Lords Sitting of 17 February 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Law of Evidence Amendment* (23); Justices' Jurisdiction (24).
Report—Appellate Jurisdiction * (15–25).

RESIGNATION OF THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I am anxious to make some statement in the way of personal explanation, and as this is the first opportunity I have to do so, I would ask your Lordships to be kind enough, to grant me your indulgence for a short time. My Lords, I am particularly anxious to ask for that indulgence; because I believe what I have to do is unusual and, I believe I shall be right in saying, unprecedented. But, my Lords, the position which I am in is somewhat unusual also. As a general rule, when a subordinate Member of a Government finds it incumbent upon him to resign his appointment he is enabled in the course of a few days, or as soon as is practicable, to give a personal explanation of his motives by speaking on some Bill or some Motion before the House. But my Lords, as some of the strongest motives which influenced me are connected with questions which never come before this House, and cannot come before this House, it is obvious that I should never in this respect have any opportunity of explaining myself to your Lordships. My Lords, I am painfully aware that, in taking this course, I may lay myself open to the imputation of desiring to make much of a matter which practically speaking concerns myself alone; but I am sure your Lordships will believe me when I say that this is not the case. Could I have received an opportunity of explaining myself to the House in the ordinary course, I should have adopted that means of making a personal explanation to the House; because I am sure your Lordships will sympathize with me when I say that I am anxious to give some explanation of my motives to that branch of the Legislature in which I have the honour to sit. As regards the Department in which I had the honour
  1716
  to serve Her Majesty, it is probable that the points on which I differed from the policy of my colleagues in Her Majesty's Government will come before your Lordships' House, and therefore I will say but little about them. I took an opportunity, my Lords, after resigning, to state that I had not resigned my appointment on any matter connected with Colonial policy, and I wish to repeat that statement. There is no question connected with the Colonial policy which Her Majesty's Government has pursued, which in my opinion would in itself have justified me in resigning my office, and I was anxious there should be no misunderstanding on this point; because it occurred to me that it was possible in view of difficulties connected with differences between ourselves and the United States in connection with the Fishery question and between Canada and the United States—I thought it would be possible that my resignation might have given rise to false impressions that I differed in any way from the course which Her Majesty's Government has pursued with regard to matters in dispute between the United States and Canada. My Lords, as that is not the case, I am very anxious to avoid the possibility of stultifying myself in the future. If I had to criticize the Colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government in the future, I do not wish it even to appear as if I were indulging in captious criticism of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I wish to say that on some matters, and on one matter in particular, I do not approve; but I very much disapprove of the action taken by Her Majesty's Government—action which I did not anticipate would be taken on the question of the Fisheries in Newfoundland. The action of Her Majesty's Government here towards the Legislature of Newfoundland will probably come before your Lordships' House; and, when it does, I may, if necessary, take further opportunity of speaking upon that subject. I only wish to say that, upon that point, as well as upon some other points, I did not find myself in accord with the Colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government; but, at the same time, I did not differ in any respect sufficiently, in my mind, to justify me in resigning my appointment exclusively upon the question of Colonial Policy. My Lords, there is another subject—I

