Recollections of a Military Life

by Sir John Adye

One of the first subjects which engaged the attention of Mr. Cardwell was the difficult one of War Office administration. The authority over the army was formerly more or less of a dual character; the personnel of the infantry and cavalry being under a Commander-in-Chief, whilst a Master General had charge of the ordnance corps, as well as the provision of armaments for the naval and military services. These arrangements would not in themselves at first sight appear to have much to recommend them, the responsibility being rather diffused. Still it must be remembered that they bore successfully the stress of the great wars at the end of the last and in the earlier years of the present century. As the Master General was always a distinguished officer, and was often a member of the Cabinet, and further was assisted by a board, some of whom were men of military experience and in Parliament, the system apparently suited itself more or less to our constitutional form of government. The great Duke of Wellington, who was for some time Master General, stated that the Ordnance Department was careful, economical, and efficient. He spoke of it as one of the most ancient departments of the monarchy, and that it was a pattern for others.[74] When, in 1849, a proposal had been made to abolish the board, he strongly opposed it, and said: 'I warn the Government of the danger of this alteration in a military view.' Sir Henry Hardinge, and other experienced General Officers who had held the same office, were of similar opinions.

When at length, after a peace of nearly forty years, we again in 1854 took part in a great European war, the difficulties which at once ensued, the enormous cost involved, and the sufferings of our troops during the winter in the Crimea, led the Government of the day suddenly to inaugurate a new régime; and early in 1855 the administration of the army in all its departments was vested in a Minister for War. In short, we made the somewhat hazardous experiment of swopping horses when crossing a stream. As a matter of general principle, it is probable that some such arrangement was desirable, an army being a department of the State which requires concentration of authority. But it is to be observed that the Minister for War is usually a civilian, and changes with each Government, so that neither concentration of knowledge nor unity of purpose necessarily followed on the change; and, further, when the new system came into force the Master General and board, instead of being simply absorbed, were abolished, their duties being divided in a slap-dash fashion amongst various departments. Mr. Clode[75] says that after the first Cabinet of Lord Palmerston as Premier, early in 1855, the Secretary-at-War 'brought home half a sheet of paper, containing a memorandum that the Ordnance Department was to be abolished.'

It is hardly a matter of wonder that this sudden concentration of the military departments in a new War Office, under a parliamentary chief, and in the midst of a great war, should have led to some confusion, which continued for several years. Soon after Mr. Cardwell became Minister, he appointed a committee under Lord Northbrook (then Under-Secretary) to investigate the matter; and the results of their inquiries led to a reconstruction, in 1870, of the various departments on an intelligible and sound basis. The War Office was then divided into three main branches: (1) personnel, under the Commander-in-Chief; (2) matériel, that is, armaments for navy and army, fortifications, barracks, commissariat and clothing, under a Surveyor General of Ordnance, who it was specially stated should be an experienced officer—in fact, it was a virtual revival of the office of Master General; (3) finance, to be represented by an Under-Secretary in Parliament.

The arrangement was simple, and soon in working order; but, unfortunately, after Mr. Cardwell had ceased to be War Minister one of its main principles was ignored, and the office of Surveyor General, which obviously required military experience, came to be regarded chiefly as a civil and political appointment, and was usually conferred on a member of Parliament, coming and going, of course, with the Government of the day. The result was a gradual weakening of the whole organisation. As a proof of the numerous changes which may occur, I may point out that between 1883 and 1887 there were no less than five Ministers for War, and four Surveyors General, all civilians, in office in rapid succession.

It so happens that in 1887 there were two Royal Commissions, the one under the late Sir James Stephen, and the other under Sir Matthew Ridley; both of whom advised the revival of the Master General. Sir James Stephen's Commission said: 'The office of Master General of the Ordnance should be revived, so far as the management of the stores and manufacturing departments is concerned. He should be a soldier of the highest eminence....' Sir Matthew Ridley said: 'That the intentions of Lord Northbrook's Committee of 1870 have not been carried out, and the idea of securing the highest professional acquirements for the position has been entirely abandoned.... We are of opinion that the Surveyor General of the Ordnance should in future be what he was intended to be, viz. a military officer of high standing and experience, and that he should not be a member of the House of Commons.'

Their views, however, were not acted on; and in 1888 the office of Surveyor General was abolished, and its numerous duties sub-divided, some being transferred to the already over-burdened shoulders of the military staff, and the rest handed over to the Financial Secretary; and this condition of affairs exists to this day. In short, the War Office is now divided into two branches: the one military, with great responsibilities; the other civil and financial, with great power.[76] In my judgment, should war occur, such a system would inevitably break down at once. Further evidence, however, exists, which will, I think, be conclusive on this point. In 1890 still another Royal Commission, that of Lord Hartington, examined and reported on this question, so vital to military efficiency; and it is to be observed that of its members three had already held the office of Minister for War—namely, Lord Hartington, the late Mr. W.H. Smith, and Mr. Campbell Bannerman. In their report they practically condemn the system then and now existing. In the first place, they point out that the various heads of the spending departments have no direct access to the Secretary of State and are subordinate one to the other. They consider that the present organisation of the War Office is defective in principle, and they go on to recommend that the heads of departments should be directly associated with the Minister for War[77]—in short, a board of officers, such as now exists at the Admiralty.

In considering this great national question I would point out that this country holds quite an exceptional position as regards its military arrangements and preparations for war. Other nations maintain far larger armies, but their troops as a rule have no foreign duties, or distant possessions to protect. Our condition is much the reverse. We are a great naval, military, Indian, and colonial empire; with fleets, troops, fortresses, and reserves of munitions to maintain in every quarter of the world; and it is essential, not only that the two fighting services should act in unity, but that their armaments should be identical in pattern, and that the reserves at home and abroad be available for both. Then, again, on entering on a foreign expedition, we have at once to undertake a most difficult operation in the rapid embarkation of men, horses, guns, munitions, engineer, medical and commissariat stores; so that from every point of view a strong administration is required, and one in which the unrivalled experience of our officers should be fully utilised and trusted.

No doubt the requirements of constitutional government must be considered and provided for. Indeed, it is essential that the naval and military services should be adequately represented in Parliament, and this principle was fully recognised in the years gone by. For instance, in 1829, when the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, and when our military expenditure was far less than now, the army was officially represented in the two Houses of Parliament as follows:—

Secretary of State, War, and Colonies	General Sir George Murray,G.C.B.
Commander-in-Chief	General Lord Hill,G.C.B.
Master General of Ordnance	General Lord Beresford,G.C.B.
Secretary at War	General Sir Henry Hardinge,K.C.B.
Clerk of Ordnance	Rt. Hon. Spencer Percival
Lieut.-General of Ordnance	Lieut.-Gen. Lord Edward Somerset
Surveyor General of Ordnance	Major-Gen. Sir Henry Fane,K.C.B.
Principal Storekeeper	Colonel Trench
Clerk of Deliveries	General Phipps
Secretary to Master General	Colonel Lord Downes
Treasurer of Ordnance	William Holmes
Paymaster-General	Rt. Hon. J. Calcraft
Judge Advocate General	Rt. Hon. Sir John Beckett

We must always bear in mind that the army is no mere inanimate piece of machinery. On the contrary, it is one of the most vital and powerful elements of the State; and its efficiency can only be maintained by placing the administration of its various departments in the hands of competent and experienced general officers, and investing them with adequate power. If I have dwelt at some length on this abstruse subject, it is because, having served both as Director of Artillery and Surveyor General of Ordnance, I have gained some insight into its difficulties, and feel earnestly the necessity of reorganising the department.