administration of the army; that he may either act directly himself, or through the Commander-in-Chief, who is his military adviser, and subordinate to him; and that 'there is no act of the Commander-in-Chief, however small, or however great, that does not constitutionally come within the revision of the Secretary for War,' and for which he is not therefore responsible." It may not always be easy to determine the relative position and rights of these two high functionaries, in every contingency that may occur, but 'practically, both are in such constant and confidential communication together, that neither of them takes any great step without its being known to the other.' Some more precise regulations may hereafter be found advisable to prevent the Secretary of State from unnecessarily invading the province of the Commander-inChief; but to quote the words of the Duke of Wellington on this very point, there can be but general rules, as landmarks by which the official arrangement of the service ought to be conducted. The best rule is, the mutual good temper and forbearance of the parties." It was impossible to reconcile strictly the powers exercised by the Secretary for War, in respect even to discipline and the movements of the army, with the reservations in his patent. It was therefore suggested by the committee that the wording of the supplementary patent should be reconsidered, and the limitation be more accurately defined, in conformity with existing usage, so as to avoid the awkward anomaly of a practice at variance with the written authority regulating the same. Pursuant to this recommendation, when Sir

a

* Lord Panmure, in Hans. Deb. vol. cxl. p. 1041. And see ibid. vol. clxxxvi. pp. 774, 791, vol. cxciii. p. 1241. The duties of the Commander-in-Chief, important as they are, are carried on to a very great extent under the control, and in every respect under the responsibility, of the Secretary of State for War.' Secretary Sir John Pakington, Commons' Papers, 1868, No. 281, p. 28.

Division of duties

between

Horse

Guards

and War Office.

G. C. Lewis, in 1861, succeeded Lord Herbert in the
office of Secretary of State for War, his patent did not
contain any reservation whatsoever, as to his responsibility
or power.
But Sir George Lewis himself drew up a
memorandum in accordance with the recommendations of
the committee, regulating the responsibility and authority
of the Secretary of State for War and of the Commander-
in-Chief. This document was signed by the queen, and
it remains in force until it shall be revoked, whatever
changes may take place in the persons elevated to these
respective offices. It is important that some such official
regulation should exist, as a means of preventing undue
encroachment, by the Secretary of State, upon the autho-
rity and patronage which properly appertain to the
Commander-in-Chief; and any departure from the ordi-
nary routine, as prescribed by the letters patent, will be
gradually settled by usage, in accordance with constitu-
tional principles. In fact, as was truly remarked by Mr.
Secretary Herbert, whatever you may put into a formal
patent, the minister who holds the purse-strings of the
army, and who represents it in the House of Commons,
will always have the power in his hands." If irrecon-
cilable differences should occur between the Secretary of
State and the Commander-in-Chief on any question, appeal
must be made to the Prime Minister, or to the Cabinet;
and the Commander-in-Chief must ultimately defer to
their decision, or retire from office."

e

Upon the practical question of the division of duties between the Horse Guards and the War Department, in ordinary cases, the following rule has been given in an official memorandum. The duties of the Commander-inChief embrace the discipline and patronage of the army, entrance into the army, and ordinary promotion therein;

a Secretary for War (Lord Hartington), Hans. Deb. vol. clxxxi. p. 1516. And see ante, p. 539.

e

Rep. Mil. Organis. 1860, p. xix.

Rep. on Board of Admiralty, 1861, pp. 149, 192, 216.

