Lords Sitting of 28 July 1890

CITY OF PARIS.
Message from the Commons for Report of the Inquiry into the causes of the accident which recently happened to the passenger ship City of Paris.
Ordered to be communicated accordingly.

BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 164.)
  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 117.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. —(No. 168.)
  Petition of the Duke of Westminster, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, presented on Friday last, referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, with leave to the Committee to hear the petitioner, if they think fit, by his counsel, agents, and witnesses.

  ARMY-NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
  THE EARL or DUNDONALD: My Lords, in asking for the Return which I have placed on the Notice Paper of your Lordships' House, I do not wish to occupy many minutes of your time in explaining the desirability of that Return being granted. First of all, the information I seek is not in the preliminary Annual Returns for the British Army; and I think it is desirable to know the age and services of the non-commissioned officers who are brought into direct contact with the men, excluding those noncommissioned officers who are generally of mature age and of longer service, and who are specially employed in staff appointments in their various regiments. I think, if this Return is granted, it will be seen that the non-commissioned officers are, as a rule, of such a youthful age, and of such short service, that they cannot exercise that authority over the men, nor imbue the men with the respect which is, as a rule, accorded
  1006
  by young men to those older than themselves, and which is so necessary in the interests and the well-being of the Army. Roughly speaking, the conditions of service of the non-commissioned officers are as follows: the non-commissioned officer after a year's probation can engage on for 12 years, and after 9 years he can re-engage for 21 and a pension. These conditions are subject to certain restrictions affecting various corps, or, roughly speaking, the conditions affecting the non-commissioned officers of the corps. So that, practically speaking, any man who has good health and a good character as a non-commissioned officer, can serve for 21 years. But the point is that non-commissioned officers do not serve for 21 years, as a rule. Now, why-is this? The causes are various. First of all I should put the question of the deferred pay among the principal reasons which induce the non-commissioned officers to leave the Service. They find coming to them at the expiration of a certain number of years' service a considerable sum of money, and they are desirous of obtaining this sum of money into their possession; but, as a rule, unfortunately no sooner do they obtain this money than they spend it, the result being that the country loses the services of good non-commissioned officers, and the non-commissioned officers lose their money, so that neither the country nor the non-commissioned officers., are in the end benefited. Then, again, we must remember that the conditions in civil life of the class from whom these non-commissioned officers are drawn, have very much improved of late-years. They receive, as a rule, greater pay, and they work shorter hours; they have far more leisure, and are in possession of greater advantages than they had in former years. This, also, is an attraction to non-commissioned officers to leave the Service and join their brothers in civil life. Of course, there are many other causes which induce non-commissioned officers to leave the Service. I will not go into them, but the fact is, that non-commissioned officers do leave the Service, and they leave it too young for the good of the Army, more especially now since the introduction of short service, when there are so very few older soldiers in the ranks to imbue the younger soldiers with ideas of

  1007
  discipline, and to teach them what is, perhaps, more important than anything else, reverence for the traditions of the regiment in which they serve. I should like to quote to your Lordships a few statistics as to these young soldiers. There were serving at home with the colours in 1889, 99,647 men, of whom 36,977 were under 21 years of, age, and 70,380 were under 25 years of age. The question may now he asked, in view of what I have said, how does this extreme youth of so many men in the Army affect discipline. Again, I will quote a few figures. I find that Courts Martial have decreased from 16,523 in 1881 to 12,188 in 1888; but the cases of violence and disobedience to superiors tried by Courts Martial have increased from 1,650 cases in 1881 to 2,198 cases in 1888, and cases of minor insubordination, neglect of orders, have increased from 1,472 cases in 1881 to 2,106 cases in the year 1888. So that it will be seen though Court Martial cases have largely decreased in bulk, offences in relation to discipline have considerably increased. There is also another point in connection with the discipline of the Army and non-commissioned officers which is, perhaps, of importance, to mention, and that is in regard to the territorial system. Now, the territorial system is taken more advantage of than it used to be by private soldiers. There are more soldiers now enlisting from any one district or village than there used to be. The consequence is that a non-commissioned officer promoted in any of these territorial regiments has a considerable number of men serving under him in the ranks who will leave the regiment probably about the same time as himself, and it is not in human nature that in those circumstances a non-commissioned officer will not think rather of the good opinion of those whom he will be with at home in the village so long in civil life than of the discipline of the Army. When at home in the Reserve there would, of course, be many chances for the private to repay any grudge he might owe his former non-commissioned officer. Of course, there are exceptional cases, and there are numbers of good non-commissioned officers who would be a credit to any Army in the world: but still, taking
  1008
  them in the bulk, they are liable to be influenced by those considerations. Now, undoubtedly, a non-commissioned officer should be of mature age, tact, and experience, and should be able to imbue the men under him with respect, and to administer discipline without partiality or favour. I would like to quote to your Lordships some statistics as to the conduct of non-commissioned officers. I find by the Preliminary Annual Return for the British Army for 1890 that, during the year 1889, in the Home Army only, there were 673 non-commissioned officers sentenced by Court Martial to be reduced to a lower grade or to the ranks; and, in addition, 55 more suffered imprisonment as well as reduction. Those figures indicate a percentage of offences among the non-commissioned officers which is certainly far more than is desirable. I think a considerable step towards improving the position of noncommissioned officers in the Army might be taken by eliminating from the ranks all those men who are of really bad character, and by those means inducing a better class of men to enlist, as many men of good character will not enlist to serve along with men of bad character. I will not weary your Lordships with any words or ideas of mine as to the pay or advantages' which should be offered to non-commissioned officers, to induce a really good body of non-commissioned officers to serve in the Army. Any such ideas from far more experienced heads than my own would be at the disposal of any statesman who chose to grapple with this question; but I would say that when this country pays an immense sum for procuring men to fight for it, and when it arms those men with the most improved and deadly weapons of modern science, it should not grudge the money necessary to place those men who compose its Army on a sound footing. Now, stability may be obtained by making it to the self-interest of a body of men to serve the country, and to give the best years of their life in the Service; but if the country will not pay those men enough to induce them to give the best years of their life to the Service, then I see nothing for it but that we must have some modified form of conscription, and by those means—by the introduction to the ranks of all classes of the community—we shall

