Lords Sitting of 16 July 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod—The Lord Willoughby de Eresby added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sanitary Act (1800) Amendment * (252); Turnpike Acts Continuance * (253); Public Schools * (262); Tithes Commutation, & c. Acts Amendment * (256); Vaccination (Ireland) * (254); Municipal Elections (Scotland) * (263); Militia Pay *; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 3) * (255); Public Departments Payments * (264).
Second Reading—Contagious Diseases Act(l866) Amendment * (185); Court of Session (Scotland) * (246); Portpatrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies * (238).
Committee—Ecclesiastical Commissioners * (221–259); Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Accounts Audit * (237); Assignees of Marine Policies * (225); Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ire land) * (222); Clerks of the Peace, & c. (Ireland) * (224–261); Petit Juries (Ireland) *
1226
(231); Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Court * (123); Indorsing of Warrants * (240); Court of Justiciary (Scotland) * (232); Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) * (233).
Report—West Indies * (249); Entail Amendment (Scotland) * (183); Assig
nees of Marina Policies * (225–260); Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland) (222); Petit Juries (Ireland) * (231); Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Court * (123); District Church Tithes Act Amendment * (251); Indorsing of Warrants * (240).
Third Reading—Land Writs Registration (Scotland) * (213); University Elections (Voting Papers) * (201); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements * (206); Metropolitan Police Funds * (230); Fairs (Metropolis) * (233); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2) * (207); Libel (Ireland) * (209); Railways (Ireland) Acts Amendment * (177); Local Government Supplemental (No. 3) * (194); Hudson's Bay Company * (244).
Royal Assent—Reformatory Schools (Ireland) [31 & 32 Vict.c. 59]; Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension [31 & 32 Vict.c. 62]; Registration [31 & c 32 Vict.c. 58]; Bank of Bombay [31 & 32 Vict.c. 63]; Consular Marriages [31 & c. 2Vict.c. 61]; Curragh of Kildare [31 & c 32 Vict.c. 60].

PRIVATE BILLS—RAILWAY BILLS—INCREASE OF RATES.

  STANDING ORDER.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that, while he agreed in the principle of the Resolution passed by their Lordships a few evenings ago on the Motion of his noble Friend (Lord Taunton), yet it required some little modification. The alteration he proposed was principally confined to the addition that the Report of the Board of Trade should be made "after the Bill had been read a first time in this House." With regard to the policy of increasing the fares and rates on railways, a parallel case would be the tolls on turnpike roads. In the case of turnpike trusts, money had been borrowed and roads had been made, many of which had been ruined by the railways. The policy of Parliament in such cases had been not to increase the tolls, but to reduce the interest, in order that the debt might be paid off. He was more strongly than ever of opinion that no separate increase of tolls should be granted to any railway company. No doubt peculiar circumstances might arise, but they would be such as to apply to all railways, and not to any one in particular. If Parliament once admitted the principle that when a railway by its mismanagement and improvidence had brought itself into difficulties it might come and ask for an increase of fares, there would be no end

  1227
  to such cases. The Legislature would, in fact, be offering a premium upon railway mismanagement.
  Standing Order No. 179. amended by inserting after Section 3. the following Section:—
  Section 4. That no Bill which proposes to increase the Rates now payable on the Conveyance of Goods or Passengers on any Railway shall be read a Second Time until a Report from the Board of Trade on the Subject, made after the Bill has been read a First Time in this House, shall have been laid upon the Table of the House.
  Ordered, That the said Standing Order, as amended, be printed.

