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

CORN RENTS.

Mr. HUBBARD asked the President of the Poor-law
Board whether his attention had been directed to the deci-
sion in the Common Pleas on the sth Feb., to the effect
" that lands charged with ' corn rents payable free of rates'
should be assessed at the full annual value, without making
any deduction for the corn rent charge:' whether the
board accept that decision as declaratory of the law, and
will communicate it to such parishes as have asked for in-
formation ?
Mr. VILLIERS said that the decision was accepted as
declaratory of the law.
EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRIA
AND RUSSIA.

Mr. YORKE asked the First Lord of the Treasury,
'whether there exists any extradition treaty between Austria
and Russia: whether his attention has been called to an
order published by General Mensdorf, dated Lemberg,
March 16, 1864, and to a similar order published by General
Meek!, dated Cracow, March 12th, 1864, ordering all Polish
refugees to be immediately sent back across the frontier :
and, whether her Majesty's ambassador at Vienna has been,
or would be, instructed to use the friendly influence of this
country, in order to put a stop to such inhuman practices.
Lord PALMERSTON was understood to say he was
not informed of any such treaty.
Mr. P. HENNESSY hoped that all the despatches on
this subject would be laid on the table

RESIGNATION OF MIL. LOWE.
Mr. LO WE, who spoke from the fourth bench on the
Ministerial side of the house, explained that iaconscquence
of the decision come to on Tuesday last, upon the motion
of Lord C. Cecil, which he took in the light of a direct
charge against himself that he had mutilated the reports of
school inspectors by striking out such portions of them as
were unfavourable to the administration of the educational
department, he had felt it his duty to resign the office of
Vice-President of the Council on Education, The right
lion, gentleman complained that the house had arrived at a
decision suddenly and in the absence of all evidence, and,
alluding to some reports that hid been circulated among
members whilst the debate was proceeding, and which con-
tained marked passages, denounced as " base" the conduct
of those subordinates in the education department who had
betrayed their trust by furnishing these documents. Those
remarks, however, he observed, ought never to have been
made, and they had not been made by the order or with
the knowledge of Earl Granville or himself, or for the pur-
pose of influencing the inspectors as to the passages which
they were to omit from their reports. They were placed
there, in fact, in pursuance of a mistaken and erroneous
practice which prevailed until 18G2, when he forbade it,

and 'without his knowledge, by a clerk in the office, whose
busbaess it was merely to read the reports, and call the
st4,,ention of the Secretary to such passages as Le might
think worthy of his notice, All that he had ever dcne with
the reports when they were not framed in ac 30Idanoe with
the minute of January, 1861, was to return them to the
writers, and leave them to discover for thus Ives in what
respect their reports militated against the rule and prin-
ciple laid down for their guidance by the department.
Lord R. CECIL regretted that the right hon. gentleman
should have taken the resolution as directed personally
against himself, when in truth it was aimed at a practice
which he regarded as deserving of censure. If the right
hon. gentleman had on Tuesday given a similar expla-
nation to that of this evening in all probability the motion
would not have been pressed to a division, or if it had it
would have been attended with a very different result. But
instead of that he left the house in perfect ignorance on the
question whether there had ever been any discussion in the
office with respect to affixing marks to the inspectors' reports.

Lord PALMERSTON remarked that Lord R. Cecil
ought to have ascertained, before he called upon the house
to express an opinion, whether the practice he condemned
had been continued or not since 1862, As to the resignation
of his right hon. friend, he had accepted it with very great
pain at losing the services of one who, by the extenaive
range of his knowledge, the logical accuracy of his mind,
and his soundness of judgment, was eminently qualified to
do good service to the country. He had endeavoured to per
suade the right hon. gentleman that the question at issue
was not one of veracity on his part, but related to the prac-
tice of his department; that it was not a case in which to
ask the house to rescind its vote, but rather to appoint a
select committee to inquire in what manner the minute of
Council had been carried into effect ; but his endeavour had
been unsuccessful. He was sure, however, that the house
would be of opinion that the vote of Tuesday was a hasty
decision, and that it would be only consistent with parlia-
mentary justice and the character of the house to appoint a
committee for the purpose of ascertaining whether the im-
pression under which the majority had voted was or was not
well founded.

