§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBYbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade a question which he must be allowed to preface by reading a portion of a speech reported to have been delivered on Tuesday last by Mr. G. F. Young. The following was the statement to which he referred:—
I now come to the position in which the measure is placed at the present instant. Uncalled for as the measure must be considered, and although it is not only unsupported by, but is in direct opposition to, public opinion, Her Majesty's Government did not hesitate to take the most extraordinary means for the purpose of pressing it through the Legislature; and in confirmation of this statement, I can state a fact to the meeting which will, I think, surprise them not a little. The Provost of Montrose, who had come to London with a deputation to oppose the progress of the Government measure, waited on his representative, Mr. Joseph Hume, and urged on him the palpable inconsistency of his supporting a Bill such as that, which was diametrically opposed to the principles of free trade, of which he had always been a strenuous supporter. Now, what do you think was the reply of Mr. Hume? This occurrence, I may observe, took place yesterday week, the day on which the House of Commons divided on the third reading of the Bill. Mr. Hume said, 'You need not be alarmed. I was with Mr. Labouchere for an hour on Saturday last, and I told him that I, with several of my friends who entertained conscientious scruples upon this question, could not support the third reading of the Bill, as being inconsistent in its provisions with the principles which we have always 1260 held; and the reply I received from Mr. Labouchere was, Do not be alarmed. If you and your friends support the third reading, the Government will next Session bring in a Bill to repeal those very clauses to which you object.'The question he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, whether there was any truth in this statement?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREtrusted, it was unnecessary for him to assure his hon. Friend and the House that the story, so far as it concerned himself, was utterly without foundation. The House would not be surprised at a misapprehension on the subject, when he said that this account of a private conversation between the hon. Member for Montrose and himself, was said to have been repeated by him to the Provost of Montrose, who repeated the same to Mr. George Frederick Young, who in turn repeated it to the meeting. No doubt the truth had somewhat suffered in the transit. He (Mr. Labouchere) had never said anything to the hon. Member for Montrose which could by possibility have been construed into anything like the version given by Mr. George Frederick Young. Mr. Hume was unfortunately unwell, and unable to attend the House; but he had received a note from him, stating that the story was altogether incorrect. The only ground he could imagine for the report was thus: He had had many conversations with Mr. Hume and other Members concerning this Bill, and had been urged by them to take the opportunity of settling the light-dues and other questions; and he had stated his opinion in reply, that this would be a most improper occasion to arrange matters of such magnitude, but at the same time agreeing that, if this measure passed, it would become the duty of Government and Parliament in a succeeding Session to apply themselves to those questions. That, perhaps, might be the foundation for the statement, the accuracy of which he denied altogether.
§ Subject at an end.