Lords Sitting of 20 May 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (No. 2)* (103).
Second Reading—Water Provisional Orders* (92); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2)* (84); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (Alton-Barnes, &c.)* (85); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) (Bovey-Tracey, &c.)* (86); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) (Ashill, &c.)* (87); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5) (Acton, &c.)* (88); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) (Ashen, &c.)* (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) (Abberley, &c.)* (90); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 8) (Abergwilly, &c.)* (91); Secretary for Scotland (79); Great Seal (83); Colonial Prisoners Removal (44).
Committee— Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (The Labourers Act) (Enniscorthy, &c.)* (64); Greek Marriages* (96).
Committee—Report — Gas Provisional Orders* (81); Land Drainage Provisional Orders* (82); Public Libraries Acts Amendment (95).
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (68), and passed.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Sir Henry Bouverie William Brand, G. C. B., late Speaker of the House of Commons, having been created Viscount Hampden of Glynde in the county of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

AFRICA (WEST COAST) — THE IN TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND FRANCE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF FIFE: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the paragraph in The Times of this morning as to the negotiations between France find the International African Association comes from any official source; and whether the noble Earl will, before the Whitsuntide Recess, make a statement on the subject?
EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl asked me a Question on this subject the other evening. Since that time I have applied for permission, to publish documents which are at present of a confidential character, and I hope I shall be able to answer the noble Earl in a few days.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.

  (NO. 79.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he did not rise to offer any objection to the second reading of the Bill, because he believed, on the whole, its effect on the country would be very good; but the objections he had to the measure were rather in respect of sins of omission than of sins of commission. He intended, if the Bill passed the second rending, and he should vote for its doing so, to move certain Amendments when it got into Committee for the purpose of extending its scope, and he now wished to say a few words as to what the effect of those Amendments would be. Their effect would be in the direction of placing the elementary education of Scotland in the hands of the new Secretary. Most of their Lordships were aware that the system of education in Scotland had
  800
  been, for more than 300 years, a universal and successful one. They had boasted frequently of that system of education, and he thought justly; but it had lately been changed, and for the last 12 years there had been in operation a measure under which school boards had been universally established, the object generally of the Act being levelling up, so as to bring primary education to every child in Scotland. It was generally felt throughout Scotland that there was now great need to supplement that measure, so as to give au improved system of secondary education, and there was also a very strong opinion throughout Scotland that they should never get a satisfactory system of secondary education except through the means of a Scottish Department, specially exercising the control of Scottish education. It was, therefore, with that object that he should move to bring the whole system of Scottish education under the control of the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. He did not wish to say a word against those who in London managed the Scottish Education Department. He believed that Department was managed by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and those who with him were responsible for Scottish education, as well as it was possible for them to manage it, with the limited knowledge they had of the system of Scottish, education. The chief objection, however, he had to the London administration was this—that those who had to administer the Education Acts in England wore not really acquainted with the system which had been practised in Scotland for so many centuries, and which was still being practised; and, also, that they wore not aware of the necessities that existed for the further extension of that system. Their Lordships would notice that the Bill proposed to transfer to the new Secretary the powers and duties vested in one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State in reference to Universities in Scotland, and also the powers of the Privy Council in reference to educational endowments. It, therefore, gave the Secretary for Scotland entire control over the higher branches of education; and if they gave him the control over higher education, why did they not also give him control over the system of primary or elementary education? It might be

  801
  said that the expense which the change would incur would be excessive; but when they came to Committee, he hoped to be able to show that, instead of creating additional expense, the change would tend to increased economy. It might also be said that if Scottish education was entirely administered by a Secretary for Scotland, why did they not propose also that the police, industrial schools, reformatories, factories and workshops, the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, should be placed under his control? His answer was, that each one of those Acts was bound up with Imperial interests, and ought to be administered by a Central Authority as pertaining to the community as a whole. But that argument did not hold good in regard to primary education in Scotland. He had just touched briefly upon the main points, which he should go more largely into in Committee. He consented to the second reading of the Bill; but he thought it would be of advantage to Scotland that the entire system of education should be placed in the hands of the new Secretary.
  LORD BALFOUR, said, he did not rise to object to the policy of the Bill. He regarded that matter as practically settled, and as settled in accordance with what he believed to be the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Scotland; but he should like to take that opportunity of saying that he had been requested by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lothian) to express to the House his great regret on account of his not being able to be present on this occasion in order to commend this Bill to their Lordships' notice. His noble Friend had presided over a large meeting held in Edinburgh in support of this proposal, and he (Lord Balfour) knew from himself that he was most anxious to be present there that day, but he was unavoidably absent. His noble Friend, however, hoped to be there when the Bill reached Committee, and in the meantime he had asked him (Lord Balfour) to make that apology to their Lordships for his absence. There were one or two points in regard to the Bill which he (Lord Balfour) hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider before that time arrived. For example, he should like to have some explanation as to why the
  802
  salary to be paid to the new Secretary was to be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament. It might be that that was the regular form, but as to that he had not been able to thoroughly inform himself whether it was so or not; but if the Bill were to stand in that form, would it not give the power to one House to abolish the Office which the passing of a Bill through both Houses of Parliament was necessary to create? He felt that there might be more to be said in favour of the clause as it stood than he was aware of, and he should therefore be glad if the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie), who was in charge of the Bill that day, would give some explanation as to the precise position in which the matter stood. He should also like to know why a large and important Department like the Register House in Edinburgh had been excluded from the scope of the Bill? He ventured to think that if there was one Department more than another which required to be thoroughly looked into, and placed under a responsible head, it was that Department, and although he was not, as at present informed, prepared to move that it be placed under the control of the new Secretary, he should be glad if the noble Earl could give the House some explanation on that point also. Again, he should like to know whether it was possible for any Return to be given to the House of the rights of patronage which were to be transferred to the new Secretary under the Bill? The powers and the duties which he would have to perform wore very fully set forth in the Schedule; but no list was given of the patronage, or offices and appointments which the new Secretary would have under his control; and he did not know of any source from which it was possible to inform oneself as to what those were. Therefore, he hoped they should have some explanation from the noble Earl on the point. Before he sat down he found it necessary to say a word also as to the proposal of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Huntly). The noble Marquess had correctly stated the result of this Bill if it passed in its present shape—namely, that the responsibility of the Home Secretary in reference to Scottish Universities would be transferred to the new Secretary, and also that the administration of the Educational Endowments Act would be

