The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 19, 1864.

being conferred as a reward for long and eminent services,
and also from the circumstance that his health was affected
by his labours in the House of Commons. Under these cir •
cumstances we had, still thiee SeOrettiries of State in this
hotise'. Then Sir George Lewis was unhappily taken from
us, and peculiar circumstances connected with the welfare
of the army led us to place that department under the care
of Lord De Grey, who had long been Under-Secretary for
that department, and had acquired knowledge of all those
improvements which the late Lord Herbert had, during
his life, been anxious to carry into effect, and had so suc-
cessfully for a time curried into effect. (Hear, hear.) Not
only had we, when we framed the Government, ten Cabi-
net Ministers in this house, but amongst these ten is
the person who holds the office—l can't say I worthily
till—the office of the First Lord of the Treasury, which
office was filled by Lord Lierby in the House of Peers.
Therefore, I contend, if you compare the original oonstitu
tion and progressive changes of the present Government
with the original constitution of Lord Derby's Government,
you will find that the House of Commons has had its proper
share of those members who occupy an important position
in the administration of affairs. But I cannot undertake to
go into those legal questions which the right hon. gentle-
man has dealt with. My hon. and learned friend, the
Attorney-General, -will enter upon them with greater ability
and without complication. The right hon. gentleman main-
tains that one of these five gentleman must vacate his seat;
that question will be fully discussed by the Attorney- Gene,
rah But lam quite ready to admit that, unintentionally
and by oversight, we have done that which the law does not
authorise us to do. I must take blame to myself—(hear,
hear)—as I quite agree that it is my duty, holding the office
I do, and originating the different appointments—that I
ought, perhaps, to have inquired more deeply and minutely
into the state of the law. The right hon. gentleman and
those who act with him must share the blame. (No, no.)
Yes I IV hat is the natural occupation of an Opposition ?
What are they created for—(laughter)—if not assigned by
Providence to watch with keen eye their opponents, and
pick them up even before they fall—or, at all events, to
mark their stumbling ? It is therefore the peculiar func-
tion of an Opposition to correct anything that may be
wrong or blameable on the part of the Government, and I
must say that we have a right to complain—(much laugh-
ter)—of the right hon. gentleman, and of those who sit
with him, that since April in last year they have persever-
ingly held out in a course which they must have known,
although they do not admit it, was wrong in point of law.
(Renewed laughter.) They laid a trap for us, which I
think has not a record in parliamentary history. I
don't think what the right hon. gentleman proposes would
be sufficient for the purpose, because when a law has been
broken somebody must be liable to some penalty. I am
not prepared to say on whom the penalty would
fall, or what the penalty would ..be. I apprehend that no
penalty attaches by the Act to either of these five Secreta-
ries of State who
,in excess of the law has a seat in this
house. But where there is no penalty attached to the law
it becomes a misdemeanor; and as to the penalties of mis-
demeanor, my learned friend will have to consider who the
parties are who incur that penalty. What we should pro-
pose as a measure of security to those, whoever they may
be, and which would be a more effective record than the re-
solution of the right hon. gentleman, that a bill of indem-
nity should be brought in to record that the law has been
violated; and, by recording it, thus place beyond question
that nobody henceforward shall do the same thing. The
legal state of things has ceased, because, by the acceptance
by the Under-Secretary of the Home Department of the
office of the late Vice-President of the Board of Education,
the hon. member for Merthyr-Tydvil has vacated his seat,
and therefore there are only four Under-Secretaries now in
this house. I cannot agree with the resolution ; but I hope
the right hon, gentleman will agree to the bill of indem-
nity, and, if he is at all anxious, there shall be a special
clause for himself with regard to any responsibility which
he may have incurred. (A laugh.) We will take the blame
upon ourselves. and say that was our duty to have looked
more narrowly into the subject. (Cheers.)
_ . _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it would be neces-
sary for him to correct some errors into which the right hon.
gentleman had fallen in his statement with reference to the
Acts of Parliament bearing upon this subject. The right
hon, gentleman had entirely mistaken the effect of the Act
of Queen Anne, which passed in the year 1708. By that
Act the right hon. gentleman supposed that no more than
three Secretaries of State should sit in that house, but it was
an entire mistake to suppose that Act had any reference to
Under-Secretaries. It the right hon. gentleman was correct,
the office of Under- Secretary was an office of profit under the
Crown,and therefore every Under-Secretary down to the pre-
sent time ought to have vacated his seat upon appointment to
office. It was notorious, however, that the Under Secretary
of State, on appointment to office, did not vacate his seat,
and that according to the universal practice of that house
the office was not an office of profit under the Crown,
whether created before or after the year 1705. And the
reason of that was shown in the very language of the act
of Parliament to be that the Under Secretary of State was
not appointed by the Crown but by the Secretary of State.
