Lords Sitting of 10 May 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bridgwater and Beverley Disfranchisement* (87); Norwich Voters Disfranchisement* (88); Mortgage Debenture Act (1865) Amendment* (89); Felony* (90); Creditors Sequestrations* (91).
Second Reading—Justices of the Peace Qualification* (77), discharged.
Committee—War Office (74·92).
Committee—Report—Medical Act (1858) Amendment* (69–93).
Third Reading—Inverness County, &c. (Boundary)* (48), and passed.

WAR OFFICE BILL—(No. 74.)
(The Lord Northbrook.)
WAR OFFICE BILL—(No. 74.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the said Bill, read.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he wished to say a few words in reference to cer-

  455
  tain observations which had been made on the second reading of the Bill, especially by a noble Earl who was lately Under Secretary for War (the Earl of Longford), and who, like himself, held a commission in Her Majesty's service. The noble Earl, digressing in a rather remarkable manner from the question then before the House, delivered a caustic and bitter invective against Her Majesty's Government, on account of certain reductions they had thought it necessary to make in the Army; dwelling also on the discontent and dissatisfaction with which they were viewed by the Army at large. Now, he took issue with the noble Earl on this point; believing as he did, in common with many others in the profession, that he was not the best friend to the Army who would maintain in a time of profound peace a vast and costly establishment, and an over-manned Staff, he ventured to say that what Her Majesty's Ministers had done was prudently and wisely done. He especially objected to the remarks the noble Lord opposite had made on the point that these reductions ought not to have been made till the new Reserve forces were filled up. Did the noble Lord think it necessary that all reductions should be postponed till the Reserves which had been ordered were brought up to their full force? For his part he held that no such postponement was necessary, believing, as he did, that the spirit and patriotism of the country, would be found, fully adequate to meet any emergency that might arise during the interval, and he was sure that the sinister predictions in which the noble Earl had indulged would not abate the confidence of the Army in its ability to discharge its duty on whatever service they might be sent.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDasked to be permitted to say a few words in answer to the observations of his noble Friend. He adhered to the opinions he had expressed the other night, and was ready to repeat them over again on any proper occasion. He believed, on reflection, that he might have gone beyond the question the other night, there being nothing in the Bill about reductions in the Army—but only for the regulations of the War Office. His noble Friend in charge of the Bill (Lord Northbrook) had, however, referred to those reductions somewhat complacently, and he
  456
  therefore desired to show their Lordships that there was a different view of them. He was not aware that he went to quite such a length as the noble Earl had imputed to him; but he had certainly heard considerable expressions of discontent from officers of standing and ability. He made no reference whatever to the Staff, and he objected to have words put into his mouth. He had heard nothing to satisfy him that the reductions had been prudently made.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Appointment of Surveyor General of Ordnance).
  EARL GREYsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause. Their Lordships would observe that the object of the 2nd and 3rd clauses was to create two subordinate officials in the War Office, for the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State in the House of Commons. These officers appeared to be of equal rank, and, he presumed, with the same salaries; but there was this extraordinary difference—that while the acceptance of one Office by a person having a seat in the House of Commons was to vacate the seat, the acceptance of the other was to have no such consequences. This was an evident absurdity. During the discussion of the last Reform Bill he called attention to the absurdity which already existed of a distinction between certain subordinate Offices under the Crown, the acceptance of some of which involved the vacating of seats, while others, through the mere accident of the appointment being made by a Minister, instead of directly by the Crown, were exempted from that provision. Thus, the Secretary to the Treasury did not vacate his seat by accepting Office, while a Lord of the Treasury, holding an Office of inferior importance and emolument, was obliged to go back to his constituents. Their Lordships at that time refused to correct this anomaly, and he could understand their unwillingness to disturb what they found already existing; but in creating new Offices either one principle or the other ought to be consistently applied. These two Offices were of precisely the same character, and he asked, in the name of common sense, why one should entail the vacation of the seat and the other should not? He was sure it would puzzle his

