HL Deb 15 February 1897 vol 46 cc370-83
*LORD MONKSWELL

moved:— That the petition of Mr. John Bull, complaining of his dismissal by the Lord Great Chamberlain in July last from the office of resident superintendent of the Palace of Westminster, he referred to a Committee of this House. He said he desired to make it quite clear at the onset, that he did not contemplate making anything in the nature of an attack upon the noble Lord the Lord Great Chamberlain. That noble Lord was intrusted by their Lordships with the discharge of certain duties involving heavy responsibilities, and he had not the slightest doubt, nor could their Lordships have the slightest doubt, that the Lord Great Chamberlain had, as he had already stated, given the most careful and anxious consideration to the case of Mr. Bull. Neither had he the slightest doubt that the Lord Great Chamberlain was thoroughly convinced that the dismissal of Mr. Bull was imperatively called for, however ruinous such dismissal might be to that gentleman's prospects in life, and that there was absolutely no other course open to him in the interest of the maintenance of discipline among the minor officials of that House than to adopt the very extreme measure of dismissing Mr. Bull. He thought that if the Committee he asked for were appointed, it would probably be found that the Lord Great Chamberlain was mistaken in the view he held as to the conduct of Mr. Bull. If that should prove to be the case, the fault would be not with the Lord Great Chamberlain, but in the present system under which these officials were appointed and dismissed. That system had been greatly censured by many high authorities in that House and notably by Lord Morley, the Chairman of Committees, and by his noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell. In his view the question of the continuance of the system should be referred to the Committee, and it appeared to him that possibly a thorough investigation into all the circumstances attending the dismissal of Mr. Bull might throw a practical light upon the working of the present system. That, however, was not the only ground upon which he asked their Lordships to appoint this Committee. His next reason for asking for the appointment must commend itself to every one of their Lordships, including even the Lord Great Chamberlain himself. He ventured to say that, if Mr. Bull chose to press for the appointment of this Committee he occupied a very strong position, owing to the strange and almost unprecedented circumstance that he had been dismissed without having been given an opportunity of stating his case before the Lord Great Chamberlain. Therefore, if their Lordships granted this Committee, they would only be giving Mr. Bull an opportunity of defending himself which had been denied to him by the Lord Great Chamberlain. Upon this point he thought that Mr. Bull had made out a strong case at least for inquiry. There was no public body in the Kingdom, whether it were a County Council, a Board of Guardians, or a Vestry, which would dismiss anyone in its service without giving him an opportunity of stating his case in his defence. This refusal on the part of the Lord Great Chamberlain to hear Mr. Bull in his defence, was not due to any negligence on the part of Mr. Bull himself, who had asked over and over again for an opportunity to be given him of being heard in his defence, and who had had his request refused. What the answer of the Lord Great Chamberlain would be to his Motion might be gathered from the papers which were before their Lordships, namely, that the case was so simple and so clear that it would have been a mere formality to have asked Mr. Bull to come forward and explain his conduct, that the interview must have been necessarily an exceedingly painful one to all parties, and could not possibly have any useful result. It was, however, seldom quite safe to assume that a man had nothing to urge on his own behalf, and those who had been concerned in litigation must be aware of the truth of the adage that "one story is good until another is heard." For his own part he should certainly have done all he could to have dissuaded Mr. Bull from asking for this Committee, and he should not have put down this Motion upon the Paper had he not satisfied himself, without in any way prejudging the case, that Mr. Bull could produce strong evidence in support of the substantial accuracy of the statement which he had made. A very short review of the facts would show that the case against Mr. Bull was not quite as simple or as clear as the Lord Great Chamberlain appeared to think. Mr. Bull began his career in the ranks. In 1881 his conduct and his ability were so exceedingly favourably reported upon that he obtained the rank of lieutenant, and of quartermaster in the Royal Engineers. In May, 1890, he was appointed by the Lord Great Chamberlain to the position from which he had recently been dismissed. He did not think that their Lordships would consider that, having regard to his length of service, and to his exemplary character whilst in the Army, this position, having attached to it a salary of £300 per annum with a residence at Westminster, was too great a recognition of his merits. When he left the Army to accept the appointment, Mr. Bull's prospects were exceeding good, and he only accepted the appointment for domestic reasons. The appointment was certainly not more than an equivalent for what he had a right to expect had he continued in the Army. Mr. Bull entered upon the duties of office with the feeling that he would be able to discharge them to the satisfaction of everyone with whom he was likely to come into contact, and his career in the Army afforded absolute proof of his competency to perform them. He had looked forward to a settled home, and to the enjoyment of a competence and an honourable retirement. Mr. Bull had hoped that he would obtain the regard and esteem not only of his superiors but also of those with whom he came into daily communication. He believed that Mr. Bull did discharge his duties zealously, scrupulously, and industriously, and that he conciliated the regard and esteem of nearly all of his fellow-officials. But, most unfortunately for Mr. Bull, there was one exception—there was one man who from the first looked very unfavourably upon him, and it happened, most