HC Deb 23 February 1863 vol 169 cc633-40
LORD CLARENCE PAGET

—I have to apologize to the House for alluding to a matter personal to myself, and I will do so in a very few words. I have likewise to apologize for having spoken with regard to this affair on Friday night, when the noble Lord to whom I am about to allude was absent. I was informed on Friday last by several hon. Gentlemen whom I met in the street that a very personal attack had been made upon my public character by the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdon (Lord R. Montagu). I went home and read the paragraph in the paper, which certainly appeared to me to require some answer. There was not only an attack on the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Kent (Viscount Sydney), but an attack upon me in my public capacity as Secretary to the Admiralty. I thought it my duty, at the request of the Lord Lieutenant, to come down to the House on Friday, at four o'clock. Unfortunately, the noble Lord was not in his place; but I thought it my duty to contradict the statement of that paragraph with reference to the appointment of Mr. Budden to a captaincy of Volunteers, and I will therefore say nothing more about it now. But, on the same occasion, I am given to understand that the noble Lord expressed to the House that I had, holding an official public appointment, attended political meetings at Chatham with a veiw to induce the electors of Chatham to vote for a brother-in-law of mine, Mr. Otway. I was informed by several Gentlemen that that was the tone and tenor of the noble Lord's observations. If the noble Lord has been misunderstood, I shall be extremely glad to hear it. I was also informed that on an occasion when I went to Chatham the noble Lord had stated as a fact that I had taken a special train to go down to Chatham, apparently hinting that I had charged that special train to the Government account. Now, I wish to state in a very few words what did take place. In the month, I think, of November last, I was invited by the High Constable of Chatham to meet a large party of naval and military officers at dinner, amongst whom was my gallant Friend the Member for Chatham. I took a return ticket and went down to Chatham and attended the dinner, and a very good dinner it was. It fell to my lot, being the senior naval officer present, to have to return thanks for the navy. And I did return thanks for the navy. I expatiated on the agreeable nature of the company; that there were no politics, happily, to be introduced at the meeting; and I likewise congratulated them upon the fact that some day or other Chatham would be the finest arsenal in the world. Now, that was the whole of the speech. My gallant Friend the Member for Chatham returned thanks on that occasion for the army, and did me the honour to pay me a higher compliment than I deserved. The evening wore on, and that part of the company who had to return to London were about to leave to take the latest train, when the worthy and munificent High Constable informed us that a special train had been placed at our disposal; and we gratefully availed ourselves of the offer. I went down with Sir Henry Drummond Wolff and Mr. Otway, and returned with them to London. No politics were introduced, and that was the only occasion of my visiting Chatham. Now, I appeal to the House whether, under the circumstances, I deserve to be under the censure which the noble Lord has been pleased to throw upon me.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

The noble Lord has defended himself, or attempted to defend himself, certainly without rancour, that which, if he will permit me to say so, he committed with a great deal of rashness. I think, however, that on this occasion he has left unanswered many points to which I alluded, and by doing so has admitted their correctness. I had expected and hoped that he would have endeavoured to clear himself from the suspicion of unconstitutional conduct, yet he appeared entirely to let the case rest upon what I did or did not assert about Lord Sydney, and what I might have said, or might not have said, concerning himself. It appears to me, that that is not at all the question. The question for the House is, whether the noble Lord did or did not act in a legal and constitutional manner? What does it matter to the country, whose business we are here to transact, whether I said certain things of him or of the Lord Lieutenant of the county? The country will not care one farthing what was said by a Member who has not been three years in the House, who never held any office, and whose individual opinion is of no account either in the country or in the House. The question about which the country will care, and to which, therefore, he ought to have directed his attention is, whether as a Member of this House, he did or did not act in a legal and constitutional manner? I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham whether what I said was or was not correct; and I further ask him to support me now if I am right, and to correct me if I am wrong. But the noble Lord trotted very lightly over the main assertions of my speech, like a man walking barefooted over sharp flints, as if he did not care to bear upon them, for fear of committing himself one way or the other. First, with regard to Lord Sydney, what I said was this—and I carefully guarded myself—that application had been made to him by Mr. Budden, (who became afterwards High Constable of Chatham), for a captaincy of Volunteers, and that Lord Sydney had refused the application on the ground that Mr. Budden was a canteen-keeper. I see by the reports in the papers, that I was understood to use the word "costermonger;" and as the reporters are remarkably accurate, I suppose I did so; but then all I can say is, that it was a lapsus linguœ. However, that did not apply to Lord Sydney. He refused the captaincy; the dinner was given to the noble Lord opposite, and after that Mr. Budden received the captaincy. I merely stated the facts. I drew no inference. I never, for one moment, said that those facts were connected together. These are the words: —"The Lord Lieutenant, he was informed, refused, observing that the person in question was a mere costermonger."

