§ MR. C. HOWARD, in rising to move the Resolution on this subject which stood on the Notice Paper in his name, said, he wished at the outset to disclaim any motives of a personal nature in introducing that question, and also to express to the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. H. Lowther), or any member of his family who might be present, his regret that there should be in the Petition which he had presented to the House any expression at all of a disparaging character toward him. For his own part, he felt bound in bringing forward a Motion offensive to the hon. Gentleman and his family to declare that he thought the hon. Gentleman was a man not only of great honour, but perfectly qualified, as far as he was personally concerned, to fill the office of Lord Lieutenant of a county. The hon. Gentleman filled the office of Lord Lieutenant and also of Custos Rotulorum. Now, those offices were instituted at much the same time; but he confessed it did not appear to him why they should necessarily be connected. As Custos Rotulorum he had the appointment of all the magistrates; as Lord Lieutenant he occupied a prominent place in the military management of local affairs. Now, he had no doubt that in former times, after the Civil Wars, it was a great object with the Sovereigns of this country, whether of the Stuart or of the Hanoverian dynasty, to secure for their interest men of large possessions, who might be useful to them in their maintaining their hold on the country; and he had no doubt that King William III. was very glad when he was able to retain in his service a statesman so eminent and a proprietor so large as the first Lord Lowther. But it appeared to him that the time had gone on by when those offices were of importance. They might have been important in former days in restraining the violence of the clergy and of the Jacobite gentry; but now it seemed it to him that any magistrate, duly qualified to act, would be able to act as Custos Rotulorum, and to recommend fit magistrates for the bench; and he thought it would be a great gain if the administration of military affairs were taken from the Lord Lieutenant 729 and given to some officer who would be able in a more efficient manner to administer the affairs of their local array. But whatever might be thought of that matter—and he threw it out as a suggestion to the Government—he thought there could be no doubt it was not desirable that the office of Lord Lieutenant should be hereditary. The Petition he had the honour to present on that subject complained that the office of Lord Lieutenant had been for 100 years vested in the Lowther family. The petitioners there very much under-stated the case. He believed that since the time of the Revolution the proprietors of Lowther had invariably succeeded to that high office, and for the last 130 years, since the year 1738, when Henry Lord Lowther was Lord Lieutenant, the Lords Lonsdale had succeeded to the office without intermission. That, he held, was a course which was not consistent with the due exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown, and with the giving of favours from that quarter. He thought it would be much better that the tenure of that office should not be regarded as a family succession. But not only had the Lords Lonsdale, one after the other, succeeded to the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Cumberland, but they had also succeeded to the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Westmoreland. Now, he believed that in no two other counties in England was that office held by the same person; and he found that in 1837, when the counties of Northampton and Rutland were held by Lord Exeter, on Lord Exeter's death Lord Derby thought proper to separate the Lord Lieutenancies of those two counties, and to give one to Lord Gainsborough and the other to Lord Southampton. Well, Rutland was a very small county, smaller than that of Westmoreland, and it might very naturally have been thought that the office of Lord Lieutenant might properly be held in connection with the county of Northampton. But it did not so appear to Lord Derby. As he had intimated, he thought there were objections to these offices being hereditary. He dared say he might be met by statements on the other side of the House that these appointments were not confined to the Lowther family. Well, that may be the case; and he believed that, although there might be exceptions, the rule was not to give the office 730 to the son after the death of his father. But if hon. Gentlemen opposite should show to him that there had been appointments of a similar nature made by a Liberal Government, he could only say that that would but confirm his case, and he should be very glad if those hon. Gentlemen would vote with him on that question, and thereby help to prevent the continuance of a practice which he regarded as very injurious to the public interest. He did not think, if it had happened that the Lord Lieutenant had died, or had been prevented by illness from attending to public affairs, that there would have existed the feeling now excited in the country by the appointment of his heir and nephew. If the Government, firm in Office, had, in either of those cases, appointed him to the Lord Lieutenancy, there might have been murmurs; but so strong was the feeling on both sides of that House that those offices had been so long—it might be improperly—regarded as a great reward of party efforts, that he doubted whether there would have been any strong opposition to the appointment. But let the House observe when that appointment was made. A Petition, presented by his hon. Friend and Colleague, stated that during the late election the present Lord Lieutenant had not been appointed to his office. But that election was not over until the end of November. On the 2nd of December the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) wrote a letter to his constituents to toll them that he had given up Office, and on the 10th of December he had ceased to hold Office. Well, the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Cumberland was gazetted, he thought, on the 2nd of December. Now he thought the House ought to examine very carefully the appointments of a retiring Government; and not only in the case of the Lord Lieutenant of Cumberland, but in many others, the late Government had been very lavish of their appointments. Lord Mayo had gone to India; and not only had he received that valuable heritage, but he had also received the favour of his Sovereign in the dignity conferred upon him of the Star of India. Ho would refer hon. Gentlemen for an illustration of the conduct of the Government to a very interesting Return which had been presented to the House on the Motion of an hon. Friend of his the Member for 731 Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). Hon. Gentlemen would see from that Return that there was a perfect shower of appointments about the 2nd of December. He hoped the House would carefully scrutinize these appointments. They would hardly approve a system of reaping the harvest before it was ripe, and. giving appointments before they were due. He regretted, as he had said in the beginning of his speech, that the Motion he should have to bring forward should be of an offensive character to a Gentleman whom he esteemed very much. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen might doubt the compatibility of those feelings; but he could assure them he was perfectly sincere. He regretted that in making the Motion he should have to propose a measure very offensive to the hon. Member for West Cumberland, but he saw no other way of preventing and remedying what he believed to be a great abuse.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly showing that the united Lord Lieutenancies of Cumberland and of Westmoreland have, for upwards of a century, been conferred upon some member of the family of Lowther; that in the year 1844 William Earl of Lonsdale was appointed Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the said two counties; that the said Earl of Lonsdale continued to fill these offices until the month of December 1868, when Tour Majesty was advised to revoke his appointment in favour of his nephew, Henry Lowther, esquire; that at the time when the said revocation took place Tour Majesty's Ministers had tendered their resignations, and only held their offices until the appointment of their successors; that this House observes with satisfaction that, as a general rule, Tour Most Gracious Majesty has refrained from appointing one and the same person to the Lord Lieutenancies of two separate counties, and humbly prays Tour Majesty to reconsider the exceptional course recommended by Tour Majesty's late advisers in the case of Cumberland and Westmoreland, and to revoke the appointment of Henry Lowther, esquire, in order that, should it seem good to Tour Majesty, Tour Majesty may appoint two fit and proper persons to be respectively Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of Cumberland and of Westmoreland."—(Mr. Charles Howard.)