  1009
  obtain that stability which is obtained in foreign armies. We have in our Army a short service system, with only one class of men in the Service, while in foreign armies it is a short service system for all classes. I cannot help quoting to your Lordships a saying which has been attributed to the Duke of Wellington: he said that, "The noncommissioned officers of the Army are the backbone of the Service." If this was true in the days when the Duke of Wellington said it, at a time when there were many old soldiers in the ranks, how much more true must it be now, when we have the short service system of obtaining men for the Service from a single class of the community. I hope Her Majesty's Government will grant the Return I ask for, and I trust it may be found useful.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House,
  "Return of the average age and service of privates in the regular army at the time of their promotion to be non-commissioned officers during the year 1889; and for a Return of the average age and service of the non-commissioned officers of each rank at present serving with the colours, excluding those who are specially employed and not doing ordinary duty with their respective batteries, troops, or companies."—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, there is no objection whatever to granting the Return asked for by the noble Lord opposite. I would, however, point out to him that it will involve some delay to give the particulars required with regard to every unit of the British Army serving both at home and abroad.
  Agreed to.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 205.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 8.
  LORD THRING: I dare say that what is the obvious meaning of this clause is not intended to be its meaning, and I wish to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to this clause. It certainly would, I think, form a difficult precedent at a future time. Your Lordships will observe it provides that any person holding land for public, ecclesiastical,
  1010
  parochial, charitable, "or other purposes," may, in effect, grant, sell, or exchange it for the purposes of the Public Libraries Act. It then says that where land is held for ecclesiastical purposes the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall assent; that where it is held for parochial purposes, the Guardians and Poor Law Board shall assent, and in the case of other charitable property, the Charity Commissioners shall assent. Then it provides that the money shall be applied as the Charity Commissioners shall decide. But just see what the effect of this clause would be. It enables, in effect, the Trustees of any charity to alter altogether the disposition of their trust by applying land or property which they hold, for the purpose of the Public Libraries Act. Now, I shall not be suspected of having too strong a bias in favour of pious founders, and, I believe that, after a certain time, all charities ought to be considered; but I think to put a clause of this kind in the Act, enabling persons who may hold, as the noble Earl (Lord Meath) will presently show, land for maintaining open spaces,' to allow that land to be built upon for the purpose of forming a public library, is a precedent which may create difficulty in future legislation. If this provision is passed in regard to public libraries it may be passed for any other charitable object which people may think desirable, for example, for the purpose of building a chapel, or public wash-houses, or baths, and no charity will be safe for a moment. To show the carelessness, as it appears to me, with which the measure has been drawn, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it does not even provide that the money arising from the sale of land shall be applied for the purposes of the original Trust; on the contrary, it is to be disposed of as the Commissioners think fit. Then it is perfectly clear that the word "gift" must be struck out, for I cannot imagine that your Lordships are going to allow the Charity Trustees to give away their land as they like. There is another point. I have said nothing as to the effect in reference to private persons, but I do think it is rather a strong order to allow any owner of land to do what is here authorised. I only wish to draw your Lordships' attention to this clause.

  1011
  I submit that it certainly ought, in any case, to be amended, and I doubt whether any part of it ought to be proposed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the noble Lord to tell us what is the meaning of the words "any persons holding land for charitable, parochial, or other purposes." I should like to know what the words "other purposes" mean.
  LORD HOUGHTON: I am sorry, as it has turned out, that this Bill was referred to Committee of the Whole House, and not to a Standing Committee, but that was not entirely my fault. I was not aware of any objection being taken to the clause at the Second Reading of the Bill by noble Lords on this side of the House. I do not make any observation upon it whatever, but perhaps the noble Lord will allow this matter to be considered at a later stage of the Bill. With regard to the Amendment which the noble Earl will move, I shall be very glad to deal with that, but perhaps any question of construction your Lordships would be willing should be considered afterwards.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am bound to say I think the point a somewhat serious one. My attention was not called to it, but it seems to me rather a question of principle than a mere drafting. I do not think it is a question of drafting at all.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is really both. I do not quite understand the object of putting in "other purposes." Ordinarily, you read those words ejusdem generis, but when you specify what some of the purposes are—public purposes, or charitable and parochial purposes, the words may have a very wide signification. It is difficult to understand from the language what the "other purposes" can mean, unless they are private purposes. Then there is the other point. In addition, the assent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is required to the alienation of land held for ecclesiastical purposes, and the assent of the Local Government Board in regard to land for parochial purposes, but it requires no assent in reference to these "other purposes," whatever they may be. I cannot help thinking those words must have got in unintentionally.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I understand the noble Lord would be willing to strike out the word "other," and in that case that the difficulty would be removed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): How would this proviso affect land held by Universities or Colleges? It seems to me that is a rather serious-question.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think myself such purposes as those would come within the word "charitable."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I think not; they are excepted under the Statute of Elizabeth.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am not sure that that would not be so. However, I should certainly think the best course would be to take the course first suggested of putting in "or" before "charitable," and leaving out the words "or other."
  LORD HOUGHTON: I should be quite prepared to accept that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must reserve to myself liberty to move that the word "public" be left out also. I am more afraid of that word than of the others.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am a little doubtful, I confess, about the whole clause. It seems to me, unless there is some precedent for it, it is rather an innovation to allow property held in trust for a charity of one kind, to be applied for a charity of a different kind, even with the consent of the Charity Commissioners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is exactly what I meant.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, at all events, there ought to be reciprocity, and that the Public Libraries Trustees ought to be allowed to alienate their land for the benefit of other charities.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I had given notice of an Amendment to this clause, but I do not quite understand whether the Motion before the House is to strike out the whole clause or not. My point is with regard to the preservation of open spaces.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, to insert the word "or" before "parochial,"

  1013
  and to omit the words "or other."— (The Lord Herschell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As at present advised, I do not propose to take any part in the discussion upon this portion of the clause, because I shall be very much disposed, when the Question is put by the Chairman "That this clause stand part of the Bill," to meet it with a negative.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not know that there would be any harm in allowing Trustees to do it by way of sale or exchange, because then they would get the full value of the laud. I should content myself with taking out the word "gift."
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I cannot agree to the point as to sale. It appears to me that is a very important matter. How this clause got in is difficult to understand. It was not in the original Bill, and was only put in at the last moment on Third Reading. I do not know who is the author of this clause. It is in this connection a somewhat peculiar circumstance that in this Metropolis one very populous district, Bethnal Green, has been for the last 12 months in the throes of an agitation for this very purpose—that is, to get land which was conveyed 200 years ago for charitable purposes, and in regard to which there is a Trust to keep it as an open space, built over. There is an agitation going on as to whether some of the land could not be used for other purposes than that of an open space, and there are three distinct purposes put forward, one to erect a library upon it, another to erect a vestry hall, and another to build an infirmary. There has been a division of opinion on the subject, and there have been about 70 public meetings held in the district. Public opinion is greatly divided upon it. There are a certain number of ratepayers who are anxious to utilise the ground for these purposes. It is a terrible temptation to them to save money by building upon public land. On the other hand, there are a large number of ratepayers who wish the Trust to be maintained. I must adhere, I think, to the Amendment which I have moved, which is—
  "Provided also that land held on trust to be preserved as an open space, or on trust which prohibit building thereon, shall not be
  1014
  granted or conveyed for the purposes of this Act."
  LORD HOUGHTON: I should have been very glad if I could have accepted the noble Earl's Amendment, sympathising as I do with his object—
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I would point out that the Amendment before the House is the insertion of "or" before "charitable."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend behind me has requested me to move an Amendment in the 18th line. You will there find the words—
  "And the said Board and Commissioners respectively may provide for the application of the moneys which may be derived from the sale of any land."
  It seems to me the money ought to be held for the purposes of the charity. I think, as suggested, the words should be—
  "The moneys arising from any sale or exchange of such land shall be applied for the same purposes as the land exchanged or sold."
  LORD HOUGHTON: I think I have some right to complain that a considerable number of Amendments should have been brought forward upon this clause, of which I have received no notice. However, as they all come from this side of the House I suppose I cannot say very much about them. I think it is quite obvious that the sense of the House is with the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I, therefore, do not know that there would be any great object in my attempting to evade the proposal. Still I was anxious on other grounds that the Bill might have passed without any Amendment at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Upon that appeal for some addition in the way of amendment from this side of the House I rise to gratify the noble Lord, and I think the best amendment is that we should say "No" to the question that this clause stand part of the Bill. It really requires very careful looking into. I want to know who "any person holding land for public purposes" is? Does that mean Ministers of the Crown? Does it mean every person who has a fiduciary interest of a limited and temporary character in land applied for public purposes? I think, considering