Mr. DISRAELI took the statement of Mr. Lowe, so far
as his personal honour was concerned, as perfectly satisfac-
tory. At the same time he held that the conduct of Lord R.
Cecil had throughout been frank and straightforward. Due
notice of the motion was given, yet none of those prepara-
tions were made on the Ministerial side of the house to sup-
port the right hon. gentleman that his high position and
talent had been lost to the public service, as it would appear
from his not having been properly supported by his col-
leagues.
The subject then dropped.

UNDER SECRETARIES OF STATE IN THE
HOUSE OF CbhIMONS,

Mr. DISRAELI then rose and said that it was his duty
to call the attention of the house to the consideration of a
question of privilege arising out of the distribution of offices
in the two Houses of Parliament. The question was one,
in a constitutional sense, of considerable inconvenience, and
might, if neglected, produce results of a character so seri-
ous that it was difficult adequately to describe them. The
condition of embarrassment and danger in which the house
was placed had its origin in the manner in which the pre-
sent Government had been formed on the noble lord's
(Palmerston's) accession to office. On that occasion the
majority of the great offices of State hail been apportioned
to the House of Lords. Though no inexorable rule could be
laid down on the subject, there were certain principles which
ought to guide the individual who found himEelt in the po-
sition of being called upon to form a Government in the
distribution of offices. The heads of the two great depart-
ments of public expenditure should find seats in the House
of Commons. With regard to the Secretaries of State, at
least a majority should have seats in the House of Com-
mons. The constitution had in practice adequately pro-
vided for the representation of the Ministry in the other
House of Parliament. The Lord Chancellor must sit in the
House of Lords. The President of the Council, with very
rare exceptions, had always been a Lord President. Since
the passing of the Reform Bill, a majority of the Prime
Ministers had sat in the House of Lords. Added to this,
the chief officers of the household had generally been
found in the House of Lords. A fair share of subordi-
nates, too, had generally been found in that house, so
that no one could say that the constitution had not fur-
nished an adequate representation of the Government in
the Upper House. Comparing the business which the
two houses conducted, it was obvious that in the House
of Commons the great majority of the great offices of State
should be represented by those who held these offices,
Shortly before the Government had been formed, it was
said that the Government of the country ought to be
conducted by the educated section of the Liberal party, but
he did not then imagine that the interpretation of that
phrase contemplated the conclusion which had been accom-
plished—that a majority of the great offices of the State in
the new Government were to be assigned to the custody of
half a dozen peers of the realm. (Hear, hear.) It was rather
a slur upon the vote which had been passed upon their help-
less predecessors, that the Liberal party could not furnish
leaders in that popular branch of the Legislature. There
was, however, something dearer, he was sure, to both sides
of the house than party triumphs, and that was the charac-
ter and authority of the House of Commons. (Hear.) All
must be sorry that anything should take place which would
humiliate the character of the house, or place it in a posi-
tion which should not add to the confidence and respect felt
for it by the country. (Hear.) For his part he looked upon
parliamentary government as admirably adapted to this
country, and believed that without two organised parties
government would be practically impossible, and he felt
grieved when either of the great parties had gone beyond
the point which was necessary for the good government of
the country. Well, a question had arisen with regard to the
distribution of offices, because—in consequence of the plan
on which the present administration was formed—the prin-
cipal offices of the State had necessarily been represented in
this house by under-secretaries, or by members of the admi-
nistration bearing perhaps a different title, but having a
similar rank. He perhaps should not have interfered in the
matter had it not been from an expression of the noble lord,
who, when he (Mr Disraeli) offered some legitimate criticism
on the conduct of a Secretary of State who happened to sit
in the House of Lords, denounced the attack as indefensible
because it was made on an absent man. (Opposition cheers.)
