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 fall 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 Mundell, dated Lemberg,
March 16, 1864, and to a similar order published by General
Meckl, 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 MR. LOWE.
Mr. LOWE, who spoke from the fourth bench on the
Ministerial side of the house, explained that inconsequence
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 •
office .resign the of
Vice-President of the Council on. Education, The right
hon. 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. 1862, when he forbade it,

and without his knowledge, by a clerk in the office, whose
business it was merely to read the reports, and call the
attention of the Secretary to such passages as he might
think worthy of his notice. All that he had ever done with
&e reports when they were not framed in ao3oldanee with
the minute of January, 1861, was to return them to the
writers, and leave them to discover for th3mselves 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
hot. 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 PALMERSTONremarked 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 extensive
range of his knowledge, the logical accuracy of his mind,
and his soundness of judgment, was eminently qualified to
do gaod 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 lys 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 COMMONS.

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, prod•eee results of a character so seri-
ous that it was difficult adequately to describe them. The
condition of embarra.esment 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 had. 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 himself 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 ?resident 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
exteut, 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 stale
of affairs which had been deemed politically injurious 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 even to make a statement, much
less an inference, on a subject so professional and techni-
cal ; and he might perhaps 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, he
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 State, 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
House 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 °occurred, 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 Hatt 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 of 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 eat in the
House of Commons. He 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 crewed, it should, to all intents and purposes, be what
was termed a new office—that is, an office subject to the
prevision of the statute of Anne. Well, at the time of the