unfortunately for Mr. Bull, that this man was a person whom the Lord Great Chamberlain had every reason to trust, and upon whom he naturally relied for information with regard to the conduct of the minor officials of the House. Mr. Bull was dismissed practically upon two grounds for disobedience to orders following upon what the Lord Great Chamberlain said he must have known was an unsatisfactory course of conduct. Mr. Bull believed that, if he had been given an opportunity of explaining his case to the Lord Great Chamberlain, he would have been able to show that the charges of trivial alleged neglect of duty on a few occasions which were made against him were almost entirely unfounded. Had he been able to prove that he was the victim of misrepresentations in respect of those charges, in all probability the Lord Great Chamberlain would have taken a totally different view of his case, and would have come to the conclusion that, instead of being entitled to no consideration he was entitled to great consideration. He would now come to the question of the so-called disobedience to orders. It certainly would appear upon the face of it that Mr. Bull, with his previous record as a non-commissioned officer, which he was informed was the best of any noncommissioned officer in the service, with his military training and experience, would not have been guilty of disobedience to orders. Mr. Bull's case was that he acted under a misapprehension of the nature of the orders, a misapprehension which might show a certain amount of fault on his part, and that he believed that what he was told to do was not in the nature of an order, but was a mere request on the part of the Lord Great Chamberlain, which he might assent to or refuse as he deemed fit. That request was that he should undertake to discharge the duties of the man whom he regarded as his bitterest enemy, and who was regarded in that light not only by him, but also by many others who were in the precincts of the House. The duties he was so asked to discharge were those of a man who filled the positions not only of a clerk in the Lord Great Chamberlain's office, but also of Secretary to the Coaching Club, and Mr. Bull was requested to discharge his duties as clerk, in order that he might officiate as Secretary to the Coaching Club at a time when he ought to have been discharging his duties in the House. Mr. Bull felt, whether rightly or wrongly—and he thought there was considerable ground for his contention—that that was an order the Lord Great Chamberlain ought not to have given him, and he felt that the Lord Great Chamberlain was encouraging a man to commit a serious breach of the Treasury regulation which forbade a person to take other work during office hours. He did not know whether Mr. Bull was right or wrong in that contention, but it was Mr. Bull's belief that that was the case. Mr. Bull naturally could not help contrasting his experience with the Lord Great Chamberlain with that of the Secretary to the Coaching Club, and he was a little sore that fault had been found with himself on trivial occasions, whereas the Secretary to the Coaching Club had, as he thought, been aided in committing a serious breach of the Treasury rule. But, notwithstanding all this, Mr. Bull would have put his feelings in his pocket and performed the duty he was requested to perform had he thought that the letter addressed to him was a positive order. There could be no doubt that the letter of the Lord Great Chamberlain's Secretary was in terms an order; but Mr. Bull, unfortunately for him, had, before receiving that letter, had a conversation with the Lord Great Chamberlain's Secretary, which convinced Mr. Bull that that gentleman would never take the course of commanding him to do Mr. Lovegrove's work. The position Mr. Bull took up from first to last was this. He said:— If this man comes to me and asks me as a personal favour to do his work, I will do it; or if the Lord Great Chamberlain orders me to do it, I will do it. But, if it is a mere request coining' from somebody else, I shall not comply with it. That was, no doubt, a great mistake on the part of Mr. Bull. When he received a letter ordering him to take another man's duty, he ought to have considered it an order and to have obeyed it. In not doing so, he committed an error of judgment; but he did not intentionally commit an act of disobedience, and that mistake had, he ventured to think, been visited with far too severe a penalty. He had hitherto addressed their Lordships as if Mr. Bull's case alone was before the House. He had no wish to use language of exaggeration, but there were many persons in the service of the House who stood in the same position that Mr. Bull stood in before he was dismissed; and it was not too much to say that the dismissal of Mr. Bull had caused and was causing a general sense of insecurity and uneasiness amongst those officials. Mr. Bull was known and respected by a great number of persons within the precincts of the House, and they thought that his dismissal without a hearing was a circumstance to make them very uncomfortable. They thought that the conscientious discharge of their duties might not shield them from slander, and they feared that they might possibly be dismissed without an opportunity being given them of speaking in their own defence. If their Lordships granted this Inquiry they would relieve the grave anxiety that certain persons felt who were peculiarly entitled to their Lordships' protection; and they would show that they were determined to mete out equal justice to everybody. It might be asked, what could be the practical results of such an inquiry? It was perfectly true that Mr. Bull had been dismissed and another person appointed in his place, and a Committee could not reinstate Mr. Bull. It could, however, rehabilitate his character, and that to Mr. Bull was no small matter. He even ventured to hope that if the result of an Inquiry should be to show that an injustice had been done to Mr. Bull that he might sooner or later obtain some suitable employment. As to what ought to be done on this Motion, he would suggest that the matter should be referred to the Offices Committee for consideration and report, and he would also suggest the addition of the name of Lord Shand to that Committee, who had expressed to him his willingness to serve.

THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN (The EARL of ANCASTEK)

hoped the House would bear with him for a few moments while he answered what the hon. Lord opposite had said, and he trusted that when their Lordships had heard what he had to say, they would not think it necessary to send the Question to the Committee as the noble Lord had asked. Mr. Bull was appointed resident superintendent in 1890. He came into the service of the House highly recommended and with an excellent character. A full explanation was given to Mr. Bull of the duties that would be required of him, and he expressed his readiness to accept the office and to do anything that might be required of him. The appointment was to be held during pleasure. Mr. Bull said that no complaints were made against him. All he could say was that Mr. Bull's conduct was unsatisfactory from the very beginning, for he was negligent in the discharge of his duties and took no interest in them. Once Mr. Bull was reprimanded by himself at the request of Colonel Carrington, upon the ground of the inadequate discharge of his duties; in fact, he received constant complaints about him from Colonel Carrington. When Colonel Carrington resigned his appointment last February, Captain Butler was appointed in his place, and he wondered whether Mr. Bull would be able to get on any better with Captain Butler, and soon after Mr. Bull was appointed, he inquired of Captain Butler how Mr. Bull was getting on. Captain Butler shook his head and gave him to understand that Mr. Bull's conduct was not satisfactory. The letter book in the office would show abundantly that what he had said was perfectly correct. He would not, however, weary their Lordships by going through those letters as he did not think that was the proper place to do so. He would therefore come at once to Saturday, June 27th. On Saturdays their Lordships would remember, tickets to view the House were issued to the public. On the morning of June 27th Captain Butler came to him and told him that Mr. Bull had refused to do what he had asked him to do, namely, to give out these tickets during one hour on that morning. He would now read to their Lordships the letter written by Captain Butler to Mr. Bull. It was in these terms— Mr. Bull. Be good enough to issue the tickets from 12.15 p.m. to 1.15 p.m., to-morrow, Saturday, June 27th. Mr. Bull said that was not an order, he on the other hand, said that was a lawful and proper order, given by a superior officer who was entitled to give such an order. He would now read what was written by Mr. Bull in reply to that. Mr. Bull wrote— With reference to your memo of this day's ditto, I must respectfully decline to officiate for Mr. Lovegrove to-morrow. If he is taking leave to attend one of the Coaching Club Meetings, which has been advertised to take place tomorrow, he is committing a breach of the Treasury regulations as to Government officials not being allowed to accept any private employment during office hours. In that letter it would be seen that Mr. Bull flatly and distinctly refused to obey the order of Captain Butler. He would call their Lordships' particular attention to this fact, that neither of those letters were to be found in the petition of Mr. Bull, and he was in hopes—and he hoped now—that after he had read those two hitters, the noble Lord opposite would not press his Motion. It was very unfair to Captain Butler and himself that Mr. Bull's petition should have been before their Lordships for six months without those two letters, and he wanted to know why they were left out. However, be would leave that matter in their Lordships' hands and return to June 27th. Captain Butler had given leave to Mr. Lovegrove to go out for an hour on that day and had ordered Mr. Bull to give out the tickets during that hour. That was the position of affairs, and he would ask what course he could have adopted but that which he did adopt? That order was given. There was no question whether Mr. Bull received the order or not. He knew their Lordships had every confidence in Captain Butler as he had, and the only course open to him was to support Captain Butler and to suspend Mr. Bull if order and discipline were to be maintained amongst the officers of the House. He knew what the service of their Lordships' House was in 1874, 20 years ago, and what it was at present, and he hoped that if their Lordships had confidence in him, the service of the House would continue what it had been in the past. On the