It then clearly appeared in what situation members of the
Opposition would be placed when they brought forward
questions of great interest, because they would be placed in
collision with gentlemen who could not properly encounter
them on such grave subjects, in consequence of their not
being in the counsels of the Sovereign, nor cognisant of the
advice and policy approved by the Government. , There had
been impending over the house for a considerable time an
inevitable reconstruction of the Government to a certain
extent, through a cause which all must regret, the retire-
ment from public life of the Duke of Newcastle, a sedulous,
able, and conscientious minister. On his quitting office
that reconstruction of the ministry which had been antici-
pated took place. It was extremely partial, and the first
result upon reflection was that the subordinate members of
the Government who represent the high offices of State in
this house had not been materially reduced. Again the
question was considered and it was discovered that the state
of affairs which had been deemed politically injerious was
in fact flagrantly illegal. (Hear.) He wished to place be-
fore the house the state of the law about Under-Secretaries
of State. It might appear a very arrogant thing that he, a
layman, should presume eve. to make a statement, much
less an inference, on a eeeject so professional and techni-
cal ; and he might eerhaps have been daunted in this en-
terprise by the observation of the Attorney-General, who
had said that this subject was most refined and complicated.
There were some men who had refined and complicated
minds, and there was nothing which, under their magical
manipulation, did not become refined and complicated. And
he must say that the Attorney General was a master of the
art of refinement and complication. (Laughter.) But the
matter was, after all, as clear as crystal. The tenure of
office in this country was mainly regulated by statute, and
it was principally regulated, so far as concerned the house,
by an Act of Queen Anne, passed, he believed, in 1708. At
that period there was a strong opinion that there were suffi-
cient placemen in the House of Commons, and it was re-
solved that the number should not be increased, and an Act
was passed which enacted that any one who accepted
any office in the service of the Crown bringing pecuniary
emolument created after the year 1705 should by the accep-
tance of that office become incapable of being elected a mem-
ber of that house, or of sitting and voting in it. Now, lee
could not place before the house more neatly the effect of
the Act of Anne than in this way. When the Act was
passed Queen Anne had three Secretaries of State and three
Under Secretaries of State. But the day after that Act
was passed, if the Queen had, in the exercise of her un-
doubted right, appointed a fourth Secretary of State, and
consequently a fourth Under Secretary of Sate, both those
offices would have been considered new offices—that is,
created subsequently to the year 1705—and the holders of
those offices would have been incapable of sitting in the
Reuse of Commons. A very considerable period, nearly 70
years, elapsed before there was any further legislation affect-
ing seats in the House of Commons, Very great events, and
very great disasters had occcurred. We had lost our Ame-
rican colonies, and the country was in a state of great dis-
tress and despondency. There arose, as was always the
case in England under such circumstances, a cry for admi-
nistrative and economical reform. Mr. Burke, one of the
greatest men who ever sat in that house, brought forward
in 1782 a bill for economical reform, and under that bill,
which passed into law, the Secretaryship of State for the
Colonies was abolished, together with all the offices depen-
dent upon it. The result was that only two Secretaries of
State and two Under Secretaries were permitted to sit in
the House of Commons. That state of affairs prevailed for a
period of 70 years; and though in that period new Secre-
taryships State—and consequently new Under-Secretary-
ships—were created, yet the holders of these new offices
were appointed solely by the prerogative of the King,
and not by statute, and none of them ever sat in the
Rouse of Commons. Ile ought, however, to have re •
minded the house that in Mr. Burke's Act of economi-
cal reform, when the Secretary of State for the Colonies
was abolished, it was expressly provided that, in case
any office for the same or a similar purpose should
be created, it should, to all intents and purposes, be what
was termed a new office—that is, an office subject to the
provision of the statute of Anne. Well, at the time of the

