Lords Sitting of 25 February 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee
—Report —Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention [No. 38].
Committee — Report — Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention*(15–39).
Third Reading —Solicitors' Remuneration* (36), and passed.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION (LORD AIREY'S COMMITTEE).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, their Lordships would, doubtless, remember that the noble Earl opposite the Under Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Morley) had, some time ago, told him that in presenting the Report of Lord Airey's Committee to the House, he would make such a statement as would raise the whole question of Army administration in a form in which it could be discussed in their Lordships' House. Of course, many Members of their Lordships House were so eminently fitted to discuss the question that it was desirable that the matter should be fully brought before them. He wished, therefore, to ask, having given private Notice of his Question, Whether his noble Friend, in laying the Report on the Table, intended to make such a statement as would raise the general question? There was another subject he wished to mention. The indiscretion had been committed by someone of communicating the contents of the Report to the Press, a summary of it having appeared only that morning' in The Times. Yesterday, the noble Lord had said he was not aware whence that indiscretion arose; but he might now be able to give some information on the point. The somewhat unusual course had been pursued by the Government, even a considerable time ago, of communicating the main points of the Statement which the Secretary of State for War had to make on Monday to the newspapers, for on the 1st of November last The Times had a communicated article and a leading article on the subject of the recommendations of the Committee; and these were followed up on the 9th and the 13th of the same month,
  1724
  all disguise being thrown aside, and it was said that the matter had now passed into the stage of official settlement, and that it was right to give a resume of the changes which Mr. Childers intended to propose. Evidently those articles in The Times came from someone who had a right to speak; and he should like to know whether the Government could give any further information? There was an inconvenience in the communication to the Press of documents like the Report of the Airey Committee before they were presented, which would be quite apparent to their Lordships when it was considered that, whilst quotations from the Report were made on one side, Lord Airey and Sir Lintorn Simmons, both Members of the Committee, were unable to refer to the official document in their reply. Another matter which he wished to refer to was this. There appeared to be still an erroneous impression in their Lordships' minds as to the exact position which was occupied by Lord Airey's Committee. A dispute had arisen as to whether it was a Departmental Committee or a Special Committee. It could not be too strongly stated that it was not a Departmental Committee in any sense. It consisted of nine persons, all holding prominent positions in the Army, and only three of them were connected in any way with the War Office—namely, Sir Lintorn Simmons, General Armstrong, and Sir Archibald Alison. It was, no doubt, a confidential Committee to advise the War Office, but it was not a Departmental Committee. They had gone most carefully into the matter, and their Report was one of the most able objects of military opinion that could be presented to Parliament.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in reply, said, he could not help thinking that the course pursued by the noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) was wholly irregular and somewhat inconvenient. The noble Viscount had sent him Notice that he intended to ask a Question, but he was not prepared for a speech of a quarter of an hour upon a subject of such great importance; and he ventured to think that the regularity was inconvenient, not only to the noble Lord who had to answer, but also to the House at large. With regard to the statements that had been published as to the Report of Lord Airey's Committee, he would say that it

  1725
  was a fact that on the 15th of March last, before the present Government came into Office, a summary of the Report had appeared in The Times, though not so full a one as appeared in that morning's paper; but the Government knew nothing as to how these statements had got abroad. He regretted very much that they should have been published before the Government had laid the Report upon the Table. He might also say that it was not his intention to make any general statement on the subject of Army administration in laying the Report upon the Table, as that would be an unusual course, and it would further be inconvenient in that it would tend to raise a debate upon a question of great importance before their Lordships had had an opportunity of studying the document, or the Statement which would have been made in the other House. He had no desire to postpone any discussion upon the subject; and after the proposals of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had been made known to Parliament, any noble Lord could raise a discussion on one or more of the important questions upon which Lord Airey's Committee had reported.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1873—THE ORDER IN COUNCIL—OFFICES OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COMMON PLEAS AND LORD CHIEF BARON.
  LORD DENMAN,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty that the Order in Council, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the House on 6th January 1881, for reducing- the number of Divisions of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice and for abolishing the titles of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron and reducing their offices to an equality with the offices of the other Judges who are not ox officio Judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, may not come into operation;"
  said, he was afraid that it was useless for him to make the Motion, as he knew that what he said was not thought worthy of being listened to by their Lordships, and was sure not to be reported by the Press, although it would be reported truly in Hansard; but if he had been ruled to divide the House, he could not have renewed his Motion. It had been said that there was no precedent for renewing such a Motion; but there was none against it. The best measure for
  1726
  despatch of business was Lord Abinger's for sittings at certain times. At present, we had in the Queen's Bench Division one cause, No. 112, and, next to it, No. 400, and more marked "Exchequer." It had been said by an old French writer, that "Une courte injustice vault mieux q'une longue justice;" but, before Her Majesty's reign, a delay of two years might have occurred, and a defendant, for want of bail, might have been in prison all that time. The noble Lord now Lord Chief Justice of England had, on August 10, 1876, said that he thought the appointment of three additional Lords Justices in Ordinary a mistake, and much preferred the two Lord Chief Justices and the Lord Chief Baron sitting in rotation on review of causes. That noble Lord had lately committed a suitor, for saying that he was not fit for his position, that he, the suitor, had been swindled, and other unfounded slanders, to Newgate. He (Lord Denman) only recollected one instance of a person being sent to Newgate—whom he would not name—for striking a witness. If this address were postponed, the Order of Council must immediately take effect. Since the debate in "another place," the question of salary might be a difficulty; but to have two more Common Law Courts besides the Queen's Bench, with distinct heads, he thought worthy of every effort for them; but he could not refrain from repeating his protest against the abolition of the titles of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty that the Order in Council, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the House on 6th January 1881, for reducing the number of Divisions of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice and for abolishing the titles of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron and reducing their offices to an equality with the offices of the other Judges who are not ex officio Judges of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, may not come into operation.—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall take the liberty of moving the adjournment of the House as the best and most proper mode of meeting this Motion under the peculiar circumstances under which it has been made. A few days ago the noble Lord moved a similar Motion, and then obtained leave to withdraw it. I find that there is no precedent for the renewal of a Motion

  1727
  once made and answered in your Lordships' House, and then, by leave, withdrawn at the request of the Mover. Some years ago a string of Resolutions were proposed by Lord Campbell which Lord Lyndhurst thought should not be made the subject of a vote, and he took the course of moving the adjournment of the House. Founding myself upon that precedent—though Lord Campbell's Motion was no precedent for that of my noble Friend—I shall follow the same course. I fully appreciate the excellency of the motives which have induced my noble Friend to take the interest he does in this matter; and if he thinks that he is not listened to, or that his views are regarded as unworthy of attention, I can assure him I always listen to him with respect. But on this particular occasion it would, I think, have been better if he had not attempted to make a new precedent which would be attended with some irregularity, and a great amount of inconvenience. I shall, therefore, move as an Amendment that the House do now adjourn.
  Moved, "That this House do now adjourn to Monday next."— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On question, resolved in the affirmative.
  House adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.