nothing to do with the provision of warlike stores; in fact, the Committee suggested a system similar to our Peninsular system and to that adopted by every country in Europe. This Committee also referred to the system sketched out by the late Lord Herbert, whoso opinion in Army matters could not fail to carry weight. Lord Herbert's suggestion was that there should be a Parliamentary Under Secretary, a Permanent Secretary, a Secretary for Military Correspondence, a Director of Material (to have superintendence of manufactures of warlike stores, and to be an officer of the Royal Artillery), an Inspector General of Fortifications, and a Director of Supplies. I would have," he said, "a military officer to overlook the Commissariat, the clothing, and all stores which are not what are called warlike stores. Thus they had Lord Herbert recommending practically the same division of duties as existed in this country formerly, and in foreign countries, and was recommended by Lord Strathnairn's Committee. But he had an authority even greater than these, the Duke of Wellington, who, in 1837, gave evidence on the question of combining the Ordnance and the Commissariat. The Duke said— I do not think it possible to intrust the establishments of the Ordnance abroad and in the country with the transaction of the business by the Commissariat. I am now adverting to a time of peace. In time of war, I consider it absolutely impracticable—quite out of the question; it could not be done. The poisons charged with the care of the ordnance and stores in the field could not take charge of all those branches of business which are performed by the office of the Commissary General, which go to feed the troops and their horses and animals, and to supply them with the means of transport and all that is necessary. Again— I do not think that this consolidation is practicable; my reason is, that I think the Board of Ordnance have as much to do at present as they can well manage. But when you come to throw upon a great public Department, such as the Ordnance, the feeding of His Majesty's troops, and all the various duties performed by the Commissariat in England and all parts of the world, and the duties done by the officer under the Secretary at War, I conceive that a great deal more would be thrown upon the Board than they could undertake. I confess I do not think any money would be saved by this arrangement. I doubt that the Board could give any effectual assistance in the performance of those duties or could exercise any sufficient control over them. I am certain that in time of war the union of these Departments in the field or elsewhere would be absolutely out of the question. Viscount Hardinge at the same time said— There might by the proposed consolidation he some saving in time of peace, but a great deal of danger in time of war. My opinion decidedly is that everything that is consumed by man or by horse had better be left to the Commissariat, it would be imprudent to place it under the Ordnance. Again— Consolidation is bad when it prevents the head of a Department from personally investigating all the important details, and this applies more particularly to a Military Department, because the Army is a great mass of small details. The authorities of greatest weight, therefore, were clearly against this combination; and he was bound to say, without wishing in any way to speak disrespectfully, they were authorities of greater weight than those composing the War Office Committee, which included Lord Northbrook, the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), Sir Edward Lugard, and Mr. W. G. Anderson. There was some danger of administrators being led away by this idea of unity of responsibility and unity of control, and he hoped the recommendation of the high authorities he had quoted would be so far acted on in the reconstruction of the War Office—for that was what it came to—as to break up the control into departments, and make a manageable system dependent rather upon itself than upon a single efficient man. Another point was the position the Controllers were to bear to the Staff. Clearly, it was intended by Lord Strathnairn's, and he believed by Lord North-brook's Committee also, that the Controller should be completely under the General; he maintained he should also be under the Staff of the General when that Staff was properly constituted. The French had a properly constituted Staff and a Chief of the Staff, who was conversant with every detail and responsible to the General for the proper working of the Commissariat, and he believed we might have a similar officer who should be completely under the control of the General. According to all accounts there was friction in the working of our Control Department. He might, indeed, cite numberless instances in proof of this assertion, but he would refrain from doing so, as this was a matter of principle, and not one of detail; and he would, therefore, assume that when any new system was established, there must be a certain amount of friction. To show, however, that, according to his view, our system of control in relation to the Staff was not a satisfactory one, he would refer again to Lord Northbrook's Report, in which it was stated that— A General officer in command would give his orders to the principal officers under him—a Chief of the Staff upon matters of strategy and discipline, and a Controller upon matters of supply and transport. To show the working of the French, system, he might mention that a relation of his told him that when the English cavalry horses before Sebastopol were starving, he called on General Canrobert, and acquainted him with the state of affairs. The General