  1717
  might almost say a group of subjects—likely to come before the House, and these are matters connected with Ireland. It would be impossible for me to pretend that I view with complete satisfaction the action of the Government—the action of the Executive in Ireland. My Lords, I saw with regret—with great regret—that Her Majesty's Government had found it necessary, or would find it necessary, to apply to Parliament for additional powers for exceptional legislation in regard to Ireland. I regret it, because, in my opinion, if by any possibility Ireland could have been governed, and the law maintained, and law-abiding people protected in their rights, without asking Parliament for exceptional legislation, the vexed question of that Union would have been practically set at rest. The only justification that I can see for Liberal Separatists confusing their sense of right and wrong in the matter, is that there is any ground for the belief that it is impossible for the inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland to govern Ireland. We all know that it is the whole aim and object of agitators in Ireland, and still more of agitators in the United States, to make it impossible for this Parliament to govern Ireland. I do not propose to criticize, in any way, the wisdom of the determination at which Pier Majesty's Government have arrived. The main point is, that order shall be maintained in Ireland; that law-abiding people shall be protected in Ireland; and if Her Majesty's Government should find it necessary to obtain additional powers, there can be no doubt Parliament will readily grant these powers to them. At the same time, I regret that the necessity has arisen; and I believe that the necessity might have been avoided. I confess I do not understand the methods which Her Majesty's Government have employed. We heard the other night, in this House, a very interesting and instructive conversation on the subject of the refusal of the Mayor and Corporation of Limerick to pay their debts to the Government. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald)—to whom I readily defer on Irish matters—stated that, in his opinion, the proper course for the Government of the day, that of the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) to pursue was that which he did pursue—namely, to ask for ad-
  1718
  ditional legislation, in order to enable him to enforce his demand. With all due deference to the noble and learned Lord, in my opinion, that is not the way in which matters should be conducted in Ireland. A demand was made by the Executive. They must have known that demand would be refused by the Mayor and Corporation of Limerick. Therefore, it ought never to have been made, or it should have been made with a fixed determination to enforce it by the powers the Executive then had. That is to say, the demand should not have been made, or, in default of the demand being acceded to, the Executive should have put the Mayor and Corporation of Limerick in prison. The proper course for the Executive would have been to put them in prison, and then to have come to Parliament for legislation, in order to avoid such a catastrophe in future. It is the principle involved in that view that has brought the law into disrepute in Ireland; it is the principle of making demands which are not carried out; the principle of taking action in matters and not pushing that action to its logical conclusion and to the bitter end. I confess I do not understand how the maintenance of law and order in Ireland will be in any way made easier by the appointment, as High Sheriff of the County of Wexford, of the man who has made himself prominent by identifying himself with a combination which Her Majesty's Government have pronounced to be an illegal conspiracy. I do not see how the cause of the Union will be strengthened in Ireland by appointing as High Sheriff a noted Separatist and Nationalist, who will be assisted by a Nationalist sub-Sheriff, and who will be supported by a still more noted Separatist as foreman of the grand jury. These things to me are mysteries; and I can only bow to the superior, and I may call it inscrutable, wisdom of the noble and learned lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Law is not respected in Ireland; and why? Not because of the origin of the law, not because of any foolish and absurd nonsense as to the foreign origin of the law, or as to the nature of the law, but simply and solely because the law is not carried out. I do most sincerely and earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government, pending the time when they receive the fur-

  1719
  ther powers they require, will rigidly enforce the law as it now exists. I hope when they obtain the additional powers they want, they will bear in mind that it is of no use giving them additional powers unless they try to use them. If a man will not strike with a short sword there is no use in giving him a longer sword; it is strength of arm that is required, and not increased scope to the weapon. I believe that one ounce of law, promptly and fairly administered in Ireland, is worth a ton of law set in motion after long delays, carried out with too much deliberation, and executed by officers of an inquisitive and an inquiring turn of mind. These are matters which may come before us, and about which I may in future have more to say. But the main point which influenced me is one which does not come before this House; and that is the question of economy. The Estimates are not discussed in this House; and, practically speaking, there is no opportunity of expressing any opinions upon them. I may be told that therefore this is a matter which does not concern us, and that I, personally, have got nothing to do with it; but the question of the expenditure of the country is one so important that it must be interesting to every Member of either branch of the Legislature of this country. I believe that a great deal of saving may be made in our public Departments by increased efficiency and better management; I believe it is generally admitted, on all sides, that such may be the case; and I believe, further, that no inquiry, however searching it may appear to be, will produce any good and practical result unless it is preceded by a firm determination on the part of the Government to make retrenchment a living thing. I believe that, in order to effect retrenchment, the positive cutting down of expenses to a certain extent must be a preliminary to any such thorough overhauling of the great public Departments as will result in a real saving of expenses, and in a practical and sensible remission of the taxation of the country. After all, it is in public as in private life—the management of a large property or household is very much in miniature what the business of this country, or of any country, is. It has come to my knowledge, and has possibly come to the notice of some of your
  1720
  Lordships, that, owing to the depression in agriculture and other causes, people are sometimes bound to curtail their expenses; but I never knew a case in which a man anxious to economize succeeded in effecting a large economy by going to those responsible for different Departments, and asking them to be kind enough to make some little economy if they could, this year or next year, or some time or other. Such a method of proceeding generally results in your being told that, after all, very little saving can be made, and that if it is made it will only result in the necessity for greater expenditure in the future. But I have very often seen, when a determination has been come to that expense shall be curtailed—of course, in a reasonable way, and to a reasonable amount—that then, by better management, and by a firm and rigid economy, a saving has been made, not only without detriment, but with positive advantage to different departments of the property or estate. I believe it is precisely the same thing in the public affairs of this country. I believe that, until the Government address themselves to the question whether the nation gets full value for its money, and whether the condition of the world is sufficient to justify the abnormal and unnatural extent to which the Expenditure has swelled—until the Government address themselves to those subjects with the determination to make an attempt—a reasonable attempt—to cut down the Estimates—we shall never see any practical financial reform, and we never shall see any thorough economy practised in the great Departments of the State. I think your Lordships will bear me out, when I say that I believe I have never shown myself unmindful of the honour of England or careless of the interests of the country. I have not had many opportunities, and I have not any great power of making use of them; but as far as I have had opportunity, I have always done what in me lay to explain to my countrymen the vast importance of the Empire to them, and the necessity of maintaining and safeguarding it; and I do not think that I can be fairly accused of any remissness in that respect. But I cannot see that, at the present time, any of the great or vital interests of the Empire are menaced, or at stake. I remember that the circumstance which