§ MR. DISRAELII regret very much that a Motion of this kind should have fallen to the lot of one who has sat among us so long, and for whom all of us—at least those who know him like myself—must entertain feelings of respect. I regret that he should have felt it his duty to make a Motion which I 732 think I may say—with his no inconsiderable experience of public life and of the details of public business—he should have well examined into before he committed himself to a proposition such as that now before the House. The hon. Gentleman commenced his observations by some general remarks which referred to the inconvenience—perhaps the incongruity—of mixing up together the duties of the Lord Lieutenant of a county with those of the Custos Rotulorum. I will not enter into the discussion of that question, because I apprehend that if there is anything in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman it is directed against the recommendation which I felt it my duty to make to Her Majesty with respect to the present Lord Lieutenant of the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland. It may be that the system of joining together the duties of Lords Lieutenant and of Custodes Rotulorum may be bad, and it may be necessary, like the affairs of the Irish Society, that Her Majesty's Government should institute a private inquiry on the subject; but I think the House will agree with me that it has nothing to do with the question before us. We have not now to inquire whether it is advisable or not that the same person should be a Lord Lieutenant and a Custos Rotulorum; but what we have to inquire into is, whether anything has occurred in public life which justifies the Address to the Crown which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman. Now, in the few remarks I shall make I will endeavour to treat the question fairly and candidly. I understand, taking together the Resolution and the Petition which has been presented to the House, either by the ton. Gentleman or one of his Colleagues, that, in the first place, a censure is passed upon the late Government for recommending, at the time when they tendered their resignation to Her Majesty the appointment of the present Lord Lieutenant of the two counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland to the post which he now holds. The House will see when I have placed before them the case which they have to consider that this point has really nothing to do with the merits of the individual instance before the House; but it has been put forward in so prominent a manner both in the Petition and in the Address which we have just heard, and it is one upon 733 which the hon. Gentleman has dwelt with so much emphasis that it would not be right for me to pass it over without remark. Now I entirely deny the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman that, because I had tendered my resignation to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty had provisionally accepted it, I had ceased to be the responsible Minister of the Crown. That, I believe, is a point upon which there is no controversy whatever. ["Oh!"] Surely no Gentleman acquainted with the principles of our Constitution will think of disputing that for a moment. It does not follow that, because a Minister tenders his resignation and the Sovereign accepts it, that the Minister will be changed. Under any circumstances a considerable time may elapse. There is an instance of a not very distant date when six weeks elapsed. During all that time the Minister whose resignation is contemplated is performing the highest duties of the State; he may be superintending negotiations upon which the peace of Europe may depend; may be providing for the successful conduct of public expeditions in which the honour of the country is involved; and when he is obliged to fulfil all these duties and discharge all these functions, could anything more absurd be maintained than that he should not feel himself authorized to recommend to Her Majesty those persons best qualified to represent the Sovereign? On this point there is no doubt whatever, and there has been no difficulty about it in practice. The hon. Gentleman has said that I might adduce instances of an accumulation of offices under Liberal Governments. It is unnecessary for me to touch upon that. Take the case—I do not quote it as a precedent—of the Government—I will not say of my predecessor—but the Government that preceded that Administration, the Government that ceased to exist in 1866, and of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was a Member. Why it so happened there was then an analogous case. I am touching upon this point because it is an important constitutional point, and on an occasion like the present the House should arrive at a clear conclusion about it. As I have said before, this has really nothing to do with the peculiar merits of the case before us to-night. But in 1866 there was an analogous case. Three days after Lord 734 Russell had informed Her Majesty of his wish to resign, and his resignation had been accepted—and be it rebered that was in consequence of a vote of the House of Commons—a Lord Lieutenancy became vacant. Three days after Lord Russell's provisional resignation had been accepted, he did not hesitate to recommend to fill that important post an individual perfectly qualified to fill it, and that appointment was never for a moment challenged or impugned by this House. Take the case of the immediate predecessor of Lord Russell—Lord Palmerston. When he resigned in 1858, in consequence of a vote of this House, and a vote which he himself described and considered as a Vote of Want of Confidence—direct want of confidence—I speak on authority which I believe cannot be mistaken—at that moment there were three of the highest honours of the Crown—three Garters—unappropriated; and yet, though Lord Palmerston had provisionally resigned the high post which he occupied, he allotted, and I believe, most constitutionally, those three great distinctions to three eminent Noblemen, his Friends and supporters. Therefore, Sir, in my opinion, as far as the constitutional principle is concerned there can be no doubt—and I never heard there was a doubt—that until