at once summoned the Chief of the Staff—not the Intendant, be it observed—and said to him—"What forage have we in store for your division? "The Chief of the Staff went out to inquire, and coming back, replied—"There are so many feeds. "The General immediately said—"Then send 30,000 feeds to Lord Lucan. "This was a practical illustration of the French system. He would now cite the evidence given by the Controller himself before Lord Northbrook's Committee. Sir Henry Storks, in consequence of the rumours of friction between the military authorities and the Controller, was recalled and examined on that point. He was asked— Can you tell us what the present practice is in regard to such intercourse? —(that is, between the Controller and the Staff of the General). The reply was— As I understand, the present practice is for Control officers to act in obedience to the instruc- tions I have given them. Mr. Drake, lately Controller in Ireland [and he named several others], have all assured me that they maintain constant and cordial intercourse with officers of the general Staff as regards their public duties, and I hold in my hand a letter from Colonel Martindale, the Controller in Canada, in which he says (dated Jan. 7 last)—'I have laid it down as a first rule; to maintain the most friendly relations with all, I and I hope by steady consideration and consulting them and with them (i.e., the officers of the general Staff) in all practicable occasions, to maintain cordial relations.' Now, if the Army was in the field these Controllers would be liable to be hanged by order of the General in command; for the House would remember the story of the Duke of Wellington threatening to hang a Commissariat officer—who was; equivalent to a Controller of the present day, if his Army was not properly properly provisioned. It appeared to him, therefore, that the position of the Controller was not satisfactory in its relation to the Staff of the Army. What was required was a proper division of the various duties. Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was at the head of the Commissariat in the Treasury, laid down a proposition which appeared to him to be a sound one—namely, that the Secretary of State should be assisted by four responsible advisers—the Commander-in-Chief for personnel; the Controller-in-Chief for all; supplies (other than munitions of war) and transport; the Director General of Ordnance for munitions of war, and the Directors of Works for fortifications, barracks, &c. Sir Charles showed that on the Continent this organization was universally adopted, and, considering the degree to which the theory and practice; of military administration were studied on the Continent, this unanimity was; very significant. No doubt, it would be answered that practically we made such a division of labour at the same time that we were providing that one individual should be responsible for the working of all the departments. One person, however, could never have practical knowledge of all the different matters, nor properly look after them; so that he must be dependent upon the heads of the different subdivisions it was now proposed to establish. It appeared to him that, in this way, responsibility was to a great extent got rid of. It was proposed to establish a second Secretary of State for War without the Parliamentary responsibility attaching to a Secretary of State. A much more rational system might, in his opinion, be devised. The Government proposed that this officer should sit in the House of Commons, and this brought him to the question of the title it was intended to confer upon him. Indeed, his object in giving notice of his intention to move the recommittal of the Bill was to change that title. The officer was to be called Clerk of the Ordnance, his right lion. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) being so far a Conservative that he wished to retain the old name, although it would no longer indicate the nature of the office. Formerly the Clerk of the Ordnance was in reality Clerk to the Board of Ordnance, and the title was then perfectly intelligible. He was responsible for the finance of the Army, and made contracts, while the Surveyor was responsible for the quality of the materials supplied by virtue of those contracts. The Ordnance at that time only supplied munitions of war, and the office of Clerk was frequently held by civilians—as, for instance, by the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). But under the proposed scheme the so-called Clerk of the Ordnance would have also to deal with the Commissariat and with the other departments, and he contended, therefore, that the name was a wrong one. If there were to be one person to represent these different departments in the House, and if he were in reality to be the Controller-in-Chief, would it not be more rational to call him so at once? Instead of objecting to the Government gaining two votes, he should like them to have three, as he thought a system ought to be adopted similar to that recommended by Sir Charles Trevelyan. He admitted that in consequence of the ancient constitutional checks established in this country, and of the way in which they wore intertwined, it would be very difficult to devise a system which would secure unit)' of responsibility with a proper division of duties, and which would further give efficient Parliamentary responsibility and ample economical control. This was the problem to be solved; but the danger was that we might over-concentrate, as we had done already. In his judgment, we ought to minimize as much as possible this unity of responsibility as far as regarded the sub-departments. Though the task was a difficult one, yet it might, he believed, be accomplished. It could, however, be accomplished only by hav- ing regard to the precedents which we found in our own history and to the example set us by Continental nations. We must not fancy that we, who by the appointment of so many Commissions of Inquiry into the subject showed the state of confusion which we were in with respect to it, would be adopting the right course by striking out for ourselves a new system differing from any in operation among our contemporaries. Least of all would it, in his opinion, be wise to endeavour to establish a system which, at the best, we could hope to work only in time of peace; but which, as was said by the Duke of Wellington, must infallibly break down in war because of its resting on the fallibility and finite powers of one single man.