HL Deb 05 August 1872 vol 213 cc448-50
LORD STRATHNAIRN

, alluding to the discussion which occurred on this subject last week, said: I beg leave, my Lords, to explain my reasons for objecting, as groundless, to a protest which the noble Marquess the Under Secretary for War entered against me in the debate last Thursday on my Motion for Papers. Before going further I should state, my Lords, that I wrote a very courteous letter on the 20th ult. to the noble Marquess, expressing the hope that he would have the goodness to accept, and to convey to Her Majesty's Government, nay regret at not having brought forward my Motion the day before, owing to my having been told, and thought—as I may observe that the impression was universal—that the Kirwee Motion would have lasted much longer than it did. As regards the second postponement, travelling and coming to London in great heat caused an affection of sun to which I have been subject since I had a sunstroke in India, and I was quite unable to come to the House. As regards the absence of His Royal Highness, I thought that he was at Goodwood, and knew nothing of his departure for Germany. But the absence of the Commander-in-Chief was the less material, because, as I stated in my speech last Thursday—a circumstance which the noble Marquess seems to have lost sight of—His Royal Highness's opinions as to the Short Service Act without pension, and as to the discontinuance of the Long Service Act without pension, are recorded in debates in your Lordships' House, and are now registered in Hansard; and, with all due deference to the noble Marquess, I must assert my perfect right to discuss in debate such very valuable material as the opinions on military matters expressed by the Commander-in-Chief in Parliament. As regards the supersession question, I am at a loss to imagine how the Under Secretary of State for War can say that nothing would be less one-sided—that is, neutral—than the opinion of His Royal Highness on that matter, when that admirably reported journal, The Times, states the illustrious Duke's preference of retirement to the Government plan in the following terms:— There is, no doubt, a considerable difference of opinion as to whether promotion is better obtained by this scheme or by retirement. His Royal Highness gives this decided opinion in favour of retirement after a careful review of the whole subject; and this opinion having been expressed in Parliament, I have as much right to make use of so able and important a judgment as I had in the case of the discontinuance of the pensions.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

regretted the noble and gallant Lord should imagine that he had been guilty of any discourtesy towards him. The afternoon on which the letter referred to was written he met the noble and gallant Lord in the House and thanked him for having written it. He was, he thought, warranted in saying that he was sorry the noble and gallant Lord had not brought on his Motion before the departure of the Commander-in-Chief; but he had not the slightest idea of conveying the imputation that he desired to bring it on in the absence of His Royal Highness, who would have contributed to the discussion had it been brought on on the day originally proposed. He would only add that His Royal Highness's speech was, although he might himself have preferred the scheme of retirement, by no means condemnatory of the alternative course adopted by the Government.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

pointed out that the noble and gallant Lord was not in Order in quoting from reports of speeches delivered in a former debate.

LORD STRATHNAIRN

said, he was obliged to the noble Marquess for the courteous explanation he had offered him.

House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, 'till To-morrow, a quarter before Four o'clock.