Lords Sitting of 20 March 1873

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Harris, after the death of his father.
RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.

  MINISTERIAL EXPLANATION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have to state to your Lordships, in addition to what I said on two previous occasions, that Mr. Gladstone and his Colleagues—having ascertained that Mr. Disraeli, although he felt himself able to form an efficient Government and one likely to command the confidence of Her
  1920
  Majesty, could not undertake to do so in. the present Parliament; and having further ascertained that it was not Mr. Disraeli's intention to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament—have carefully considered what it was their duty to do under these circumstances; and they have felt that there was no alternative open to them but to resume their offices. They will accordingly do so with every desire to perform their duty to the country, and in the hope that they will receive the support of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on the subject which the noble Earl has now brought under the notice of the House—namely, the resumption of office by Mr. Gladstone and his Colleagues in the Government. The noble Earl has correctly stated what took place on Thursday evening. Her Majesty wrote to Mr. Disraeli a letter informing him that Mr. Gladstone, in consequence of the Vote previously come to, had tendered his resignation and that of his Colleagues, and that Her Majesty had accepted those resignations; and, asking Mr. Disraeli whether he would undertake to form a Government. Her Majesty requested him to attend at Buckingham Palace that evening at 6 o'clock. Mr. Disraeli according waited on the Queen, and informed Her Majesty that, while he was ready to undertake to form a Government which should efficiently carry on the affairs of the country, and which he felt would deserve the confidence of Her Majesty, he was not prepared to do so in the present House of Commons. Her Majesty, acting as she always does on occasions of a similar character, made no obstacle whatever in the event of Mr. Disraeli wishing to advise Her Majesty to dissolve the present Parliament. But it must be perfectly obvious to all who look into this question that a dissolution of Parliament, such as that which Her Majesty would have undertaken, had Mr. Disraeli recommended it, would not have met the difficulty of the case in any way whatever. The state of Business in the other House is such that it would be quite impossible that the present Parliament could be dissolved before that period at which Parliament usually separates at the end of the Session. Measures of great importance would have had to be considered by Mr. Disraeli's Government; and they would have been

  1921
  exposed during the remainder of the Session to adverse Votes from various sections of the House of Commons; and they would have been liable to be placed in minorities on various questions which might be brought forward by the Liberal side of the House. Your Lordships will, I think, agree with me that for Mr. Disraeli to undertake the Government under such a condition of things would be detrimental to the Executive, prejudicial to the administration of affairs, and, I think, injurious to the Crown of this country. My Lords, such being the case, Mr. Disraeli respectfully declined to form a Government. I have heard it stated—my noble Friend (Earl Granville) has not asserted it now—but I have heard it stated—that unless Mr. Disraeli had been prepared to form an Administration he should not have put Her Majesty's Government in a minority on the Vote which was taken 10 days ago. To those who have advanced that proposition I venture to answer that the Vote come to on a recent occasion was the result of no combination whatever. At a very early stage of the debate Sir Michael Hicks-Beach distinctly stated the views of the party of which Mr. Disraeli is the Leader and their intention to vote against the Bill. Only at a late period of the debate was it known that any great body of Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies were likely to vote with the Opposition and so put Her Majesty's Government in a minority. For that, therefore, the party of which Mr. Disraeli is the head were in no way responsible. They felt bound to vote against a measure which in their consciences they believed would be very injurious to Ireland and to this country as well. My Lords, the theory that the party of which Mr. Disraeli is the head ought to carry on the Government even though they are in a minority is one of a very peculiar character; for it is perfectly evident that if it were carried out to its fullest extent the administration of public affairs in this country must come to a dead lock. I believe Mr. Disraeli has adopted the course which he ought to have taken, and that in future it will be said that the position he now occupies sheds additional lustre on his name as one of the greatest statesmen of the day.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I may perhaps be allowed to observe that in consequence of the statement of my
  1922
  noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) the other evening, that Mr. Disraeli would explain in the other House the communications which had taken place with Her Majesty, we thought it would be better that the public should know from Mr. Gladstone the exact details of what had occurred; and I therefore refrained from entering into the matter. With regard to the argument which my noble Friend has thought right to put forward, I am not aware that anyone has ever held the doctrine that no Opposition is at any time to put a Government in a minority unless it is prepared to undertake the Government. The question may have been raised whether the Ministry, having been put in a minority, and great pains having been taken to effect that result, it is not in accordance with all former precedents that some attempts should be made and some time taken by the Opposition with the view of forming a Government.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—THE PEERS GALLERY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to call the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a matter which interested most of their Lordships. There was a very general interest just at present with regard to what was going on in the House of Commons, and very many of their Lordships were desirous of availing themselves of the privilege which the Commons allowed them of being present at their debates. But on several occasions recently, and especially that afternoon, several of their Lordships were unable to find a place in the gallery of the House of Commons: the place which that House was kind enough to set apart for Peers being fully occupied by foreigners and other gentlemen who were not Peers. Their Lordships regarded the privilege of entering the House of Commons to hear the debates as a great one; and he thought it would be well if the Government endeavoured to come to some understanding with the authorities of that House in order that Peers might not meet with the obstacles to admission which they had been obliged to encounter for the last two or three years.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he need scarcely assure his noble Friend that he

  1923
  would be most anxious to in any way promote the convenience of their Lordships with regard to accommodation in the House of Commons; but at the time all the seats under the gallery except the back row were being taken into the House itself for the accommodation of the Members themselves, he had a conversation with the late Speaker on the subject. He told Lord Ossington that he did not think the accommodation for Peers would be sufficient; but Lord Ossington replied that it was sufficiently liberal as compared with that provided in their Lordships' House for the Members of the House of Commons. He was not convinced by that reply; but, as their Lordships knew, he had no power in the matter. He would, however, communicate on the subject with the present Speaker.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that the want of seats for Peers under the gallery in the House of Commons often proved a serious inconvenience. It was now almost impossible for Peers to communicate with Members of the House of Commons during the progress of business in that House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDremarked that his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had not touched on one of the points raised by his other noble Friend—namely, that the seats at present appropriated for Peers and the sons of Peers were taken up by gentlemen who were not Peers or the sons of Peers.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he thought it would be very unfortunate and very uncourteous to exclude foreigners and say they had no right to be admitted to the seats assigned for the accommodation of distinguished strangers. In other countries much courtesy was shown to foreigners who wished to be present at the debates of Legislative Assemblies. In all foreign Assemblies accommodation was provided for the Corps Diplomatique. The Corps Diplomatique was a very numerous body, and all the members of it could not be accommodated in the galleries of either House; but it would be very unfortunate not to find seats for some of them.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had no desire that the Corps Diplomatique should be excluded from either House, or that every courtesy should not be shown to strangers. When he said "foreigners and other gentlemen,"
  1924
  he was referring to persons who occupied seats which were supposed to be appropriated to Peers. All he desired was to have the Peers accommodated in the seats set apart for Peers.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the centre bench in the front of the gallery over the clock was set apart for the Royal Family and Foreign Ministers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the real difficulty was the question of economy. The fact was that the House of Commons was very much too small for its own Members, and that Assembly was therefore niggardly to those who wished to attend its proceedings. Until they were prepared to spend more money for their own accommodation, they were not likely to do so for the accommodation of others.
  EARL GRANVILLEdid not think that motives of economy prevailed in the matter; but rather a feeling that it was not desirable to have too large a House.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.