your successor has kissed hands and accepted the responsibilities of Office, the retiring Minister must meet and incur the full responsibility of all public transactions. Well, I wish to treat the question candidly. If I were Minister of this country, and a vote of the House of Commons had, in my opinion, virtually terminated my administration, and if in the interval before my retirement, some eminent post, like that of Lord Lieutenant, were to become vacant, I confess, if I followed my own inclination, I should not advise her Majesty to fill it. But I do not suppose that my sense of honour is nicer than that of all other public men, and I can only say that I have had the opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of two most eminent statesmen of the present day, representing the two great parties in the State, and once occupying the highest Offices, and they told me not only that it was the right of the Minister to recommend to the Sovereign under such circumstances—of which there is, I believe, no doubt whatever—but that in their opinion it was his duty. I mention this 735 circumstance to enforce the principle, which I believe is a just one, but which really has nothing to do with the merits of the case before us; but which I think the House should well consider, especially as an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway seemed to regard with some degree of derision the principle that a Minister who had determined to retire from Office was still to be responsible for the conduct of public affairs. Unless a Minister who has provisionally resigned, and whose resignation has been provisionally accepted, continues to act until his successor has been appointed a period would occur at the change of every Ministry in which nobody would be responsible, no matter what catastrophe should happen.
But the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Motion not only objects to the advice which was given to Her Majesty in this instance on the constitutional principle that a Minister who has tendered his resignation has no right to tender advice; but admitting, for argument sake, that the course we took was strictly constitutional, he says that the advice itself was erroneous and bad. In the first place, the hon. Member does not think the office of Lord Lieutenant should be hereditary. I never heard that it was hereditary. He also objects to the accumulation of honours, and duties of that character on any individual by two Lord Lieutenancies being combined in one person. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman in both these principles. My opinion is, though I would not use the language of the proposed Address, and say that I do not approve of the office of Lord Lieutenant being hereditary, that the office ought to be as little as possible of an hereditary character; and I say it is desirable that the government of two counties should not be combined in one individual. But I also say—and in this I am sure both sides of the House will agree with me—that though it is desirable that the hereditary nature of the office of Lord Lieutenant should, if possible, not be encouraged, though it is desirable that the government of two counties should not be combined in one individual, yet there is another principle which ought to be present to the consideration of every Minister; and that is, that the persons to be appointed to office should be competent and capable persons, 736 and that the persons recommended to her Majesty should be deserving her Majesty's confidence. This, Sir, is a much superior question to any technical consideration, such as that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Now, what happened in this case? The hon. Gentleman appears, from the language of his Resolution and the Petition upon which it is based, to assume that Lord Lonsdale, having been suddenly and privately made acquainted with the intended resignation of the Ministers of the Crown, hurriedly resigned his office, in order that what followed his resignation might be accomplished. This happens to be a statement for which there is not the slightest foundation. The resignation of Lord Lonsdale might have happened six or nine months before it was actually accepted; but when I first acceded to the conduct of affairs I was unwilling to encourage the noble Lord in the determination of his mind upon that occasion; and not only was Lord Lonsdale totally unacquainted with the intended resignation of the Ministry, but from the peculiar circumstances of the case, which arose out of a nice and proper sense of honour, it was impossible that what the hon. Gentlemen believes to have occurred could actually have happened. I had ample time to consider what would be the effect of Lord Lonsdale's retirement, and I was not favourable to it, because I foresaw the great inconvenience and difficulties that might result from it. [Ironical Cheers.] I am sure the House will not place me in the invidious position of having to go through a catalogue raisonné of the gentlemen in the county of Cumberland who might possibly be fit for the office of Lord Lieutenant; but I may say that their claims were thoroughly examined into, not in the light of party interests only, but with a due regard to the public weal. I have always been anxious, when in Office, never to recommend any person to a high post under circumstances which would not command public confidence; and I should not have hesitated, in this instance, to have recommended a gentleman professing Whig politics if it had been in my power to place before Her Majesty a name which would have immediately been recognized as an unimpeachable appointment. It is not a very easy thing to find a Lord Lieutenant, especially when the number from whom to choose is limited. There are 737 gentlemen in the county who have estates, but who are not resident, and gentlemen who are resident, but have no estates. Then, again, there are men very capable, but who are not desirous of fulfilling the duties of the office, and there are gentlemen desirous of fulfilling the duties, who are unfortunately not competent. So far from not having given the matter full consideration, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think, I took pains to