  803
  vested in him. Now, he (Lord Balfour) thought it was quite right that the powers and duties and privileges of the Home Secretary in regard to the Universities should be so transferred; but he had very grave doubts as to the propriety of transferring the administration of the Educational Endowments Act, especially at the present time, to the new Secretary. There were three ways in which Parliament could deal with education in Scotland in regard to the new Office. In the first place, the administration of the whole system of primary education might be transferred to the new Office, as well as the administration of the Educational Endowments Act; or, in the second place, the administration of the Educational Endowments Act alone could be transferred, as was now proposed; or, in the third place, as he ventured to think would be the better course, at any rate for the present, the administration of none of those Acts might be transferred. He could quite conceive something being said—in fact, the noble Marquess opposite had very well put the arguments on his side of the question, and he (Lord Balfour) could imagine their having some weight in favour of inducing Parliament to transfer the administration of both the Educational Endowments Act and the Elementary Education Act to the new Office. But there was also, as he thought, a great deal to be said in favour of retaining the administration of education, as at present, in the Education Department in London. What he did not think was advisable was to transfer the administration of the Educational Endowments Act alone, and leave the administration of the Elementary Education Act to be done from London. With regard to a very large number of the schools in Scotland with which the Commission appointed under the Educational Endowments Act had to deal, they were very little removed, if anything, from being elementary schools; and he thought it would lead to dual government of the worst form and of the most disadvantageous character if the administration of the public schools—which was the Scottish expression for schools coming under the Elementary Education Act — should be retained under the Privy Council, while the administration of the Educational Endowments Act was transferred to Edinburgh. That, he thought, would be
  804
  indefensible, and he sincerely hoped that proposal would not be persevered in. But he would deal with it in exactly the opposite way from the noble Marquess opposite, and, if no one else did so, he should certainly propose an Amendment in Committee in the direction he had indicated—not that the administration of the public schools in Scotland, the whole educational system of Scotland, should be transferred to the new Office, but that the work of the Privy Council in regard to the administration of the Educational Endowments Act should not be transferred. His reasons for that were briefly these. There was no provision whatsoever in this Bill for any staff that would be required for the administration of the Elementary Education Act under the new Secretary, and he thought it would add very greatly to the expense of such administration if they were to have an Education Office in Whitehall and another in Edinburgh. Besides, he had very great doubts whether it was desirable for the Government to allow such a large spending Department, such as the Education Department was becoming — indeed, had become — to have an Office away from London. He did not see how that could ever be seriously proposed. That was one reason why, in his opinion, the administration of the Elementary Education Act should not be transferred; and, further, he thought the present time would be a singularly ill-chosen one for making that transfer. He therefore hoped—indeed, he thought he might be sure—that their Lordships would not consent to it without full consideration, because there was, at the present moment, a most influential Committee of the House of Commons considering what should be the future administration of Education as a whole. The Reference to that Committee was in the following words:—
  "That a Select Committee should be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered can be best secured."
  He thought it would be a most unusual proceeding if, when one House of Parliament was considering what was best to be done, the other House of Parliament should make a proposal which might, or might not, be in accordance with the Report of that Committee when it was presented. There was not much

  805
  use in appointing a Committee, if they were going to deal with the very subject which it was appointed to inquire into before the Committee had presented its Report. The noble Marquess opposite had said the whole system of elementary education in Scotland was different from that which, obtained in England. There was, no doubt, a great deal of truth in that statement; but he (Lord Balfour) doubted whether that fact, properly considered, was a reason for the separation of the administration, because he ventured to think that, in the matter of education, England might learn something from Scotland, and Scotland from England, and each country might profit from the experience of the other. Upon that ground, also, he should be sorry to see the administration of the two systems separated. He did not wish to conceal from the House the fact that opinion in Scotland was divided on the subject; but he sincerely hoped that full time for consideration of the matter would be given; and he ventured to think that if full time for consideration was given, it would be found to be by no means certain that the majority of those interested in educated would desire to see the administration of it transferred from London to Edinburgh. Therefore, his advice, if he might venture to offer it, would be that, at any rate in the meantime, education should not be one of the matters transferred to the new Department. It might be that opinion would mature in the direction indicated by the noble Marquess opposite, and it might be that they should ultimately have to transfer education, at any rate in part, to the new Office; but he sincerely hoped that in this matter nothing would be clone in a hurry, and that full consideration would be given to the arguments on both sides. He should, therefore, when they reached the Committee stage, propose that the part of the Schedule which dealt with the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act should be omitted from the Bill. Meantime, he sincerely hoped their Lordships would give a second reading to the measure.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he also intended to support the second reading of the Bill; but, at the same time, it would require amendment, for he did not think it was altogether satisfactory, because it seemed to him that it either did too much, or did not do
  806
  enough. Now, there were two ways in which they might deal with the administration of the affairs of Scotland as regarded education. Either they might consider the Home Secretary Minister for Scotland, in which case it would be sufficient to appoint an Under Secretary of State to act in co-operation with the Lord Advocate; or else they might abandon that theory, as he believed had now generally been done, in which case it would be better, and indeed almost necessary, if anew Minister were created, to appoint an Officer very much in the position of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He supposed this measure did all that was possible at the present time; but, at the same time, he thought if they were dealing with the question in a thorough and final manner, they should now be proposing the suggestion he had made to establish an Officer somewhat in the nature of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He did not know how Ministers ranked; but he understood one mode of ranking them was according to their salaries. He should be very anxious indeed to see the Minister for Scotland, whoever he might be, in the Cabinet; and in that view he should also prefer to see a Minister created holding a higher salary than £2,000 a-year. He wished entirely to endorse the remarks just made by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) in regard to that portion of the Schedule which related to educational matters; but he differed entirely from his noble Friend on that side of the House (the Marquess of Huntly). He thought it would be a most unfortunate thing if the Secretary for Scotland were to become an Educational Minister. They had just heard that the whole question of administering the Votes for Education, Science, and Art was at present under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House of Commons; and for that reason, if for no other, he thought it would be most unfortunate if they were to place the administration of one Educational Act under the Privy Council, and another, and one only, under the Secretary for Scotland. At the same time, he wished to gay that he would be very sorry to see an Educational Scotch Board which would meet in Edinburgh. He thought that the Educational Committee of the Privy Council was specially well fitted to deal with all questions affecting education,

  807
  whether in England or Wales or in Scotland, and therefore that it would be able to deal, from a much broader point of view, with all the questions that would arise under these Acts than would a merely National Board; and for that, if for no other reason, he would be very sorry to see the Privy Council resign any portion of its authority. Consequently, when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) brought forward his Amendment in Committee to omit this portion of the duties of the Secretary for Scotland from the Bill, he should vote in its support.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he should be very sorry to disturb the general harmony which had prevailed so far upon both sides of the House with regard to the Bill; but, after what he had said last year, he hoped he might be pardoned if he simply expressed his regret that the Government had thought it necessary to bring it in. Reference had been made to Ireland; but Britain and Ireland were by no means at one, and, however that might be, he had always thought that Great Britain, at all events, was a United Kingdom, although it seemed that Ireland was in a great degree alienated from this country. Although he knew that he had not the support of his compatriots, remembering what he had said last year, he wished to express his regret that the Bill had been thought necessary. Of course, he should not go farther than that; he did not wish to oppose it, but rather to ask one or two questions with regard to points in the Bill on which the intentions of the Government did not seem to him to be very clearly expressed. In the first place, the question of expenses had been alluded to. Then there was the question where was this Office to be located? for, practically, the proposition contained in the Bill was to take away powers of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to give them over, to a large extent, to another Officer to be appointed; but they had been told by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) that the now Secretary was to be looked upon as an inferior Officer. Of course, there were two or three subjects that were excepted, and one exemption of an important nature—namely, that in regard to law and justice. He must say he was very glad of that, especially in this respect—that he
  808
  thought it most essential that the powers of the Crown in regard to the Prerogative of mercy as regarded criminals should still remain in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There was another minor point. He observed that a Permanent Assistant Secretary was to be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. By the way the Bill was drawn, he should infer that it was intended rather to be an appointment of a political nature, so that whenever the Secretary for Scotland was changed it would be open to him to change the appointment of the gentleman who was termed in the Bill the Permanent Secretary. He hoped that that was not intended in the Bill, as he could not imagine anything more mischievous than that. If the office were to be a permanent one, as it surely ought, he thought it ought to be entirely free from everything like political bias. He did not think it was the intention of the Government to give it that character, but that was the effect of the Bill as it stood. There were other points to which he took exception. One was with regard to the Lord Advocate. There was no doubt that the position of the Lord Advocate would be greatly changed by the Bill. It was quite true that the Bill nominally provided against that, for the last clause said that—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or interfere with any right, powers, privileges, or duties vested in or imposed on the Lord Advocate by virtue of any Aet of Parliament or custom."
  He was not going through the whole clause; it was to the last two words, "or custom," he wished to draw their Lordships' attention. Their Lordships were well aware that, at the time of the Treaty of Union, the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland was reserved to that country, and that it was not until 40 years afterwards, for reasons into which he would not go, that the Office was abolished. From that time, popularly known as the "'45," there was no doubt that the Lord Advocate had practically had the whole of the functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland in his hands. ["No, no!"] He heard that was objected to. He should have said, perhaps, until within recent years—it would be more correct in that way. However, he must say that, as a Scotchman, he had some little jealousy in