  1015
  the enormous importance of the interests involved, these words need to be very fully considered.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The unfortunate thing is that this was not observed when the Bill was under consideration before. This is eminently a matter which should have been considered in Standing Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Quite so.
  LORD HOUGHTON: I will accept, the suggestion of the noble Marquess. I need not say I am hardly, at this moment, prepared to argue intricate questions of the kind raised, and I reserve to myself liberty to bring the matter forward at a later stage of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I withdraw my Amendment.
  Clause 8 omitted.
  Report of Amendments to be received on Friday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 215.)
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have to propose an Amendment at the end of the 1st clause, which transfers the hearing of Motions for new trials from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. My attention has been called to the fact that when this Bill comes into operation there will be a certain number of cases standing for hearing in the Divisional Court, and that those ought to be transferred for hearing to the Court of Appeal. The Master of the Rolls has called my attention to that circumstance, and I think it is desirable it should be provided for. Therefore, I propose to add—
  "This section shall extend to every Motion of which notice may have been given, whether before or after the passing of this Act, but which has not been heard before the commencement of this Act."
  Amendment agreed to,
  Other Amendments made; Bill to be read 3ª to-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 231.)

  SHERIFFS (ASSIZES EXPENSES) BILL. (No. 218.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
    THE EARL OF POWIS: Your Lordships: may remember a day or two ago when I brought forward the question whether provision should be made as to whether the Sheriffs should appear in uniform or not, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack considered it was too trifling a question for legislation- I am well aware that there is a legal maxim de minimis non curat lex, but I have again to urge that I hope the noble and learned Lord will not think this too small a, matter to take notice of, because I then mentioned that, on that account, a Judge had actually threatened to heavily fine a Sheriff for not appearing in uniform, and since that Debate, I have received a copy of a letter in which a learned Judge, in 1873, distinctly ordered all the Sheriffs on the Oxford Circuit to appear in uniform. I mentioned that in former years no such custom had prevailed in Shropshire or Montgomeryshire. This custom was not introduced into Shropshire until 1873, when the Judge of Assize directed the Clerk of Assize to write to all the Under Sheriffs on the Oxford Circuit in. these words—
    "I am directed by Mr. Justice Quain to inform the Sheriff through you that the Judge will expect that high official to appear either in full dress or in uniform, the proper costume of a High Sheriff in attendance on Her Majesty's Judges, being, in his Lordship's opinion, such as would be justifiable and admissible only at one of Her Majesty's levees."
    Now, that is a very distinct order, upon the subject, although it is a subject upon which the Committee over which my hon. and learned Friend presided, and the two noble and learned Lords who spoke the other day, agreed that it was not within the province of the Judge to give such an order. I think this letter shows there was quite sufficient justification for me in bringing the matter forward, and in the circumstances I do not suppose your Lordships, or my noble and learned Friend, will now think the matter too small to be considered.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will only say a few words further upon this point. I do not blame the noble Lord in the least for bringing it forward. I only protested against this House being engaged in legislation as to the particular form of garment to be worn by an official in the position of a High Sheriff. I think the House will still consider there is scarcely a necessity for an Act of Parliament to be passed in regard to the kind of coat the Sheriff should wear. I said so on the last occasion, and I am still of that opinion. I would merely now observe that the only case brought forward by the noble Lord is as old as 1873, and I am not quite certain that I do not take the same view of the orders issued on that occasion as the noble Lord. There may have been requests at one time relating to matters of etiquette issued by learned Judges which were certainly not conformable to the law. But that learned Judge only stated what he expected as to the form of dress as a matter of etiquette; the learned Judge may have been right or wrong in his opinion, but he certainly did not threaten to fine the Sheriff £500 on that account, as was stated the other night. I then said that, in my opinion, it would have been exceeding his power for him to do so, and I ventured then to express my incredulity as to such an occurrence ever having taken place. I cannot find that the noble Lord has now obtained, as he supposes, the particulars of that circumstance, and I can only call his attention to the fact that I have received a letter referring to that particular case. As I pointed out the other night, no such rule as my noble Friend imagines was laid down, but the matter to which the threat to fine the Sheriff £500 applied was one of gross contempt of one of Her Majesty's Judges, an intentional deliberate act of contempt, and it was punished accordingly. The matter had no reference whatever to the question of the dress of the High Sheriff. I still entertain the view that, whatever may be done in this matter, it would be undignified for Parliament, and I hope Parliament will not be asked, to prescribe what particular kind of dress any public official shall wear.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, at the previous stage of this Bill, I alluded to one of its provisions, and intimated
    1018
    that on the present occasion I should propose an Amendment, namely, to substitute the Home Secretary for the County Councils acting with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of framing regulations in relation to the accommodation of and reception of Her Majesty's Judges. Since I made that statement, I have considered the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that in reality my objection goes deeper, and would not be met completely by the alteration of that proviso; that, in truth, my objection is to this Bill altogether, and, therefore, I shall move the rejection of the Bill; but inasmuch as I have given no notice of my intention to do so, I shall, of course, not press it to a Division, but merely make that Motion for the purpose of explaining the position which I take in regard to it. The object of this Bill is simply to relieve the gentleman who will hereafter be called upon to fill the office of High Sheriff from expenses to which the High Sheriffs have hitherto been put. To that I have no kind of objection Whatever. But that is the only object which will be attained by the Bill. It is only a public object in the sense that it is a right thing to enact that public officials shall not be put to expense which ought not properly to fall upon them. As regards the public, the Only effect of the Bill will be to transfer certain expenses from the shoulders of the Sheriffs hereafter to the County Councils, and thus to put upon the rates the expenses which have hitherto been borne by those individuals. I think this is really a step in the right direction, but that evil ought to be met in another way. I will shortly tell your Lordships the way in which I think it ought to be met. Let me say at once that I am not desirous of putting any obstacle in the way of removing this burden from individual shoulders. I certainly do not intend to cast any reflections upon the County Councils in the observations which I make. I have no doubt, and I thoroughly believe, they are admirable bodies, doing good work. At the same time, like some of my noble Friends, not being myself a County Councillor, it is not a necessary part of my creed to believe that all County Councils, under all circumstances, and at all times, will act with unimpeachable wis-