PROMISSORY OATHS BILL—(No. 243.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved that the Amendments made by the Commons in this Bill be agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that there was a misapprehension abroad as to the 8th clause. There was a notion that the clause as it stood went so far as not only to repeal the Oath of Supremacy, but to exonerate the clergy altogether from any obligation to recognize the Supremacy of the Crown. He believed that was a totally erroneous idea; but, as the matter was one of very great importance, he had spoken to the Lord Chancellor about it, and he wished to know from the noble and learned Lord what his opinion was Upon the subject?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble Friend has been good enough to inform me beforehand of his intention to ask this Question. I own that I am myself very glad that the noble Earl has mentioned this subject to your Lordships, because, judging from observations made elsewhere, there does appear to be a considerable amount of misunderstanding as to the Oath of Supremacy, and as to the consequences of any repeal of that Oath. There can be no greater mistake than to suppose that the Oath of Supremacy and what I may term the law and doctrine of the Queen's Supremacy are the same thing, or that they have been in recent times co-extensive. In point of fact, from circumstances which can be easily explained, the Oath which has been called the Oath of Supremacy has for a long time—for nearly two centuries—ceased to express in any shape or form the doctrine
1228
of the Supremacy of the Sovereign. The Supremacy of the Sovereign depends upon a sanction very much higher than the obligation of an oath. Sir Matthew Hale and Lord Coke both say that the Royal Supremacy rests on the Common Law and requires no statute to support it. The three main statutes which relate to the Royal Supremacy are the 24, 25, & 26 Henry VIII. I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting at length from these statutes; but I will mention the words of one of them—the 25 Henry VIII.—from which your Lordships will see the form of legislation then adopted with regard to the Supremacy of the Crown. It says—
"This your Grace's realm, recognizing no superiority under God but only your Grace, hath been and is free from any subjection to any man's laws; but only to such as have been devised, made, and ordained within this realm, for the wealth of the same, or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your progenitors the people of this your realm have taken at their free liberty, by their own consent to be used among them, and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the same, not as to the observance of laws of any foreign Prince, Potentate, or Prelate, but as to the customed and ancient laws of this realm, originally established as laws of the same, by the said sufferance, consents, and custom, and none otherwise."
And, further, the 24 Henry VIII. states that—
"Whereby divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed, that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and King, having the dignity and Royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same; unto whom a body politick, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in term, and by names of spirituality and temporality, been bounden and owen to bear, next to God a natural and humble obedience; he being also institute and furnished, by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God, with plenary, whole and entire power, pre-eminence, authority, prerogative, and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of folk, resiants, or subjects within this his realm in all causes, matters, debates, and contentions happening to occur, insurge, or begin within the limits thereof, without restraint or provocation to any foreign Princes or Potentates of the world."
That was the form in which the Supremacy of the Sovereign in matters temporal and ecclesiastical stood in the reign of Henry VIII. As a matter of history, your Lordships will remember that all these Acts were repealed in the reign of Mary. but were re-enacted in the 1st of Elizabeth; and you may take as one of the most condensed explanations of the

1229
legislation of the 1st of Elizabeth the statement of Mr. Hallam, who says—
"The two statutes enacted in the first year of Elizabeth, commonly called the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, are the main links of the Anglican Church with the temporal Constitution, and establish the subordination and dependency of the former."
Now, these statutes of Elizabeth continue to the present day; they are the statutes which are the full and broad expression of the Royal Supremacy; they are binding upon every subject of the realm, whether a layman or a clergyman; and so far as the declaration of the law and the stringency of the law go, that law would remain binding upon every subject of the Crown, whether he did or did not take any Oath or make any declaration respecting it. But now, as regards the case of the clergy, before coming to the Oath of Supremacy, as it is somewhat inaccurately called—the clergy, independently of all statutes and of all rules, are in a position essentially differing from the laity in this respect—that they subscribe, among other things, the 37th Article of Religion, and declare, on ordination and on taking possession of any benefice, that—
"The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain; and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction."
Therefore, in addition to the general laws which bind all the subjects, there is this specific declaration signed by all clergymen at their ordination, which has a peculiar operation on their consciences from the form of expression used. That is the state of the case as to the law of Supremacy; but as to the Oath of Supremacy, the history of it is a very singular one. Originally, the Oath of Supremacy was passed in the reign of Elizabeth, and it really was what its name professed to be; it was an expression of the law and doctrine of Supremacy in all its breadth—
"I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other Her Highness's Dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Realm; and, therefore, I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her
1230
heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges, and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm."
Your Lordships will observe that that was an Oath which had both an affirmative and a negative part. The affirmative part testified to the existence of the Royal Supremacy in all matters ecclesiastical and temporal; the negative part disowned the jurisdiction of any foreign Prince. The second form in which the Oath passed was after the Revolution in the reign of "William and Mary, when a remarkable change was made in it; the affirmative part of the Oath was omitted, and it became a negative Oath only—
"I, A. B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this Realm."
There is no doubt it continued to be called the Oath of Supremacy, but it utterly failed to express a large part of the doctrine of Supremacy. It denied the supremacy of any foreign prince or potentate, but it failed to affirm the Supremacy of the Sovereign in matters ecclesiastical and temporal. That was the second form of the Oath. The third Oath, adopted in 1858, still continued simply a negation; and the Act of 1858 used these words—
"Instead of Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, when the same are now by law required to he taken, and taken and subscribed respectively, the following Oath shall be taken and subscribed."
I should have imagined from these words that the intention was that the name of the Oath of Supremacy should cease. However that may be, the only words again touching the Supremacy in this Oath are as follows:—
"I do declare that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this Realm; and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian."
Your Lordships will see that this was still a negative Oath without any affirmative words. The fourth time that the Oath was dealt with was in 1865 by the Clerical Subscription Act, which enacted that—

