§ LORD ELCHO—Sir, I wish, with the permission of the House, to say a few words by way of explanation of a statement which I made in reference to certain expressions that fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General at the close of his speech on the Bill for 1154 the Amendment of the Representation of the People. It may be in the recollection of the House that in the remarks which I made on Monday last I ventured to defend my hon. and learned Friend from the censure directed against him by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I did so under the belief that nothing had fallen from him in the course of his speech which could in any way affect the private character or the personal honour of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and that what be said did not exceed the limits of legitimate discussion and fair Parliamentary warfare, which are ordinarily observed in this House. I must add that I would never open my lips in defence of any man who would say anything which could in any way reflect upon the private character and the personal honour of the noble Lord, which I look upon as precious to every Member of this House. But I regret to find that an impression prevails in the minds of some of the Friends of the noble Lord that the language employed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was injurious to his private character and personal honour; and, indeed, a private friend and late colleague of the noble Lord said to me, that he hoped before I defended a person another time I would take care clearly to understand what he meant. I find that in the opinion of some friends of the noble Lord the words used by the Solicitor General at the close of his speech, namely, "private advantage," would bear a construction injurious to the noble Lord's private character and personal honour. Now, I would rather cut out my tongue than say anything in defence of any man who would attempt to imply what those words are supposed by some persons to imply. But I have much too high an opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General to suppose that he meant to imply anything of the sort.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYhere rose to order. He considered that the noble Lord was exceeding the limits of a personal explanation.
§ MR. SPEAKER—The noble Lord must confine himself to an explanation of what he himself may have said on any point on which he appears to have been misunderstood by the House.
§ LORD ELCHO—What I was going to say was, that so far from that impression having been left on my mind, I have too high an opinion of my hon. and learned 1155 Friend to suppose him capable of any such sentiment as that which is attributed to him; and I am therefore anxious in justification ["Order!"]. I am only anxious that an opportunity should be afforded him ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKER—That is entirely beyound the limit to which the noble Lord's explanation can properly extend.
§ LORD ELCHO—In justification—["Order!"].
§ MR. SPEAKER—That is beyond the point of a personal explanation of what fell from the noble Lord.
§ LORD ELCHO—In my own justification, then, I beg leave to state that in defending the hon. and learned Gentleman I did not imagine that anything he said could affect the private character or personal honour of the noble Lord.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALI hope, Sir, although I admit the course is not regular, that after what my noble Friend has said, the House will indulge me so far as to allow me to say a few sentences for myself. When words have been used in debate which have occasioned, or which may occasion, misunderstanding, the person from whom they have fallen cannot feel otherwise than graceful for the opportunity of removing that misunderstanding. Now, in the observations which I took the liberty of making to the House on the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Member for London to the Motion for the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill, I had occasion to comment on the objects which, as it seemed to me, that Amendment, as distinguished from the usual manner of proceeding upon such an occasion, was meant to secure. I thought then, and I still hold the opinion, that not only was that view of the subject legitimate, but that it was one which it was absolutely necessary to consider; and in considering it I used the words to which my noble Friend has referred—"political aggrandisement," I think, and "private advantage." I hope the House will allow me to state distinctly the sense in which I used those words. By the words "political aggrandisement" I desired to imply that political importance which attaches to, or which is supposed to attach to, any public man who, upon a great question of public policy, leads a successful assault against the Ministry of the day. In using the words "private advantage" I was referring—I had referred, in point of fact, at some length—to the division—the admitted division—into 1156 sections of the party sitting on the opposite side of the House, and to the somewhat peculiar position in which of late the noble Lord has been placed with reference to that party, and I desired to indicate the individual and distinctive advantage which the noble Lord would obtain if he could contrive to raise any question upon which all the sections opposite might unite, however temporary or superficial the cohesion might be. From those words used in that sense I do not desire in any way to withdraw. But I will willingly add this—that if the noble Lord, or any Friend of the noble Lord's, has supposed that the words were used in any different sense, and, above all, if it has been thought that the words "private advantage" were used by me as suggesting any motives approaching a sordid description, or any motives of a private as distinguished from a party and political character, I can only say that such an intention was as foreign to my mind as it would have been unbecoming, and that no Friend of the noble Lord could be more pained at supposing that the words were so used than I should be at finding that they were so understood.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL—As this rather irregular conversation has arisen, and I am the party principally concerned, I hope I may be permitted to make a brief statement to the House. I have asked for no explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman of the words which he used. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hardy) said that the meaning of the words was, that I wished to replace myself at the head of the Liberal party; and my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had used the words in the difficulty which the most practised speaker may experience in concluding a sentence at the close of a long address. Now, I was willing to accept either of those explanations. In either of those two senses I could find nothing in the words to which I could take exception. But I felt likewise that the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he did use those words in the most offensive manner, was injuring himself rather than me; and, therefore, I thought that I had no occasion to ask for an explanation. But after what the hon. and learned Gentleman has now said, I must say that I am perfectly satisfied with the statement which he has made, and that I have always admired the abilities of 1157 the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that I trust that the talents which he has displayed, both at the bar and in Parliament, may lead him to that eminence which they justly deserve.