Crimean war, the noble lord who was then Prime Minister
recommended the house to appoint a new Secretary of State,
who should preside over the War Department. It was
necessary to bring in a bill for the purpose, which ultimately
became a statute. And the house would mark this.
Although there was not the slightest donbt, frot the lan-
guage of Mr Burke's Act, that Chry two Secretaries could
sit in the house, doubts had been raised whether the word .
ing of the ant was sufficiently precise to touch the Under
Secretaries. Now, in the act which had the sanction of the
noble lord, all doubt upon this point was set at rest, for there
was a recital that, whereas doubts had been rained ais to the
number of Under Secretaries that might sit in the House of
Commons, it was thereby decided that three Under Secre-
taries might sit in the house, and no more. (Hear, hear.)
The next step in our history was the Indian mutiny, the
expiration of the Company's charter, and the necessity of
bringing in a bill for the transference of their vast posses-
sions to the Crown. The then President of the Board of
Control brought in an act, and, in deference to the wishes
of the house, the office of President of the Board of
Control was converted into that of a Secretary of State for
India, with the power of appointing an tinder Secretary in
place of the two joint secretaries of the Board of Control.
By that four Secretaries of State became qualified to sit in
the house, and four Under Secretaries. He believed there
was no person in the house who would question the accuracy
of that position. The law depended upon a statute which
they themselves had devised and passed. He must now
call the attention of the house to the strange fact that
throughout this session of Parliament at least five Under
Secretaries of State had been sitting in the house. There
were the Under Secretary for the Colonies, the hon. member
for Louth; the Under Secretary for India, the hen, member
for Falmouth ; the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
the hon. member for Southwark; the Under-Secretary for
the Home Department, the late member for Merthyr; and
lastly the Under-Secretary for the War Department, the
hon. member for North Devonshire, or whom they sup-
posed was the member for North Devonshire. (Laughter.)
It was of the utmost importance that no person should sit
and vote in the house who was not qualified for exercising
those high duties. He did not think he could bring the
matter as regarded its importance more completely before
them than by showing how much might depend upon the
materials of which the House of Commons was composed
being of an authentic character. He had upon a former
occasion reminded the house of the important historical
events, and the equally important laws, which had passed
by slight majorities, and even by casting votes. Hon.
gentlemen considered in these days that historical illustra-
tion was of little value. He was not of that school, and did
not believe that a popular assembly could maintain its
authority unless it respected the example and experience of
its predecessors. What made the House of Commons so
influential in contradistinction to the popularity of other
countries but this—that, when any great difficulty and
complication arose, the country felt that they were not solv-
ing it merely by the present thought and existing intelli-
gence of that house ? He need not travel far to show the
house how important it was that they should be most strict
that no one should vote in that house who was not entitled
to do it. There was no question more important than a
question of a vote of want of confidence, when the two great
parties of the country meet with contending principles, and
challenge the decision of the House of Commons. That
issue was one of a most powerful character, as the tone
and temper of the policy of the country depend upon the
vote of the House of Commons. Within his own time
there happened a struggle of that kind—the struggle
which brought the late Sir R. Peel to the helm in 1841.
(Hear, hear.) Considering the character of that eminent
man, the measures he brought forward, and the influence
of his career upon parties and upon other events in that no
one can regard that as an ordinary political struggle, and
yet Sir R. Peel was made Prime Minister of this country
by one vote. Suppose there had been at that time one or
two Under Secretaries of State to vote on that question
moved by Sir R. Peel. Those Under Secretaries would
not have had confidence in Sir R. Peel; they would,have
had more confidence in themselves than Sir Robert, and
would have voted accordingly. But suppose, after that de-
cision, it was discovered that those two Under Secretaries
had no right to vote; it would therefore be seen how im-
portant it was that the house should be properly constituted.
He would take the present session as affording a most strik-
ing instance of the importance attaching to this matter.
The house remembered the division on the question of the
yeomanrp. (Hear.) The Government thought it expedient
to omit in the annual vote the sum proposed for calling out
the yeomanry. An hon. friend of his had challenged the
propriety of that decision and appealed to the house; but
the question was not of that limited character which in that
hurried discussion it had assumed. The question of the
yeomanry was of a very peculiar character. He was in
favour of a reduction, and he had seen with satisfaction the
reductions which the Government had made of late years,
without impairing the efficiency of the service. But the
question of the yeomanry was a different one. He could
conceive nothing more inexpedient than, at a time when
they were spending so much energy in stimulating the
volunteer institution—one of the most satisfactory events at
the present time—than at such.a time to deal a blow of dis-
couragement at the only considerable body of cavalry