make myself acquainted with the general opinion of the county of Cumberland upon the subject, and I cannot see that I have been deceived in this respect—indeed, the Petitions presented on the subject confirm me in the view I took, and I can appeal to them with considerable confidence. I have in my hand an analysis of the Petitions approving and disapproving the appointment, made by well-known and perfectly competent men. The Petition to which the hon. Member for Cumberland referred is signed by nineteen magistrates, I have no doubt, highly respectable men; but the Petition which advocates the recommendation I made is signed by 111 magistrates. [Ironical cheers.] I was perfectly aware of the inference which would be drawn from that contrast; but I believe there are magistrates from the county of Cumberland sitting on the other side of the House at this moment, and they can bear witness to what I can state with confidence—that the late Lord Lieutenant, during the time he regulated affairs, many times preferred gentlemen professing Whig opinions to those of his own party. But I find from this analysis that the Petition referred to by the hon. Gentleman is signed by two clergymen and three Dissenting ministers; the Petition supporting the appointment is signed by 120 clergymen and eight Dissenting ministers; the hon. Gentleman's Petition is signed by sixty yeomen, a most important class in that part of England; the Petition on the other side is signed by 849 yeomen. Professional men, bankers, and merchants objecting to the appointment number seventy-six, those who approve 495; persons objecting who describe themselves as gentlemen number thirty, and 288 describing themselves in like manner approve the appointment. The total of those objecting to what has been done is 3,737, and of those who ap- 738 prove 5,092. I do not wish to lay too much stress upon signatures to Petitions; but, as in this case, it was well known the Petitions would be thoroughly well scrutinized, the result may be taken as indicative of the feeling of the county; and there is one marked difference between the two Petitions. The great bulk of the signatures to the Petition referred to by the hon. Gentleman 2,966, are accompanied by neither description nor address; we have, therefore, no means of testing the claims of those who signed to consideration. In no case has a petitioner approving the appointment omitted to furnish us with his address and description. I have, therefore, shown that, as far as the constitutional principle is concerned, until the successor of a Minister who has provisionally resigned has actually kissed hands and accepted Office the retiring Minister is still entirely responsible for the conduct of affairs, and, as I have already stated in the opinion of high authorities, is only performing the duties of his Office in recommending a gentleman to fill the post of Lord Lieutenant. I have also shown that the hon. Gentleman in charging me with having hurriedly, and without consideration, recommended Colonel Lowther to fill the Lord Lieutenancy of the two counties without attempting to disjoint the united authority, has entirely failed to make out his case. Every effort was made—the case was considered in every possible manner. I did not find it was in my power—certainly I was quite unable—to fix upon any individual, without reference to party politics, whom I could recommend under the circumstances for the post in question; and no one has brought forward any name in this debate which would impugn that conclusion. If names had been brought forward, painful and disagreeable as it might have made my duty, I was quite prepared to have fulfilled it.
I now come to the third entire misapprehension which has influenced the hon. Member for Cumberland in bringing forward this Motion, and that is the idea that Lord Lonsdale, the late Lord Lieutenant, being suddenly acquainted with the secret of the intended resignation of the Ministers, hastily resolved to resign his post, with the understanding that the arrangements which are in question should be made. There never 739 was a misconception more complete and entire than this. I will tell the House what occurred. It is not agreeable to speak upon a subject on which one would naturally wish to maintain a reserve, and even an entire reserve; but it is much more important that there should be a clear understanding in the public mind upon these subjects than that the feelings of any individual should be considered. It so happened, when the borough elections were pretty well over, it occurred to me, and it occurred to those of my Colleagues whom I could consult at that time—many of them being scattered over the country—that there was only one course we ought to take. We felt that the result of the General Election being one which we had not counted upon, it was most painful, after the declarations we had made, to remain in the possession of power and patronage, and that, therefore, we ought to take the earliest opportunity of retiring. Of course, there were difficulties at that moment in arriving at a unanimous decision; but the moment that those difficulties were overcome, and all were assembled, a Cabinet was called, and the Cabinet arrived upon that subject at an unanimous decision—that the voice of the country had been sufficiently announced by what had occurred, to render it on our part a duty to ourselves to lose no time in retiring from the position which we then occupied. We felt that this course was due to our own honour; to the personal convenience of the Sovereign, and the progress of Public Business; and lastly due to the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself, so that he should not be thrust into Office without time to prepare his measures. The Cabinet were unanimous; but it was also unanimously felt that, as men of honour, we could not break up the Government in the midst of a General Election; that we had duties which we owed to our own party; that we owed it to friends who had entered into severe contests not to destroy their fair chances of success by suddenly, in the midst of a General Election, announcing our resignation; and therefore, although we had agreed that not a moment should be unnecessarily lost in