1231
"Every person about to be ordained priest or deacon shall, before ordination, in the presence of the Archbishop or Bishop by whom he is about to be ordained, at such time as he may appoint, make and subscribe the declaration of assent, and take and subscribe the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy according to the form set forth in the Act of 1858."
Therefore, before the present Bill was brought into Parliament, the law of Supremacy continued without any change. The clergy subscribed the 37th Article, which affirmed that law in all its breadth, and they took in addition what was called rather improperly the Oath of Supremacy, which was nothing more than a negation of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. This Bill does not alter in any way the doctrine or the law of Supremacy, which is left exactly as it stood. Every clergyman is under the same obligation as before to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, including the 37th. All that the Bill does is to terminate that Oath of negation which, as regards a clergyman, is perfectly unnecessary, because it is contained in the 37th Article; and as regards all the other subjects of the Crown, it is unnecessary too, because the subject-matter of that Oath of negation is regulated by the general law of the country, whether the Oath continues or not. I think, therefore, your Lordships will be of opinion that there is really no ground for any of the apprehensions that have been entertained that the law or doctrine of Supremacy is in any way interfered with by this Bill.
LORD WESTBURY: As one of the Members of the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred, I beg leave to be allowed to make a few observations respecting it. Notwithstanding what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor)—which in law and good sense too, is perfectly correct—I very much regret that we permitted this Bill to come down with one form of expression which is contained in it. For although to persons conversant with the subject that form of expression cannot create any error or lead to misconception, yet to the generality of persons I am afraid it will give vise to considerable difficulty. The form of expression I allude to is that contained in the 8th section, whereby it is proposed to enact that—
"The form of the Oath of Allegiance provided by this Act shall be deemed to be substituted in the case of the Clerical Subscription Act, 1865, for the form of the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy therein referred to."
1232
This mode of expression seems to import that the Oath of Supremacy shall henceforth be annulled, and the simple Oath of Allegiance substituted for it. Now, it is perfectly true, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that it does not in the smallest degree affect the obligations of the clergy or the obligations of the laity. Supreme jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters in all cases ecclesiastical or spiritual is the essence of the Supremacy of the Crown. The Crown has not supremacy in any matter of doctrine, nor any authority whatever to assert anything with respect to doctrine except the meaning of the written law. The Supremacy of the Crown is this—that all jurisdiction proceeds from the Crown, and must be exercised by virtue of appointments made by the Crown. The final jurisdiction in all matters ecclesiastical and spiritual is centred in the Crown. Now, your Lordships will be good enough to observe that I use the word "jurisdiction," and not "authority." There may be spiritual authority and pastoral authority; but jurisdiction, which is the right jus dicendi, is vested in the Crown, and can only be exercised by authority of the Crown. This was the prerogative of the Kings of England even before the Reformation. At the time of the Reformation the Supremacy of the Crown was finally asserted and established in this—that there should be no appeal to Rome, but that the ultimate decision of all ecclesiastical cases should centre in the Crown, and in persons appointed for that purpose by the Crown. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has stated what is the true idea of the Supremacy of the Crown. It is also given in the right form in the words by which the clergy bid us pray for the Queen as being "in all matters ecclesiastical and spiritual within these her dominions supreme." Supreme, as I have already observed, for the purpose of finally declaring the law upon these subjects. The 37th Article also contains a correct expression of the positive or affirmative doctrine of the Supremacy of the Crown, and, after laying this down, it proceeds to give a more express definition. It says—
"The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates in this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain; and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. When we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government, by which Titles we

1233
understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word or of the Sacraments, the which things the Injunctions also set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify, but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself; that is, that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England."
The temporal sword and the spiritual sword are, for the purposes of ruling all estates and degrees, constitutionally vested in the Sovereign, but the office of the clergyman is not interfered with.
In answer to an observation of the Earl of HARROWBY,
LORD WESTBURYsaid, that if he had observed the form of expression contained in the Bill, he would have suggested the propriety of altering it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the history of the legislation on the subject was not creditable in respect of the way in which Acts of Parliament were drawn. The Act of 1865 was drawn at a late period of the Session, and an Amendment was inserted introducing the term "Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance" contained in the Act of 1858: and that error had been perpetuated in the present Bill.
Commons, Amendments agreed to.

