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

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

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 Maik this.
Although there was not the slightebt doUbt, from the lan-
guage of Mr Burke'is Alit, that only two Secretaries could
sit in the horse, doubts had been raised whether the word •
ing of the act 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 raised as 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 13ectetary of St ate for
India, with the power of appointing an Under 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 quailed 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 se
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
So 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 office 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. (Hoar, hear.) They were defeated
by one vote; and yet at the time the Under Secretary, who
had taken b 0 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 hone() 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 position 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 conduct of the noble lord required some
explanation rather than that the taunt should be thrown
upon any hon. member opposite. He would suggest a course
which the house should take in the present case. The
position in which they found themselves was 'one which
concerned the house, and it was the duty of the house to
set itself right without loss of time. They should do that
in 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 he would propose the following 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 are 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 occurs 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; and he 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, toed not a due 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 removal 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 afflicting 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 Muse of Lords, that dignity of peerage

being conferred as a reward for long and eminent services,
and also from the circumstance that his health,eme, affected
by his labours in the Heise of Commons. Under these cir.
cuthste.nces we had still three Secretaries of State in this
house. 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, daring
his life, been anxious to carry into effect, and had so sue-
cessfnlly for a time cnrried 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
fill—the office of the First Lord of the Treasury, which
office was filled by Lord Derby in the House of Peers.
Therefore, I contend, if you compare the original constitu
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-
ral, 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 W 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,
altheugh 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. lam
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 tha

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 sttting in the House of Commons ; and it 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 useless. It was true the act in-
troduced by Mr. Burke in 1782 for economical reform abo •
lished the office of Secretary 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 met 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 1555, ithen the office of Secretary of State for War was
established, and the Eta 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 togetha in that
house, and the voting of five Under Secretaries of ..:4tte
that constituted the corpus delicti, and not the existence
of five Under Secretaries who were 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-exist with an inability to join in the voting of the
House. He also referred to Mr. O'Connell'e case, and to the
case of Mr. Alderman Salomous, 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 tne oaths, that was perfectly conhistent with tn,":
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. 111PALPOLE doubted if a bill of indemnity was the
best 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. AYRTON, the motion
of Mr. Disraeli, as amended by Sir G. Grey, was agreed
to nem. con.
The 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 bo continued.
The motion was opposed by Sir G. Grey, and ultimately
withdrawn.
Tho house then went into committee, and on Clause 4,
Mr. 11. 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 he 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 time.
And the Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853)
Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed.
The remain 'rag business wcs also disposed of, and the
house adjourned at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] - nolloway's Pills...—. Enfeebled
Existenco.—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 irritate the most sensitive nerves or
most tender bowels. Holloway's pills are the best thorough
purificis of the blood, and the best promoters of absorption
and secretion which remove all poisonous and obnoxious
particles from both solids and fluids.