MR. SPEAKER

The noble Lord is not in order in reading extracts from a report of a debate in this House. I am very sorry to interfere in a matter which appears to be of the nature of a personal explanation; but the explanation of a single point which the noble Lord may think due to himself, does not afford him the opportunity of entering into a general statement.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

Then I will put myself in order by ending with a Motion. The noble Lord may attack me in the House, that I do not care about; but what I do care about, and what the noble Lord does not appear to care about, is whether he has acted legally and constitutionally, or not? That is the point on which I want the House to judge between us. The noble Lord seems to feel that there is some secret link of association which will connect those two facts together in the mind of every person. Unless he thought there was a connection between the dinner at Chatham and the Lord Lieutenant giving Mr. Budden the office that he desired, why should he have come down to the House and, as it were, raised this tempest in a tumbler? But it is clear that he was conscious that there was some influence used. I do not say the noble Lord himself applied to the Lord Lieutenant—but I say that the Lord Lieutenant was naturally anxious to oblige his brother-in-law. I never said that Mr. Budden was not a respectable individual. I am quite aware that he is so; but he had this disadvantage in the noble Lord's eyes: he was a most strenuous supporter of the Conservative Member for Chatham; and when any one sees those civilities done to another party, he naturally supposes that the object is to detach the individual from the side he had served so long. The noble Lord says I asserted that he went on several occasions to Chatham on political matters. I did not understand that he took his inspiration from a newspaper. I saw only two newspapers, in neither of which I was reported to have used the words which he puts into my mouth. He has been misinformed. I merely said he went down to the dinner. What I said with regard to the special train was that the noble Lord did return by a special train, and that I wondered how it was paid for. I did not assert that it had been charged to the Government account. Although I did ask whether, after all these uncalled for civilities to Conservative electors, it had been taken out of the Civil Contingencies; but this I said by way of joke, without any intention of imputing to the noble Lord any dishonourable conduct. The noble Lord has passed over the most important part of the charge I made against him—that he went to Chatham and promised the electors that Chatham should become "the greatest naval arsenal in the world." [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: No!] I hold the report of his speech in my hand. The statement is not, as the noble Lord alleged, that "some day or other" such would be the case:— it was a positive promise, that "Chatham should become one of the most important naval stations in the world;" that "Chatham was about to possess one of the most important naval arsenals;" that "the basin accommodation at Chatham would be made to surpass all that was to be found in Cherbourg, or in any of the ports of France." Was he not then making a promise to Chatham that it was to have the greatest arsenal in the world, and basin accommodation that should surpass that at Cherbourg? Was not that promising that the House should expend millions of money at Chatham? Would our forefathers have allowed even a King or Queen to promise a large expenditure of public money on any dockyard? Would the House sanction such lavish promises and vows to be made in their name? Would they permit the little engrossers of delegated power to do that which our fore- fathers would not have suffered in the prerogatives of Royal authority? Of course, the noble Lord was received with cheers at Chatham; and of course warmly welcomed when he made such a promise of the expenditure of public money to their town. He said our navy was never in a better condition for entering into war with the French. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) is not here, or he would, I have no doubt, have taken up the cudgels on that point. What right has the noble Lord to go down to Chatham and make irritating remarks concerning the French nation? It may be said that this was only a little indiscretion; but if so, it is only another instance of what we heard so much of last year, and which was known as Ministerial mud-larking. This House has always been most jealous that a Minister should not use his patronage to turn the votes of electors; and yet I appeal to the House whether those words of the noble Lord were not calculated to buy over the electors of Chatham to his side? It may be said that an election was not imminent; but I ask whether every hon. Member of this House did not then entertain the expectation of a general election at an early period of the present Session? And it was then that the noble Lord went down to Chatham and made those promises to the electors. I will not detain the House further, but this I say, that the noble Lord has not defended himself on the only point upon which he was open to attack—namely, that he acted unconstitutionally and illegally; and I think it is the duty of some of the noble Lord's Colleagues to defend him, if he can be defended, on that point. I move the adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