  809
  regard to the status of the Lord Advocate. He was not the Lord Advocate of Scotland; he was the Lord Advocate; there was no other Lord Advocate; and it was, he confessed, with some regret he saw that this ancient Office was becoming rather minimized with, regard to its importance. He could not help thinking that some little difficulty would arise in connection with this matter, and the manner in which it had been dealt with; and this seemed evidently to have been foreseen by the draftsman who had drawn the Bill, because—under orders, no doubt, from the Government—he had appreciated the proposition he had referred to. That was shown by the insertion of the words "or custom" in the Bill. It was rather an interference with what had always until very recent years been acknowledged to be the privilege of the Lord Advocate. With regard to Acts of Parliament, there would probably be no difficulty; but in regard to custom, it would not be easy to say what had always until recent years been acknowledged to be the powers, prerogatives, and privileges of the Lord Advocate as regarded patronage and other matters. He did not wish, as he had said at the outset, to offer the slightest opposition to the second reading of the Bill; but he did hope that the position of the Lord Advocate would still be maintained as one of a proper dignity, as it had been hitherto. He congratulated the Government, notwithstanding his objection, on having brought in a very much better Bill this year than the measure of last year.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he was afraid he was almost alone in feeling that the Bill was unnecessary, and that, at all events, if they were to have a Secretary for Scotland, he ought to be a first-class, and not a second-class, Secretary. To make this Bill a truthful representation of what it was, the words "second class" ought to be introduced before the word "Secretary." His main purpose, however, in rising was to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill not to ask the House to go into Committee upon it until after the Whitsuntide Holidays, for there had been questions raised in the debate which ought to be fully considered in Scotland and by their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: My Lords, I think that Her Majesty's Go-
  810
  vernment may be congratulated on the manner in which the Bill has been received by your Lordships. In so far as criticisms have been made which are not altogether in approval of the Bill, they relate to its details, and not to its principle; and I think, with your permission, I should like to say a few words upon them. I am myself, perhaps, partly answerable for the misunderstanding of the position of the Secretary for Scotland, that seems to have taken place on the part of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Galloway) and the noble Earl who has just spoken from the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss). They both object to having what the noble Earl calls a second-class Secretary for Scotland; and my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Camperdown), no doubt, expressed very much the same feeling, when he said it was hardly likely that a man with £2,000 a-year would find his way into the Cabinet. But when I look around me, I see several noble Lords who receive two and a-half times as much as my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, and yet who are not in the Cabinet. The noble Earl may think the Lord President a second-class President, and if so I can offer him no consolation; but he must reconcile himself as best he can with having only a second-class Secretary for Scotland. When I recollect that the salary not merely of the Lord President, but of the President of the Local Government Board and of the Board of Trade is not more than £2,000 a-year, I can see no possible reason why the Secretary for Scotland, if he is a strong and able man—as strong and as able as these other great Officers of State—should not also find his way into the Cabinet. My noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Galloway) objected to the manner in which the Permanent Secretary was appointed, and asked whether it was to be a political appointment. If it is a permanent appointment, I fail to see how it can be a political appointment. The appointment of a Permanent Secretary is, I believe, generally made by the Parliamentary Chief of the Department in question. As to the position of the Local Advocate, and the manner in which it will be affected by this Bill, I must say the observations of the noble Earl would have had greater weight, if he had expressed, some years

  811
  ago, when his Party were in power, some such views as he has now expressed, to the then Secretary of State for the Home Department. In that case, the position of the Lord Advocate at this moment would be somewhat different from what it is. I think, therefore, that the regret of my noble Friend comes somewhat too late. The judicial functions the Lord Advocate now exercises will still remain with him, and it is only the administrative functions that will be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) was anxious to know how the salary was to be paid, and why the clause awarding a certain salary to the Secretary for Scotland and to the Assistant Secretary was inserted in the Bill. Well, I believe that the plan adopted is the manner in which salaries are awarded to Officers of State. I believe that, with the exception, perhaps, of the Secretary of State for India, all the great Officers of State are paid by money voted to the Treasury for the purpose. With reference to a further remark of the noble Lord, the Register House is at this moment under a great Officer of State, and is specially regulated by a Statute passed in 1879, and the Government see no reason why that particular Department should be transferred with the rest to the Department of the Secretary for Scotland. In regard to one question which justly appears to be considered the most important of all, Her Majesty's Government incline to the view expressed by the noble Lord opposite rather than to that of the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Huntly). So far as regards the question of educational endowments, which the noble Lord says ought not to be transferred to the new Department, unless the whole educational machinery is transferred to that Department, that, no doubt, is a point which the Government will take into their very serious consideration; but when the noble Marquess says that he will, in Committee, move that the whole education of Scotland shall be placed under the new Officer, I have to say that, as at present advised, Her Majesty's Government cannot consent to make that change. The Government have carefully considered the question, and have come to this conclusion, to a very large degree, on the grounds put forward by the noble Lord
  812
  opposite, and I cannot hold out any hope to my noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government will give way in this matter. That question, no doubt, will be discussed again when the House gets into Committee, and I will say nothing more at this moment. I will merely thank your Lordships for the reception you have given to the Bill, and say that, Her Majesty's Government's proposals having received your approval, they are sanguine that the Bill will shortly become an Act of Parliament, and that it will go a long way to meet the wishes of the people of Scotland.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

GREAT SEAL BILL.—(No. 83.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
GREAT SEAL BILL.—(No. 83.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a formal measure, having for its object the simplification of the passing of instruments under the Great Real of the United Kingdom. It proposed to enact that a warrant under Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, countersigned by the Lord Chancellor, or by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, or by the Lord High Treasurer, or two of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, should be a necessary and sufficient authority for passing any instrument under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom according to the tenour of such warrant; but it contained a Proviso that any instrument which might now be passed under the Great Seal by the fiat, or under the authority or directions, of the Lord Chancellor or otherwise without passing through any other Office, might continue to be passed as heretofore. It also proposed to give the Lord Chancellor power, from time to time, to make, revoke, or vary regulations respecting the passing of instruments under the Great Seal, and respecting the warrants for that purpose, which should be prepared by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The making of any warrant for passing any instrument under the Great Seal, or the procuring any instrument to be passed under the Great Seal otherwise than in