    1019
    dom, and I cannot think it an expedient thing to initiate in every County Council in England and Wales, as this measure would do, a discussion as to the proper mode in which Her Majesty's Judges should be received and accommodated, and to make regulations differing, perhaps, in all the counties in that respect. Now, this is really only part of a far larger subject. The view which I take is this, that the Sheriff's expenses are part of the expenses of the administration of Justice, which is not really a local matter at all, and ought not to be treated as a local matter. The truth is, that a large portion of these charges is now met by the Treasury. Another large portion of the expenses is met by fees. If you add together the fees and the proportion paid by the Treasury it will be found that the larger portion of the expenses of this department of the administration of justice is met now, and will in future be met without any call upon the rates. The view which I venture to submit to your Lordships is this, that the whole of those expenses ought to be dealt with as part of the expenses of the administration of justice, in the same way as the greater portion of them are now met, and that the provision made with regard to this matter should not be dependent upon the view taken in this county or in that county, but that it should be a uniform system applicable to the whole country which, therefore, should be provided for by the same Central Authority. I quite feel that if you put the burden of this upon the several counties, it is only natural they should desire to have a voice in the matter; this Bill gives them the exclusive voice, although the burden only falls partially upon them. That is natural enough, and it is, in my view, extremely undesirable that the matter should be thus dealt with piecemeal in the different counties throughout the country. What appears to me to have been lost sight of is this, that at the present time the great part of the expense of enforcing judgments and the other duties of the Sheriffs is covered by fees, and the practice has been for each Sheriff to agree with his Under-Sheriff to receive the fees, and out of the fees to bear what I may call the ordinary expenses of this part or the administration of justice, leaving to the Sheriff himself certain of
    1020
    the expenses connected with his attendance upon the Judges. The agreements thus made vary, even as between county and county; that is to say, in some counties it has been the practice for the Sheriff to receive in relief of the expenses, or as a portion of the expenditure, some of the money coming from the Treasury which is not received in other counties. My belief is this, that if you had the whole of this matter placed in the hands of a central authority, so that you had a permanent official in each county appointed by the Crown, and if you had the whole of the fees which are now received by the Under-Sheriff, received by the Crown, it would be found that all the legitimate and proper expenses of the Shrievalty, including those proposed to be transferred to the County Council, might be met without any demand being made either upon the County Rates or any further demand than that which is now made upon the Treasury. If that were done, and I may say that I have gone to a considerable extent into the matter, my strong conviction is that that would be the result. The expenses are now larger than they would be if a permanent official had been appointed to act. For instance, in the county of Durham, the total average of the Sheriff's expenses is now about £400. I have made some little investigation into the question of what it would be likely to be if the thing were put on a permanent basis, and I do not think it would exceed a half—I doubt if it would be much more than £200. I might illustrate the matter in the same way as regards other counties in England. My belief is that, if the whole matter were gone into throughout the counties of England, it would be possible to initiate a new system by which, without any additional burden being cast upon either the Treasury or the rates, you might have the whole matter put on a satisfactory basis, and uniformly dealt with throughout England and Wales. I do not think anybody can doubt that that would be a much more satisfactory system than the scheme which is proposed by the present Bill. My Lords, it is not likely that this Bill will pass the other House in the present Session. I do not understand that even its promoters anticipate that, but I would urge that Her Majesty's Government should in the Recess in-

    1021
    quire into this matter, with the view of ascertaining the facts—which certainly were not fully ascertained by the Committee of this House which inquired into the subject—as to the fees which are received in the different counties, and the surplus over expenditure which remains in the hands of those who now receive the fees. I think if that were done it would be found that, very likely, without any additional payment by the Treasury, or, at all events, with a very trifling addition, you would be able to deal with this important department of the administration of justice throughout the country on a uniform and satisfactory footing. If that is true it certainly would be inexpedient to commence by throwing this burden upon the rates in the way proposed by the present Bill. It is because I so believe that I have felt it necessary to explain] my views, and I, therefore, formally move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
    Amendment moved, To leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(The Lord Herschell.)
    LORD BRAMWELL: My Lords, I cannot help expressing my regret at what I suppose I must call the necessity for this Bill. I do not agree with my noble and learned Friend. I think the system in this country is, that public duties are to be performed gratuitously by those who are fit for them. No Member of either House of Parliament is paid as such; Magistrates are not paid; jurymen are not paid; they perform their duties gratuitously, as also do Guardians of the Poor, Churchwardens, and Constables, who are all unpaid. But I am afraid it is a necessity that these gentlemen upon whom the duty of filling the office of High Sheriff ordinarily falls should be relieved from the expense of it. I do object to the clause which makes a special provision for the arrangement being made by the County Councils, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, as to the way in which the Judges shall be received. I believe the proceedings at County Councils are attended by reporters, and a very pretty discussion will occasionally take place as to the mode in which his Lordship shall be received. I cannot think that it will contribute very
    1022
    much to the respect which is at present paid to the learned Judges when people read the uncivil remarks which many people will, undoubtedly, take the opportunity of making. The majority of the County Councils may think otherwise, but those who are for cutting down the observances which have always been shown to the Judges will be sure to give expression to their opinions, and to express their reasons in a very unsatisfactory way. I would infinitely prefer that there should be no provision in the Bill as to the County Councils making any arrangements, either with or without the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor for the time being, as to the way in which the Judges shall be received, or that it should be simply left in the condition in which it is now, because I protest again, as I told your Lordships on the last occasion, that there is no power for any Judge to do what it has been stated was done by the learned Judge whom the noble Lord referred to. He was a popular man among his brother Judges, but he had a peculiar sobriquet among us on account of his liability to do just such a singular thing as he did on this occasion. When you come to consider it, the very fact of his issuing this general notice is a proof that it was an entirely original proceeding on his part, because, if it had not been the practice to do otherwise, why should he have given this special notice on the Oxford Circuit? For my own part, I most heartily wish that any High Sheriff who should be treated in this very erroneous way would try the question, for I am sure he would get the best of it. It seems to me it would be very much better, indeed, if there were not this provision, which would give rise to discussions of a most unpleasant character, as I have had an intimation from one who is not at all hostile to the Bill, but, on the contrary, friendly to it, would be the case. There is just one clause in the Bill to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention. It is that
    "The expenses of the High Sheriff of a county in receiving and protecting the Judges and so forth, and in keeping order within the precincts of the Court of Assize shall so far as they are not expenses which had before the passing of this Act been customarily defrayed by the Treasury or out of the County Rate."
    Well, it may possibly be said that by implication what was formerly paid