evening of June 27th he had to go into the country to attend Quarter Sessions. He fully expected to have some answer to his letter suspending Mr. Bull, in which that gentleman would say something or other asking him to explain, or expressing a wish to see him or that if he had committed an offence he was sorry for it. He was quite sure that if a letter of that sort had been received by him he would had given Mr. Bull an opportunity of being heard. If such a letter had come to him he would have been most willing to consider it, so as to hear what Mr. Bull had to say. He felt no asperity against Mr. Bull, and it would, of course, have been much pleasanter not to have had any of these troubles. He would only have been too glad if Mr. Bull had discharged his duty and things had gone on quietly. However, no answer came. Captain Butler then asked leave to make a new appointment. It was the middle of the Session, and there was a great deal of work in their Lordships' House, which could not be carried on without the services of a Superintendent. Captain Butler recommended for the appointment two of the door-keepers, but they did not accept, for reasons of their own. He then recommended the present Superintendent, whose appointment, he was glad to say, had resulted entirely satisfactorily. All the letters, excepting the two which he had read, reached him after he made that appointment. It was no use seeing Mr. Bull then, as he had made up his mind and had made an appointment. In fact, he could have done nothing if he had seen Mr. Bull. Then came the question—Was the order originally given a reasonable one? Mr. Bull, in his petition, said that that order was not in accordance with the authority given in 1876. It should be borne in mind that when the order to issue tickets to the public on the Saturday in question was given there were only two officials, the Superintendent and the Clerk, who could perform the duty. It was therefore self-evident that if one of these officials did not do it, the other must. There were other duties which Mr. Bull had to perform which were not designated in the order of 1876. What was Mr. Bull asked to do on this occasion? He was asked to sit in a chair for one hour and to distribute these tickets, but he refused, and Captain Butler was kind enough to volunteer to do the duty. He sat in the chair and gave out the tickets, while Mr. Bull was standing close by him in the Prince's Chamber. With regard to Mr. Lovegrove, who was appointed Clerk in 1873, he thought it right to tell the House that that gentleman's salary was only £100 a year. Of course, if they wanted a man to do responsible work on such a salary they could not expect him to give his whole time to their service, and he must be allowed to take up other work. The work discharged by Mr. Lovegrove was very responsible, especially when Her Majesty opened Parliament in person. The hours during which he had to attend were very long; but Mr. Lovegrove was always ready to do anything and everything, and no hours were too long for him. Surely it was not unreasonable for the head of the Department to give a man who had worked for 23 years in this service leave for one hour on one particular day. He hoped their Lordships would consider this statement a satisfactory one; and he left the matter in their hands with some confidence.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said he was very reluctant indeed to find fault with his noble Friend who had just spoken, but after reading the papers issued on this subject he could not say that he was perfectly satisfied. He could not understand why Mr. Bull was not given an opportunity of explaining. The ordinary course in a public office would have been, when the Lord Great Chamberlain thought it necessary to suspend him, to ask him at the same time for an explanation of his conduct. He could not remember, in his experience, any case where so extremely severe a punishment (had been inflicted upon a civil servant who had not had a full opportunity of stating his reasons for believing that he had not committed an offence. The whole point of the question was, whether it was right that any person holding such a position as Mr. Bull filled should be dismissed from his office, and suffer all the serious consequences that that entailed, without having had an opportunity of giving an explanation. For his part, he did not think that such a course could be justified in any case whatever.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)