  813
  the manner provided by this Bill or by the Crown Office Act, 1877, was proposed to be made a misdemeanour. It further provided, amongst other things, that after the passing of the Act it should not be necessary that any instrument should be passed under the Privy Seal. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he felt some difficulty in dealing with the Bill in the absence of noble and learned Lords who were qualified to discuss it; and that the more especially as it appeared to him—and he could not help having received the impression—to be of rather an insidious nature, as it seemed to be intended to effect a somewhat important Constitutional change in regard to an Office which had existed from an ancient date. The noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack had said that the measure was simply a formal measure; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury), however much he might be inclined to regard it as one of form, did not think that it was a pure matter of accident that this Bill should immediately follow the Secretary for Scotland Bill; and it appeared to him not improbable that the real object of the Bill was to create a vacancy which the Secretary for Scotland was to fill. The £2,000 which was to be given to the Secretary for Scotland was to be taken from the Lord Privy Seal, and in order to do so the noble and learned Earl practically proposed to eviscerate the Office of the Lord Privy Seal. In that case, he thought that the measure should bear upon its front the title of a Bill to abolish the Office of the Lord Privy Seal. It was, perhaps, not very easy to justify the existence of sinecures; but no one had held a Cabinet Office without being conscious that sinecures were often of very great value to the Public Service at particular conjunctures. They were not confined to the Privy Seal; their value was recognized in the other House, where there was a sinecure called the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, which no one thought of abolishing, because it was often of very great value by enabling the Ministry to fill the Office by the appointment of a man who could render great service to the country. He had
  814
  heard nothing to convince him that the Office of the Lord Privy Seal should not be preserved, or that a similar value did not attach to it. The only reason given for the abolition of the Office was that his noble Friend the Duke of Northumberland, when Lord Privy Seal, could not be found by a person who was sent after him. He thought great precautions were required in regard to the issuing of warrants and the countersigning of the Sign Manual. He hoped, therefore, that, at all events, the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would consent to put the Bill off until his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) could be present, so that the House could have his opinion upon it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that with respect to the objection of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), the signature of the Lord Privy Seal was given as a mere matter of form, and the counter signatures of those who knew what the warrants were, and on whose advice and responsibility they had received the Royal Sign Manual, would still be required. There would be ample opportunity for discussing the measure on its subsequent stages.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the first sitting dag after the recess at Whitsuntide.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 95.)
(The Lord President.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 95.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked the noble Lord the Lord President for some explanation of the meaning of the Bill?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, that there was a doubt whether public bodies, such as Municipal Corporations, had power to execute a trust deed devoting buildings to the purposes of Art Galleries or Museums, and the measure was intended to remove that doubt.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.

COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 44.)
(The Earl of Derby.)
COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 44.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remove certain inconveniences which have been seriously felt from time to time in Colonial administration, and which are always liable to recur. Those inconveniences have arisen from the necessity of keeping men, who have been sentenced to imprisonment or to penal servitude in any Colony, within the limits of the Colony in which their trial has taken place? We therefore propose, in the Bill, to take power to remove a prisoner from any Colony to any other, or to bring him home; but subject to this Proviso—that the Colony from which he is sent and that to which he is sent must both concur, as well as the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The reason which makes this power desirable is two-fold. In the first place, small Colonies often have not suitable means for enforcing penal discipline, and cannot provide such means without undue expense. The extreme case is Heligoland, which has no gaol at all; and a man was lately sentenced there for manslaughter, who could not have been punished according to his sentence if there had not been an agreement under an Imperial Act between Heligoland and Gibraltar, in accordance to which he was transferred to Gibraltar. It is obvious that there is an economy in removing a prisoner from a small Colony, where there are no proper means of detention, rather than in supplying those means of detention in places where they may very seldom be wanted. Another reason is the inconvenience and danger to life, if strict penal discipline is to be enforced on European prisoners in tropical and unhealthy climates. If you are to deal with an English sailor imprisoned on the West Coast of Africa as you would at Portland, you would probably kill him—if his confinement has to be relaxed and mitigated, to avoid the danger from climate, it ceases in a great measure to be penal, and introduces irregularity in the discipline of the prison, if Natives
  816
  are also confined there. As proof that these difficulties are not theoretical only, in the last few weeks I have received an application from a Foreign Government, to remove a prisoner now undergoing his sentence on the West Coast on the ground of extreme danger to his life. It is provided in the Bill that criminal lunatics may be brought home in the same manner as other prisoners for treatment in England. The Bill is concurred in by all the Departments concerned, and the principle of it has been referred to the Colonies, and generally accepted there. There is already in force an Act by which one Colony may agree with another for the transfer of its prisoners, so that the theory is sanctioned; but that Act requires an Order in Council to make it operative, and that Order can only be obtained on Address by the Legislative Bodies of both the Colonies concerned—a proceeding obviously too cumbrous and dilatory for the general run of such cases. I mention this to show that we are not asking Parliament to sanction a new principle, but only to give greater facilities for bringing into operation a principle which is already sanctioned in previous Acts, but which cannot get acted upon in consequence of the defective machinery of the present law. I now beg to move the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Derby.)
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked how the Bill would affect prisoners sentenced by court martial?
  THE EARL OF DERBYasked that the question might be repeated when the Bill reached the Committee stage.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, be saw no objection to the principle of the Bill, which might, however, require amendment in detail when it reached the Committee stage.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE.

  RESOLUTION.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it appeared to him that, with reference to two Motions standing on the Paper in the names of the noble Lords (Lord Strathe-

  817
  den and Campbell and Lord de Ros) in respect to the removal from London of the statue of the Duke of Wellington, recently removed from Hyde Park Corner, the two Motions were not in accordance with the Law of Parliament, as raising substantially a question upon which Parliament had already expressed its judgment in the present Session. He had consulted Sir Erskine May, and also a high authority in their Lordships' House, both of whom agreed that the Motions substantially raised the same question, and that, in the circumstances, neither of them could be put in accordance with the practice of Parliament. He would move, therefore, that the first of these Motions, that of the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell), to which that of the noble Lord (Lord de Ros) was put down as an Amendment, be not made.
  Moved, "That the said Motion be not made."—(The Earl Granville.)
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I may be expected to make some remarks in answer to the objection of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), of which no kind of Notice had been given to me. He thinks the propositions now before the House identical with that which, on the 24th of March, was by a small majority defeated. It is easy to point out that there is no identity between them. The Motion of the 24th of March affirmed that the House ought to Address the Crown; that the statue ought to remain in London unconditionally; and that its site should be in the neighbourhood of Apsley House as formerly. My Motion for to-night does not ask your Lordships to Address the Crown; maintains only that the statue should remain in London until we know how it is intended to replace it; and, as to the exact site, lays down nothing whatever. It would be perfectly consistent for any noble Lord who voted against me on the 24th of March, to vote with me this evening. I will now say a word on the Amendment of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord de Ros), as there is no rivalry between us. It is still more completely sheltered against the technical obstruction of the noble Earl—of which the House will recognize the purpose—than the Motion which precedes it. The noble and gallant Lord desires the House to act on in
  818
  formation recently disclosed, and not in their possession at the time the noble Earl refers to. On the 24th of March, the Amendment could not have been offered. A proposal which, on the 24th of March, was actually impossible, can hardly be confounded with the proposal negatived this evening. My Lords, little more is necessary; but there are many instances of Parliament retracting its decisions, if we were—which we are not—engaging it to do so. In the other House, soon after 1832, there was a vote to do away with the Malt Duty which was afterwards retracted. In recent days, a vote in this House, reflecting on some appointment under Lord Beaconsfield, was cancelled, after a speech which Lord Beaconsfield delivered to your Lordships. This House, after deciding to part with its appellate jurisdiction, was induced, on more reflection, to uphold it. The noble Earl alluded to authorities on usage whom he had consulted, principally "elsewhere." I, also, before putting down the Notice which now stands, consulted an authority on usage better gualified to guide this House than any he has mentioned. If there was at all a general opinion that the Amendment of the noble and gallant Lord is more technically guarded than the Motion which precedes it, I should be indifferent which was first debated. Beyond that there can be no concession upon my part.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) appeared to think that, of the two Motions, the Amendment was the more invulnerable one. That was a considerable concession to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), for his noble Friend had expressed his opinion that the Motion was deliberately and literally opposed to the former vote of the House. He (the Lord Chancellor) would point out the necessity of their having Rules which could not be evaded. No doubt, the noble Lord had quoted precedents in which previous decisions had been rescinded; but, then, he had omitted to say that that had been done by Motions to rescind. In this case, the Motion of the noble Lord was diametrically opposed to a former vote of their Lordships' House; and, surely, it was not advisable to review Motions which had been determined already, especially when these