announcing our wish to retire from Office, still it was necessary the General Election should be completed before that decision should 740 be carried out; and it was naturally left to me, under those circumstances, to take the proper steps at the right time to carry the resolution of the Cabinet into effect. I mention this, because stories in the newspapers about Cabinets having been called together, and my having gone to Windsor in consequence are inventions; nothing of the kind ever occurred, and nothing was more imaginative than these statements. It so happened it was impossible for me to communicate with Lord Lonsdale, or with any other individual with whom I had relations arising out of business which had been well matured and long considered, because entire secresy was absolutely necessary. I can say, upon my honour, that no gentlemen out of the Cabinet, even those most connected with the management of elections and the general conduct of the affairs of the party, ever received from me the slightest intimation of the course I intended to pursue. Well, Sir, I happened to be at Windsor, in attendance upon Her Majesty—not with reference to any particular business—but by Her Majesty's gracious pleasure, the county elections were going on, and, although they were, generally speaking, highly favourable to the Government, there was no reason to suppose the final result would alter the resolution which the Cabinet had arrived at. Still, feeling it was of the utmost importance that no time should be unnecessarily lost in our successors being installed in Office, I calculated, when I was at Windsor, that if a communication was made to our successors, a certain time must elapse before anything could transpire to affect public opinion, and that probably by that time the elections would be terminated; and, therefore, having the opportunity, I precipitated the decision at which the Cabinet had arrived. It was impossible for me to communicate even to the Ministry that I was about to carry out their resolution; and Lord Lonsdale had no more idea that the Government were about to retire than those who had no pretence to any knowledge on the subject. That is the exact state of affairs; that is the real cause of the resignation of Lord Lonsdale apparently occurring on the day the Government retired, because it was my duty then to conclude that and other matters of the kind when Her Majesty's pleasure was formally known. It was not neces- 741 sary for me to have resigned at that time; I might have gone on, perhaps, for aught I know, until the next year. If it had not been for the secresy which was necessary Lord Lonsdale's resignation would have occurred before, and would have been followed by a considerable interval, during which the late Government would have been in Office, and no person then could have questioned what was done. Therefore the inference which the hon. Gentleman has drawn, and, perhaps, not without some reason—though these are subjects on which we ought not to draw our inferences too rashly—is exactly the reverse of the truth. It was entirely from these circumstances, from the absolute necessity of keeping the resignation of the Government a secret in order that it might not affect public opinion and the elections, and in order, at the same time, to hasten the formation of the Government of our successors, that Lord Lonsdale's resignation appears to have occurred at the last stage. I have set before the House the real state of the case, and without any reference to my own personal feelings—though I am not insensible to the position in which I should be placed if such an Address as that proposed were carried—I do urge the House to pause before they consent to an Address of this kind. The Motion is formed upon a series of misconceptions, and, so far as I can form an opinion, upon very erroneous views of our constitutional doctrines and Parliamentary practice. As regards the individual case, it is entirely a misunderstanding. The appointment was made, the Prerogative of the Crown was exercised in this instance in a constitutional manner. I trust, therefore, the House will hesitate before it supports this Address. I advised Her Majesty to appoint Colonel Lowther to the Lieutenancies of these counties because it was not in my power to recommend anybody to Her Majesty whom I thought so completely eligible. I should have been happy if I could at that time, with satisfaction to Her Majesty and the country, have made a recommendation which would have prevented these Lieutenancies being united. The hon. Member refers to the language of the Petition, and says it alleges that these honours had been united in the Lowther family for more than 100 years. It is much worse; it is more than 130 years. But surely the 742 hon. Member ought to have deduced from that circumstance a more charitable conclusion. Considering the extraordinary vicisssitudes of the country, the changes of Government, and other alterations that must have occurred in 130 years, there must be some very strong reason indeed that Ministers of different opinions have all agreed, when they have had to incur the responsibility of putting the right man in the right place, as the Lord Lieutenant of the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland, in finding him in the family of the Lowthers. I repeat, without hesitation, I do not at all accept these general reasons as conclusive in the case I had to decide. I did not originally contemplate that the honours should be united. The difficulty with regard to the Lieutenancy of Westmoreland was that peculiar circumstances rendered a change almost impossible, and with regard to the county of Cumberland I was anxious to postpone for a long time the advice I felt it to be my duty to give to Her Majesty, because I was desirous of effecting some arrangement, such as that which has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I could not do it; the advice I gave was not interested advice; I gave it, I believe, in the spirit of the Constitution; and I trust the House will not be induced by the statements of the hon. Gentleman to authorize an interference with the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown, which is not called for in this case.