—who explained that, of course, he was not speaking on behalf of the Government, for the Government were not concerned in this matter—said that he would not enter into the merits of the case, or attempt to deal exhaustively with it. He really felt great difficulty in apportioning the different amount of blame that might be apportioned to one or other of the parties to this transaction, but he could not help thinking that they would establish a very serious precedent, if, when an officer like the Lord Great Chamberlain had been appointed to select for employment a particular official, their Lordships should re-hear a case of dismissal if the Lord Great Chamberlain should think it right, in the exercise of his functions, to dismiss that officer. It must be remembered that in Mr. Bull's case there was a distinct order given to him in writing, and a distinct refusal on his part to obey. Those facts being ascertained, were their Lordships going to inquire into the question whether the Lord Great Chamberlain was justified or not in dismissing an officer who certainly did refuse to obey an order given by the Lord Great Chamberlain's properly accredited agent? As he had said, that would be a very serious precedent to establish. The only thing that Mr. Bull could hope to gain by the appointment of this Committee was a rehabilitation of his character, if it was impugned. As a matter of fact, there was no imputation upon his character for honesty and integrity. His offence was the refusal to obey an order, and he did not think that that was a matter which ought to interfere with Mr. Bull's future prospects. He deprecated over-ruling the Lord Great Chamberlain's decision in a matter specially committed to his determination. If there were any additional facts to bring to light there might be some ground for appointing a Committee, but no additional facts had been adduced.

LORD HERSCHELL

thought his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had lost sight of the most important feature of the case, which was that Mr. Bull had been dismissed from his office without having been given that which he asked for, viz., an opportunity of explaining the circumstances and of removing, as he thought he could have done, the impression produced by the act which he had committed. Every civil servant had a right when he was dismissed—whatever might be the opinion of the head of the Department who dismissed him—to be heard and to give any explanation that he had to give. That seemed to him to be the ground upon which, without danger, this Committee might be granted. He feared that if it were not granted, and the matter were allowed to be treated as one which had been satisfactorily dealt with, it would go forth that, in the opinion of that House, the Lord Great Chamberlain was at liberty to dismiss any of the officials that held office at pleasure in his Department without giving them the opportunity which lawyers, and he believed people generally, were accustomed to regard as a primary right, viz., the opportunity of explaining away the matters charged against them. That course had not been followed in Mr. Bull's case. He was told he was suspended, and five or six days afterwards he was dismissed. He then asked to be heard, and his request was refused. That was not the proper course to follow. If a Committee were appointed, and the case were heard, it might turn out that the dismissal was a proper one—he expressed no opinion upon the merits of the matter; but then Mr. Bull would have had an opportunity of making an explanation. It should be borne in mind that this was rather an exceptional case. All civil servants of the Crown held office at pleasure; they might be dismissed at a moment's notice; they had no redress in a court of law; their salary and pension went, and no court of law would listen to their complaints. It had been said that their remedy was an appeal to Parliament, and that was true in most cases. The appeal was made ordinarily upon the Vote for the salary of the head of the Department from which a man was dismissed. The salaries of the head of most Departments appeared on the Estimates, and when the particular Votes were reached any grievances which any of their subordinates had could be ventilated in the House of Commons. That was the case with all officials appointed by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, whose salary was on the Votes. But the case was different when they came to the Lord Great Chamberlain, the emoluments of whose office did not appear on the Votes. In that case aggrieved persons could not ventilate their complaints in the House of Commons. Their Lordships' House, having vested the right of these appointments in the Lord Great Chamberlain, it became the duty of the House itself to entertain exceptional grievances emanating from that Department. This case was so exceptional that he did not think a precedent of any danger would be created by granting this Committee, which would at all events have the advantage of enabling one who considered that he had been aggrieved to put his grievance in the way of explanation before a Committee. This would also have the effect of assuring all those who might occupy a similar position that they had a certain protection, and could not be dismissed at pleasure without the opportunity of being heard. ["Hear, hear!"]

The House divided:—

CONTENTS 15
NOT-CONTENTS 29
CONTENTS
Ripon, M. de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)
Kimberley, E. Herschell, L.
Lauderdale, E. Hobhouse, L.
Minto, E. Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.) [Teller.]
Spencer, E.
Stamford, E. Monkswell, L. [Teller.]
Strafford, E. Northbourne, L.
Reay, L.
Oxenbridge, V.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor Waldegrave, E.
Devonshire, D. (L. President. Knutsford, V.
Templetown, V.
Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.) Ampthill, L.
Bagot, L.
Aboreorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Belper, L.
Castletown, L.
Churchill, L.
Ancaster, E. [Teller.] Colville, of Culross, L.
Carrington, E. Fermanagh, L.(E. Erne)
de Montalt, E. [Teller.] Hillingdon, L.
Leven and Melville, E. James, L.
Londesborough, E. Mount Stephen, L.
Onslow, E. Norton, L.
Stanhope, E. Poltimore, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Sudley, L. (E. Arran)
Windsor, L.

Resolved in the negative.

Back to