which the noble Lord seemed to be of opinion he would be able to divest himself of if the proposed change took place. As to the Financial Secretary of the War Office, he could not say he was convinced of the necessity of creating such an officer with a seat in the House of Commons; but, as the Government brought forward the proposal on their own responsibility and conviction of the expediency, he would not oppose it. The other appointment was that of a Surveyor General of the Ordnance, who was to be responsible in all matters relating to the matériel of the Army, as the Commanderin-Chief was for its discipline. But if it were advisable that the Commander-inChief should not be a political officer, he (the Duke of Richmond) thought it equally desirable that the Surveyor General should be in a similar position. Notwithstanding all the examples, of which the noble Lord had spoken, of distinguished officers who had seats in Parliament, the Government would, in general, in appointing the Surveyor General of the Ordnance have to look out for, not the best officers in the Army to fill the post, but to find the best men they could get who could also command a seat in Parliament. This would be a great misfortune. He thought it desirable that the proposition that the Surveyor General of the Ordnance should be eligible to sit in the House of Commons should be struck out of the Bill; and in Committee he would move that that part of the Bill be expunged. He would not weary their Lordships with further remarks, except to say that the creation of two officers, no doubt with considerable salaries, came with bad grace from a Government which had reduced the Army and Navy to a point which he regarded as most unwise. THE EARL OF LONGFORD said, he had observed the necessity, when himself Under Secretary, of some additional Parliamentary assistance to the Secretary of State for War, who was subjected to such unmerciful questionings and interviews at the hands of his friends as to leave him little time for his multifarious duties. One of the officers to be created under this Bill with a seat in Parliament was to be charged with the efficiency of the materiel of the Army; but it was to be remembered that the presence of Ordnance officers in the House of Commons, under the old arrangement, did not prevent an army being sent to the Crimea insufficiently equipped and insufficiently suppliedthe result being a temporary failure, the blame of which was unfairly cast on the Army. The War Office was only a means to an end, to raise and maintain the Army; and a re-arrangement of the War Department would not necessarily lead to the efficiency of the Army. The reductions to which the noble Lord had referred were by no means satisfactory to all concerned, for it was understood that as the result not a single regiment of Cavalry or Infantry, and not a single battery of Artillery was in an efficient state to take the field, and no means of completing their establishments to the proper numbers were immediately available. It was supposed to be in contemplation to provide reserves with which to complete them; but these did not at present exist. The Army had suffered from frequent changes in the War Office, and it was one of the objections to this Bill that under it four principal officers, instead of two, would have to resign on a change of Ministry. The Surveyor General of the Ordnance, as having the direction of all details, certainly ought to be a permanent officer, so that successive Administrations might profit by his experience. And the changes in the head of the War Office were not made for departmental reasons only. On the accession of Lord Derby's Government a gallant officer who enjoyed the confidence of Parliament and the country was appointed Secretary for War; but in a few months he resigned, owing to a political difference with some of his Colleagues; and his successor after 14 or 15 months had to retire, not on account of any failure in the Department, but on account of the advent of a new Ministry, which felt itself strong enough to deal with the Irish Church-a question with which the Army as an army had no concern. Reductions, moreover, had been made, and long lists of officers' names now stand in the Army List printed in Italics, who were under notice to quit without 66 compensation for disturbance." The Army was far from satisfied with this policy, which made the soldier's position one of such uncertainty. Economists might be gratified with reduced Estimates; but if at any time a moderate military effort became necessary, it would be found that the supposed | neral. It was more important that great economy had been dearly purchased. care should be taken in the selection of He would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he could not regard it as a complete solution of the question of military administration. VISCOUNT HARDINGE said, he entirely agreed in the propriety of additional assistance being given to the Secretary of State for War, and he had no objection to the Financial Secretary having a seat in Parliament; but he thought very strong reasons had been shown why the Surveyor General of the Ordnance should not sit in Parliament. No doubt, six or seven officers of the Department were formerly allowed to be Members of the House of