  1721
  arose to enable me to overcome my natural timidity with regard to addressing your Lordships was when the state of affairs in this country was extremely critical, and when, as I thought, the unpatriotic attitude of the Opposition, on which side of the House I then sat, tended to precipitate this country into war. I can see nothing whatever now which approaches the condition of things that existed then in 1878. My Lords, I am aware that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a great deal of abuse, on the ground that he had resigned his high position solely because he desired that sums of money voted for the express purpose should not be expended in fortifying our coaling stations. I only allude to that, because no human being could have given a stronger denial than the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the other House of Parliament. But after he had done so, an attack was made upon him precisely on the same ground. He distinctly stated that he resigned on the question whether there was, or was not to be, retrenchment, and not on the question of the coaling stations. I believe that great harm will be done by narrowing down what, after all, whatever view your Lordships may take of it, you must allow is a great and important question to a very small and a very false issue; and a very great reaction will take place in the minds and feeling of the people of this country when they find out how completely one of the greatest issues that can be put before them has been narrowed down, and that they have been misled on the subject. I believe strongly in the old Tory doctrine that a British Government should concentrate its attention on maintaining our Colonies, defending our position at home, and safeguarding and protecting our commerce. Outside the sphere of the British Empire our foreign policy ought to approach as near as possible to non-intervention; and, if these old Tory doctrines are carried out, I cannot see any reason why the expenditure of this country on its military forces should continue in abnormal condition. During the last few years the whole tendency has been for the Estimates to rise, and they never drop. Whenever there is a war, or a rumour of war, or anything that is abnormal in the aspect of affairs, the Estimates go up with, an elasticity and a rapidity that
  1722
  proceeds by leaps and bounds, but unfortunately that elasticity of expenditure is never shared by the Revenue. The Estimates never come down again. The abnormal level of expenditure in one year becomes the normal level of another year; and if some strong check is not applied to this process, it is difficult to see where matters are to end. We have seen one Chancellor of the Exchequer sacrifice himself on what he calls the altar of economy. We do not see that the manner in which he has been treated by the Press will give much encouragement to other Chancellors of the Exchequer to sacrifice themselves on the same altar. But the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is very deeply pledged in that direction, and it would not be surprising if he finds himself compelled to follow the example of his Predecessor. I remember, about a year ago, an important speech in which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was necessary to exercise a ferocious guardianship over the public purse. The right hon. Gentleman has now got charge of the public purse, and he will have to exercise a ferocious guardianship over it. And if he does exercise that ferocity, it appears to me that one of two things will happen; either we shall see a large reduction of expenditure, at which we shall all rejoice, or we shall have to witness the immolation of another Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know how far the series of human sacrifice is likely to go, and I do not wish to obtrude my opinion on the point upon your Lordships; but I would venture to suggest that it would be for the public convenience, and would save a deal of trouble, if the Prime Minister could manage to lay in a store of Chancellors of the Exchequer, whether of home-make or of foreign importation, in order to fill up the vacancies that are likely to arise. There is only one other point to which I wish to refer. The principal motive which influenced me in my resignation was economy. The Tory Party were once the practical guardians of the principles of economy. I confess that I am tired of hearing men out of Office thundering about economy, and when in Office barely whispering about it. I have heard others denounce, and I myself have denounced, and justly denounced, the Radical Party for the wild and rash extravagance of Mr.