Therefore the Act of Anne was absolutely outside the ques-
tion. The right hon. gentleman next referred to Mr. Burke's
bill of 1782, passing over the extremely material statute of
George 11., passed in the year 1742. That act was for
further limiting and reducing the number of public officers
capable of sitting in the House of Commons ; and if the
contention of the right hon. gentleman with respect to the
act of Anne was correct, much that was done by the 15th
of George 11. was entirely usegss. It was,true the act in-
troduced by Mr. Burke in 1782 for economical reform abo •
lished the office of becretary of State for the Colonies, but
it did not say one word with respect to the dependent offices
—it left them where they were under the former statutes.
The tact was, a Secretary of State might appoint as many
under-secretaries as he thought necessary for the adminis-
tration of his office. The only acts which dealt with the
matter at all were the two last mentioned, namely, the act
of 1855, when the office of Secretary of State for War was
established, and the act of 1858, when the office of Secretary
of State for India was established. Those acts did limit
the number of Secretaries of State which might at any one
time sit in that house; and they limited the maximum
number of the holders of the same office who might sit
here. Therefore it was the sitting together in that
house, and the voting of five TTnder Secretaries of State
that constituted the corpus delicti, and not the existence
of five Under Secretaries who wore members of that
house. The hon. and learned gentleman then referred to
analogous statutes—to the act relating to bankrupt mem-
bers of Parliament, and the act relating to members
of Parliament obtaining Government contracts—to establish
the distinction that the status of a member of Parliament
might co-exfst with au inability to join in the voting of the
House. He also referred to Mr. O'Connell's case, and to the
case of Mr. Alderman Salomons, when first returned for
Greenwich, to show that, although a member could not
vote or sit in that house during its debates until he had
taken the oaths, that was perfectly consistent with the
maintenance of his status as a member of Parliament. There
really, therefore, was nothing to render it necessary that an
individual should vacate his seat because it happened that
there were four others already holding the same office in
Parliament. As long as such member abstains from sitting
and voting in the house, the terms and objects of the Act of
Parliament were complied with, and no more need be done.
It could not be contended that his seat became vacant.
Mr. WALPOLE doubted if a bill of indemnity was the
beat means of setting the house right. The practice had
always been to place some resolutions on the journals in a
matter affecting as this did the privileges of the house and
the state of the constitution. The motion of Mr. Disraeli,
in his view, exactly met the case.
Sir G. GREY assented to the first part of the resolution,
but moved, as an amendment to the latter, that a select
committee should be appointed to
inquire whether the
Under Secretary of State who was last appointed to that
office had thereby vacated his seat.
After a few observations from Mr. ATRTON, the motion
of Mr. Disraeli, as amended by Sir G. Grey, was agreed
to nem. ewe.
Tho new writ for Merthyr Tydvil was then ordered to
issue.
PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.
On the order for going into committee on the Penal Ser-
vitude Acts Amendment Bill,
Mr. ADDERLEY moved a resolution to the effect that
in the opinion of the house the system of discharge of
prisoners from penal servitude on licence without police
supervision should no longer be continued.
The motion was opposed by Sir G. Grey, and ultimately
withdrawn.
The house then went into committee, and on Clause 4,
Mr. H. HUNT moved to add the words : " If any holder
of a licence granted under the said Penal Servitude Acts,
or any of them, who shall be at large in the United King-
dom, shall fail to report himself to the chief police station
of the borough or district where he shall be on his arrival
therein, and subsequently on the first day of each month,
or shall change his locality without having previously
notified the same to the police station to which ho last re-
ported himself, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemea-
nour, and may be summarily convicted thereof, and his
licence shall be forthwith forfeited by virtue of such con-
viction,"
The proposal was objected to by Sir G. Grey, Mr. Whit-
bread, and Mr. Henley; supported by Mr. Beach, Mr.
Marsh, Mr. Moor, and Mr. H. Seymour; and upon a
division was carried against the Government by 148 to 120.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill passed
through committee.
The High Court at Bombay Bill and the Court of Chan-
cery (Dispatch of Business) Bill were read a second thee.
And the Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853)
Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed.
The remaining business was also disposed of, and the
house adjourned at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] Holloway's Pills. Enfeebled
Existence.—This medicine embraces every attribute re-
quired in a general and domestic remedy—it overturns the
foundations of disease laid by defective food and impure air.
In obstructions or congestions of the liver, lungs, bowels,
and every other organ, these pills are especially serviceable
and eminently successful. They should be kept in readi-
ness in every family, as they are a medicine without a fault
for young persons and those of feeble constitutions. They
never cause pain or irritati the most sensitive nerves or
most tender bowels. Holloway's pills are the best thorough
purifiers of the blood, and the best promoters of absorption
and secretion which remove all poisonous and obnoxious
particles from both solids and fluids.