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the two speeches to which the House had just listened were of a very different character. His hon. Friend (Mr. Fielden), who had made a Motion which, if carried, would be equivalent to the rejection of the Bill, appeared to him to have read the Bill and nothing but the Bill, and out of the depths of his own consciousness to have imagined the motives which had induced his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to propose it to Parliament. His noble Friend who spoke last, on the other hand, had read the Reports of the Committee, which he had evidently done them the honour of perusing carefully; but he seemed, nevertheless, to have imported too much into the consideration of the measure itself the scheme of those Reports. It was by no means necessary, however, that his noble Friend should concur in all the recommendations contained in the Reports, or even in that important one from which he appeared to differ—as to the constitution in all respects of the department of Control—in order to give the Bill his assent. But he wished, before referring further to the noble Lord's remarks, to say a few words in reply to the speech of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend spoke of the grumbling of the dockyard men who had been discharged by the hundred, and whose case, he seemed to think, had not been considered by the Board of Admiralty with due attention and regard. Now, it might be sufficient for him to say, in answer to his hon. Friend, that there was no relevancy in remarks of that kind in the present discussion, and that the dis- charge of dockyard men for whom, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, there was not employment, was not a circumstance which ought to affect in any way the consideration of the Bill before the House. He must, however, observe, in passing, that if it had been the policy of the Admiralty to reduce the expenditure in our dockyards, that policy had been carried out with all the consideration which was consistent with such reduction, and with a liberality of treatment in many instances greater than was justified by ordinary precedents. It was, of course, open to his hon. Friend to question the policy of reduction itself; but the point was one which, as he had already intimated, was not relevant to the present discussion. The conclusive reply which he had to make to the speech of his hon. Friend was that no new offices imposing new charges on the public were created by the Bill. His right hon. Friend proposed to abolish the office of Assistant Under Secretary, because he had arrived at the conclusion that the duties connected with it could with advantage be discharged by a Member of that House; and as to the salary of the Clerk of the' Ordnance, it would entail no fresh charge on the public, because if the Clerk of the Ordnance or the Controller—he was sure his right hon. Friend would not quarrel with the noble Lord on a mere point of nomenclature—were in the House there would be but one salary, while if the Clerk of the Ordnance were in the House and the Controller out of it, it would be found that there would be a saving in subordinate offices much more than sufficient to cover the expenditure, without any reference to those large economies which his right hon. Friend had already effected. He must add, in reply to the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate, and speaking also with some little knowledge of business transactions and the principles of business organization, that in any business, great or small, the first thing a business man looked to was the fitting organization for accomplishing the purposes of his business, it being quite a secondary consideration whether that organization, without which no business could be successful, did or did not involve extra charge. The expenditure against which a business man protested, and which he cut down without mercy, was that wasteful expenditure which was productive of no result; but he never grudged, or feared, or criticized in any mere parsimonious way such expenditure as was necessary for the complete organization of any business which it was worth while to conduct. His noble Friend who spoke last, in referring to the Report of the Committee of which he (Mr. Stansfeld) had the honour to be a member, said very fairly—though he must make an exception so far as Sir Edward Lugard was concerned, who was a very competent and high authority on military subjects—that the Members of the Committee were not authorities on the question of military organization. In that view he entirely concurred with his noble Friend; but he did not know whether his noble Friend himself pretended to speak with more authority upon military matters than belonged to a public man of intelligence who had given long attention to such matters.

