THE GREENWICH SEAT.
[TO TER EDITOR OF THS "SPECTATOR:1
thank you for giving me the credit which I claim of • being a sincere Liberal, and I feel honoured by the labour which :you have bestowed on confuting me. Writing anonymously, I have no vanity to gratify through victory, and I hope you will 'regard this attempt to re-establish my main position and reinforce my argument as a proof of respect, whatever my respect may be -worth. Anyhow, this letter, if you are good enough to insert it, will, as far as I am concerned, close the controversy.
The Act of Parliament of 1858, which you describe raore fully -than I did, makes this clear, that the Speaker cannot issue a new writ for Greenwich till he has received a notice from Mr. 'Gladstone. It is further clear, I feel persuaded, that till the :Speaker has received this notice, he has no locus standi for declaring
or acting on a doubt of his own. THE CLERGY AND THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
The public, I think, have not been informed, that Mr. Gladstone [TO THE EDITOR OF THS "SPECTATOR:1 has given notice to the Speaker, and that the writ is not issued SIR,—You have spoken more than once in no gentle terms of the because the Speaker doubts. It is in this belief, and in my own indifference which the Clergy have shown as regards the Agricul- ignorance of Mr. Gladstone's having given notice, that I venture tural Labourers' agitation.
to suggest that if Mr. Gladstone would authorise an official pare- I confess that my mind is not made up as to the course which I graph in the newspapers stating that he has given notice ; or allow should feel disposed, to take if I possessed that influence as a lay- it to ooze out in the friendly columns of the Daily Telegraph, man which I have as a clergyman ; but as it is, I am positive that I which informed the world of his having taken an addition of could take no step more fatal to my success as a minister of the salary ; or would address to you a letter, as he did not long since, Gospel than that of openly espousing the cause of the labourers in order to repel your imputation, which many might have thought against the farmers.
Homer, the effects would be excellent in putting an end to agita- tion of the public mind, disquiet and perplexity at Greenwich, and such discredit as is accruing and may accrue to him and his Government from the belief that it is he, and not the Speaker, that suspends the issue of the Greenwich writ.
You admit that I was right in saying that if the question comes before the House of Commons when it meets, it will be not the Speaker, but a Committee that will decide ; you admit that the Speaker has not the function which you had asserted, and which I have contradicted, of decision in the last resort.
I cannot view the words " office or offices " in the Representation of the People Act (30 and 31 Viet., c. 102) as you do. The Schedule (H) of Offices contains one which is a duality of offices ; it is the very case in question, Chancellor and Under-Treasures of Her Majesty's Exchequer. These are two distinct offices, conferred separately, and in different ways ; they have been fre- quently held separately. It is evident, to my mind, that the words " office or offices " have reference to this. It would not have been in this way that the accumulation of offices, two, three, cr more (and if there is sanction for two, it would extend to any number), catalogued in the Schedule, would have been sanctioned. The words would have been (I italicise what would have been added), " The subsequent acceptance by him from the Crown of any other office or offices described in such Schedule, in lieu of and in imme- diate succession or not in lieu of, but in addition the one or more to the other or others, shall not vacate his seat." Mr. Gladstone has now taken two offices, entered in the Schedule together, in addition, and in profitable addition, to the one which he held before. How, under any circumstances, the words " in lieu of and in im- mediate succession " can actually imply, or in spirit comprehend addition, remains to me, I say with all respect to you, utterly inexplicable.
I have not supposed for one moment that you impute to me any of the petty animosity which you have spoken of as extensively influencing the Press in this matter. I confess myself to be a Liberal, earnestly supporting Mr. Gladstone's policy as one of progress, while recognising the distinction which Sir Spencer Robinson lately, not to his personal advantage, endeavoured to establish between the general policy of the Premier and individual
acts of administration.—I am, Sir, &c., LEX.
[We understand our correspondent now to withdraw, silently, his main assertion, in which we understood the sting as well as the sarcasm of his letter to lie,—" It rests entirely with Mr. Glad- stone, altd mente repostson, to decide whether there shall be a new election or not for Greenwich before Parliament assembles." We have shown that Mr. Gladstone has not that power, and we cannot consider it the assumption of a very loyal Liberal, though it is, we believe, the assumption of a true Liberal, to take for granted that Mr. Gladstone has not done what we agree with " Lex" in thinking Mr. Gladstone was required by the Act of Parliament to do. It is very unlikely indeed that Lord Selborne, who is probably Mr. Gladstone's adviser on such a point, would counsel him to keep in his own hands a responsibility clearly delegated to the Speaker. And we cannot admit that it is a Prime Minister's business to defend himself in the public prints against the assumption that he has neglected to discharge a private political duty. For the rest, our correspondent's interpretation of the Act of 1867 may, or may not, be more correct than our own. Of course we think it is not. But we were at least safe, we think, in asserting that it is quite clearly a case of so much doubt, that a prudent Speaker would certainly reserve it for the decision of Parliament.—It is a matter of no importance, but we never asserted that the Speaker had " the function of decision in the last resort." What we said was that his was the only authoritative interpretation, " unless the House over-rules his decision." That was not quite accurate, but much less inaccurate than what "Lex" attributes to us.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