    1023
    out of the County Rata shall not in future be so paid. I do not know whether my noble and learned Friend sees the point; but I have no doubt how the Judges would construe it, because when Judges have to construe an Act of Parliament they make sense of it, and they make sense of it by interpreting it to say what it ought to say, and very often they have no other reason for their construction. I have no doubt they would hold that what was formerly paid out of the County Rate should continue to be so paid, and that it should not be otherwise paid; although, of course, a question might be raised about it under this clause. As I have often said in the Standing Committee on Law that when we have to construe an Act of Parliament, "We must do oar best with it as it stands; but in making one, we should take care there is no ambiguity about it." I do not know whether the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill thinks that worth his attention in any way, but I can assure him it is not a captious objection on my part at all.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, with regard to the objection which has been taken to the words in the 2nd clause of the Bill, I think the noble Lord will see, at all events I think myself, there is not really any force in his objection. The words are that—
    "The expenses so far as they have hitherto been defrayed by the Treasury or out of the County Rate shall be defrayed out of the County Rate."
    Of course, the meaning of that is, that the Treasury will continue to pay any portion that it has hitherto paid, and the County Rate will continue to pay any portion that it has hitherto paid, and the surplus, if any, shall be provided out of the County Rate. I think that seems pretty clear; at all events, it is so to me. I am very glad, at the same time, to hear that whether that be accurately expressed in the Bill or not there is no possibility of the Act going wrong, because, when it is placed in the hands of the Judges, they will interpret it in the way it should be interpreted. As this Motion, which is nominally hostile to the Bill, is not going to be pressed, I do not think I need detain your Lordships by making any lengthened remarks upon the Bill itself. It is perfectly true that
    1024
    the Bill is a small Bill, and deals with a small portion of the question only; I mentioned that to your Lordships when I introduced the Bill. The reason why it is a partial measure is because it would have been impossible for me, a private Member of your Lordships' House, to deal with the whole question; and, as the Government have not found themselves able to introduce a measure dealing with the whole subject, I thought it was better, at all events, to treat a portion of the question than not to do anything with it at all. For this reason: because the Committee upon this subject sat two years ago, and I have myself received a great many letters with regard to the matter, which is felt to be a very great hardship in many parts of the country. I have been asked frequently whether Parliament was going to do anything with regard to the Report of this Committee. It is quite possible, as has been said, I have begun at the wrong end. Perhaps I did; but it is better to begin at the wrong end than not to begin at all, and I think your Lordships will see that if this Bill passes into law, on which point I am a little more sanguine than the noble and learned Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, it will at all events, relieve the persons, who are in future to be appointed as High Sheriffs, to a not inconsiderable degree. If in a future Session of Parliament it may be found possible to go a great deal further I shall be glad. The proposal made by the noble and learned Lord is a proposal which I think deserves serious consideration. The proposal, as I understand it, is this: that in future the fees received by the Under Sheriffs shall be received by the Treasury; that the whole legal business for which the High Sheriff is at present nominally responsible, but of which he knows nothing, and can know nothing, and with regard to the carrying out of which he is perfectly unable himself to act, shall be dealt with by the Treasury also. Of course, the Sheriff has to leave everything to his Under Sheriff. Now, in future, the proposal is that those fees shall be transferred to the Treasury, and that the whole of this large legal business shall be carried on as a matter of I national concern, and through the agency of the Treasury; and then that all the expenses of the Shrievalty shall be borne

    1025
    by the Treasury. No doubt the noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that if the fees received by the Under Sheriff at present were received by the Treasury, and if they were calculated on a proper scale, the whole expenses of the Shrievalty could be borne by the county, without any cost to the High Sheriff or charge upon the County Rate. If any proposal is brought forward hereafter, I shall give it the best support I can, and I think, in all probability, it is the very best way of dealing with this question. But up to the present time we have found that the Treasury has not shown any particular desire to move in this direction, and of course in the present Session of Parliament it would have been quite impossible to carry out such a proposal. However, I hope the Government will bear in mind what the noble and learned Lord has said, and will give it their best consideration.
    On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3ª accordingly: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  THE OFFICES OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL,in rising to call attention to results which have followed the connection of the duties belonging to the First Minister with those belonging to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and move for precedents upon it, said: My Lords, the notice has been put upon the Paper only to repeat or follow up what I have urged before upon the subject both in Parliament and elsewhere. The last time I addressed your Lordships I alluded to it briefly. Recent circumstances have, however, given a fresh importance to the topic. Embarrassments have happened attributable fairly to the union of two functions I have indicated, but which, unless their origin is traced, may lead to violent conclusions. In the few remarks I have to make nothing will fall from me—at least intentionally—which is opposed to the general idea of Lord Hartington and his supporters, in whom alone I recognise a guarantee of national security. So far am I from being alone among
  1026
  men friendly to the Government that only on the Thursday before last, the 17th of July, one of their organs anticipated nearly all that has occurred, to me. On that account, I am more inclined to abridge or hurry over what I wish to bring before your Lordships. To specify that organ might produce misapprehension, or be against the usages of Parliament. It showed, however, clearly that the regular supporters of the Government are far from easy at the situation which exists. The journal went even beyond the view I have arrived at. I hold that in two cases the union of the functions is desirable; one when a particular emergency requires unusual concentration; the other when, at the beginning of a Government, the First Minister has never been conversant with the Foreign Office and feels the want of being conversant with it. Such a rule would have applied to Lord Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, and others. But it is obvious to the House that neither of these cases is before us. There is no great international emergency to traverse at this moment. The noble Marquess opposite was enabled to learn the business of the Foreign Office between 1878 and 1880. My Lords, it may appear presumptuous in anyone to enter on a problem of this nature unless he has a long experience at Downing Street to back him or instruct him. But during the past autumn much light has been thrown on the mechanism of government, and distribution of employment by the Papers of Lord Melbourne, by the life of Lord John Russell, by the correspondence of the late Earl Grey with Princess Lieven, which are accessible to everyone. The first result of the connection—as it now subsists, at least—is that the Treasury is violently dislocated or divided from the power which for many generations has supported it. The experience of two centuries has led to the convention, or one might say, the conviction that the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Minister of the Crown ought to be identified. Since the time of Lord Chatham, who formed a Government in 1766 and took the post of Privy Seal, the practice I refer to seems to have been constant. However scattered in the House, there may be noble Lords who know that kind of history much