LORD ELCHO

I did not speak of the members of the Committee as not being authorities on the subject. I simply compared them with other authorities who I said I thought were the weightier of the two.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he had no hesitation in admitting that his noble Friend might, with perfect justice, have put the case as against the Committee still more strongly; for, undoubtedly, with the exception of Sir Edward Lugard, there was no member of it who felt disposed to look upon himself as an authority on the question of military organization. Their attention was directed to hearing and weighing evidence, and to come to a conclusion upon it, just as the Members of that House were in the habit of deciding on all sorts of subjects, whether military, naval, or commercial, which were brought under their consideration. He would further observe that, while the Committee were engaged in taking evidence, he felt no small amount of confidence—knowing the views of his noble Friend on Army organization—that their Reports would meet his approval, based as they were on that notion of military organization which preferred a reasonable confidence to irritating distrust, and which was in favour of the combination of unity which was absolutely necessary with that subordinate organization which was equally indispensable. His noble Friend did not, he was happy to think, differ very widely from the Committee. He said that at the time of the Crimean War, when all the various functions which had previously been distributed between the Board of Ordnance, the Secretary at War, the Secretary for the Colonies, the Home Office, and the Treasury, were combined in the Secretary of State for War, the necessity of distributing labour and responsibility had been forgotten in the search for unity. In that opinion both he and his right hon. Friend at the head of the War Office agreed with the noble Lord, and it was precisely because the history of the post-Crimean period showed that unity had been effected without due regard to the labour of working an enormous Department—for which, after all, the Secretary for War was ultimately responsible—that it was found necessary to go back on the existing arrangements, as was now proposed, and, while maintaining supreme the unity and responsibility of control of the Secretary of State, to see by what means the responsibility of persons responsible to him could be devised so as to organize in a more complete manner the great Department of which he was the head. Taking the Control department, to which his noble Friend had mainly directed his remarks, he would observe that Lord Strathnairn's Committee had recommended the division of the Commissariat and the Ordnance branches. The Government had proposed that the Control department should be divided into two distinct branches; that the one should be the branch for the Transport and Commissariat, and the other the branch for Military and Ordnance stores. Therefore, as far as those two branches were concerned, they had that very severance of which his noble Friend approved, in common with Lord Strathnairn's Committee and all the other authorities. But, having got that as a substratum, so to speak, they came at the next stage of the inquiry to another difficulty. Evidence was brought before them of the evils arising from the absence of unity of management, in war and in peace, of the Transport and Commissariat on the one hand, and of the Ordnance stores on the other. If his noble Friend read the evidence carefully he must know it was by no means admitted, but rather the contrary, that the Continental system of the division of those two functions was perfect. Military men were agreed that they should have that division; but he thought they were not agreed that those divisions, as far as professional subordinate supervision was concerned, should not be united in one superior officer, whether in time of peace or in time of war, who should sum up the labours of those two divisions in himself, and should so relieve the Secretary of State here in time of peace, or the Commander-in-Chief hi time of war or during a campaign, of the difficulty of communicating with two departments instead of with the head of both combined. The theory of the Government, was that they had succeeded in combining the advantages of that division between the Commissariat and Transport branches on the one hand and the administration of the Ordnance supplies on the other; while they had placed both under the Controller, who stood between them and the Secretary of State; thus securing all the benefits of unity of administration, which was so important either in peace or in war. Their notion generally of the administration of the War Department had been this—The Secretary of State was to sum up the various administrative functions under certain natural divisions. Those natural divisions appeared to them to be, first of all, the command of the personnel of the army. Secondly, they thought that under the Secretary of State, in the person of the Controller, should be summed up the supervision of the matériel, the supply, and the Transport business of the army. Thirdly, they had thought that under the Secretary of State should be summed up, in the person of one officer, and that one a Parliamentary officer, the function of finance. If they organized a department not on the theory of reasonable trust, and with an intention that it should be efficient, but on the theory of distrust, and with the intention of preventing expenditure rather than of securing economy, then they might set a permanent officer to watch, and criticize, and chock the expenditure of an administrative department. But if they wished to raise the function of finance out of that condition which had proved rather to be a source of irritation and of inefficiency than of efficiency and economy combined, then they must elevate it, and correspondingly raise the status and power of the person who had to exercise it. The best way of elevating its function was to regard finance as a part of policy, and instead of looking at mere concurrent financial criticism and check, to think of the function of financial initiation and control. They could not give those higher attributes to the function of finance unless they placed at the head of that sub-department of the War Office a man who, as a Member of that House, should possess the confidence of the House, and should carry into that department, requiring the great reforms which they expected his right hon. Friend to accomplish, the prestige and the power of that House. He thought, on the whole, that those principles would recommend themselves, not only to his noble Friend, but also to the House.