Commons, and that at a time when the Militia was under the control of the Home Office, and the Commissariat under that of the Treasury; but under the present altogether different organization there was no necessity for the representation of the several departments in Parliament. His noble Friend had not made out any case of necessity for the Surveyor General having a seat in Parliament. Having looked through the most able Report on the re-organization of the War Office, he had completely failed to discover any strong and valid reason why the Control department should be represented in Parliament. Such an arrangement was not proposed by Lord Strathnairn's Committee. They recommended that the Controller should be an officer of high rank; that he should have a salary of £2,000 a year; that he should take rank with the permanent Under Secretaries of State; and not only that he should be an officer high in military rank, but that care should be taken in the selection of such an officer to obtain one with special qualifications for an administration which now comprises not only munitions de bouche, but munitions de guerre. Consequently, it was of the highest importance that the officer appointed should be the very best man who could be had. We were fortunate now in having Sir Henry Storks; but he had already failed to obtain a seat in Parliament-so that what had been spoken of as a probable difficulty had actually occurred. He thought that the Bill would either be a dead letter, or that, in future, Governments would be much tempted to appoint some Parliamentary adherent to the office of Surveyor Ge The Earl of Longford the Surveyor General of the Ordnance than that he should have a seat in Parliament, because, contrary to the recommendation of Lord Straithnairn's Committee, we were about to place all the matériel of war under the supervision of the Surveyor; and we should necessarily impose upon him a much greater amount of labour and a greater amount of responsibility than one man could undertake. If, added to these, he was to be obliged to attend in the House of Commons at 4 o'clock, and to remain there several hours in discharge of Parliamentary duties, how could it be expected that the Department could be efficiently controlled? His noble Friend had remarked that constituencies would be always ready to return to Parliament military men of eminence, and that there would be no difficulty in finding in the House of Commons men possessed of the necessary qualifications. But had not the last Reform Bill vastly increased the amount of local influence brought to bear upon elections? Generally speaking military men were not so connected as to have local influence, and in future they would have great difficulty in getting into Parliament. The organization of the Store department which had been adopted by the War Office was in opposition to the recommendation of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, and he would be glad to know the grounds of that decision. It had been said that it had failed in Prussia; but had it failed in France, when the French army was in the Crimea? Was not the French Intendance the model on which we had mainly based the alterations of our supply and transport arrangements? Then why were not the Committee's recommendations on that head adopted? With regard to the Financial Secretary, he presumed. that there would be no difficulty at any time in finding a Member of Parliament, a supporter of the Government of the day, who would be sufficiently versed in finance and political economy to undertake the duties of that Office. With regard to the financial arrangements of the War Office, he presumed no one would quarrel with the financial principles laid down in the Report. Nothing could be more objectionable than the old system of checking and mistrusting everybody in the War Department; nothing could be more objectionable than heads of De- fessional Colleagues. For four of the partments giving to the Secretary of years that he was at the Admiralty State Estimates which they knew would as First Lord, Sir Maurice Berkeley, be cut down by one-half; and nothing was more desirable than that the Secretary of State should have clear ideas of financial policy ab initio, to use the term adopted in the Report; for hitherto the rule had been for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine upon a reduction of the Army Estimates, and for a merciless cutting down of officers and men, for the simple reason that this course was the easiest; it being well understood that for every man knocked off £100 was saved. His noble Friend said the late reduction was the consequence of the clear financial policy of the Secretary of State; he (Viscount Hardinge) supposed that this referred to the withdrawal of troops from the Colonies; and although that might be the financial policy of the Government, that was a policy which had been much questioned, and the simple fact remained that during the last two years we had reduced our Army by 24,000 men. As had been stated, we had no reserves to fall back upon, and, consequently, if we drifted into war we should be exposed to the same inconveniences we were at the time of the Crimean War, and should have the same difficulty in filling up our reserves. He hoped the new arrangements