§ MR. CARDWELLPreference having been made to the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) in the debate the other day upon the Royal Warrant, I wish to make an explanation of a personal character upon the subject. I was not present at the moment; but I was under the impression that my hon. and learned Friend's opinion was not quite correctly expressed, I therefore wrote to him, and I wish now to read his reply. It is as follows:—
Tantallan House, North Berwick, Aug. 18, 1871.My dear Cardwell,—I am afraid my answer to your letter will hardly arrive in time to be of use.I was surprised to see the reference made to me in Mr. Torrens's speech on Tuesday, and I need hardly assure you that, as on the one hand my absence from London was due to no other cause whatever than my own private convenience (coupled with the belief that I should not be omitting any public duty which would require my continued presence in the House of Commons till the close of the Session), so, on the other, I have never expressed myself to anyone in private on the subject of the Army Bill or the Royal Warrant in a manner different from that in which I have spoken to yourself, or so as in any way to account for the introduction of my name into Tuesday's debate.I have always thought and said that the issuing of such a Warrant was within the undoubted power of the Crown, though to do so without having a sufficient assurance that Parliament would provide the necessary compensation for the officers, who would otherwise suffer by such an exercise of Royal power, would not be just, and therefore would not be consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, which vests all such powers in the Crown in the confidence and for the purpose that right, not wrong, shall be done. I should have been glad if it had been generally and clearly understood from the beginning that, subject to the sense of Parliament being ascertained with reference to the point of compensation, the form 1894 of procedure would be that which was eventually adopted; because it is certainly an evil that the adoption of one constitutional mode of procedure rather than another should appear to arise from an adverse vote of the House of Lords. But I consider that the votes of the House of Commons had practically settled the question of compensation, as it was impossible that the Lords should exercise their power merely to prevent justice being done to the officers of the Army; and this being so, as the permanent continuance of the purchase system had evidently become impossible, and as any unnecessary delay in putting an end to it must have been most injurious to the organization of the Army, and most unjust to those officers who might want to sell out during the period of transition, it did, and does still appear to me that the course which the Government took (after what I must always consider the ill-advised Resolution of the House of Lords) was (as you express it) the least objectionable course which could be taken under the whole circumstances of the case.—Believe me ever, my dear Cardwell, yours faithfully, R. PALMER.You are, of course, at liberty to make any use you please of this letter.