  1027
  better than I do. The system, so long matured and suddenly renounced, had grounds which are intelligible. The Treasury is constantly refusing money. To-night an instance was alluded to. Refusal to be tolerable must be based on policy, and no one but the head of the Government can urge with prudence and authority that such and such demands ought not to be complied with. The Treasury is also like the Supreme Court of the United States, enabled from time to time to keep Acts of Parliament suspended by withholding funds, without which they are unexecuted. There is a late example in the Public Offices Site Act. Now, such a power of revising Acts of Parliament can hardly be entrusted to an ordinary Member of the Cabinet, although it may be to the Leader, who reflects its general sagacity. But I attach no great degree of weight to the consideration of the Treasury. It is far more serious to recollect that the First Minister, according to all antecedent probability, must be overburdened, when he unites the general direction of affairs with the minute, far-reaching, and inexorable labours of the Foreign Office. I will not dwell on antecedent probability, although the topic is a fertile one. But what has been, my Lords, the recent observation of the country? Departments have appeared to reach a perilous autonomy. Bills have been improvised which might have been retarded with advantage. Things urgent and required have seemed to be obstructed or blocked up by things uncalled for and superfluous. Schemes based on prudence and necessity have been thought to yield to schemes whose parentage is doubtful, but which have been often traced to fanciful ambition and to impetuous philanthropy. Confusion must arise in Parliament when the First Minister, absorbed by diplomatic correspondence, has neither time nor energy to obviate it. The country has next observed the foundations of society impaired; the Constabulary and the military power shaken in allegiance. No doubt the danger is exaggerated, and must be till its latent cause is properly appreciated. But it might be thought at first that while the First Minister is decidedly a loser, the Secretary of State may be a gainer in proportion; that while at home there is
  1028
  a semblance of anarchy, there may be abroad a growth in energy or in efficiency. It is against all reason that it should be so. Foreign policy demands a great deal more, but yet I venture to submit that it demands in limine and as an indispensable preliminary strength in the Executive. It cannot flourish when all the world remark that the Executive is crumbling or weakened. Foreign policy, when ably conducted, is no doubt a bar to war, but the ability to go to war must yet be its foundation. No country is prepared for war when its police is undermined, and when the garrison of its metropolis, even to a limited extent, partakes of the infection. But on a general position of this kind men often differ in opinion. I am more inclined to look to circumstances which surround us. When there is a controversy with the United States as to the Behring Sea, with France as to Newfoundland, each tending to the chance of possible hostilities; when it is necessary to give up Heligo land, which could not but enhance our negotiating influence at Berlin; when nothing has been done to remove the danger long inherent in Bulgaria, or to revive the Ottoman assemblies, or to repair the Treaties of 1856, so vital to the Eastern Question, although we may acquit the Foreign Office of any strong reproach, although deficiency, much more than error, is imputable, although these difficulties may all have a happy settlement, it is impossible to urge that the union of the functions has led in that Department to any visible advantages. But if my estimate or survey is disputed, I retire from a strong to an impregnable position. The present union has one inevitable consequence, which, duly weighed, at least suffices as a reason for avoiding it as permanent or final. If anyone has meditated long enough on foreign policy he will arrive at the conclusion that two spheres of operation are related to it. One evidently is that of arrangement and adjustment in order to compose the differences, minute or large, which have sprung up between Great Britain and other independent Powers, such as a question on an Afghan frontier, or a parallel of latitude in Africa, or how far lobsters fall under the provisions of a celebrated Treaty. In that sphere —if I could judge at all—the noble

  1029
  Marquess is a considerable master. But even there he cannot do so much as if the general direction of affairs was not absorbing and distracting him. The other sphere appears to be that of prosecuting, after deep reflection, changes, combinations which are good both for the honour of Great Britain and the tranquillity of Europe. Such was the Quadruple Alliance of Lord Palmerston, which required originating faculty to plan and to effect it. It would be easy, although it would not be desirable, to point out a series of measures not entirely dissimilar which merit grave consideration at this moment. In that higher sphere a Secretary of State, who, as First Minister, is responsible for every Department, every proposal, every appointment, it might, indeed, be said for every event, must be, no matter what his talent, helpless and incapable. It would be folly—with a mind so harassed and divided—to approach it. The utmost he can aim at is to put an end to complications of to-day, and to prepare for complications of to-morrow. He may be a plasterer, but he can never be an architect in Europe. However, granting, for a time, that arrangement and adjustment are the only business of the Foreign Office, that it ought not to aim at any objects more enduring, there is a practical objection to the present union which seems to me to be unanswerable. In these days it is essential that the Secretary of State should be at liberty, when an occasion calls for it, to visit capitals in which his influence is wanted. Since 1870, the Government would probably admit it, foreign policy has been to a great extent a struggle at Berlin between the counsels of St. Petersburg on one side, the influence of London on the other. Although to carry on that struggle we have had, in Lord Ampthill and Sir Edward Malet, two invaluable agents, it is important that the Secretary of State should throw his weight sometimes into the balance. M. de Giers, on the part of Russia, often does so. But it is not only at Berlin that the Secretary of State, in rare conjunctures, might exert a critical authority. Now, if he is first Minister, his duty to the Sovereign, the Cabinet, and public must retain him in this country, except when need for rest induces him to quit it. He cannot ever
  1030
  do so for exertion and activity. On the whole, therefore, it seems to be apparent that either function suffers by the union, when it is protracted. It is quite consistent with our general experience of human effort that it should be so. The sound direction of the whole, and the exact manipulation of a part, are seldom found together. The man who guides a helm can hardly labour as a stoker in the engine room. A general, directing armies, can seldom lead a charge of cavalry with profit. The bandmaster, who by the movement of a wand gives harmony to an orchestra would not succeed in doing so if he performed himself upon the kettledrum or trombone. At the same time I readily admit that the first Minister is bound to exercise a great control over the Foreign Office, although not technically leading it. We know from Mr. Lecky, the historian, who has investigated records, that Mr. Pitt composed a number of Despatches for the Foreign Office when his Ministry began. We know from the private secretary of Mr. Canning—and the fact is most impressive—that the last production of his mind was a State Paper upon Portugal, which he drew up while First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unless I have been much deceived by statements current in political society, Lord Palmerston was ready as First Minister at given times to labour for the Foreign Office as he had done when connected with it. The noble Marquess has, indeed, sometimes, in a few words, defended the new system by pointing to inconveniencies which showed themselves under the normal one. I readily admit them. They are patent to all who have been ever versed in the career and correspondence of the very statesmen I have mentioned. But it does not follow that because one method is imperfect, another may not be attended with hazards less to be endured. It might also be pointed out that the deficiencies of the established form admit of mitigation by safeguards easy to advert to. If the first Minister and Secretary of State approximate in views to one another; if they deliberately settle how to act in every probable contingency; if the First Minister is accessible at all times to any difficulties which the Foreign Office may present to him; if