  819
  votes remained unrescinded. That Resolution being unrescinded, he suggested that they could not proceed with the Motion without stultifying themselves.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would ask their Lordships to consider the effect of such a contention as that of the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack. According to that, if their Lordships once came to a decision as to the Egyptian policy of the Government, or the foreign policy of the Government, or upon any other matter upon information in the Blue Books laid before them, from which, it subsequently turned out, important facts—say, for instance, a despatch—had been suppressed, did the noble and learned Earl contend that, under such circumstances, and upon the new circumstances which had come to light, their Lordships could not reverse their previous decision and reopen the question? It appeared to him that in consequence of the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland), the House were now in possession of fuller knowledge with reference to the sentiments and feeling of the late Duke of Wellington upon the subject of the statue, and he thought that the Motion ought to be proceeded with. This was a question which ought to be decided as a question of sentiment and not of art.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, it appeared to him that there were two reasons why they ought to enter into a discussion of this question. First, there was no Standing Order which ruled the point, but only practice; and he questioned whether precedents, if looked into, would not favour one view as well as the other. Again, they were not asking for a reversal of the Resolution of the House, but simply for delay, in order that the matter might be more fully considered. He was strongly of opinion that they should enter into such a discussion, on the ground that fresh information upon the subject had been given to their Lordships.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he was also of opinion that the question should be further considered. The Government were totally and entirely unacquainted with the facts which he had stated. He was not quite sure that the Government were clear upon the point. The Vote in the House of Commons was not for the purpose of removing the Wellington statue, or for putting it on a
  820
  pedestal at Aldershot when it got there. The £6,000 was simply and solely for the execution of a new statue, and he hardly thought their Lordships could be bound by that decision.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided—Contents 52; Not-Contents 78: Majority 26.
  Resolved in the negative.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, the decision of the House engages me to go on with my Motion; but after the prelude which retarded it, mid the debates which have occurred before upon this matter, I shall not detain the House for many minutes. Whoever brings the subject forward is exposed, in one quarter, to the charge of an improper pertinacity. It is invariably asked, and with a tone of reprimand, why is the controversy so frequently recurred to? My Lords, the answer is an easy one. If something which Members of the Legislature consider mischievous, uncalled for, and, in a high degree, derogatory to an illustrious name, is threatened, they are clearly bound, until it is effected, to resist it. Their pertinacity is based upon their duty. It is said they are fatiguing Parliament. Possibly, they may be. But who is responsible fur the fatigue of Parliament? Unless a disturbance, almost a desecration without precedent had been conceived, the subject would not have arisen. Had the scheme been dropped, discussion would have vanished with it. The fatigue of Parliament is brought about by the abettors of the scheme, and not by its opponents. The pertinacity complained of belongs to Her Majesty's Government, who still insist upon a measure which they disavow, by throwing its whole responsibility on an illustrious Prince, while that illustrious Prince has never yet declared himself in favour of it. It has been said, indeed, that Parliament has sanctioned it. It has already been explained that, as regards "another place," the statement is entirely inaccurate. In this House, only 26—after all the efforts of the Government—could be found to vote against an Address to the Crown of a prohibitory character. Are the opinions of 26 to be accepted as the final judgment of your Lordships, who are not far from 500? But can they be accepted as the final judgment of the

  821
  Ministerial Supporters? To bring them down to 26, at least 40 must have determined to absent themselves. The 26 may all have voted upon grounds which would not now have any application. They may have thought in March the measure was not seriously imminent. But the debate we have just had anticipated that topic. It is only here essential to remark that the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) last Thursday week—a more instructive and impressive one than has been often heard in this or any House—together with its details, creates a wholly new departure on the subject. My Lords, at this time, we ought not to give up the strongest argument, because it may not be a new one. It is the right of the original subscribers. It is remarkable that Her Majesty's Government, however rich in legal subtlety and talent, have not attempted to reply to it. Would the original subscribers of 1846 have contributed £5, or even 1s. 6d., had they been told that in less than 40 years the statue would be removed from London altogether? They even went so far as to insist on the very site which was adopted. Some years ago an incident occurred which bears on this part of the question. The statue of Mr. Canning, on a pretext which turned out to be entirely fallacious, was taken from the line of Parliament Street and Palace Yard to where it is at present. There was a general remonstrance in this House, in which the late Lord Clanricarde and the late Lord Stratford De Redcliffe, the nearest Representatives of Mr. Canning, cordially united. It was pointed out that the donors of the statue were entitled to the site the country had originally granted. But had it been proposed, not to move the statue of Mr. Canning backwards a few yards into relative obscurity, but to withdraw it 20 or 30 miles into the country, it is easy to perceive that the derangement would not have been tolerated, even with the promise of a new statue to be formed, by a precarious subscription and a foreign artist. Noble Lords should ask themselves whether that which, in the case of Mr. Canning, would have been indignantly repelled, in the case of the late Duke of Wellington, ought quietly to be accepted? It is also worth while to remark how the proceeding would affect those who might unite to raise a
  822
  monument of any sort at present. Suppose all the noble Lords on this side of the House—it is no fanciful hypothesis—determined to erect a statue to the late Earl Grey, as the successor of Mr. Fox, as the Minister who carried the Reform Act, as the Leader of their Party in its darkest time, as well as the most brilliant; suppose, also, a proper and conspicuous site to have been granted, would they submit to the necessary outlay if the State reserved a latent power of withdrawing their construction where it would be utterly invisible? Whether the design was openly avowed, or cautiously suspected, it would be fatal to the project. It is, therefore, clear that the original subscribers in 1846 are going to be defrauded. It is not, as some affirm, a question of taste opposed to a question of sentiment. It is a question of contract on the one hand, and spoliation on the other. When I venture to remark that it is not a question of sentiment, I shall not be supposed to mean that there is no outrage on the distinguished character whose statue was erected in its violent removal. A noble Lord, who voted on the 24th of March, has drawn my attention to what was thought in ancient times upon the subject. There is a passage in the 10th Satire of Juvenal, on the ruin of Sejanus under the displeasure of Tiberius. The fall of the statues which had been raised in honour of the favourite is mentioned as the last indignity, by which his brief supremacy was expiated. As Dryden has endeavoured to translate it—
  "Down go the titles, and the statue crowned,
  Is by base hands in the next river drowned."
  But is it not a modern principle as well that the statues of great men ought to be inviolable? In Paris, as your Lordships know, those of Henry IV. and Napoleon I. have stood through many revolutions, against both the Monarchy and Empire. In London, there is another instance more remarkable. In. the short Reign of James II., a statue was erected to him. Neither his flight and abdication, nor the change of dynasty which followed, nor the struggles and rebellions which only ended at Culloden, have been permitted to disturb it. It remains in Whitehall Gardens now, where anyone may see it. It might be pointed out to foreigners as an example of the tenacity with which the British public guard the monuments they may have been too