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for the West Hiding (Mr. J. Fielden) would pause before calling on the House to divide on his Motion. It was not unnatural on the part of his hon. Friend, at a moment when the Government had been pressing, to an extent which some deemed excessive, the reduction of our establishments and increased economy in the conduct of public affairs, to say that there might seem to be some inconsistency in the Government coming forward to add to the public expenditure by the creation of two new Offices, which would also augment their own official power. But he hoped, on reflection, his hon. Friend would admit that there were other considerations to which weight should be given; and the first of those considerations was, that the business of the Government in that House should be so managed as to be conducted efficiently and well. Another point of no small importance was, that they ought not to add unduly to the labours of public officers. With regard to the office now occupied by his right hon. Friend opposite, and which he himself had had the honour to fill, what was their experience of the last few years? Where was Lord Herbert; where was Sir George Lewis; where was Sir Benjamin Hawes? Was he exaggerating when he said there was reason to believe that those able public servants had fallen victims to the arduous labours of that office. His right hon. Friend opposite, like himself had, filled several important Offices under the Crown; and he believed his right hon. Friend would agree with him that the most arduous, the most laborious of those offices was the one of which he now from day to day bore the heavy burden. On those grounds he must repeat what he had said before—that he thought the proposal of his right hon. Friend opposite in itself, so far as it proposed to increase the power and the number representing the War Office in that House, was a perfectly fair and legitimate one; and it was impossible, therefore, for him, with any propriety or honesty, to vote against the third reading of the Bill. He now turned to what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Elcho), who had referred to the changes that occurred in 1856. Since then the War Office had never become thoroughly consolidated, nor had it worked quite satisfactorily; and his right hon. Friend opposite deserved credit, rather than censure, for attempting to effect some reforms in the present system. He thought his right hon. Friend had acted with prudence in appointing a distinct committee, composed of gentlemen who were not all members of the War Office, to consider the best mode of carrying out those changes. They were now called on by his noble Friend to consider whether those changes were the best and most prudent that could be adopted. He must say he agreed with his noble Friend as to the title which had been selected for the new office formerly filled by the Clerk of the Ordnance. If it were intended to introduce into the House a now Member of the Government, to occupy an important place and to fulfil important duties, he ought to have a title which, in the first place, should be indicative of the duty with which he was charged, and, in the second, should convey some idea of the important position he occupied. Another question which Ms noble Friend had not touched upon, but which had been raised on a former occasion, and which was an important one in itself, was whether the appointment of this new officer would not interfere with the distinct position of the Under Secretary of State, who might happen to have a seat in this House, while the Secretary of State was a Member of the other House, in which case the War Office would be represented by him; and such a possibility rendered it important that in the new arrangement there should be no room for the slightest misapprehension as to who was to be the chief representative of the Department in the House. The Government would admit that, whoever it might be who so represented the Department in that House, it was important he should not receive a smaller remuneration than those who were subordinate to him. He understood that the proposal was that the Clerk of Ordnance should receive £2,000 a year, while the Under Secretary of State had only £1,600, and he presumed the salary of the Financial Secretary was £1,500. The proposal might be, to a certain extent, founded upon that which he thought it right to do, with general concurrence, on the appointment of Sir Henry Storks to the Control department. He was quite prepared to defend the course he took on that occasion, and so long as Sir Henry Storks retained the office, it would be impossible to reduce the salary; but it did not follow that the present arrangement should be regarded as a permanent one; and what he would suggest for consideration was, whether it would not be desirable that the Under Secretary of State should have the salary of £2,000, and that the two new officers should be placed on the same footing, and should have £1,500 a year. Another important question was this—what were to be the functions of this new officer, who was at present styled Clerk of the Ordnance? Although his right hon. Friend opposite had responded to his inquiries with the greatest courtesy, he had never succeeded in understanding clearly what were to be the functions of this new officer, and he had entertained the fear that there was to be a too great consolidation of duty and of power. So far as he had been able to form an opinion, the Committee on the Arrangements of the War Department discharged their duty creditably, and no one could read their Report without seeing that they must have given long consideration and anxious thought to the subject. Speaking of this New officer the Committee said— Under the Chief of the Department, who may, if our recommendation be curried out, be a Parliamentary officer, there would be—first, a Supply Division, to deal with the business relating to transport and the supply of the articles required for the daily consumption of an army, such as food, forage, fuel, and light; secondly, a Store Division for munitions of war and miscellaneous stores, under an officer specially qualified to deal with munitions of war. Thus two distinct branches were to be combined; but the matter did not end there, for the Report proceeded— We recommend that the direction of experiments relating to munitions of war should be placed under the Chief of the Control Department, because he is the officer responsible not only for the provision of supplies in proper quantities, but also for seeing that they are of proper quality.