THE WAR OFFICE—DEPARTMENT OF CONTROL.—QUESTION.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Arrangements for the Establishment of the new Department of Control in the War Office and for the closer Union of the Civil Departments of the Army are completed; and, if so, whether he will state the general Nature of those Arrangements? Their Lordships were no doubt aware that the evidence taken by Lord Strathnairn's Committee afforded convincing proof that the existing arrangements in regard to the administration of the civil branch of the army were highly unsatisfactory. Those who took an interest in the subject had watched carefully what had gone on, and he believed everyone who took any interest in the army heard with satisfaction in November last of the appointment to the office of Controller of Sir Henry Storks. He (Earl de Grey) fully approved the step, and he believed that Sir Henry was the very fittest man
1234
that could have been selected. Sir Henry Storks entered on his duties on the 1st of January; and the question now was what was to be the practical result of that appointment, and what steps were to be taken to promote the union of the separate Departments, as recommended by Lord Strathnairn's Committee. It was not until the month of June, however, that any information was given or any discussion took place as to the results of Sir Henry's appointment. At that time there was laid before the other House of Parliament the Correspondence which had passed between the Treasury and the War Department. When the Correspondence first appeared he (Earl de Grey) turned to it with much interest, in the hope that it would afford a clear explanation of the position which Sir Henry Storks was to occupy in the War Department as Controller-in-Chief, likewise of the duties which he was to discharge, and of the steps taken with the view of carrying out the amalgamation during the six months which had elapsed since his appointment. He regretted to say, however, that after a careful perusal of the Correspondence he could not find in it that full and clear information which he trusted would have been afforded, and consequently he had felt it his duty before this Session closes to ask the noble Earl opposite, the Under Secretary of State, to supplement the information contained in the Correspondence, and to clear up some points which were obscure. Now, in order that he might make clear to the noble Earl and to their Lordships his object in asking the Question of which he had given Notice he must in the first place remark that he was strongly convinced that one of the most important reforms in connection with our military Departments was that closer union of the various civil Departments of the army—the Commissariat, Purveyors, Transport, and Barrack Departments—which formed the basis of the recommendations of Lord Strathnairn's Committee. He believed, indeed, that the present state of these Departments was so unsatisfactory that if we were to engage in a European war we should at the outset of such an undertaking find ourselves involved in serious difficulties. Therefore, as he understood the matter, the first and principal duty of the Controller-in-Chief was to effect a complete amalgamation of those Departments, giving, of course, due consideration to existing interests. It was, however, a great mistake to suppose that

1235
such a duty could be effectually performed in a short time. The task was, in fact, a most arduous one, and, he believed it would test all the administrative ability even of so experienced a man as Sir Henry Storks. At any rate he felt confident it was an undertaking which could not be carried to a satisfactory issue if the officer charged with it in the first instance were merely empowered to lay down general regulations for the guidance of the Departments and to frame the rules which were afterwards to be followed. It was also necessary that he should see those rules carried into effect, and that he should not relinquish his post until the new Department was in a position to run alone—if he might use the expression. Such being his opinion he not unnaturally referred to the Papers in order to ascertain what was the precise position in which the Controller-in-Chief had been placed, but he confessed there was much obscurity on that point. He was unable to make out, for instance, whether Sir Henry Storks had been appointed Controller-in-Chief with the intention that he should hold the office as long as his doing so might be for the benefit of the public service, and as long as it might be necessary for him to hold it in order thoroughly to carry out the work on which he was, engaged; or whether it were merely intended that he should hold it only a short time for the purpose of laying down general regulations under which the contemplated reforms were to be accomplished. Sir Henry Storks had been appointed Controller-in-Chief, with a salary of £2,000 a year, and with a position equal in all respects to that of a permanent Under Secretary of State. This was clear from the commencement of the Correspondence; and yet Sir Henry's position was described in the last letter from the Treasury as a provisional arrangement entered into with a view to his framing regulations, carrying out the impending changes in the War Office, and bringing the establishments into working order. For his own part, he should not have contemplated that the Controller-in-Chief would, as a rule, be in the position of an Under Secretary of State, nor was it as a rule necessary that he should be so. But when he saw Sir Henry Storks placed in that position he concluded that that step had been taken because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the War Department felt it was only right that so dis-
1236
tinguished an officer should, while he held the post of Controller, have the official rank and status of an Under Secretary. He should deeply regret if, for the sake of saving £500 a year by reducing the salary from £2,000 to £1,500, any risk should be run of losing the advantage of Sir Henry Storks' services as the head of the Control Department, even for a single day, before he had completed the work which he had undertaken to perform. He trusted the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) would give a distinct explanation as to the real position which Sir Henry Storks now occupied. This letter from the Treasury went on to state what were the relative positions of the Department of Control and the other Departments of the War Office, particularly the Finance Department. The Treasury appeared to apprehend that there would be a collision between those two Departments; but he confessed he did not share in that apprehension. It seemed to be intended that the Account or Finance Department should freely lay before the Secretary of State their comments on the proposals of all the other Departments, as far as expenditure or financial affairs were concerned. He quite concurred in the propriety of such an intention, and he should even hesitate to place and narrow interpretation on the phrase "financial affairs." Whenever an increase of expenditure, either actual or perspective, was involved, it ought to be the duty of the Finance Department to state their views on the subject to the Secretary of State for his consideration. On that point, therefore, he had no issue to raise. He should, however, like to know the precise interpretation which the noble Earl placed upon that sentence in the letter which related to the compilation of the Estimates. It was laid down that it should be the duty of the Financial Department to compile the Estimates for all army expenditure. Now, the Estimates went through various stages in the course of their preparation. In the first instance, they were prepared by the branches intrusted with the administration of the various Departments, and then sent to the Finance Department, where they were brought together and checked one with another, and also considered in their general financial bearings. He hoped it was not now intended to take the first preparation of the Estimates from the various administrative branches; and further he hoped the noble Earl would be able to show that the re-

