On Saturday the question of the reorganisation of the War
Office came under debate in the House of Commons. Sir Charles Dilke put the point which we put in the Spectator of August 31st,—Is the Commander-in-Chief to be really respon- sible to the Secretary of State for War for the Army as a whole, or is the responsibility to be frittered away among a quantity of departmental Boards and Councils ? To our deep. regret, Mr. Balfour made a reply which implied that, un- happily, this is to be exactly what is to happen. There is to be no permanent non-political soldier at the War Office responsible to the Secretary of State for the Army as a whole. Mr. Balfour seemed to infer that such an officer would be too strong for the Secretary of State, and would overshadow him and rob him of his responsibility. We do not lightly differ from so keen an intelligence and so cool a judgment as Mr. Balfour's ; but in the present instance Mr. Balfour was, we hold, either mistaken or representing a mistaken decision of the Cabinet. The fact that the permanent head of the Trea- sury is responsible for the Treasury as a whole, does not over- shadow Mr. Balfour or weaken his Ministerial responsibility. Why, then, should a really responsible official head of the Army act otherwise on the Secretary of State ? If the Secre- tary of State is a strong man—and no weak man should ever be appointed—he may be relied on to hold his own under circum- stances in which he feels that his opinion ought to prevail.
Previous page
