MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the recent declaration of the Secretary of State for War, that "it would be very unfortunate if the patronage connected, with the Army were transferred from the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief to a political officer," it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to revive the office of Lord High Admiral, and transfer to him the Naval patronage now vested in the First Lord of the Admiralty?
MR. GLADSTONESir, in reference to the answer given on a former evening 628 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, a certain part of which my hon. Friend has put in his Question, I beg to say that I entirely identify myself with the answer given by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I am perfectly ready to reply to the challenge of my hon. Friend. Evidently my hon. Friend has framed a sort of proportion of four terms in his head. He thinks, that as the Secretary of State for War is to the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief so is the First Lord of the Admiralty to the Lord High Admiral. I apprehend, however, that that is not the fact. The Lord High Admiral is a great Officer of State, who, according to the ancient arrangements of the country, was charged, not only with the patronage, but with the whole of the administration of the Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty is simply the first-named member of a Commission to whom is now intrusted the duties of the Lord High Admiral, precisely as the duties of the Lord High Treasurer are intrusted to the Commissioners of the Treasury. I think, therefore, my hon. Friend will have to re-consider this most ingeniously constructed Question. I do not, Sir, propose to revive the office of Lord High Admiral.