1237
sponsibility for the Estimates and for every one of their details would still rest on the Secretary of State alone. The Account or Finance branch was a Department of the War Office precisely like the other branches. It was responsible to the Secretary of State, and to him alone; it took its orders from him, and from him alone. He did not wish to under-rate the importance of the duties of the Account or Finance Department; he believed they were of the utmost importance. He only desired to make it clear that its duties were entirely conducted under the authority of the Secretary of State, and under a responsibility to him and to him alone. So far was he from being disposed to undervalue the importance of that Department, that it had more than once crossed his mind whether advantage would not be derived from placing the chief superintendence of financial business in the War Office—of course under the Secretary of State—in the hands of a Parliamentary officer somewhat analogous to a Civil Lord of the Admiralty. He did not give that as a positive opinion, but wished merely to show that in holding that that Department was not outside of the War Office, but was one under the Secretary of State, his remarks did not proceed from any desire to depreciate that Department, but from a desire that all those Departments should be kept in due subordination, so that the authority and the responsibility of the Secretary of State should not be weakened or over-shadowed. He looked upon it that the real and important duty which Sir Henry Storks, or whoever might be the Controller-in-Chief, had to perform was to re-organize upon a thoroughly efficient basis the civil Departments of the army outside the War Office. They should, as far as possible, assimilate their arrangement so that their army should be managed at home in the same manner as it was managed abroad, and and also, that as far as practicable—of course, with the necessary differences—it should be administered in time of peace in the same manner as in time of war. It was obvious that that was the only means by which they could really get the administrative branches of the army into a proper state for the outbreak of hostilities; and that the more closely they could assimilate their Departments in time of peace to the system requisite for a time of war the more they would be prepared for war. And it was because he knew the unsatisfactory condition of those Depart-
1238
ments at present, and because he felt that a grave and serious responsibility would rest on any Government that delayed the re-organization of those Departments on such a basis, that he trusted he should hear that evening that the Secretary of State was fully alive to the importance of the subject, and also that Sir Henry Storks was now about to set himself to work in carrying on outside the War Office that re-organization of the civil Departments of the army which he believed to be one of the most important reforms of our military system.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that this was a subject which had on various previous occasions occupied the attention of Parliament. In 1859 or 1860 the House of Commons appointed the Committee on Army Organization; and in. 1861 the late Lord Herbert of Lea took up the question and proposed to the Treasury a reform somewhat of the nature of that now under consideration. The course of events in the five following years was not favourable to the consideration of the proposed changes, and nothing was done until 1865, when the project was revived. The year 1866 and a great part of 1867 was occupied by the most valuable Inquiry of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, whose valuable Report was presented in the summer of 1867. At the end of the same year Sir John Pakington proposed to the Treasury the appointment of Sir Henry Storks as Chief Controller, for the purpose of carrying into effect the contemplated reforms. The appointment was concurred in by the Treasury, and Sir Henry Storks at once assumed his office to prepare for the execution of the scheme of re-organization of which he was to have the direction. In the following March his proposals were submitted to the Treasury, who in April asked for further information, which was immediately afforded them. Then followed some correspondence respecting the Royal Warrant for the constitution of the new Department, and on the 28th April the Royal Warrant was issued. On the 29th of June the Treasury wrote expressing their views as to the arrangements then contemplated, and suggesting various modifications in those arrangements; and a day or two later Sir John Pakington substantially accepted the modified terms proposed by the Treasury; and now there remained several points to be considered. That was the position in which the matter at present stood; and