§ SIR WILFEID LAWSONsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion of the hon. Member for East Cumberland was most extraordinary and unusual; but, at the same time, it referred to a most extraordinary and unusual transaction. After what had taken place in the county of Cumberland, regarding this appointment, he thought his hon. Friend could have done nothing less than what he had done in bringing the matter before the House. The two Petitions which had been referred to, one on each side, showed the interest which was taken in the question in that part of the country. [Opposition cheers.] He was glad to find that the opinion was shared in by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He quite admitted that the number of signatures to the Petition, praying the House to take no steps with regard to the appointment was greater than the 743 number of signatures to the Petition on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be delighted with the number of magistrates who had signed the Petition praying that no further steps should be taken; but the right hon. Gentleman well knew who had made those magistrates, and probably he would have thought them a most ungrateful set of men if they had not signed that Petition. What he objected to in the appointment was the unusual step of uniting two counties under the Lord Lieutenancy of one and the same person. The right hon. Gentleman had laboured considerably to give reasons why he had taken such an unusual step. This was the only case in England and "Wales where two counties are united in a similar manner. ["No. no!"] He had taken pains to inquire into the matter, and believed he was quite correct in saying that there were not two counties united under one Lord Lieutenant. A strong case had been referred to with regard to Rutlandshire and Northamptonshire. When Lord Derby was in Office, and the right hon. Gentleman was in Office along with him, Lord Exeter died, and instead of appointing one Lord Lieutenant to the two counties, Lord Derby gave one to Lord Southampton, and one to Lord Gainsborough. In that case there was a death vacancy. But in the present case the right hon. Gentleman having secured a vacancy, appointed a representative for the retiring Peer. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman thought so badly of the Conservative party in the two counties that he could not find a suitable man in each to perform the duties of Lord Lieutenant. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not make any personal attack on the hon. Gentleman who had been appointed, for he had never heard anything against him; but he knew some of the gentlemen connected with the two counties, and knew that they contained men well fitted by intellect and character, to fill the office of Lord Lieutenant. He had no intention, nor, be believed, had other hon. Gentlemen who shared his views on this subject, of making a party attack on the hon. Gentleman who had been appointed to this office. That hon. Gentleman was, he believed, respected not only by his own party, but by those who had signed the Petition against the appointment, many of the latter, indeed, thinking that as far as this hon. Gentleman himself was concerned, 744 it was a change for the better; but what he objected to was, that the two counties should be represented by one powerful family. But what was still more objectionable was the mode in which the appointment had been made. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he was responsible. Of course he was; and that was the reason why the present Motion had been brought forward. It was stated that the resignation had been retarded for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would not accept it until the moment he had made up his mind to go out of Office, and he then appointed Lord Lonsdale's nephew, the result of which would be to secure the retention of the Lord Lieutenancy in the hands of the Lonsdale family, which had supported his own party. It had been said that things of this kind had been done by a Liberal Government on a former occasion. That might be true; but the House had nothing to do with that. The occasions referred to were when death vacancies had occurred; but this was a case in which the holder of the Office had been induced to retire in order that his successor might be appointed. He considered this appointment was as unfair as it was extraordinary—as impolitic as it was unprecedented—and he trusted the House would give that redress which his hon. Friend asked for by his Motion.
MR. STAVELEY HILL, as one who, for the last five years, had been closely connected with the two counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland, wished to inform the House on one point on which they had been led to a wrong conclusion by the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). When speaking of the two offices of Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum being united in the same person as being something abnormal, they ought to look to these two sister counties as being closely united and treated as one, in a different way from any other two counties in England. They had one police, one Assizes, and the same excellent magistrate sitting as Chairman of Quarter Sessions for both counties; so that it was not fair to talk of the two offices being, placed in the hands of one person for two distinct counties, when the two counties were joined together for all county purposes. If that were so, and if these appointments in the two counties could not con- 745 veniently be in separate hands, who was there so well qualified to hold them as the head of the Lowther family? Who and what was the Lord Lieutenant? He ought to be either a Peer, or a man of landed property, in a position to be responsible for the peace of the county, and no better man could have been selected than Colonel Lowther, who was heir presumptive to the title. If the two counties were polled from one end to the other he believed the appointment of Colonel Lowther would be endorsed by four-fifths of the inhabitants.
§ MR. HODGSON, having the honour of representing one of the divisions of Cumberland, wished to make a few remarks. Ho was rather surprised that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. C. Howard) should have altered his front in the face of the enemy. The Notice which he originally placed on the Paper only prayed for an inquiry into the circumstances under which the appointment took place, and if that Notice had been adhered to he might have seconded it, because he was satisfied that every part of the transaction would bear the strictest examination. But instead of that the hon. Gentleman now came forward with an Address to remove the Lord Lieutenant of Cumberland and Westmoreland without any trial, and without his being heard in his defence. The course taken by the hon. Gentleman reminded him of the story told of one of the hon. Gentleman's ancestors who had a border castle, and who was in the habit of hanging people first and trying them afterwards. He objected to such a mode of procedure. He was for letting the accused have a chance of defending himself. It had been said that the 111 magistrates who had signed the Petition owed their appointment on the Commission of the Peace to the late Lord Lieutenant, Lord Lonsdale. But he could state most confidently, as a resident in Cumberland, knowing what went on in the county, that the majority of the gentlemen recommended for the magistracy by Lord Lonsdale had been in opposition to the politics held by that noble Lord. In confirmation of that statement he appealed to the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Fletcher) opposite. He could assure the House that the Petition presented in opposition to the first Petition was most respectably signed. There were five resident Baronets in the two counties, and four of them signed 746 that Petition; the hon. Baronet opposite, like the last rose of summer, was left blooming alone, as he was the only one of the five who had not signed it. He appealed to the House whether it would be acting according to the Constitution of the country to interfere, in the manner proposed, with one of the Prerogatives of the Crown? They knew that during the reign of Charles I. there were great conflicts between this House and the Crown; but after the Restoration the Acts 13, 14, and 15 of Charles II. confirmed these appointments in the Crown, and since that time there had not, for 200 years, been a single instance of such an interference with the Royal Prerogative. Was the House called upon to interfere upon such trivial grounds now? The first Petition seemed to have been presented on the ground that Colonel Lowther had done him (Mr. Hodgson) the honour to canvass for him, and support him at the late election; but if all the friends who had so supported him were to be subjected to a similar treatment he was afraid he should stand a very poor chance at the next election. The hon. Gentleman opposite had asked that the House should do justice in this case; he echoed that request, and hoped that justice would be done on both sides. The Petition against Colonel Lowther was neither more nor less than a paltry effusion of political animosity, and he hoped the House would treat it as such. The counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland were sister counties, having the same police force, the same lunatic asylums, the same magistrates, and one regiment of Yeomanry for the two counties; many gentlemen were magistrates for both counties, and served upon the grand juries for both counties. It had even been proposed, he believed, by the present Government that they should have one regiment of Militia between them, while it had also been proposed that the Assizes of the two towns should be amalgamated. In two counties so affianced it would be a wonder if there were not one Lord Lieutenant for them both.