would work satisfactorily, and promote harmonious and united action in the War Department; for nothing could be more prejudicial than a constant succession of Committees passing recommendations which conflicted with each other. He did not object to the financial department being represented in the House of Commons, but he ventured to make a protest against the Surveyor General having a seat in Parliament. VISCOUNT HALIFAX said, he would venture to express an opinion upon this question based upon his long experience at the Admiralty. The First Lord of the Admiralty was as responsible to Parliament and the country as a Secretary of State for all that was done by the officers under his control. It was his duty to inform himself so as to answer any Questions which might be put to him as to the conduct of the naval Department and naval service; but at the same time it was exceedingly useful that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have in Parliament the assistance of pro VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.] who was Senior Sea Lord, was in Parlia- EARL GREY: My Lords, it is not my intention to oppose the second reading of this Bill; but I cannot refrain from saying that in my opinion the Bill will not accomplish the reform that is required. I have been for many years impressed with the necessity of an ade E quate reform; and before the Crimean | Mercantile Marine, the Secretary of State War I called your Lordships' attention signified to the authorities at the Adto what I considered would be the ne- miralty the Queen's pleasure that a ship cessary consequence of the bad system of war should be sent down to the then existing. In a very short time my port in question. But since you have predictions were far more than realized. created a new Secretary of State the Unfortunately an attempt was made to system is entirely altered, and you have remedy the evil which appeared to me this great anomaly-that now the Sethen, and which appears to me still more cretaries of State still continue to signow, to be so ill-considered and so im- nify the pleasure of the Crown to the perfect that it would scarcely diminish, Admiralty with reference to the emeven if it did not in some respects ag- ployment of the naval force, but with gravate, the evil. I expressed this opi- respect to the Army, there being annion of the measure at the time, and other Secretary of State, this cannot be the result has verified it. It is im- done, for one Secretary of State cannot possible for anybody to consider the signify the pleasure of the Crown to actual working of the War Depart- another Secretary of State. There is ment without seeing that it justifies this further inconvenience in the system the description attributed by a noble you have introduced-that while making Friend behind me to a very high autho- a sweeping change in the administration rity that it is a chaos. The more you of the Army you have not effected that consider it, the more convinced you must which is at the bottom of all real improvebe that the measure was founded on no ment-such an alteration in the relations clear and distinct principle. You have between the civil and military persons not attempted to create a Department at the head of the Army as to create the for the management of your Army upon same concentration of authority which any one given system. The original mis- exists in the Navy. You have not protake, as I think, was in determining to vided that there shall be a Minister with create another Secretary of State. In complete power over the Army as over my opinion, there was no occasion to do the Navy, and at the same time with that. And the effect of creating a Se- that professional advice and assistance cretary of State for War, while the Navy which he ought to be able to command. is under an entirely different system, is But I am not going to take this opporto create an extreme anomaly. Let me tunity of discussing the difficult question remind your Lordships what is required of what should be the constitution of the from the Departments which are charged Army Department. My only object in with the management both of the Army rising was to say that, while I am not and Navy. Their duty is so to adminis-prepared to make any objection to this ter each Department, and so to expend Bill, I must lament that Her Majesty's the money granted by Parliament for Government have not gone more deeply maintaining the Army and the Navy, into the question; that they have not that there may always be an efficient endeavoured to put an end to the chaos naval or military force, to be applied to which I firmly believe still exists, and such purposes as the Government may will continue to exist until the subject from time to time require. Before the is looked at in a larger way; and that creation of a Secretary of State for War we have a measure brought before us the different Secretaries of State, repre- so insignificant in its effects as this is senting their several Departments, sig- likely to be. I will only add that I shall nified the Queen's pleasure to the naval be very glad if my noble Friend who or military authorities for such and such has charge of this Bill will explain services. Formerly, if there were dis-one point which seems to me someturbances in the