1239
he hoped that in a very few days they would commence to bring the new arrangements into gradual operation. It was true that the discussions between the various Departments of the army hitherto had been rather complicated; that their harmonious action had been somewhat overlooked in their original constitutions; and that they were not so designed as to work together well on the occasion of a great strain. That, however, would now be remedied, and the Chief Controller would be the sole authority at the War Office to govern Departments and Staffs which had hitherto been under four or five different heads. The illustrious Duke (the Commander-in-Chief), on a former occasion when that subject was mentioned, appeared to fear that the Chief Controller would have too much power, and that it would be difficult to control that officer himself; but he (the Earl of Longford) trusted the illustrious Duke would find that any objection on that ground had been obviated. One of the causes which had tended rather more than another to delay the preparation of the scheme was a little over-anxiety on the part of the Treasury to secure to themselves sufficient financial control against the presumed tendency of the Secretary of State towards extravagance. But on that point the Treasury and the Secretary of State had, he thought, now come to an understanding, and he trusted that there was now no risk of collision between the two Departments. The scheme was now so far organized that its gradual adoption would be immediately proceeded with. Rather an exaggerated importance out-of-doors had been given to that reform, which was a re-distribution that would, he trusted, effect certain improvements in the Departments; but the new Controller would not not be a magician, who by a wave of his wand could prevent the possibility of future delay or disappointments. He hoped the public service would gain greatly by the adoption of the scheme; but the measure should be taken for what it was—an important interior re-arrangement, and not a panacea against all future shortcomings. There would still be some red-tape and a considerable amount of correspondence connected with the Administration, and there would also still be prejudiced persons ready to circulate and to listen to any story against the War Office. Nevertheless, he hoped the scheme would result in great advantage to the country.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: The subject of the noble Earl's (Earl De Grey's) Question is one of such vast importance to the service that I feel bound to express my great satisfaction that it has been brought before your Lordships' House; because certainly since this Treasury Minute has been published and circulated there has been such a variety of opinion as to the meaning of that Minute that it is extremely difficult for an outsider to understand what its effect is. I trust we shall get that information tonight—although I do not think we have yet obtained all we could wish. It is one of the most singular documents I ever read. Its intention appears to tide over any difficulties and make everything smooth and easy; but I cannot help thinking that it puts the War Office in an undesirable position. I do not see how two bodies can be placed on an equal footing and yet both hare the opportunity of referring to the Secretary of State, without there being continual collision between them, and without the Secretary of State being kept in a state of perpetual hot water between the two. I understand that this is not the intention, but that what has hitherto been the practice shall continue to be followed. I most sincerely hope that this will be so; for one of the most essential points in our military organization is to bring matters into some sort of ship-shape in the War Office. We are perpetually told that our military organization is so defective that it will break down on the first emergency. No doubt a great deal is wanted, and I cannot help feeling that on all sides, and without reference to one side of the House or the other, that the modifications required for the War Office are so important that they cannot be delayed a single day longer. I understood that my gallant Friend Sir Henry Storks was wisely, prudently, and judiciously selected by the Secretary of State for War to be Controller-in-Chief, and I presume that it was on account of the high position which he would fill that it was thought inconvenient and improper to offer him this post without at the same time giving him the rank and position of an Under Secretary of State. It might have been expected that after Sir Henry Storks had been selected for this post he would have been placed in a position to deal with the duties of the office. But what has been done? I Immediately Sir Henry Storks wished to

1241
take his place and perform the functions of his office, difficulties arose. It was discovered that the office of Controller was of so important a character that he ought to he controlled. Objections were raised from a variety of quarters, which produced this extraordinary Treasury Letter, and which for the future considerably modifies the position of Sir Henry Storks. I hope that whatever may be hereafter the decision with regard to Sir Henry Storks one thing will be clearly understood, and I shall be glad of some assurance from my noble Friend after I have sat down that he will be left in the position for which he has been selected until he has not only been able to carry out the reforms recommended by himself, but until he has seen that the whole system works efficiently and well. It is not enough that he should always be there to indicate what ought to be done, but he ought to be continued in that position, irrespective of whatever other arrangements may be made, until he has seen the working of the new system and satisfied himself that it would produce good results. He ought also to satisfy the Secretary of State that matters were in such a state that his successor would follow in his footsteps and carry out the duties of the office so that they would work smoothly and well. If that is to be the effect of the Letter, and if my noble Friend will give me an assurance that this is the feeling of the War Office, the effect which this Treasury Minute has produced upon me will be greatly relieved. There is another observation I wish to make on this remarkable document, and on which I feel very strongly. It contains a most singular paragraph, in which, among other recommendations, it is stated that there should be an additional Under Secretary appointed to assist the Secretary of State on military matters, who shall generally, if not always, be a military man. I apprehend that the meaning of that is that this official shall give military advice to the Secretary of State on points connected with the working of the office. If that is the intention my mind is greatly relieved, for I regard this as a wise and prudent arrangement. But it appears to me that the effect of the Minute is to make this officer supersede all other military advisers, including the Commander-in-Chief, who has hitherto been considered the military adviser of the Secretary of State, whatever political party he might
1242
be connected with. Providing that this arrangement does not place the Commander-in-Chief in an inferior position to that of the Under Secretary—who need not be a military man at all—and provided also that military advice is to be given by the Commander-in-Chief, and that the advice given by the Under Secretary shall be confined to points connected with the office, I shall be quite satisfied; but I should like to have some assurance on that subject from my noble Friend. I am delighted to hear from the noble Earl (Earl De Grey) that the responsible financial officer of the War Office is the Secretary of State for War. There can be no other authority. He may take any officer of his Department to advise him on special or confidential matters, to whom he may refer those matters which are essential for the proper working of the office; but I contend that what is called the compilation of the Estimates, though made by the various Departments, should be made under the direct authority of the Secretary of State, who should be controlled exclusively by the Treasury. I am delighted to hear that there is not to be a smaller Treasury in the War Office. The Treasurer of the War Office is the Secretary of State for War, and the only controlling power of the Secretary of State is the Treasury itself. Another point of importance is the preparation of the Estimates in the various Departments. The Estimates to be of any value in a large office like the War Office can only be prepared by the heads of the several Departments. They should then be corrected and adopted by the Secretary of State. But if the Secretary of State in his individual capacity, or the Government as a body, should, after the preparation of the Estimates make a considerable reduction in them, I contend that it is the province of the various heads to propose their own reductions in those Departments, and that it should not be left in the hands of a financial officer who may know nothing of the individuality of the Departments, and who has only to deal with the results. It is true that after the question has been considered by the Departments the whole question must go back to the financial officer, who will report to the Secretary of State; but that is a very different thing from having a financial officer to decide upon his own ipse dixit, and to say what ought to be the reduction in the various items. Upon that point there seems to be a want of clearness