  823
  hasty in conceding. If this scheme is carried out, it will be answered that there is less tenacity of monuments which brilliant service had obtained and pious gratitude constructed. My Lords, whatever happens, the recorded judgment of this House is necessary to clear its name of all participation in the measure of the Government. That measure violates the public faith with the subscribers, reverses the decision of the Crown, in 1846, and rudely takes away the monument a nation had endorsed, and which the late Duke of Wellington had watched, accepted, and appreciated. More I will not add, as the House would like to hear the noble and gallant Lord on his Amendment. It is to me indifferent which of the two Motions is adopted. They are not, as I have said before, opposed to one another; but I proceed to move the Resolution as it stands upon the Paper.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is not desirable to remove the equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington from London until the public have an opportunity of judging the monument by which it is intended to replace it."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  LORD DE ROS, in rising to move an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord, said, that he did so in consequence of the remarks made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) the last time the subject was before their Lordships' House, and his object was to endeavour to persuade their Lordships as to the advisability of reconsidering this matter before it was too late. He did not propose to weary them with a recapitulation of the facts brought forward by the noble Duke, as they were fully reported in the newspapers; but he would confine himself to observing that these facts were obtained from most reliable sources, and proved beyond doubt what were the views and feelings of the Great Duke himself on the subject of his statue. He ventured to think that if these facts had been more fully known by the Committee over which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales presided, and also by Her Majesty's Government, a different conclusion would have been arrived at as to the fate of the statue. There were several considerations which he desired to bring before the House. In the first place, it was well known that the Duke of Wellington refused to sit until he had the sanction of the Queen that
  824
  the statue should be placed upon the Arch; secondly, the Duke saw Mr. Wyatt, and said that he should like Mr. Wyatt to see him on horseback; thirdly, that the present Duke was annoyed at the removal of the statue from Hyde Park Corner; fourthly, that the statue was a good likeness of the Duke as he appeared at Waterloo. Those, he thought, were sufficient reasons against the removal of the statue from London. he had no doubt Mr. Boehm was quite capable of executing a very admirable equestrian statue; but it could not fail from being purely ideal, because it was more than probable that Mr. Boehm never set eyes on the Duke, whereas the Duke had sat to Mr. Wyatt for the original. Since he had last addressed their Lordships on this subject a great number of persons of all shades of opinion had expressed to him the very strong public feeling that existed as to keeping the statue in London, because it belonged to the nation, and therefore should not be removed from the Metropolis. He would leave the question of site to be settled by a Committee; but he contended that the statue ought not to be allowed to be removed down to Alder-shot—to a barrack-yard, as it had been called. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Sudeley) stated that two votes had already been taken on the matter; but the vote in the House of Commons was distinctly a Money Vote for a new statue, and the vote in that House was not on the point as to the removal of the statue from London. The noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge) stated that the officers quartered at Aldershot had signified their assent to the removal of the statue to that place; but he (Lord de Ros) begged to observe that the officers at Aldershot formed a very small portion of the Army, and there were very few regimental officers serving at present who held their first commissions at the time when England had to mourn for the loss of one of her greatest heroes. There were some general officers in the Army who had served under the late Duke who always made a point of raising their hats as they passed the statue. To such men the removal of the statue would be a great blow. A letter had lately appeared in The Times newspaper from General Sir William Codrington on the subject, expressing a strong feeling against the removal, which he said would be re-

  825
  garded by old soldiers with deep regret; and that letter, he (Lord de Ros) ventured to think, illustrated the feelings of the officers who served under the Great Duke. There was also a letter from a gentleman who generally wrote pretty much to the point in The Morning Post, which deserved attention. He earnestly hoped that their Lordships would not allow this opportunity to pass, and that they would support the Amendment which he now ventured to move.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That this House, being now possessed of fuller knowledge of the views and feelings of the late Duke of Wellington as regards his statue at Hyde Park Corner, is of opinion that it ought not to be removed from London."— (The Lord de Ros.)
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, that, in his opinion, it was quite a mistake for the noble Lord the Mover of the Motion (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) to imagine that any slur was intended to be cast upon the memory of the late Duke by the removal of the statue, as if the statue was going to be cast into the Thames. The fact was that nothing of the kind was intended; but he thought it would be acknowledged by everyone who had studied the subject at all that the country stood higher in the way of art than in previous years; and all that was intended was that a better statue should replace the original, which had been condemned by a Committee presided over by the Prince of Wales. The noble Lord who had just sat down had said the other day that every soldier who passed the statue touched his hat.
  LORD DE ROS: I said I knew several general officers who had served under the Duke, and who when they passed the statue lifted their hats.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, that, in that case, he thought there was no reason why they might not just as suitably raise their hats to a good statue by Mr. Boehm as to the bad one which lately stood at Hyde Park Corner.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYsaid, he decidedly objected to the idea of replacing the statue on the Arch, especially as the position of the Arch was now askew. Such a proceeding would be simply an intensification of the dominating ugliness of the statue. He (Lord de L'isle and Dudley) thought that Aldershot would be a good place for it, and, therefore, he should vote against
  826
  the Motion. He desired to call attention to the fact that the present Duke of Wellington had expressed his willingness that the statue of his illustrious Father should be removed to Aldershot, and that another and a better one should be erected at Hyde Park Corner.
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, the idea of the subscribers had been to honour the Duke by the biggest statue that could be made, and to hoist it as high as possible. The question was, what would be the best form of statue to give expression to the feelings of admiration and reverence which the nation entertained for the Great Duke? The present statue had been condemned as an artistic failure by all the best authorities in Art; and the only excuse produced for keeping it was that the Duke of Wellington sat for it, and that he objected to its being taken down. But there was no reason to suppose that the Duke would not have preferred a better statue. Why should not the best statue that could be procured be placed at Hyde Park Corner? This statue was not in harmony with the character of the Duke. He was remarkable for simplicity and dignity. The statue was pretentious, exaggerated, vulgar, and even grotesque. It could do no honour to the memory of a great man.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he must apologize to their Lordships for troubling them again upon the subject. It was said that there was to be a new statue; but how did they know that it would not be worse than the old one?
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Impossible.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that for the Royal Academy to say that the old statue was a bad one was monstrous. It was a matter of history that the Duke of Wellington, writing to Mr. Croker, in 1846, said that—
  "Lord Morpeth writes a circular letter to the members of the Royal Academy before the statute can be seen at all; and requires each of them to assist him with their opinions of it. What is the meaning of this? It is a Minister offering a reward for opinions against the work; which it is well known has been placed where it is, not only against, but in despite of his, the Minister's opinion. Will ever any member of the Academy, looking to the Court for favour—and which of them does not—give a fair or independent opinion upon the subject?"
  Since he (the Duke of Rutland) had last addressed the House on this subject, he

