SECOND READING. (Hansard, 29 July 1904)

*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE)
My Lords, it may be in the recollection of your Lordships that when I had the honour of addressing you a month ago on the Report of the Esher Committee, and explaining the terms of the Order in Council which would be submitted to your Lordships, I also explained that there were certain statutory powers of the Secretary of State which it was intended to transfer by Act of Parliament to the Army Council. This is a Bill to carry that out. There are a number of statutory powers, mostly enumerated in the Army Act, the Reserve Forces Acts, and the Militia Acts. They are chiefly small but very important powers. There are also statutory powers which were until lately vested in the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant-General, the principal one being the power to reduce a non-commissioned officer to the ranks. The operative part of this Bill is to be found in Clause 1, Sub-section 1,while Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 vests property that has hitherto been vested in the Secretary of State for War in the Army Council. We are in this Bill following the precedent of the Admiralty.

§ *EARL SPENCER
My Lords, I think this is a Bill of greater importance than appears from the statement made by the noble Earl in moving it. It apparently places the Army Council on something 72 like the same footing as the Board of Admiralty, but there is a great distinction between the two, and I believe there will be very great opposition to the proposal to remove these powers from the Secretary of State. It is impossible at this late hour of the evening, aid in the present condition of the House, to go into details; but there will be considerable opposition to diverting powers from the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament, to the Army Council, for we know very little about the Army Council at the present moment. The Army Council, so far as I know, stands on a perfectly different basis from that of the Board of Admiralty. The latter are not appointed for a fixed time. When the Government go out the whole of the Board of Admiralty cease to hold office; but I am told that by the Patent constituting the Army Council the military members of that Council are appointed for four years.
Another question which has never, to my mind, been quite cleared up, is the relative position of the Secretary of State and the members of the Army Council. There is no doubt whatever as to the First Lord of the Admiralty and the members of the Board of Admiralty. The First Lord can, if he chooses, overrule the majority of the Board. It may be so with regard to the Secretary of State and the Army Council, but I have heard it distinctly stated by those who have studied the subject that the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary of State, who is also a member of the Army Council, are merely equals with the other members, and that the Secretary of State cannot overrule, if necessary, the remainder of the Army Council. There is also the question as to the number of members of that Council who may be in Parliament. There is no Act of Parliament dealing with that in the case of the Board of Admiralty. In the old days nearly all the members of the Board were in Parliament, but of late years that has not been so, The only person on the Board of Admiralty who cannot be a Member of Parliament is the Controller. Though it may be advisable sometimes to have members of the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty in Parliament, I think it would lead under modern circumstances to a very grave and serious difficulty. 73 It would be an extremely awkward position, but it is one which, considering the constitution of the Army Council and the fact that the members have a tenure of four years, might arise if a new Secretary of State of a different political complexion suddenly found himself confronted in the House of Commons with military members of the Council who were opposed to him and the Government. I feel that this is a very serious matter. My copy of this Bill only arrived yesterday morning, and I have not had time to properly look into the question; but friends to whom I have mentioned the matter have expressed their astonishment at the proposal, and I am certain there will be in another place, even if we pass the Bill here, serious opposition to it, particularly as it greatly affects the position, which has long been defined, of the Secretary of State and his responsibility to Parliament. I therefore greatly depreciate the Bill being passed in this hurried way, at this late period of the session, and I should be disposed to divide against it if the noble Earl presses it to-night.

§ *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE)
My Lords, I sincerely trust the noble Earl will allow this Bill to be read a second time, because I think I can satisfy him on every point he has raised. It is my happiness in this class of question always to agree with the noble Earl. The intention has been to follow the practice of the Board of Admiralty in every particular and down to the smallest detail. The difference is this. The constitution or the powers of the Board of Admiralty are not to be found in any Act of Parliament, but there are a series of Acts which devolve special responsibilities and special duties upon some of the members of the Army Council, particularly upon the Secretary of State, and that is why this Bill is necessary. The Bill must be read with the Army Patent and the Order in Council which is shortly coming out. In that Order in Council it will be found that the responsibility of the Secretary of State is absolutely defined and insisted upon. He will be as solely responsible to the Sovereign and to Parliament as the First Lord of the Admiralty is at the present moment, and he will be in a 74 position to overrule, in a last resort, all his colleagues on the Army Council. I think all the points to which the noble Earl has drawn attention will be found to be met in the three documents on which the constitutional basis of the Army Council will henceforward rest—this Bill (if it passes into law), the Patent, and the Order in Council. In regard to the provisions limiting the number of members of the Army Council who may at one time hold seats in the House of Commons, that is a departure from the practice that obtains in connection with the Board of Admiralty, and we shall be ready to reconsider it in Committee. Each successive Government will have the power at any moment of issuing a new Patent and having a new Army Council, just as it has the power of issuing a new Patent and having a new Board of Admiralty. Therefore the case will not arise, where you can have members of the Army Council in the House of Commons at variance politically with the Government of the day.

§ *EARL SPENCER
Am I correct in saying that under the Patent, the military members of the Army Council are appointed for four years?

§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNE
I understand that you are incorrect. There is no limit at all. The Esher Committee recommended it, but it was not put into the Patent. That accounts, no doubt, for the misconception. We shall be prepared to reconsider in Committee the provision limiting the number of members of the Army Council who shall sit in the House of Commons, in order to bring it on exactly the same lines as the documents that prescribe the proceedings of the Board of Admiralty. I hope that after this explanation the noble Lord will at any rate allow the Bill to be read a second time.—