[Mr. STANSFELD

It proposes to have a Council of Ordnance.] No doubt; but that did not much diminish the importance of the question whether it was not proposed to throw too heavy a burden on this new officer. He had always thought that in the hurried re-arrangement too much was done, and that consolidation was carried too far. Before the change, there was a distinct Department for Ordnance; but, since 1855, science had effected a revolution in our artillery, guns, and naval ordnance, and the demand made upon intelligence and skill by the rapid advance of science rendered it more than ever necessary that ordnance should have the attention of a distinct Department of the State, which his right hon. Friend would have done well to institute. It was, indeed, a very grave question whether the Ordnance department should be mixed up with others, as it was at present, and whether the superintendence of vitally important experiments which were going on from, day to day, which alone were sufficient to require the undivided attention of the most able and intelligent officer to be found, should be imposed upon a Gentleman who, during the Session, would have to spend many hours daily in the discharge of Parliamentary duties. He thought that there was a great deal of force in what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Elcho), and his suggestions wore worthy of attention on the part of the Government.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the experience he had gained as a Member of the Arms Committee convinced him that the business of the Ordnance department would be much better done by an officer not having a seat in that House. Scientific supervision would require an amount of devotion to scientific pursuits and to details of business frequently incompatible with the position of a Member of the House, and this consideration must have presented itself to the minds of those who drew the present Bill, because they proposed to admit as a Member of the House the Clerk of Ordnance under circumstances totally different from those on which the representatives of Government Departments were ordinarily admitted.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he was glad to be able, from some little experience, to confirm what had fallen from the right lion. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). He conceived the House and the country would not have due satisfaction in the management of the Ordnance until it was again separated from the control of the Secretary of State for War. A very large portion of the expenditure of that department was due to the Admiralty. One half of the ordnance wanted was required for the Navy and fortifications; and the constant changes occurring from day to day were such as ought to receive the undivided attention of some officer capable of explaining matters in Parliament; but the practice had been to make the Secretary for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty nominally responsible, and then to appoint various Committees of Inquiry so as to relieve those great officers of State from their responsibility. The sooner that practice was abolished the better. The Secretary of State for War ought to be relieved from the constant supervision of this department, and the ordnance for the Army, Navy, and fortifications ought to be in the hands of one officer, with the view to the economical administration and efficiency of the department.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) in thinking that, having regard to the complicated nature of modern artillery, and the novelties continually being introduced, there should be, for the sake of efficiency, a Director-General of Ordnance for the Navy as well as for the Army. He trusted that the changes proposed by the present Bill, which appeared to be approved, in great measure, on both sides of the House, would produce more harmonious working in the War departments. Circumstances had lately come under his notice showing that there was not a proper understanding between the two great branches. Orders were sent out by one department without the knowledge of the other, and great hardships were thereby inflicted on officers and men, The whole system was in a state of complete disorganization, and the conduct pursued by the War Office to the Commander of the Forces was not such as (should be shown by one great department towards another. Troops were recalled from different parts of the world, and movements made without the slightest communication between the two departments. In the case of one West India Regiment officers were sent out after orders for the reduction of the regiment had gone out from the War Office. He understood that the other day a corps that had been raised for special service in India was recalled by telegraph, and the officers and men were selling their horses and property for almost nothing. Consequently, those unfortunate men and their wives and children would be brought over to this country in a state of practical destitution. If it was necessary to reduce our establishments, there was no necessity for such precipitate and harsh proceedings, and he hoped there would be more harmonious working between the two departments in future.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he had hoped to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury some assurance of the introduction of the commercial element into the financial administration of the Army, which had been attended with such beneficial results in the financial administration of the Admiralty, and he trusted his right hon. Friend (the Secretary of State for War), who was about to address the House, would not sit down without giving an assurance to that effect, which he was sure would be received with very great satisfaction.