  827
  had received additional information as to the sentiments entertained by the late Duke with regard to the existing statue. In a letter from Lord George Bentinck to Mr. Croker, the contemporary feeling in favour of the statue being placed on the top of the Arch, as being both a suitable site and in accordance with the Duke of Wellington's sentiments, was shown conspicuously. That letter, written on the 10th of July, 1847, said—
  "You will see what passed last night in the House of Commons. A private communication and negotiation had previously taken place between Lord John and me, the result of which was that Lord John engaged 'that the equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington should remain where it is unless the Duke should intimate to Lord John that its removal to some other site would give him mere pleasure;' and that' the Duke's declining to give any opinion is to be construed as dissent.' This, of course, concludes the business. I have written to the Duke of Wellington, acquainting him with this, and likewise, at the desire of my supporters in the House of Commons, telling the Duke that they all came up manfully; sixteen, I believe, who had left London for the season, came up from the country; and, from the appearance of the House, I have no doubt whatever that I should have beat them two to one, if the artistical gentlemen had persevered. My idea is that the discussion would have damaged Lord John Russell and Lord Morpeth more than anything that has occurred, either during this or any preceding Whig Government. I believe we should have raised the blood of the whole country against them. But I am a jockey, and it is the first principle of our craft to be satisfied with winning the race if it is only by a head, and never to risk losing by showing off how much further it might have been won. My people were very anxious I should wait upon the Duke and tell him how cheerfully they had responded to the call to protect him from any slight; but I hate ceremony, and never call upon anybody."
  It was said by noble Lords opposite that the Duke did not care much where the statue was placed, whether it was placed on the pedestal or on Primrose Hill; but the following letter from the Duke, dated the 14th June, 1847, from Walmer Castle, would reveal that that was contrary to the fact: —
  "My Dear Croker,—It has always been my practice, and is my invariable habit, to say nothing about myself or my own actions, More than 40 years ago Mr. Pitt observed that I thought as little of myself, or of my own acts, as if I had been an assistant surgeon of the Army; and from the year 1838 (when the statue was proposed to be placed on the arch) to the present moment I have considered it most becoming to avoid to interfere respecting a statue of which the professed object is to commemorate bygone transactions in which I had borne a part. I
  828
  follow the habit of avoiding to talk of myself and of what I have done, with the exception only of occasions when I am urging upon modern contemporaries measures which they do not like, and when I tell them I have some experience and have had some success in these affairs, and feel that they would experience the benefit of attending to my advice. I never talk of myself. These are the reasons for which they think that I do not care what they do with the statue; but they must be idiots to suppose it possible that a man who is working day and night, without any object in view excepting the public benefit, will not be sensible of disgrace inflicted upon him by the Sovereign and Government whom he is serving if it is removed. The ridicule will be felt if nothing else is. This last would have been vastly aggravated if I had not cautiously avoided to take any part in the affair since the year 1838."
  Could anything be stronger than that letter, as showing the feelings of the Duke upon the subject? With the permission of the House he would relate an anecdote concerning the Duke. A few days before the late Duke's death, Mr. Croker went down to see him, and had a talk with him that occupied some hours, in the course of which may talked about every subject they could think of which had occurred during the Duke's life. In the course of their conversation Mr. Croker said—"Do you remember travelling with me down the Old North Road in a postchaise and pair?" "Yes," said the Duke; "I recollect it perfectly." Mr. Croker went on to say—"And do you recollect our trying to guess at what was on the other side of each hill we came to, and that you were always right, and I was always wrong?" To which the Duke responded—"The whole art of war consists in getting at what is on the other side of the hill; and, moreover, the whole art of life consists in guessing what is on the other side of the hill, or, in other words, in learning what we do not know from what we do." Applying the Duke's own maxim to the present case, he (the Duke of Rutland) might say, without the possibility of contradiction, that knowing what were the opinions of the Duke in his life with regard to the removal of this statue, he would, had he lived, have felt even more sensibly the disgrace of its removal, after it had rested there for 40 years, not only from the Arch, but out of London. In asking that the statue should be replaced on the Arch, or, at any rate, not removed from London, it would be said they were

  829
  flying in the face of a Vote of the House of Commons, who had voted £6,000 for the purpose. But they were not asking the House of Commons for any money; on the contrary, they were asking them to save the money of the nation. He merely asked that, if thought desirable, some small portion of the amount already voted should be spent in replacing it on the Arch, or upon a pedestal in some convenient place in London, such as at the top of the Green Park, at the Horse Guards, or in Hyde Park; but he most strongly protested against it being removed to Aldershot. He was quite convinced that, if the Queen had known of these statements and of the letters he had read, Her Majesty would never have given her sanction to what the Duke would have considered an indignity; and, then, the Government would never have proposed the Vote in the other House. It was said that, whatever might be the facts of the case, it was now too late to alter the decision that had been arrived at; but it never was too late to do what was right. If the noble Lord (Lord De L'isle and Dudley) desired to have a statue of the Duke of Wellington at Aldershot, by all means let the one Mr. Boehm was to produce go there; but he hoped their Lordships would never consent to do that which must confer obloquy on the hero of Waterloo.
  THE BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLSsaid, that he desired to join in the protest against the removal of the statue out of London. In doing so, there was one consideration which greatly weighed with him, and that was the historical incident of the old statue being placed near to Apsley House in the Duke's lifetime; and, looking at all the circumstances of the case, he hoped that their Lordships would, by a large majority, show their sense that it was not right at this time of day to undo what was then done. He well remembered that at the time the reasons which weighed with the public were the vicinity to Apsley House, and the fact that Hyde Park Corner stood at the entrance of London, so that the statue of the Great Duke would be one of the first objects seen on approaching the City. The only objection, which was felt by everybody, was that the Arch was not fitted to support such a statue. That objection was removed by the removal of the
  830
  Arch. The obvious thing was to place the statue on a proper pedestal on the same site. He maintained that a new statue would not command the veneration which the old one did. If they removed the latter they entirely destroyed the old historical sentiment.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that this question had been repeatedly before their Lordships. In one form or other, it had been brought forward no less than seven times in that House during the last 18 months; and, on the 24th of March, their Lordships affirmed, in a Division, the policy pursued by the Government in determining to carry out the proposal of the Committee that it should be removed to Aldershot. It was unnecessary for him, and he feared it would only weary their Lordships, were he to enter into details as to the various steps which the First Commissioner had found it necessary to take, to insure arriving at an accurate and thoroughly independent decision. Their Lordships were aware of the proceedings of the Committee which sat last year, and of the pains which were taken to have it composed of the best known authorities on such a subject; and, by having the present Duke of Wellington on that Committee, it was felt that the desires of the family would be efficiently represented. The decision at which the Committee arrived, after considering every possible site in London, was that the statue must be broken up. That step was averted by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales actively and patriotically interesting himself in the matter, and suggesting that, most likely, the removal of the statue to Aldershot would meet with general satisfaction, if combined with the construction of a new statue, and considered by the public in connection with the great improvements to be completed at Hyde Park Corner. The Vote of the Committee of Supply in the House of Commons confirmed the decision of their Lordships' House on the 24th of March, by the overwhelming majority of 111, which was no less than two to one. Several noble Lords had stated that that Vote was only a Money Vote for the new statue, and that it had nothing whatever to do with the removal of the existing one to Aldershot. That statement was, to a certain extent, true; but it must be remembered that the general question was brought before

  831
  the House of Commons on that occasion by Sir Robert Peel and several other Members, and was very fully discussed before a Vote was taken. That appeared to the Government to finally dispose of the matter. The order was consequently given, and all necessary arrangements made for the removal of the statue. The noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) was, however, still dissatisfied, and had once more returned to the charge. On the present occasion he had nominally altered the terms of his Resolution and suggested that the statue should remain until the new statue had been made. He thought it impossible not to see that that suggestion was merely designed in order to shelve the question, and to secure a reversal of the decision at which their Lordships' House had already arrived. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Lord de Ros) spoke of the correspondence brought forward by the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) as being an entirely new matter which entirely altered the circumstances of the case. That was not so. Most of the letters which the noble Duke had quoted last week and that night wore published in a Parliamentary form; had been on the Table of the House since 1847; and everyone who had considered the subject must be well aware of their contents. The noble Duke would have the House believe that the original construction of the statue and the placing of it on the Arch met with general approval, and especially with the approval of the Duke of Wellington himself. But what were the facts? From the very day, in 1838, when the idea was started, down to the year 1847, there was one endless chorus of dispute and even bitterness. Their Lordships would remember that the selection of the sculptor, Mr. Wyatt, was vehemently opposed by a large number of the Committee, so much so that, on the 8th of August, 1838, a large proportion of that Committee wrote to Lord Melbourne asking the Government to suspend their consent, because they objected to the manner in which the sculptor had been chosen. The Members of the Committee who signed the protest were the Dukes of Northumberland, Richmond, and Buccleuch, and Lords Powys, Liverpool, Hill, Strafford, Palmerston, Anglesey, Tavistock, Dungannon, Combermere, and Craven. It was true that Lord
  832
  Melbourne advised the Queen, to give permission for the statue being placed on the Arch; but the Papers showed that Lord Lincoln, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Canning subsequently did their best, on the part of the Government, at different dates, to prevent it being so placed. After much correspondence on the subject, Lord Canning, in May, 1846, made a final appeal to the Duke of Rutland, explaining how much the Government disapproved of the proposed site in these words—
  "It is my duty to state to your Grace that the remonstrances which reach Her Majesty's Government against the proposed appropriation of the arch are so many and so strong, the representations of its architect, Mr. Burton, in the same sense, are so earnest, and the opinion of every other eminent architect, artist, or other competent authority who has been consulted on the subject is so decided, that Her Majesty's Government feel called upon not only to make a final effort to induce the subscribers to reconsider the project of placing the statue on the site at present proposed, but to do all that lies in their power to facilitate a change in the design."
  Finally, the statue was allowed to be placed on the Arch; but only on the distinct understanding, that it should be taken down if, in the opinion of the Government, the result was unsatisfactory. A short time after it was erected, Lord Morpeth wrote to the Duke of Rutland, that the Government had decided that it must be taken down. That led to further angry controversy; and then it was said that the Duke of Wellington expressed himself strongly against the removal, and thus it was allowed to remain. What actually happened was this. The First Commissioner of Works stated the other day in the House of Commons, that he had the highest authority for saying that, after the Government had settled that the statue could not be allowed to remain on the Arch, it was suggested that the Duke of Wellington should be consulted. He was asked to go down to Windsor, and he there told the Queen and the Prince Consort that he never wished the statue to be made; that it was against his wish that it should be put on the Arch, but that, being there, and after the long controversy about it, it might be looked upon as a mark of disapprobation towards himself if it were removed. On that it was argued that the statue was liked by the Duke, and that it would be a dishonour to remove it from the vicinity of Apsley House.

