HC Deb 25 March 1859 vol 153 cc814-5
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Sir, I rise to move that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next; and I do so for the purpose of making a statement, or rather correcting a misstatement, which was made by an hon. Gentleman last night, and which was personal to myself. The hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Osborne), alluding to some remarks addressed by myself to my constituents, used these words: — How does the hon. Gentleman get out of his hustings pledges at Belfast? I remember well that at his election he told his constituents there were two questions to be considered, one of expediency and one of principle. This very ques- tion of reform he described as one of expediency, and if every man had a conscience"—[The word I used was crotchet] "if every man had a conscience no Government could go on. Then, turning to the subject of the exclusion of the Jews, that, he said, was a question of principle, which ought never to be abandoned. But he has abandoned it. Now, Sir, if this concerned myself only, I should not have noticed it; but I hold that an imputation upon the honour of a Member of this House is indirectly an imputation upon the honour of the House itself, for the honour of the House is the aggregate of the honour of its Members. What took place on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers was this. Addressing myself to my constituents for the first time after my accession to office under the Crown, I told them with regard to my future course that I considered that there was an essential distinction between questions of detail or expediency, and questions of principle. I gave illustrations of what appeared to me instances of both kinds, and as to the former I said, as the hon. Gentleman correctly represented, that I thought it was the duty of any person who accepted an office under a Government to merge his opinions in those of that Government: but as to questions of principle, I said, it was otherwise, and as to these I thought individual opinions should not be surrendered. I gave many instances of this, and amongst others I mentioned the admission of the Jews into Parliament: and of course I represented that my opinion was, as is well known, adverse to that measure. The hon. Gentleman says that I have abandoned my objection to that step. Now, I do not make any complaint whatever of the hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that he had been informed that it was so, and that when he made the statement he believed that it was true; but it is nevertheless entirely without foundation. The question of the admission of Jews into Parliament came before this House in three separate forms last year, which was the only Session that has occurred since my address to my constituents. It came before the House in the form of what was called the Jews Bill, of the Oaths Bill, and of a question that Baron Rothschild, then a Member of the House, who had not taken his seat, should be put upon the Banking Committee. Upon all those occasions divisions took place. Upon one I expressed my opinion, upon all I voted, and I voted as I always had done since I had had the honour of a seat in this House.