MR. CARDWELL

Sir, the Motion which has been made for the rejection of this Bill on the third reading, after its passing all the former stages with general consent, was based on an entirely unfounded argument. So far as I can collect from the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Fielden), he appears to think that this Bill proposes to add new salaries to those already on the Estimates, and to create new pensions, whereas the Bill proposes no new salary at all; and if it has any effect on pensions, by making an officer before permanent into a Parliamentary officer, the effect, if any, must be the other way. I hope, therefore, if I have entirely de- stroyed the reason on which the hon. Member founded his Motion, I may also I persuade him not to give the House the trouble of dividing upon it. The object: of the Bill is not to increase salaries, but to increase Parliamentary responsibility. My right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), who sits opposite, and has so candidly received and weighed every proposal I have made, has alluded to the effect the labours of Office have had on the heads of the Department in which he and I have served, as regards those who have preceded us. I am sure-that neither he nor I, nor any one worthy of serving the public or sitting in this House, would grudge any amount of labour or sacrifice he might make in the discharge of his public duty. But one thing, I think, he has a right to hope for and to expect, and that is the possibility that, by the utmost exertion and the utmost labour, he should be able to discharge his duty satisfactorily. Now, I do not hesitate to say my firm conviction is that, as long as the duties of the Office are discharged only by those men whom in ordinary times you may expect to be able to find, the duties of the War Department, as now constituted, cannot be satisfactorily and properly discharged by anybody. You have never had a War Department in this country properly constituted for the discharge of the whole duties of the Military Department. Before the Crimean War the Commander-in-Chief commanded the Cavalry and Infantry, and was controlled by the Secretary at War. The Board of Ordnance regulated many of the miscellaneous matters, including the munitions of war. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) objects to the Board of Ordnance, and thinks it was abolished on the ground of incompetency, differing in that respect from the great authority of the Duke of Wellington, who considered the Board of Ordnance the best constituted Department in the State. Now, it was the determination of this House, at the time of the Crimean War, that there should be unity of responsibility under one Minister. This Bill maintains that unity of responsibility. But when you proceeded entirely to destroy the whole of the Board of Ordnance, and also placed the financial office of the Secretary at War on the shoulders of the Secretary of State, I think you carried consolidation too far. I think you carried consolidation so far that you rendered the effective discharge of the duties absolutely impossible. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Plelden) considers that a man who has not the labour of sitting in Parliament can discharge those duties far more effectively, and that it Mould be better, therefore, that they should be discharged by permanent civil servants. No one feels more than I do the great value of the permanent civil servants of the country; but I can assure the hon. Member that we do not want additional civil servants in the War Department; on the contrary, I look forward to materially reducing the expenditure of the civil servants in that Department. But what we want is this—that those who are called upon to explain matters to this House shall have the means and leisure, by personal acquaintance, to be informed of what they have to explain; and that those who wish to discharge their duty faithfully shall not be obliged to speak from knowledge which must be superficial, because collected, perhaps, within only a few hours of making their statement in this House. Lot anyone look at the Notice Paper—I will not say tonight, for it is exceptionally a light one, but any other night, and see the innumerable topics on which the civilian—for he is usually a civilian who holds the office of Secretary of State for War—is expected to inform the House. No one could suppose that it was in the power of man to obtain within 24 hours the complete, thorough, perfect knowledge which he ought to have on all these topics before he addresses the House of Commons in regard to them. It is impossible. Well, then, what this Bill proposes to do is really to revive the old Board of Ordnance to a limited extent—in the person of the officer whom the Bill calls the Clerk of the Ordnance, and to revive the office of the Secretary at War in the person of the officer whom the Bill calls the Financial Secretary. This part of the Bill has been I will not say opposed, but criticized in a friendly spirit by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Elcho). What we do is the reverse of concentration—it is disintegration. What we propose to do is this—to effect within the War Office that separation which Lord Strathnairn recommended—that is, that the Supply and Transport