manufacturing districts what difficult to understand. If your the Secretary of State for the Home Department used to signify the pleasure of the Crown to the military authorities to send troops to the spot or take any measure which might be thought proper for meeting these disturbances. Again, if disturbances occurred in a seaport, owing to discontent among the Earl Grey Lordships will refer to the Bill, you will see that by Sections 2 and 3 the Secretary of State is empowered to appoint two Parliamentary officers, one the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, and the other the Financial Secretary of the War Office. But there is this remarkable difference between the two officers-by the manner in which the does not, seems a most irrational arAct is drawn, the Surveyor General rangement. vacates his seat on appointment, and must go to his constituents for re-election, but the Financial Secretary does not. Why is this? I want an explanation. Surely it is remarkable that of these officers, being officers of the same description and appointed by the same authority-the Secretary of State-one, if he accepts an appointment under the Crown, not being already in Office, vacates his seat, while the other is to sit on just as though he had not received any appointment. I can easily guess how this has arisen. It has arisen because an anomaly exists at present. By mere accident, owing to a technical construction of the law, ever since an Act passed soon after the Revolution, which regulated the number of persons holding certain offices who could sit in the House of Commons, it has been held that those officials who were not appointed directly by the Crown, but by some other authothority, need not be re-elected on appointment. Therefore the Under Secretaries of State and the Secretaries to the Treasury and the Admiralty have never vacated their seats; but, on the other hand, because technically and formally they were appointed by the Crown and not by the heads of the Departments in which they served, the Junior Lords of the Admiralty and Treasury, though holding offices inferior to the others in importance, do vacate their seats upon appointment. That was an anomaly which arose quite accidentally, and which I was very anxious you should correct at the time of the passing of the last Reform Bill, and I moved with that view an Amendment which your Lordships did not think fit to adopt. Now, I quite understand that your Lordships might think it expedient to continue an anomaly already existing; for you might say-"It has been always so, and we will not disturb the arrangement by which an Under Secretary of State does not vacate his seat, while a Junior Lord of the Treasury must do so." But why are you not content with leaving an existing anomaly, and why do you create a new one? In this case both the officers are appointed in the same manner and by the same person-namely, the Secretary of State; and that one should vacate his seat in the House of Commons on taking Office, while the other LORD NORTHBROOK, in reply, said, he regretted that the noble Earl who had just sat down was not satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, because the opinions of the noble Earl were entitled to great weight, not only from the Offices he had held, but from the great attention he had paid to all questions of Army administration. He was somewhat surprised also, seeing that, excepting as to the person who was to take the Queen's pleasure and convey it to the Executive in certain cases, the Bill carried out very much the opinions expressed by the noble Earl himself, in 1860, before the Committee on Army Organization. The noble Earl then recommended a very similar plan to that contained in the Bill-namely, that there should be one responsible Minister, and that under him there should be several high officers, responsible to him for the different branches of administration, some of them, at any rate, being Members of Parliament. As to taking the Queen's pleasure, the illustrious Duke on the cross Benches would confirm him in the statement that there was no difficulty in that respect under the present system. With regard to the question whether the Surveyor General should vacate his seat on appointment, there was a great deal to be said upon the anomaly which had been pointed out; but in framing this Bill the precedents had been strictly followed, for the Surveyor Generalship of the Ordnance was an office under the Crown, the acceptance of which vacated the seat, and, if there was an anomaly, it extended, not only to these two officers, but to others. As to the remarks of the noble Lords who had preceded him in Office, he thanked them for the general concurrence they had expressed in the measures proposed by the Bill. They knew by experience how difficult it was to deal satisfactorily with the subject, and he had no doubt they would make allowance for any imperfections which might be found in the plan proposed. With respect to the observations which had been made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) and the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Hardinge), as to the general policy of the Government, in reference to Army administrationthat was to say, to the reduction in the number of troops in the Colonies and in |