1243
in what fell from the noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Longford), and I hope that he will be able to give us some further explanation on this point. I hope there will be no delay in going on with such reforms as are contemplated, for your Lordships may rest assured that the uncertainty that hangs over offices when changes are intended to be made is extremely inconvenient and mischievous both inside and outside the office. It is essential it should be clearly understood that when ever changes are thought desirable and are determined upon they should be at once commenced; although they should be carried out no doubt with the greatest forbearance and consideration for those concerned, but yet with as little delay in carrying out a great measure of reform as possible. There is no point of military interest on which the country has expressed an opinion more strongly than the desirability of some regular system which should avoid confusion and tend to confirm the wise and prudent arrangements which have been made from time to time by the various military Departments. I hope that the result of to-night's conversation will be to satisfy Sir Henry Storks that no intention is implied in this Minute of removing him from the important post for which he is so well fitted, and the duties of which I feel sure he will discharge to the satisfaction of the country, and to the great simplification of the general arrangements of the War Office.
LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, that no one could have held office, as he had done, in the War Department without feeling the necessity of extensive but judicious changes. The explanation of the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) must have greatly increased the apprehensions of his noble Friend (Earl de Grey); for though the noble Earl deprecated the importance attributed to the matter, and represented the re-organization of the Department as a very ordinary proceeding, the correspondence on the subject was of a very extraordinary character. In December, 1867, the War Office applied to the Treasury for the appointment of a Controller-in-Chief, with a position equivalent to that of Under Secretary of State, and with a salary of £2,000 a year; but in the following June the Treasury proposed the appointment of a Controller without the rank of Under Secretary, and at a salary of £1,500, and likewise of a principal Financial Officer with a salary of £1,500, and with a deputy,
1244
The latter appointment had not been asked for; but the very next day the War Office accepted the proposal of the Treasury with the exception of some details. Discussions must evidently have occurred between December and June, but no light had been thrown on them—though the remarks of the noble Earl seemed to imply that the Treasury objected to the original scheme because they wished to secure efficient financial control. The Treasury, indeed, had of late years shown a disposition, as well in the case of the Admiralty as of the War Office, to set up little Treasuries in the various Departments, so as to hold communications with subordinate officers in them without the intervention of the heads. The question was whether the principal Financial Officer and his deputy were to be the officers of the Treasury or of the War Office—for this was the gist of the whole question. If the intention was that every proposal connected with expenditure should go from the Controller-in-Chief to the new Financial Officer, how was the business of the former to be carried on? It must not be supposed that this would be a mere form, for the fault of the War Department was that it was given to endless correspondence and delay, and he could conceive no proposal more calculated to increase the evils already existing. Moreover, to take off the responsibility from the shoulders of the officer of practical knowledge and transfer it to an officer not having such knowledge was likely to encourage the former to be reckless in his recommendations as to expenditure, since, whether they were accepted or rejected, the responsibility would not rest with him. As to the preparation of the Estimates, the Secretary of State, as the illustrious Duke had remarked, was the person responsible, and unless he was brought in contact with the officer of practical knowledge there was little chance of efficiency or economy. The noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) had not given a full explanation on this point. As a civilian he must protest against that portion of the scheme which implied that no military man was fit to be the Financial Officer, for he had found military men quite as anxious for economy as civilians, and men, moreover, who from their professional knowledge were much more fitted than civilians to offer excellent suggestions with a view to economy. Indeed, at the time the Treasury put forward their scheme the office of permanent Under Secretary was