  1031
  the Foreign Office never enter upon any new departure until the Sovereign and first Minister have previously endorsed it, the former system may do well—as it has under many Governments—down to the period when some transition in the country leads us to improve upon it. On the other hand, it would be difficult to mention any safeguards or conditions by which the [lasting union of the offices would not continue, as it is at present, weakening to both of them. I have proposed to move for precedents, but doubt much whether any can be found since 1688 for such a combination. When Mr. Pitt came back to power in 1804 he may be thought to have united the two functions down to 1806, under the pressure of the war, although nominally First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, With what deplorable results and tragic fate he did so, the pages of Lord Stanhope have explained, and it would well become the friends or colleagues of the noble Marquess to remember. Nothing which comes from me, nothing which transpires in the House, is likely to have much influence upon the Government. It ought not to be assumed that, because the present union has worked badly, a prompt or a precipitate correction of it would be useful. The good which I may partially effect, or have been led at least to contemplate, is that of drawing some attention, either here or out of doors, to the real origin of much which causes general disquietude. If men perceive that what has lately happened may be traced to a political experiment which ought not to be deeply blamed, however unsuccessful, they may recover equanimity and firmness, instead of looking to subversive remedies and revolutionary antidotes. The illustrious Duke, who often sits on the cross Benches, has frequently explained, in reference to military projects that "everything is tentative." We are familiar with the maxim. The noble Marquess may have been fully justified in initiating such a change as he has hazarded, although it has not borne the fruit which he anticipated. An eminent authority, while leading in the other House of Parliament, once stated—
  "The misfortunes of individuals and of kingdoms that are laid open and examined
  1032
  with true wisdom are more than half redressed, and to this great point should he directed all the virtue and all the talent of the House."
  Although the phrase may go too far, although the task it recommends may be too difficult, or little suited to, the lassitude which marks the Session as it closes, we ought, I think, in some degree, to act upon the lesson it conveys to us. I, therefore, move according to the notice on the Paper.
  Moved—
  "That there be laid before the House any precedents that there may have been for the connection of the duties belonging to the First Minister with those belonging to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has undertaken a task which in itself is rather difficult. He obviously does not approve of the course which the Government has followed, and he has little confidence in us. That is a very proper and constitutional position, and I have no wish to complain of it. He thinks that I am guilty of many things: I am guilty of the mutiny of the Grenadier Guards or their insubordination; I am guilty of the fact that lobsters are not recognised as fish under the Treaty of Utrecht; and I am also guilty of not going circuit among the capitals of Europe in order to influence the various statesmen at the head of affairs in those countries. I do not think that the noble Lord opposite, my predecessor, did any better in that respect; but the noble Lord, while blaming me for those faults—and I have not enumerated one-tenth part of those which he has detailed—was kind enough to provide an excuse, and said that if only I had been Prime Minister without being Foreign Minister, or Foreign Minister without being Prime Minister, I should have committed none of these blunders. Well, it is very difficult for him to prove that. It is very difficult for him to prove that my blunders are not the result of my own innate incapacity and folly. And especially will he find it difficult when he finds that I am on the other side, and when I assure the noble Lord that, however difficult I find the two offices, if the two offices had been separated I should have done just as badly as I have done. That is the result of my own introspection, and I

  1033
  must entreat the noble Lord to abandon that kind effort to cloak my shortcomings which he has been good enough to invent. The consequence I quite admit, though I entirely demur to his mode of proving it. I say it is quite impossible for the noble Lord to indicate how much of my failings come from one cause, and how much from another. Still the question raised by the noble Lord is one of considerable constitutional interest, and I observed that it was raised in the other House by no less a person than the leader of the Opposition. I think Mr. Gladstone was equally in error. He stated that it was impossible for anybody to do the duties of the two offices unless he was possessed of almost superhuman energy and skill. I think he did what is very natural to do; he contemplated the situation from the position which he himself occupied. If he had said that it was impossible for any man to be Prime Minister, leader of the House of Commons, and Foreign Minister as well, I should have absolutely agreed with him. There is no doubt that it would be too much for any man; it would crush even a Napoleon or an Oliver Cromwell. But the matter is very different when the Minister sits in the House of Lords. I am not prescribing the arrangement as one for universal adoption, but it seems to me a very fair thing to do when it is convenient to do it. But the noble Lord appeals for precedents in the matter. It is not for me to decry Conservatism wherever I find it; but I confess that, while I have a deep respect for Conservatism in matters of substance, my respect for Conservatism in matters of form is very small indeed; and if a thing is more convenient now it does not matter two straws whether or not it was found more convenient to Prime Ministers 20, 30, or 40 years ago. In considering it I think a mistake is made in talking of the offices of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary being united as though that was an extraordinary combination of offices. The office of Prime Minister is never held alone; it is always united with some additional office or another. The question is, what office should be united with it; whether it is more convenient to unite with it the office of First Lord of the Treasury or some other office? My Lords, that seems
  1034
  to me to depend very much upon the question whether the Prime Minister is in this House or the other. I am not disputing that there are many reasons why it is more convenient that the Prime Ministership should be held by a Member of the House of Commons; but, on the other hand, the labour of that House is increasing so enormously that I have my doubts whether, unless some change which we cannot forecast takes place, it will be always easy to find a man of that surprising vigour of body and intellect, combined the great knowledge of which Mr. Gladstone speaks and of which he has been an example. For an ordinary man I think the labour of leading the House of Commons and being Prime Minister at the same time is a very overwhelming task. But if you pass by that question, and assume that it is settled by events whether the Prime Minister is to be in this House or the other, I should say that, on the whole, it is less convenient that he should hold here the office of First Lord of the Treasury. If he takes no part in the duties of the Treasury, then he has really very little as First Lord to do; if he does take part in them, he divides the Treasury into two halves, and is probably a serious impediment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, so much has it been found a matter of difficulty to work those two offices separately, if the holders of them both take part in Treasury business, that it has constantly been the practice, as noble Lords will recollect, to unite the two offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. I confess from the little insight I had into the work that I do not think the tenure of the office of First Lord of the Treasury by a Member of your Lordships' House is very convenient; it is much better that the office should be held by a Member of that House in which Treasury questions constantly come up for discussion and are principally dealt with. Then as to the question, what advantage is derived with respect to foreign affairs from the Prime Minister not being Foreign Minister, I had the honour to serve under Lord Beaconsfield as Foreign Minister, and I occupied the inverse position towards my lamented Friend Lord Iddesleigh when he was Foreign Minister. My experience of that relation is, having been at both ends of it, that