  1723
  Gladstone's Administration. I think it is time that the Tory Party began to put in practice that which they have preached. I cannot see why it is impossible that it should do so now, and if it be possible by any means to do so, it is time that the Tory Party made it plain to the people that economy, financial reform, and retrenchment are not with them mere words used for electioneering purposes, but are real living principles to be carried out. The other principles which I hope to see embodied in legislation before long are principles which should find expression in a practical large Bill, enabling labourers and others to obtain allotments and in a liberal, broad, and comprehensive measure of county government, placing county government on a broad representative basis. I am aware that such measures are sometimes designated as Radical measures. In my opinion, they are exactly the opposite—are exactly the negation of Radicalism. Radicalism tends to overturn and destroy the existing institutions of the country, and to upset the existing structure of society. The Tory principle, as I take it, is to maintain the great institutions of the country, and in order to maintain them, to maintain the existing order of society on which, those institutions rest. I believe that can only be done by relieving the various orders which form our society from the trammels of what once were privileges, but which have ceased to be privileges and exclusive advantages; and by so doing to give their just weight to all classes, and more especially to enable the territorial aristocracy of this country to exercise the great influence which, free from prejudices and privileges, they can exercise over the whole mass of their fellow-countrymen. The reason why I ardently hope that these principles will be carried out is because I believe they are necessary for the healthy continuance, and for the strength of the Tory Party; and I believe that the maintenance of the Union depends entirely on the strength of the Tory Party. I am aware that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has been much abused for some metaphorical remarks that he made about the Unionist Liberals. I will not insult my noble Friends on the other side by supposing that they are so hysterical and so thin-skinned as to be offended at being likened to a crutch.
  1724
  They do not object to being called Whigs. Wigs are not very ornamental, and are mostly used by coachmen, whereas a crutch is a very useful article. I do not wish to utter a word against the Liberal Unionists, but this I do say most emphatically, that I think a great principle—a principle absolutely vital to the future welfare of this country and the British Empire—like that of the Union, is in a most unsatisfactory and precarious condition when it depends upon coalitions and alliances. Coalitions never, or but very rarely, last very long. Alliances may depend upon death, they may be affected by individuals of great personal influence being removed from one branch, of the Legislature to the other. They depend upon a great variety of accidents and incidents to which human nature is liable. And I am sure that no individual who has the principle of the Union at heart will object to me when I say that I hope to see the time when that great principle will be safe in the hands of the Tory Party, even if those hands are not upheld by the Unionist Liberals. It is for that reason that I think it is of such vast importance at the present moment to see the great principle of economy put in practice—to see larger numbers of the people made directly interested in the land, and to see the local government of the country made representative and popular, and to see legislation designed for the benefit of the people. It is because I believe that unless the Tory Party can now strengthen themselves, strengthen their position by resting themselves on the respect and affection of the people—unless they are able to do that, I fear that the great and vital principle of the Union of the United Kingdom will not be able to maintain itself in the future. My Lords, I am afraid I have taken up your Lordships' time longer than I ought to have done in such a case. Your Lordships will understand why I wish to say something for myself in this House, in which I have the honour to sit. I wish to avoid a piecemeal explanation of the motives for my resignation. I am anxious to avoid the appearance even of cavilling at the Government, and I therefore preferred to enter into as full an explanation as is open to me instead of taking opportunities as they may occur. I fear

