ARMY COUNCIL BILL (Hansard, 4 August 1904)

§ *EARL SPENCER
My Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill I should like, although I do not wish to oppose any of the details in the Bill, to again put to His Majesty's Government the Question which I asked the other day. I then pointed out that, so far as I knew, the military officers appointed on the Army Council were in a different position from the admirals and captains appointed on the Board of Admiralty in that they were appointed for four years. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty told me I was wrong, and that in the Patent it was quite clearly shown that they were appointed in the same way as the 841 Lords of the Admiralty, namely, not for a term of years. I have reason to believe that certain officers understood the contrary, and accepted the office on that understanding. I think it would be as well before the House goes into Committee that we should have an assurance on that important point. I am quite clear of this, that there has been a misconception about it on the part of those who have received the appointments.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE)
My Lords, the intention of the Government certainly was that they should be appointed for four years. What I think the noble Earl behind me intended to convey was that the term four years is certainly not mentioned in the Patent. Still, it is true that the intention when these officers were appointed to their present posts was to follow the recommendation of the Esher Committee and appoint them for four years. But, technically, that is not laid down.

§ *EARL SPENCER
I called attention to this matter, not that I desire myself that they should be appointed for four years, but in order to prevent an injustice being done to them, which would be the case if they had accepted office on certain terms, and found that those terms had been altered since.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
There has been no alteration since, so far as my knowledge goes.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said he was anxious to have some assurance with regard to Clause 1, which provided that there should be transferred to the Army Council— All statutory powers and duties which at the date of the passing of this Act are exercised and performed by the Secretary of State for War. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill would be aware that all Secretaries of State exercised a variety of powers. He supposed it was intended, by using the 842 word "statutory," to exclude the general powers of the Secretary of State as such. Otherwise the proposal in the Bill would be open to very grave objection, as it would give the constitutional powers of the Secretary of State to the Army Council. He hoped very great care would be taken to examine into what were the statutory powers of the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State's office was a very ancient one, and might have attached to it very ancient powers which ought not to be transferred from the Secretary of State to any other person or board. He, therefore trusted that His Majesty's Government had gone very carefully into that question. The Bill also proposed to allow three more persons to sit in the House of Commons than could sit there now. That was a question more for the House of Commons than for their Lordships' House; but he entered an emphatic protest against a Bill of this importance and magnitude being forced through Parliament at the end of the session

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
My Lords, as regards the first point which was raised by the noble Marquess, his contention is absolutely correct. The statutory powers are powers chiefly found in the Army Act, the Reserve Forces Act, and the Militia and Volunteer Forces Act. The term "statutory powers" is inserted in order to absolutely distinguish these powers from the other powers which the Secretary of State, as Secretary of State, has. This is a provision entirely on all fours with the Act which was passed when the office of Lord High Admiral was abolished.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
pointed out that the Lord High Admiral was not a Secretary of State. A Secretary of State was a person possessing very peculiar constitutional powers. That was the reason why he pressed the matter.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
This Bill only transfers to the Army Council the Statutory powers of the Secretary of State. As to the other points raised by the noble Marquess, the Bill does not enable three more holders of office to sit in the other House. The 843 Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State, and the Financial Secretary sit in Parliament at the present moment, and there is no intention of allowing three members of the Army Council, in addition to those three officials, to sit in either House; and if there was any such intention, the Pay Warrant, which provides that no officer on full pay shall sit in Parliament, forbids it. I can assure the noble Marquess that we have no intention of altering that clause of the Pay Warrant.

LORD MONKSWELL
asked whether the noble Earl would have any objection to inserting in the clause after the words "all statutory powers and duties which are exercised and performed by the Secretary of State for War," the words "as Secretary of State for War." He thought that would make the matter clear.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
I will consider that suggestion between this and the next stage of the Bill.

§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
said that in his opinion this clause, which dealt with the right of members of the Army Council to sit in Parliament, did not correctly represent the intention of the Government as stated by the noble Earl. As he understood the noble Earl's statement, it came to this, that there were to be three members of the Army Council—the Secretary of State for War, the Under-Secretary of State, and another—who might sit in Parliament, but that was not clearly expressed in the clause. He asked that the Government would consider the matter.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
I will certainly do so.