§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS)My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONMy Lords, I should like to ask a question. This Bill provides for the maintenance of discipline in the Army. It has been customary for all matters of discipline as between the War Office and the Army to be dealt with by the Adjutant-General, under, of course, the direction of the Commander-in-Chief in old days, and of the Army Council in the present day. In the White Paper which was lately issued to Parliament ["Correspondence relating to Recent Events in the Irish Command"] there seems to have been a strange departure from the ordinary practice. All who have held the office of Secretary of State for War will, I think, concur that it has been the invariable practice that the Secretary of State should communicate direct with the Army only through the person of the General Officer Commanding in the Field, and therefore the direct organ as between the Cabinet and the Army is the General directing military operations.
But in this White Paper there is a strange divergence from this practice. I notice that up to a certain point the ordinary procedure was observed, and that after a certain point it was taken up intermittently again; but in the meantime the Secretary of State himself appears upon the scene, and communicates directly with the officer in command in Ireland on questions relating to discipline. I think we ought to know whether that was a fortuitous circumstance, or whether it is to represent a change in the practice which has hitherto obtained. The same 1052 difficulty occurs in the White Paper with regard to the intervention of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but that is covered by all communications from the Admiralty being described as "Admiralty to such and such a person"; and consequently we are unable, so far as the White Paper is concerned, to know exactly what part was taken by the First Lord of the Admiralty apart from the Admiralty Board. This is not a light question, and it might have a very serious effect upon the discipline of the Army if it were believed that civilian interference or assumption of power was carried to such a point that what did not represent the resolution of the Army Council was communicated direct to responsible officers by the Secretary of State without consultation with the officers through whom, as I read the present Order in Council—the Order in Council of 1904—such orders should be given.
Under the Order in Council the Secretary of State is responsible to His Majesty and to Parliament for the business of the Army, but the manner in which all business other than that which the Secretary of State specially reserves to himself is to be transacted is described, and the work of the Chief of the Staff and of the Adjutant-General is very carefully laid down. I do not think it was ever contemplated—and I doubt whether in practice it has ever before been done—that the Secretary of State should on occasions intervene and give personal orders without their going through the channel of the responsible officers. I have myself, as it happens, had experience in a case of civil riot in London. When I held a subordinate post at the War Office I was asked by the Secretary of State to accompany him when it was necessary to send a detachment at once to the Opera House, where a Royal performance was taking place. A large crowd had assembled and the Police were not at that moment on duty, there having been a difficulty with two divisions of the Police; and I well remember the Secretary of State, at half-past ten o'clock at night, going to an officer who had a certain number of men at his disposal. He apologised to the officer and stated that he was not giving an order because it was not within his power to do so, but disorder having taken place he suggested to the officer that it would be well if he at once took such men as he could, and the officer trotted them 1053 off at a few minutes notice and order was restored. This is a grave question, and one which I should have thought was capable of being made quite clear by an amendment to the Army Act. Therefore I venture to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who I understand is to reply to me, whether the recent procedure to which I have referred is intended to be permanent, or whether it is, perhaps, one of those lapses which there is no intention to repeat on future occasions.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)My Lords, it is quite reasonable that the noble Viscount should desire to be reassured upon this matter, and I have to inform him that he is right in his suggestion that there is no intention of departing from the practice laid down by the Order in Council. I quite agree with him that the Adjutant-General is the natural person to give orders. The practice is that the Secretary of State, when he intervenes to communicate the decision of the Cabinet or when he has taken part in proceedings at the Army Council, acts normally, indeed in all circumstances, in conjunction with the Adjutant-General, and if any formal order had to be given it would be given through the Adjutant-General. But there are occasionally fortuitous circumstances when a different course is taken—the noble Viscount referred to one in his own experience—but these are only cases of emergency.
In the present case a conference took place in the Secretary of State's room, the Adjutant-General being present, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland was also, I think, present. In such a case the conversation would be largely conducted by the Secretary of State, but that is not because the Secretary of State had interfered with the functions of the Adjutant-General, but because, being the senior member of the Army Council present, the conversation would naturally devolve upon him. I agree with the noble Viscount that the practice of the Order in Council is an important one to adhere to, and I can assure him that there is no intention of altering the system. Certainly there is nothing, either in the Bill now before the House or in anything that has been done, which indicates an intention of departing from the regular practice.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a.
1054§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONOn what day does the noble Lord propose to take the Committee stage? There are one or two points which have been raised in the other House which we should like time to consider, and we should be glad if it would be convenient to the Government to take the Committee stage on Wednesday.
LORD LUCASI was proposing to take the Committee stage to-morrow; but if we could suspend the Standing Order and pass the Bill through all its stages on Wednesday, there would be no objection to putting down the Committee stage for that day. The Bill has to receive the Royal Assent on Thursday.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONThere would be no difficulty in suspending the Standing Order so as to pass the Bill through all its stages on Wednesday. If the Committee stage is not taken until that day, it will give us time to consider one or two Amendments that were moved in another place.
LORD LUCASI will put the Committee stage down for to-morrow, and if necessary it can be postponed until Wednesday.
§ Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.