1245
held by a civilian. When, too, the gigantic expenditure attendant upon the Indian mutiny was brought down to something like a peace expenditure, it was military men who did it, General Balfour being one of the most distinguished. He hoped, therefore, that so unwise a rule would not be laid down. He should like some further explanation as to the position of Sir Henry Storks—whether he was to remain Controller-in-Chief with the salary and position originally proposed, or with the less responsible position suggested by the Treasury. In conclusion, he begged to say that this matter was one of very great national importance, and if Her Majesty's Government had been induced to give way to the Treasury, he hoped they would retire as quickly as possible by a change of position from the place which they now occupied, and he had no doubt the country would support them.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in explanation, said that there was no intention of interfering with the functions of the illustrious Duke or the Horse Guards as they were at present exercised. It was the most earnest wish of the Department that Sir Henry Storks should continue to hold the position of Controller-in-Chief. The illustrious Duke had spoken of the Estimates. It had been his intention to explain that the Estimates would be framed very much as at present, and would be submitted to the Secretary of State for War. The Financial Secretary of the Treasury would be consulted, but not exclusively. The illustrious Duke was also anxious that no time should be lost in proceeding with the arrangements, which were entirely in accordance with the wish of the War Office. But the delay had been very much occasioned by another matter, to which the illustrious Duke had referred—namely, the necessity of consulting the vested interests of the numerous officers employed in the different Departments. He quite concurred with what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Northbrook), that it was not impossible that military men might be found quite competent to conduct, as financiers, the military finances of the accounts of the War Office.
LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, that the real question now before the House was, he ventured to think, whether the recommendations of the Committee over which he had presided should be carried out or not. In order to carry those recommenda-
1246
tions into effect the Secretary of State for War had adopted two very important measures—he had selected an officer of acknowledged ability and tried experience to preside over the organization of the new system, and he had given that officer the high appointment of Under Secretary of State with a proportionate salary. Unfortunately, however, the Letter of the Treasury bearing date the 29th of June—the last, he believed, of the Correspondence which had been laid before the House—had nullified the advantages of that appointment of Sir Henry Storks as Under-Secretary, and was opposed to the tenour and spirit of the most important recommendations of the Committee over which he had presided. It was evident that an officer in Sir Henry Storks' position required all the assistance he could get in carrying out a difficult task. It was equally evident that the announcement in the Treasury Letter of the date which he mentioned must have very materially interfered with that influence which was so necessary for Sir Henry Storks' success. There was another point in the Treasury Letter to which he wished to refer, and that was, the association of an Officer of Finance with the Controller-in-Chief on equal terms. In other words, the Treasury proposed to associate two officers with wholly different objects, and, he must say from past experience, he feared antagonistic views. Speaking briefly, the Chief Controller might be said to represent expenditure, while the Financial Officer represented economy. There would therefore be a perpetual jarring between the two Departments. That association of incoherent elements was entirely opposed to the most essential recommendations of the Committee, which were that the administrative or civil Departments of the army, now disconnected, should be brought into unity of action with the regimental Departments, under one authority, one head; the Controller-in-Chief representing the authority and duties of the Secretary for War and those of the Commander-in-Chief. He thought the House was largely indebted to his noble Friend on the opposite Benches (Earl De Grey) for the zeal and ability with which he had a second time brought this question before the House. He entirely agreed with the illustrious Duke as to the vital importance of this matter. Their Lordships might be surprised to hear that one of the great difficulties which Sir Robert Napier had

1247
lately to encounter was a total disorganization of the transport for the Abyssinian campaign. That disorganization of the transport system at Bombay had been the cause of the delay of the operations for one month. It was really no easy matter to describe all the difficulties that had occurred. Hundreds—he might say almost thousands—of mules were landed on the seashore, and there was no one to take care of them. They ate up fifteen fathoms of rope to which they were attached, they were badly tethered, and the whole arrangements were so bad that the officer in command was obliged to name an officer from the 3rd Dragoon Guards in order to have the commonest attention paid to the animals in the general pursuit of them along the coast. He could only join, therefore, in the wish expressed by the illustrious Duke that no time might be lost in giving full effect to the recommendations of the Committee. In associating the Controller-in-Chief with the principal Financial Officer the Treasury had lost sight of a condition to which the Committee attached the greatest importance, and which they constantly and earnestly advocated as a guarantee of the success of the organization—that was, that the Secretary of State for War should undertake no army measure without the concurrence, if possible, or at any rate the knowledge and advice, of the Commander-in-Chief. Now he would be very sorry that it should be supposed that he was a partizan. So little was he affected by partizanship that when Her Majesty's Government established the office of Secretary of State for War—under the influence, certainly, of a loudly expressed public opinion—he (Lord Strathnairn) at once stated that every military authority in this country—even the Commander-in-Chief himself—must be under the influence of the superior authority vested in the new Secretary of State for War. But, while he said that, he must also say that there was no view which presented itself so frequently and in such different forms to his mind as this—that the greatest harm would be done to the military service by the non-recognition of this great principle—that the Secretary of State for War, while the supreme military authority, should undertake no military measure without the knowledge and advice, and, if possible, the concurrence of the Commander-in-Chief.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Eleven o'clock.