THE DOUBLE GOVERNMENT OF THE ARMY AND THE CONSTITUTION.
Giarszia. PEEL, then Secretary of State for War, stated, in his speech in the debate on Captain Vivian's motion, in 1858, that " he hoped there was no intention of submitting the undoubted prerogative of the Crown to the consideration of a committee" ; and Lord John Russell, in his speech on the address in 1854, in cal- ling the attention of the House of Commons to the absurd reports then current about Prince Albert, stated, that the Prince would advise the Queen in all matters, but more especially in those things affecting the army to which her royal predecessors had given their attention. We may then take it for granted that this double government of the army arises from what some people con- sider undoubted prerogative, and that whatever influence was heretofore exerted by the sovereign himself, is now exercised by the Prince Consort.
For our own parts, we do not think much of all this, because we have never yet heard of any improvements either in the laws or administrations to which the Queen or the Prince offered oppo- sition ; though we have heard of questions on which they are rightly or wrongly supposed to be in advance of many of their counsellors. But, whether they do or do not share in the preju- dices of their less-gifted predecessors, it is a well-known fact, that many people think the maintenance of the royal and exclu- sively military command of the army of the first importance for constitutional safety, and that it would be highly dangerous to change it. . We have, therefore, taken the trouble to find out what it was her Majesty's royal predecessors did with their army.
King William III. was a distinguished general and continental politician of the first class. The fault of the Stuarts was, that England's enemies were their friends, and England's religion the object of their detestation. The ties which bound England to William III. were those of religion, and similarity of interests. It is quite clear, then, that it was no part of the duties of the English aristocracy, who then ruled at home, to interfere with their great deliverer in the command of the army. But, even then, the army rebelled, and great difficulties arose from jealousy of his Dutch troops. In Queen Anne's time, the army was as much in the hands of the Duke of Marlborough as any other part of the Government, and when that was taken away from him, the whole government was changed. The two first Georges, though far inferior, were somewhat in the position of William III. They were foreign princes and generals defending the laws and liberties of England against the Stuarts, The enemy was internal and the complete authority was necessary. But George III. was in a different position. The Stuarts were at an end. He was the legitimate sovereign, and not a soldier. We cannot find out that he interfered, at first, with the Army more than with the Navy, or foreign affairs, or that he jobbed more in the one than in the other.
George the Third's whole business, in the early part of his reign, was much like Mr. Bright's now, namely, to turn out an Adminis- tration once a year, till he succeeded in obtaining one sufficiently ill-composed to be entirely subservient to him. Such a one was Lord North's long administration, and the King allowed Lord North-to use the Army as a Parliamentary assistant quite as much as he allowed Lord Sandwich to treat Greenwich Hospital as a grazing- ground for superannuated men from Huntingdon. When Lord North was forced to go, the Commander-in-chief was forced to de- part with him. And General Conway was given the place. Horace Walpole says of this, that nobody could conceive why General Conway was placed there, except that he was fit for the place, and was as incapable of using the Army as a mode of forcing unjust laws upon the people, as he was firm in maintain- ing the just rights of the Crown. But this complacency on the part of the king, did not last long. He procured, shortly after, another minister as subservient as Lord North, but much more able. The people of England preferred the evils they knew in George III., to those they expected to endure under his successor, and the king was popular. He, therefore, became very much his own master, and confided the Array, sometimes in the field, and sometimes at home, to the Duke of York. Hence, it followed that no successful military expedition, was made from the beginning of the war till the rise of the Duke of Wellington ; during which time we first find the claim set up on the .part of the king, that there is something exceptional in the working of the Army, which claim is so admirably described in the number of the Cornhill Magazine for the month that we cannot help quoting it. " Lord Grenville declined to serve unless the army was placed under ministerial control. To this innovation the poor crazy king demurred. It had been an amusement and an occupation to him in his lucid intervals "to transact military business with Frederick," with what deplorable results to the resources and credit of the nation we now know. His Majesty objected that, ever since the time of the first Duke of Cumberland, die army had been considered as under the exclusive control of the sovereign, without any right of interference on the part of his ministers, save in matters re- lating to levying, clothing, feeding and paying it."
It was under such circumstances, that this royal claim was made, a claim which we have already shown, had not been al- lowed at the fall of Lord North's long administration. We now pass to George IV. This famous sovereign allowed his brother to manage the army, but interfered in the millinery business, and was under the delusion that he himself had, at some time or other, commanded the army in the field, and shared its glories and its dangers.
At King William the Fourth's accession, reforms were begun in all branches of the administration, but the Duke of Welling- ton successfully resisted all endeavours to carry out those changes in the military departments which were generally believed to be necessary. In vain, committees and commissions sat. The Duke was too strong. We do not complain of this. As long as the Duke was alive, his presence was better than any reform, for the Duke of Wellington, with a bad system, was better than a good system with no Duke of Wellington. And we see no reason to impugn the conduct of the Whigs, who, for the sake of the great advantage of the Duke's advice and assistance, permitted him to interfere, although at the time he was leading the Opposition to the Government. But what may be good in the exceptional case of the existence of the Duke of Wellington, may be very bad in any other ease. And from the moment of the Duke's decease, the anomalies became apparent. We believe, then, that we have shown that her Majesty's Royal Predecessors, commanded the army not as sovereigns, but as generals, and that the claim which General Peel and others now set up for the Crown, was only made by King George III., when he was crazy. That *eerie IV 's in- terference, was merely that of tailoring, and braggadocio, and that alterations were staved off by William IV. through the legitimate power and influence of the Duke of Wellington. We think it
would not be difficult to demonstrate, that the interest her Ma- jesty has taken in the army, has been of a far different kind, and is one that no reform could alter, no demagogue subvert. And, as long as the Queen feels pride in the days of military glory, and the deepest sympathy for hardship or suffering, as long as the
Prince Consort brings his powerful intellect to bear upon the nu- merous difficult questions which abound inmilitary discussions, it
is quite impossible that the army can be otherwise than a royal army, or the legitimate influence of the Crown be diminished or destroyed.
Previous page