§ MR. FLETCHERsaid, he should not have taken part in this debate had it not been that he was appealed to upon a matter of fact by his hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Hodgson; who had asked him whether it was not a fact that a large majority 747 of the recent nominations to Commissions of the Peace by the late Lord Lonsdale were those of gentlemen belonging to the Liberal party. He (Mr. Fletcher) had often stated in conversation to hon. Members on both sides of the House, that in whatever way the political influence of the Lord Lieutenant had been exercised in bygone days, recently, at any rate, no charge of an improper kind could lie at the door of the late Lord Lieutenant. Some time ago he had taken the pains to look into the list of magistrates of the county of Cumberland, in which he was a resident. At the present day it was difficult to determine what a man's politics were; but, to the best of his judgment, among the last two or three batches of magistrates nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, about two-thirds belonged to the Liberal party. He was opposed to Lord Lonsdale's politics, and he was sitting in that House in opposition to his political influence; but when appealed to by an hon. Gentleman opposite, he felt he was only discharging his duty, and showing a proper respect for that House in bearing his testimony to the facts of the case. He would only further say, with respect to the speech of his hon. Friend who had made this Motion (Mr. C. Howard), that he thought his hon. Friend had introduced the question to the House with a good deal of moderation and dignity, and said nothing whatever which could give the slightest offence to any member of the house of Lowther. He appealed to the hon. Member for East Cumberland whether his object had not been sufficiently answered by the discussion which had arisen, and by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) upon the constitutional bearings of the question. The Motion had also elicited from the late First Minister of the Crown an interesting history of the circumstances which led to his resignation, and as it had served this useful purpose he hoped that the hon. Member would not proceed to a division, because if the Resolution were carried it might possibly lead to inconvenience alike to the Government and the Crown.
§ MR. E. POTTERsaid, he held in his hand a list of the magistrates of Cumberland, the honesty of which he could guarantee. He found that there were among the officers of the Cumberland 748 Militia 13 Conservatives, no Liberals, and 12 of doubtful politics, non-resident. In the Yeomanry Cavalry there were 18 Conservatives, 3 Liberals, and 1 doubtful. Among the acting magistrates were 112 Conservatives and 44 Liberals. The roll of the Commission of the Peace showed that there were 134 Conservatives and 20 Liberals. Among the Deputy Lieutenants there were 32 Conservatives and 6 Liberals, so that it was not surprising that the memorial in favour of the appointment was so numerously signed.
MR. GLADSTONEEvery one who knows my hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. C. Howard) will be aware, that in submitting the Motion which he has done to the House, he has been governed solely by a sense of public duty, and I must own that the combination of circumstances which presents itself to the general eye, and especially to us who have none other but a general knowledge of them, was such as might well attract attention, and even suspicion; but the discussion of this evening has enabled us to disentangle the case, and separate the circumstances one from the other. As the case first appeared the matter stood thus—that after the substantial resignation of the late Government, and before their successors took Office, an appointment was made peculiar in a double sense. It was peculiar, as it formed one of a long series of successions, hereditary in character, though the appointment was not hereditary; and this appointment conferring the first office in each of two counties on the same individual was made by the Administration at such a period as I have mentioned. It was also peculiar because the vacancy did not arise from death, or in consequence of any circumstance independent of choice, but by resignation, and was naturally supposed to have arisen by resignation procured for the purpose. Let us look, Sir, at these circumstances, because I think that various points of great public importance are involved in the discussion besides those connected with the resignation of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted. In the first place, we have to consider whether it is desirable that for so long a period of time, which, as my hon. Friend behind me stated, approached to two centuries, the Lord Lieutenancy of a county, which is known not to be an hereditary office, 749 should continue in one family. That is one question of considerable importance. We have only to look back to the history of earlier times in Europe to be aware that most of the hereditary offices have, come to be so, not in consequence of deliberate decision, but in consequence of successive appointments being made in the same families. The next point of importance is the union of two counties under one Lord Lieutenant; and the third point has reference to the time of the resignation, and to the suspicion which attended it as having been a matter of arrangement with the Government. With respect to the series of appointments in one family, I must own that I think it very desirable that the opinion of this House—though it need not be expressed in a formal shape—should be understood as being adverse to the creation of a series of appointments such as this in the same family. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had declared his opinion on the point in the strongest terms, and he does not hesitate to say that a series of them ought not to be prolonged in one family. It is hard to say, after the practice had obtained in this case for so long a period, that particular blame attaches to those who at a particular moment follow the example of those who preceded them, and the right hon. Gentleman has done no more than follow the example of a long series of successive Governments. He did not think that the recommendation in favour of the appointment urged by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) is justified by authority, because he founded himself on Hallam, who, in describing the qualifications for a Lord Lieutenant of a county, lays down the doctrine that the person to be appointed to that office must, in order to be a proper person for it, be a Peer. I assume, however, that the general sentiment of the House, without giving utterance to any opinions painful