Rep. on Mil. Organis. pp. 451, 497, 668.

in short, the direct superintendence of the personnel of the army. With these exceptions everything connected with the management of the army, in peace or in war, its matériel, and civil administration, remains in the hands of the Minister for War. To illustrate this by examples. When an army is engaged in active operations in the field, the commanding officer reports direct to the Secretary of State for War, as the official organ of her majesty's government, and receives his instructions. He only corresponds with the Commander-in-Chief upon strictly military details. In proof of this, Lord Hardinge (the then Commander-in-Chief), read to the Sebastopol Committee, a communication to Lord Raglan, upon his appointment to the chief command in the Crimea, in 1854, which he stated was similar to the letters sent to Sir Arthur Wellesley, in 1809, and to the Duke of Wellington, when he took command of the British army before the battle of Waterloo,-and which was couched in the following terms: My Lord, her majesty having been graciously pleased to appoint your lordship to the command of a detachment of her army, to be employed upon a particular service, I have to desire that you will be pleased to take the earliest opportunity to assume the command of this force, and carry into effect such instructions as your lordship may receive from her majesty's ministers. Furthermore, in all matters relating to the administration and government of the army, as for example, the introduction of a new system of recruiting, arrangements for determining the number of men required, or the like, the Secretary of State for War, after consultation with the Commander-in-Chief, takes the pleasure of the sovereign, to whom, as well as to Parliament, he is responsible for the measures which he may advise.' He also prepares for the royal signature, and countersigns,

'h

Military honours.

Military

War Mi

nister.

all military commissions, except those that may be prepared by the Colonial Secretary for officers serving in colonial corps, upon a notification of her majesty's pleasure having been taken thereon by the Commander-in-Chief.

The distribution of honours in the army is not under the control of the Commander-in-Chief. All honours flow directly from the crown, and should therefore be bestowed under the express authority and recommendation of a responsible minister. All that the Commander-in-Chief can do is to represent to the Secretary of State for War the names of those officers whom he considers to be worthy of being recommended to the sovereign for such distinctions. Officers are not allowed to receive foreign honours, except by the previous permission of the sovereign; and the queen's pleasure in this instance is taken by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Regulations in regard to the acceptance of foreign distinctions by British subjects have been issued from time to time by direction of the sovereign. But it is always within the power of her majesty to dispense with the observance of any rule of this kind whenever she may think fit.1

The Secretary for War, while he presides over the adadvisers of ministration of the army unaided, or rather unencumbered, either with a Board or a Council, has around him experienced professional advisers, in the shape of permanent heads of the various military branches of the department, whose opinions he can consult, either separately or collectively, according to his discretion. This organisation has been adopted advisedly, as presenting all the advantages of a Board, without the objections attending upon that obsolete and irresponsible system. And in the event of a sudden emergency arising, rendering it expedient to take the advice of his colleagues in office, the Secretary has authority to convene a War Committee of the Privy Council, to consist of the principal members

m

Rep. on Board of Admiralty, 1861, Evid. pp. 126, 147, 156, 211.

of the Cabinet, and of such other Privy Councillors as it may be desirable to consult.

sation of

From the time of the Crimean war, until the present Re-organiday, the organisation of the War Department has been War office. undergoing a gradual change and improvement." Further and more extensive alterations, however, are still in contemplation, with a view to greater efficiency, and to the subjection of the entire department to one central superintendence and control. One of the principal complaints that has been made against the department hitherto, is that on account of its enormous extent, its complicated machinery, and the various independent elements of which it consists, it is too unwieldy for one man to be able to manage it effectually. Again, the large and increasing expenditure for army and ordnance services, on the one hand, and the importance of perfecting our military organisation, regardless of cost, on the other, involve extremely difficult and often conflicting considerations for any man or set of men to determine.

In June, 1864, a departmental committee of the War Office and the Treasury, was appointed to investigate and report upon the constitution of the War Department, and the possibility of a more efficient and economical despatch of business therein. This committee presented four reports, in the years 1864 and 1865, all of which were communicated to the House of Commons.P In 1866, there was great activity displayed at the War Office in furthering the work of internal reform. Several official committees were employed in enquiries connected with the various branches of the War Department."

In March, 1867, a departmental committee, presided over by Lord Straithnairn, made an elaborate report upon the Transport and Supply departments of the army, and generally upon the whole question of the reorganisation of the War Office. This committee recommended the