  457
  noble Friend who had charge of the Bill, to discover any sufficient reason for this anomaly. If they held that it was right on principle that persons on accepting Office should vacate their seats, then abide by that rule and let both Offices create a vacancy in the seats. His opinion, however, was/that the best rule would be that neither should vacate their seats. His experience in Parliament satisfied him that great difficulties arose from the present state of the law. Those of their Lordships who remembered the passing of the first Reform Act would recollect that apprehensions were expressed that the disfranchisement of many small boroughs, which afforded a means of bringing into Office persons whose services were likely to be useful, would render it difficult to select the most competent persons for Offices under the Crown. He always felt the force of that view, and the experience of 38 years had satisfied him that such a difficulty now existed. Were it not invidious, he could mention instances in which the most competent persons had been passed over on account of the uncertainty of their securing re-election, and of less competent persons being preferred whose seats were secure. On the second reading of this Bill, objection was taken by the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Richmond) to allowing the Surveyor General of the Ordnance to sit in Parliament, on the ground, that the tendency would be to prefer an officer sitting in the House of Commons, although another without a seat might be better qualified. He (Earl Grey) admitted that this argument had some force; but he thought it was sufficiently answered by what was urged by the Government on the other side—that additional professional assistance was required by the Secretary for War in the House of Commons, and it was therefore desirable that this new officer should be capable of sitting in that House. The noble Duke's objection would, however, have increased weight if the Surveyor General by accepting Office vacated his seat. There might be two military officers candidates for the Office, and both with seats in the House of Commons, and if one of them had gained his seat with difficulty and by a small majority, while the the other was secure of re-election, there would be an overwhelming temptation to prefer the latter,
  458
  even though he was less qualified than his competitor. If their Lordships held that a great constitutional principle was involved in the vacating of seats, he should be willing to apply it to both these Offices; but he would first propose that the Surveyor General should not vacate his seat by accepting Office, if already a Member of the House of Commons, nor be ineligible for election if not already a Member. If this Amendment was rejected he should move on Clause o that the Financial Secretary should also vacate his seat by accepting Office.
  Amendment moved—
  To leave out from ("Act") to the end of the clause and insert ("one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State may from time to time appoint and at his pleasure remove an officer to be styled the Financial Secretary of the War Office, and such officer shall not by virtue of such appointment, if sitting in the Commons House of Parliament, vacate his seat, or, whether sitting in such House or not, be disqualified from being elected to or sitting or voting in the said House of Parliament,")—(The Earl Grey.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that, though on a previous evening the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) blamed him for asking for a postponement of Bills, he hoped the noble Earl would now think he had improved the opportunity he was kind enough to afford him of reflecting on the course which he should take with regard to this clause. During the interval, he had looked at the matter in all its bearings, and had come to the resolution of not offering any further opposition to the measure. He was the more inclined to do this on account of the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Northbrook) that it was by no means necessary that the Surveyor General should have a seat in Parliament, and that the best person would be selected, irrespective of his sitting in Parliament. He still objected to the Office of Surveyor General being made subject to Ministerial changes, and should be glad if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could consider before the next stage of the Bill the propriety of making the Office a permanent one, and without a seat in Parliament. If, as seemed the general opinion, further professional assistance was required by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons, a third Office might be created, the person who filled it to be styled Assistant Under Secretary of State,

  459
  and to be a military man, qualified to assist the Secretary of State in debates and questions arising in Parliament. This, with the assistance of the Financial Secretary, would provide all that was required. He would not press this, but threw it out for the noble Lord's consideration.
  EARL GRANVILLEadmitted that the noble Duke had made an excellent use of the delay which he solicited, and should be happy to bargain with him that the same course should be taken with regard to the two other Bills, on condition that postponement was followed in those cases by the same result. Without entering into argument on the Amendment, he would urge on his noble Friend a consideration which had weighed with his Colleagues in the House of Commons—namely, the feeling of jealousy with regard to one House dealing with matters which peculiarly affected the other House. He did not deny that when any great public advantage was at stake, this feeling must not be allowed too much weight; but, in the present case, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  EARL GREYsaid, he could not consent to withdraw an Amendment against which not a word of argument could be adduced, out of regard for a question of etiquette. In the absence of any argument, it was clearly the right and duty of the House to express an opinion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYreminded the noble Earl this point was not raised during the discussion of the Bill in the House of Commons.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 33: Majority 5.
  Clause amended accordingly, and agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 92.)

  CREDITORS SEQUESTRATIONS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to the Sequestration of Benefices in England and Wales—Was presented by The Earl of HARROWBY; read 1a. (No. 91.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.