to the hon. Gentleman holding the office in question, is adverse to the idea that a series of successions of this kind should be indefinitely prolonged in one family. That there should be no such series of successions has been the regular recognized principle of public administration, and how this curious and remarkable exception has grown up I do not pretend to say. I am not aware of a single instance 750 of successive Lords Lieutenant in the same family except under unusual circumstances. I find seven such cases among fifty-five appointments in twenty years, from 1840 to 1859. I never heard of a case where twice over the appointment has been made in the same family after the office became vacant by decease. Any other case like that of Cumberland and Westmoreland we have not on the record of our proceedings, and it is not desirable that we should have. Then the Motion of my hon. Friend directs especial attention to the union of the two counties under one Lord Lieutenant; and one reason why I think it undesirable that he should press his Motion to a division is because it commits the House to the opinion that such a union is inexpedient. That is a point which it would be hazardous to decide without inquiry. The two counties in question are not only neighbouring counties, but there exist in them facilities for economy in the local administration arising from and flowing out of their union. I am not saying that the union is expedient and necessary as a standing institution; but it may be desirable that we should not too hastily condemn it. I must say that I could conceive it possible that in some portions of this country other unions of counties might be devised, but regard must be had to many circumstances—their proximity, for instance, their size, and their population. When we look to the small dimensions and population of some of the counties in this country and Wales, it is impossible not to see that the fractional organization of the police, Militia, and of the county institutions is disadvantageous to efficiency, and leads to expense. I do not say whether it it is possible to take a step forward in the direction of union; but I think it is a matter which we had better leave to be deliberately considered than commit ourselves on it by any expression of opinion. Then we come to the third question, which is connected with the conduct of the Government in this matter, and I am bound to say, without giving any strong opinion on the point, that the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the position of an outgoing Minister requires some qualification; because, if we accept it in the terms in which it was delivered, it amounts to 751 this—that during the period which elapses from the time when resignation is tendered to a time when a successor comes into power there is no change in the position of the outgoing Minister. That doctrine, in my opinion, is just as far from the truth as the unlimited proposition on the other side—that there was no capacity at all remaining in an outgoing Minister to transact Public Business. The truth, in fact, lies between he two statements. Much Public Business must be transacted by the outgoing Minister or the public interests would suffer; but we all know that it is a familiar practice of outgoing Ministers to leave behind them a memorandum on this subject or on that, and stating that, on account of the position of the Government, they think it expedient to take no step in the matter, but they leave it to be dealt with by their successors. There is an intermediate region of cases, with respect to which it is in the option of an outgoing Minister to act, and that is in regard to filling up vacancies in offices. This is a matter difficult for the House of Commons to deal with. It must be left to the convictions and feelings of the Gentleman in power, and if there had been in the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman any matter of a flagrant character, that circumstance would have justified Parliamentary interference. I am, however, bound to say that, whatever appearance of anything of that kind there may have been has been, removed by his explanation. No doubt, so far as I understand the matter, the compliment paid by Lord Lonsdale to the party on this side of the House is not a marked one. But as regards the right hon. Gentleman, if I understand him rightly, I think he goes far to show that there was no stretch of power in the step which he took on this occasion, because it appears that the resignation of Lord Lonsdale had been tendered to him at a very early period—I think I understood him to say immediately, or almost immediately, upon his assumption of Office—that substantially Lord Lonsdale was content to leave his resignation in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, to be acted upon when the right hon. Gentleman thought necessary or proper. If that be so, and if the right hon. Gentleman is the sole cause why the resignation was delayed until the moment when 752 it assumed an external character of suspicion, I think my hon. Friend will feel we ought not to visit upon the right hon. Gentleman, by dividing this House, the consequences of an act, the whole value of which he might have reaped at a former period if he had chosen. That, I think, is very nearly the whole case as respects the conduct of the late Government, and if that be so, then I think my hon. Friend will be of opinion—I confess it is the conclusion at which I have myself arrived—that there is no case which would warrant us in passing this Motion which would appear to imply a censure on the late Government. At the same time I am quite sure my hon. Friend and the House and the public will derive advantage from this discussion in respect of his having drawn attention to this important question with regard to a quasi hereditary succession to a Lord Lieutenancy, and the expression of opinion which has been generally given, and by no one more emphatically than by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that that quasi hereditary succession is a thing which is decidedly not desirable or expedient for the public interests. I hope, under the circumstances, my hon. Friend will be inclined to withdraw his Motion.
§ MR. C. HOWARDfully admitted that the late Lord Lieutenant had made the Liberal appointments which had been referred to; but, with the known politics of the family, every inclination was shown on the part of those who wished to obtain seats on the bench to consult the family interests. He confessed he should like to take the sense of the House upon this Motion, but with the Leaders on both sides urging him to withdraw, it would be hopeless. He, therefore, withdrew his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.