  833
  He believed there was not one tittle of clear and substantial evidence in the Papers or letters quoted to show that the Duke had any such feeling in the matter. He had, for eight years, been a silent spectator of the controversy which had been raging about a statue to himself; and could it be a matter of wonder to any man that, modest and retiring as he was, and of a sensitive disposition, the Duke got heartily sick of the whole affair? It was only natural, therefore, that he should have done anything to prevent the renewal of what could not fail to have been to him a painful and irritating discussion. That, then, was how the statue was allowed to remain. No gentleman could do less than show a lively appreciation of such a costly and well-meant memorial. Which of their Lordships would not give a courteous and grateful answer to a body of gentlemen, who came to inform him that a subscription of between £30,000 and £40,000 had been got together for the erection of a monument in his honour? It was an old saying, that a man could not look a gift horse in the mouth; but, in this case, the Duke was forced not only to look the gift horse in the mouth, but to ride another man's hobby. If it were necessary, he could quote many of the articles and letters which appeared during the eight years of this controversy, to show how very painful and unpleasant it must have been for the Duke of Wellington, and how glad he must have been at the prospect of its cessation. Having been thus settled, the controversy should never have been re-opened, and no one would have thought of removing the statue; but what were the simple facts of the case as they now presented themselves? It had been found necessary, in making the great improvements at Hyde Park Corner, to move the arch. The First Commissioner of Works would have been the last man to have suggested the removal of the statue, had it been possible to avoid it; and he went a long way to see if the arch could not be bodily removed; but that had boon found impossible. Now that the statue was actually on the ground, the circumstances were entirely altered; and he (Lord Sudeley) was of opinion that he would be a very bold man who would suggest that the statue should be put again on the arch. Then, the question arose as to
  834
  what was to be done with the statue? Putting aside all questions of Art, the fact was that the colossal size of the statue made it dwarf all surrounding positions; and, as the Committee found by practical experience with a wooden profile, it was too large for any site which had been named. It had been argued that it was a bad precedent, and that, in the time of a Communistic Parliament, the statue of Lord Beaconsfield and other Conservative Leaders would be carted out of the town; but, surely, what was now proposed could not be looked upon in that light. All competent authorities told them that the statue was too large and too colossal to be placed in any site in London. Then let them substitute for it an equestrian statue of a fitting size which had every prospect of being suitable, and the precedent was one of which they certainly need not be ashamed. If the country was anxious to do honour to the memory of the great Duke, what could be done better than to have a fitting and really artistic statue placed near Apsley House, as now proposed, instead of one out of all proportion with its surroundings, and constantly held up to ridicule? At Aldershot, the colossal statue would be in a position where its size would be no drawback, and where it could be fittingly placed among the future soldiers of the country. It had been argued that the new sculptor, Mr. Boehm, would not have the advantages possessed by his Predecessor. The noble Duke adhered to his statement that the Duke of Wellington sat for his statue. It was hardly necessary to argue that, because it was perfectly clear, from the Papers on the Table, that he sat for the design, but did not sit for the statue. The Report of the Committee from which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Rutland) had quoted was dated 1838, before the statue was commenced. Mr. Boehm would have for his assistance the two splendid pictures in the possession of Lord Penrhyn and Lord Bathurst, both of which were exact pictures of the Duke. He would have equally at his service the bust of Nobelli used by Mr. Wyatt, and would have a knowledge of the various criticisms on the present statue. It was a well-known, fact that the great difficulty in this matter had been that everyone had his own views

  835
  of what ought to be done with the statue; and, while they would not listen to any opposite view, would all combine against any particular scheme. No doubt, there was much to be said in favour of any one of the 10 sites which had been suggested; but, as reasonable men, they must see that someone would have to give way, unless this question was to be allowed to drag on, and they were to become the laughing-stock of other nations. The decision of the Government had been arrived at in no hasty manner. It was the result of great and patient inquiry; and it commanded the entire approval of the present Duke of Wellington, who had written as follows:—
  "Strathfieldsaye, April 12, 1884.
  "Dear Mr. Lefevre,—I am quite satisfied with the proposed arrangement, and I feel that by it full respect is paid to the memory of my father.
  "I have the honour to be
  "Dear Mr. Lefevro,
  "Yours faithfully,
  "WELLINGTON.
  "The Right Hon. G. Shaw Lefevre."
  He confidently hoped that at that eleventh hour, when preparations had actually been made for the conveyance of the statue to Aldershot, when both Houses of Parliament had already sanctioned the decision of the Committee, their Lordships would not now take steps to relegate the matter to a state of hopeless confusion.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in asking for leave to withdraw the Motion, said: My Lords, I had intended, without suggestion from the noble Viscount, to recommend the House to adopt the Motion of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord de Ros), as likely to unite the greatest number in its favour. Much has been said on the opinion of the present Duke of Wellington. In this House he has never yet declared one. The noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) has made a prolix speech against the statue being connected with the arch; but for its removal from the capital he has made no speech whatever.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Amendment again moved.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 66; Not-Coutents 44: Majority 22.

  CONTENTS.

  Rutland, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Bristol. M.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ashburnham, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Belmore, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Haddington, E.

  de Ros, L. [Teller.]

  Hardwicke, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Lovelace, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Powis, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Strafford, E.

  North, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Robartes, L.

  Hood, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L. [Teller.]

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Templemore, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Bramwell, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Grafton, D.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Saint Albans, D.

  Westminster, D.

  Carlingford, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Crewe, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Derby, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Jersey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Skene, I,. (E. Fife.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Alcester, L.

  837

  Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDasked the Government what course they now intended to take?
  EARL GRANVLLLE: I am very sorry I am not at liberty to say what course the Government will take.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  RESOLUTION.
  Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to inquire into the arrangements for the distribution of Parliamentary Papers, with a view to seeing how it happens that reports of Royal Commissions are often commented upon in the newspapers before they have been distributed to Members of the House; and also why it is that papers are often distributed to Members of the House of Commons before they are distributed to Members of this House; agreed to (The Lord Balfour.)

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Acts—Was presented by The Earl of REDESDALE; read 1a. (No. 103.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.