  1035
  the Prime Minister interferes extremely-little in the conduct of foreign affairs. Of course, he has to deal with those great questions which come before the Cabinet and are decided by it; but outside the class of Cabinet questions he has not that daily familiarity with what is said and done which enables him to interfere with advantage in the conduct of foreign affairs. I can imagine a Prime Minister—I have heard rumours of such—interfering a great deal in the conduct of foreign affairs, but, if it has ever been so, I am quite sure that whatever the ability of that Prime Minister may have been, he could have done nothing but harm, because no good can be done in the management of complicated affairs when the same string is pulled by two people who are differently qualified for the duty of pulling it by the amount of experience, knowledge, and daily information which they possess. I can quite imagine that if a Prime Minister thought it his duty to interfere too much with foreign affairs, it would cause confusion rather than advantage. These things must be matters of estimate rather than of judgment. My impression is, that the shortcomings which the noble Lord finds, and which I do not wish to deny, are shortcomings personal to myself and in no degree arising from the combination of the two offices; and that if it is otherwise convenient for the Government, it is a combination which may be wisely permitted, and which affects injuriously neither the general conduct of the business of the Government nor the conduct of foreign affairs in particular.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have grave doubts whether any practical advantage would result from continuing this discussion, but, at the same time, I am the last person who would have the right to complain of the noble Lord's bringing it forward, because some years ago I dwelt upon the subject at considerable length, and gave a good many reasons, and went into considerable detail. My complaint at that time, I am bound to say, fell absolutely flat, but that complaint has now become more general; it is not confined to the noble Lord, but has taken a considerable hold of the public mind. There was one thing in which I was perfectly wrong, though I deemed it very likely at the time; my
  1036
  own conviction was that it would be impossible for the noble Marquess's physical strength to stand the great strain which filling the two offices would entail upon him. I am happy to say that I was completely wrong in that conviction, and nobody is more pleased that it is so than I am myself. With regard to the answer of the noble Marquess as to precedents, he said that he was not much of a Conservative as regards matter of form. Now, I must confess that, although I think that he is in some ways a strong Conservative, I have always thought there was a slight flavour of Radicalism about him. I have never concealed that from myself, and I rather think there is a disposition on the part of the present Government to throw aside, as matters of form, matters which have very often a great deal of substance in them. But when the noble Marquess says he doubts the usefulness, as a rule, of Prime Ministers taking a very great part in foreign policy, I am obliged to say, partly from my own experience and partly from what I have read, that Mr. Canning, Lord John Russell, LordPalmerston, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Gladstone, all took the deepest and most constant interest in the supervision of foreign affairs when they were Prime Ministers, so that my experience and what I have heard is entirely opposed to that of the noble Marquess. I really cannot see the strength of the argument of the noble Marquess with regard to the position of the First Lord of the Treasury when he talks of the inconveniences of uniting the two offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister, because really the work of the First Lord of the Treasury is very little more than a sinecure. He is the head of the hierarchy with regard to the national expenditure; he is in a position in which appeals are necessarily made to him. But as to the daily working of it really the office of First Lord of the Treasury is one which would not interfere in the slighest degree either with the other duties of the Prime Minister or with the duties of leading in the other House of Parliament. I quite admit that there is a great distinction between the offices being held by the Prime Minister in this House and being held by one who, at the same time, is leading in the House of

  1037
  Commons. I do not mean in the slightest degree to diminish the enormous difference; but I think there is so much that requires constant attention, and that the drudgery of the Foreign Office is so great, that there are great objections to this union of offices. Quite beyond the important questions to be settled, there are many things in -which the Foreign Minister must take part, and with which he must show acquaintance when addressing Ambassadors and Ministers of Foreign Powers. He must be able to talk on the subjects of which they talk, though they may not be of vital importance, and the numbers of hours constantly occupied by any Foreign Minister in his work is enough to incapacitate him from undertaking the heavy duties of another office, too. I am unwilling to prolong this discussion, because, as I have said, I think it can lead to no practical result; but I do differ from the noble Marquess, and I adhere to my former opinion, not only with regard to the strength and powers of the individual who holds both offices, but I believe there is a very grave objection to having the two offices in one, because there is no longer the advantage of having a certain amount of check from one to the other.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I have no wish, my Lords, to prolong discussion by an answer, but am contented to leave to the general arbitrament what has fallen from myself, the noble Marquess, and the noble Earl who has just spoken. As the Government appear to be unable to furnish any precedents such as the Motion would require, I feel entitled to withdraw it.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. (No. 203.)
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps, with regard to these Amendments, I may be allowed to say that I see no very great difference exhibited between those proposed in the other House and those to which I ask your Lordships to agree to. Mainly, the question has been with regard to the omission of Preambles of certain Acts of Parliament, and wherever it has
  1038
  been considered undesirable to omit the Preambles from the Acts of Parliament by reason of showing their purpose and object, I must advise your Lordships' House to disagree with the Commons Amendments; but in the greater proportion of the cases, I think we may safely agree to the Commons Amendments as made. One great distinction has been made, and I think wisely, by those who have had the consideration of these matters, that instead of an actual repeal of those portions of the Acts of Parliament consisting of Preambles and so on, there has been a reference made to them for the purposes of the authorised version of the Statutes. The effect will be that, should any question arise as to the existence or non-existence of those Preambles, or should any question arise as to the real meaning of those Acts of Parliament, they will still remain for purposes of reference, and they need not be printed again in the Revised Statutes. With that short explanation, I think it will not be necessary to do more than take the Amendments seriatim.
  LORD THRING: It is a very great satisfaction to the Committee, of which I happened to be Chairman, that the House of Commons have taken up the question of the revision of the Statutes as they have done. That Committee recommended that the Statute Law Revision Bill should go further than my Committee ventured to propose without the authority of the other House. They have gone even further: they have made omissions of some very valuable Preambles. They have also, as stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Wool-sack, recommended the course of cutting out the Preambles; not that they should be repealed, but that a provision should be inserted in the Bill stating that in future editions those parts might be excised. A Committee consisting of Lord Herschell, the Solicitor General, Mr. Price, and several Members of my own old Committee, including myself, have gone carefully through the Commons Amendments, and we have acceded to all of them, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has stated. If your Lordships will accept that statement on my authority, I believe the preparation of the revised edition will progress very quickly.

  1039
  Some of the Commons Amendments agreed to; some agreed to with Amendments; and consequential Amendments made to the Bill; some disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to some of the said Amendments: The Committte to meet forthwith.

  REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1886 AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 206.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without further Amendment; and to be read 3ª to-morrow.
  ELECTIONS SCOTLAND (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.—(No. 158)
  Read 3ª (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added to the Standing Committee for General Bills the Lord Chancellor and the Marquess of Salisbury for the consideration of the Marriages in British Embassies, &c., Bill, and to the Standing Committee for Bill relating to Law, &c., the Lord Ashford (V. Bury) for the consideration of the Directors' Liability Bill, and the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury for the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [No. 203.]
  Report from the Committee of the reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with Amendments and reasons.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL.
  A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be lead 2ª to-morrow.—[No. 230.]
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.