should be under the direction of one of the permanent servants of the War Office, and the munitions of war and stores under another; I only ask that one Parliamentary officer should represent both in this House. If in the future there should be a greater demand on the part of any of my successors in that respect, it will be for the House then to consider it; but at present what I think is, that there should be this division of duties in the War Office, and that one Parliamentary officer should be responsible for both. And I do so on this ground—I entertain the opinion myself, in which also His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief concurs, as may be seen by his evidence—that it is desirable that under one control there should be two assistants; one responsible, as I propose, for Transport and Supply, and the other for munitions of war and stores. I think you would find if you did not unite under one responsibility the whole of the supplies of the Army, you would have some of that confusion you had in the Crimean War. You would have two sets of warehouses, two sets of warehouse officers, and two sets of stores, and frequently a superabundant supply in one department where there was a scarcity in another. I therefore believe that the experiment of having one responsible officer of the two divisions is the best arrangement that can be made. My right hon. Friend opposite asked me what should be the precedence of the Parliamentary Under Secretary as regards the new officers. In the Ordnance Council the Parliamentary Under Secretary is president, and it is proposed that the new officer should be vice president. In framing the Orders in Council, which the Bill enables us to do, it will be quite possible to secure the relative relations of the two officers; but with regard to salaries, I have taken existing salaries as they stand and propose no change at all. They are not fixed in the Bill, but are to be voted by Parliament. Of course, it will be in the discretion of the House to arrange them as they please. I should see no reason why the salary should be higher than £1,500, which is the salary of the Financial Secretary, and I am ready to accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, that when the office shall be vacated by Sir Henry Storks, to whom he very properly assigned the salary of £2,000, it shall be taken by his successor at £1,500. I do not know that there is any other question which I have to answer. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: There is the title.] I do not know that the title is of much consequence. "The Clerk of the Ordnance" was proposed by me because it was that of the last surviving officer of the old Board of Ordnance, and because it had an economical appearance. The Clerk of the Ordnance was the person who usually moved the Estimates in the House, and I thought the name might have been preserved; but if the name of Surveyor General be more acceptable to the House, I have no objection to adopt it. In point of description that title would, I believe, be more accurate; for the financial department being represented by the Financial Secretary, the control of the ordnance generally would be properly represented by the term Surveyor General. Before I rose, an hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Elphinstone) took the opportunity of entering into a general discussion about the relations between the War Office and the Horse Guards. I think I should only waste the time of the House if I entered into a discussion of the various topics which he brought forward. All I can say is that this subject has been fully considered by His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in communication with me, and I hope that the most satisfactory relations will always continue to exist between us; in that respect I entirely reciprocate the good wishes of the hon. Gentleman. I do not know that I have anything more to say than to express a hope that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fielden), finding that the criticisms which have been passed were in a direction opposite to his own, will not think it necessary to give the House the trouble of dividing; and to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Stansfeld) and to the Members of the Committee for the great labour which they have bestowed, and the great ability which they have displayed in preparing this Report, and my acknowledgments also to the House for the way in which they have received a proposal which I hope and trust will conduce to the economy and to the efficiency of the War Department. My hon. Friend who sits near me (Mr. Craufurd) said he hoped the appointments which would be made under this Bill would be conducive to economy. All I can say is, that I am most desirous they should conduce to such an excellent result, and I hope that whoever succeeds to these appointments, being Members of this House, will enjoy the confidence of the House. In saying this, I may not be saying all that my hon. Friend desires; but I am persuaded that the possession of this confidence will go far to secure the economy which he desires should be attained.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 6: Majority 74.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time; verbal Amendments made; Bill passed.