the country possessed. By that division they lost a policy
which they thought sound, and which had since been
adopted by the Government by one vote. The motion
was connected with the °ate of Under Secretary for
War; and the Under Secretary, representing the policy
of the Government, spoke upon that occasion with all
the influence and authority of a person in office. .He
not only spoke but voted. (Hear, hear.) They were defeated
by one vote; and yet at the time the Under Secretary, who
had taken so decided a part, had no more right to speak and
sit in that house and vote than the stranger who at that
moment was passing over Westminster- bridge. (Laughter.)
He thought the house would agree that the subject was one
which should not be neglected. The noble lord seemed to
think it surprising that they had not sooner called atten-
tion to the point. He thought the house was somewhat in
fault upon the subject, and he was ready to take his share
of the blame; but if their sin had been a sin of omission,
the sin of the Government was not only one of omission but
of commission. It was to the noble lord more than to all
others they should look for regularity in these matters; but
it was, perhaps, the unlimited confidence in the noble lord
that everything he did was right that got the house into the
difficulty. The noble lord occupied the posit ion not only of
First Minister, but a position only second to it, that of leader
of the house, They had a right to expect from the noble
lord, who was the champion of their rights and trustee of
their honour, that his first duty would be to see that no one
should be mixed up in their deliberations who had no right
to be present. The noble lord was the individual, it any
one, to be visited with the displeasure of the house; and
he thought that the condact of tho noble ford required some
explanation rather than that the taunt should be thrown
upon any hon. member Oppewice. Ho would suggest a course
which the house should take in the present case. The
position in whir/. they found themselves was one which
concerned the house, and it was the duty of the house to
sot itself right without loss of time. They should do that
is a manner which could not be mistaken, in a way becom-
ing the dignity of the house, and also at once definite
and decisive, but which, as the expression of opinion was
concerned, did not in any way reflect upon any member
of that house. He had no wish himself to shrink from
the responsibility which every hon. member must have
incurred by that unprecedented state of affairs. But it was
necessary to take a constitutional course, and that having
found the critical position in which the house was placed,
they should put on record the opinion of the house in a
manner not to be mistaken; so that hereafter Under-Sec-
retaries of State should be appointed by future Ministers
without due examination and reflection, and that there
should be a complete record of what had legally been done,
and the remedy which the house had proposed to apply to
the circumstances of the case. It was with this feeling
that ho would propose the follow ing resolution :—" Notice
having been taken by a member of this house that more
than four Under-Secretaries of State have been sitting and
voting in this house some time during this present session,
Resolved—That the provisions of the 21 and 22 Vic., c, 106,
sec. 4, have been violated, and that the seat of the fifth
Under-Secretary of State has been, and is thereby vacated."
Viscount PALMERSTON—There aro some things
stated by the right hon. gentleman in which I entirely con-
cur, and there are some things which afford a very remark-
able comment upon the progress of constitutional principles
and government in this country; because he reminds us
that whereas in the early part of the last century there was
a jealousy in the House of Commons as to the sitting in it
of persons holding high offices in the State, now, on the
contrary, by the great increase of political power and the
progress of events in this house, there oecurs the opposite
feeling, and the desire that persons holding important offices
in the State should, within certain limits, have seats in this
house, and sit face to face, and be personally responsible
to the House of Commons. That is a very sig-
nificant commentary upon the great development of
the power of this house between the period referred to
and that in which we are now speaking. The right hon.
gentleman stated that there ought to be in this house the
full number of Secretaries of State which the law allows,
viz., four; end ho found fault with those who framed
the present Government for having put an undue pro-
portion of the great offices of the Government in the House
of Lords, and not a duo proportion in the House of Com-
mons. I think the right hon. gentleman was speaking
without having sufficiently attended to the circumstances
of the case. When the present Government was formed,
it consisted of fifteen Cabinet Ministers—of whom ten were
in this house, and five only in the other house of Parlia-
ment—and four Secretaries of State were included in that
number of ten. We all recollect there was the War De-
partment, Foreign-office, India, and the Home Department ;
all the heads of these departments were members of the
House of Commons. Then came the unfortunate illness of
Mr. Sidney Herbert, which affected the Secretary of State
for War. That unfortunate illness led to his rerhoval to
the House of Lords, in the hope, which unfortunately
proved vain, that by going to an assembly where less at-
tendance was required that aflicting disease which had
weighed upon him might be removed by medical skill.
Lord Herbert, as he then became, fell a victim to that
disease. When that occurred we took the opportunity of
bringing back the War Department in the person of Sir
George Lewis. Then my noble friend, Lord Russell, was
removed to the House of Lords, that dignity of peerage