  1725
  that I am liable to be misrepresented in this matter, and to appear as if I wanted to make a thing of importance out of a matter only personal to myself. I am sure your Lordships will absolve me from any idea of that kind, and will simply understand why it is that I wish to give some explanation of my motives. I thank your Lordships very much for the attention you have given to me.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, out of courtesy, I rise to say a few words in answer to my noble Friend's speech, which, I think, he has designated somewhat strangely, when he called it "a personal explanation." His speech involves a great many other things which would have been very interesting and fit subjects for discussion in this House, and which I hope, at some future time, he will enable us to discuss in a regular and more definite manner. I confess that I was as much at a loss at the end of my noble Friend's explanation as I was at the beginning of it to understand the reasons for which he has resigned. He appears to have objected to our Irish policy, but I cannot understand the points of his objections. At least, he says, we ought to have enforced the law; but he does not tell us in what respect the law has not been enforced. For the rest of his speech, it showed a capacity for thought-reading which will be of very great value to him in the future. He has resigned, as I understand, partly because he doubted our foreign policy, and because he disapproved of the Estimates; and he covers himself with the example of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is fair, however, to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he saw the Estimates to which he objected; but my noble Friend has not seen them. It is also fair to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that, if he took exception to our legislation, he had, at all events, seen the first draft of it, which my noble Friend had not. The noble Lord the late Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception to some points of our foreign policy, and so does my noble Friend; but I am not aware that my noble Friend knows anything of it beyond thought-reading. I can only say I very much regret that my noble Friend
  1726
  has deprived us of the great value of his support, but it is to be hoped that he will devote himself to the question of economy, which, I agree with him, is admittedly one of the greatest importance. But I doubt whether it can be dealt with on the principle of Jedburgh justice—that is to say, by condemning and cutting down the Estimates first and examining into their items afterwards. The only method and hope for economy is by careful examination of the items of expenditure, and the objects to which they are devoted. In the hope that a careful scrutiny in this way will diminish the force of the arguments which fell from my noble Friend, as well as a burden which no one is more anxious to diminish than Her Majesty's Government; I accept my noble Friend's parallel as to private life, for I am sure that neither in public, nor in private life, will any wholesome economy be effected by cutting off a sum arbitrarily without inquiring into what effect that economy will have, or to what items it is directed.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)
  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.

    (NO. 15.) REPORT.
    Amendment reported (according to Order).
    LORD DENMANsaid, it must be recollected by their Lordships that formerly an ecclesiastic often occupied the Woolsack, and that the term "Lay Peers" applied to all other Lords. In the case of Bradlaugh v. the Queen, if the noble and learned Lord (Lord Halsbury) had been a Peer, instead of counsel, in the case, his opinion would have made the numbers on each side equal; and if the noble and learned Baron (Baron Bramwell) had given his judgment in their Lordships' House, instead of in the Court of Appeal—always counting the vote of himself (Lord Denman)—the appeal must have been dismissed. He had expressed before his regret that the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) and the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had given their opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh was entitled to affirm—as it was, he had paid his fines-—but he (Lord Denman) thought it of importance that a lecturer against religion should not be allowed to affirm, instead of to swear the oath of allegiance. Ministers of the Churches of England and Scotland were

    1727
    liable to a fine of £500 a-day if they sat and voted as Members of Parliament, the proof of their ministry being that they had officiated in the service of each of those Churches. He believed that Lord Blackburn's judgment was right; and Sir Theodore Martin brought about the action of maintenance against Mr. Newdegate, founded on the above appeal was wrong. He would ask their Lordships' attention to what had been said on the Resolution, by the House of Lords, for the establishment of the Union with Ireland, by the Marquess of Lansdowne in 1799. That noble Lord, great grandfather of the present Marquess, said—
    "The question is not what religion you shall have, but whether you shall be permitted to have any. It is not whether this or that religion shall be destroyed, but whether all religion shall be destroyed. Under this situation of things, every good man is called upon to join the standard of Jesus Christ—to keep the religion of Jesus Christ; any religion is better than none; at all events, unite to oppose and keep from entering among you those who have no religion, and who are enemies to all."—(Part. Hist. [34] 677–8.)
    He (Lord Denman) wished to maintain the opinion he had given on a former occasion—that Lay Peers, hearing the whole of a case, might sit and vote.
    Amendment moved, to insert the following new clause after Clause 4—
    "The expression 'high judicial office' as defined in the 25th section of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, shall be deemed to include the office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and the office of a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE, who had a similar Amendment to propose, assented to that of his noble and learned Friend.
    Amendment agreed, to.
    Further Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 25.)

  LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.] (NO. 23.)
  A Bill further to amend the law of evidence: And

  JUSTICES' JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 24.)
  A Bill to extend the jurisdiction of justices in general and quarter sessions of the peace—Were presented by The Lord Bram well; read 1a
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.