SIR FREDERIC SMITH

said, that having been referred to by both the noble Lords, he wished to say a few words. With respect to the appointment of Mr. Budden to a captaincy of Volunteers, he desired to state his belief that Mr. Budden was one of the most charitable and respectable men in the county of Kent. He contributed a large sum towards the Volunteer movement, and entered the 9th company of the East Kent Volunteers as a private— the corps, in fact, owed its existence to him; and he became so popular in the corps that they recommended him to the Lord Lieutenant for a captaincy. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty was in error on one point. He said that Mr. Budden occupied a more important position when appointed to the captaincy than when the application to appoint him was refused. This was the reverse of the fact. Mr. Budden had twice before served the office of High Constable of Chatham. It was when he first served the office that his name was brought before Lord Sydney, who then refused to make him a captain of Volunteers. He did not know why Lord Sydney refused, but he certainly thought that he was wrong in that refusal. Mr. Budden was elected High Constable of Chatham for the third time, and it was on his going out of office that he gave the usual dinner to the court-leet, at which the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty was present. It was a week or a fortnight after he had gone out of office that Mr. Budden was appointed to the captaincy of a Volunteer company. It was for people to draw their own inferences as to the motive. With regard to the dinner, it was the practice of the High Constables to give one on going out of office. When he (Sir F. Smith) happened to be of the High Contable's way of thinking in politics, he was invited to be present; when otherwise, he was not invited. A few hours before the dinner he was told he was to have the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. He was astonished at the announcement. He was happy to meet that noble Lord anywhere—except, perhaps, at Chatham, and in the company of his (Sir F. Smith's) late, and probably his future, opponent for the representation of the Borough. He dared to say, if the invitation came again the noble Lord would not accept it, for there was not one person at the dinner who did not believe that his presence was a political move. On the late occasion the noble Lord, he was quite sure, accepted the invitation sent to him in his usual off-hand good-natured way, and without thinking much of the consequences. And what were those consequences? The consequences were these:—There was hardly a man in that meeting, who was an elector of Chatham, who did not believe that the presence of the noble Lord arose out of political motives. The noble Lord had his brother-in-law by his side, who was likely to be a future candidate for the suffrages of the constituency, and as Secretary of the Admiralty, the noble Lord held the patronage of the dockyard. Under the circumstances the inference was inevitable. The noble Lord came in company with his brother-in-law (Mr. OtWay), and they all knew that the Secretary to the Admiralty had the patronage of the dockyards. However, the noble Lord's presence at such a meeting was not of much importance; for the constituency of Chatham was so pure that it would resist all entreaties, even when coming in the honeyed language of the noble Lord. [Laughter.] He would prove that the constituency were pure. He had sat three times for Chatham, and his brother once. They had carried on terrific contests three times against the Government and once with the Government, and he could not lay his hand on the name of a single man who had changed from one side to the other in consequence of the influence of the Government. If that did not bespeak the purity of electors, he did not know what did: they were all to a man true to their colours. When, therefore, it was proposed to deprive the electors of Chatham of their franchise, as was once contemplated by the Government of the day, he thought that a great injustice would have been done to them by such a measure. He thought the House might forget the noble Lord's escapade—for himself, he confessed he wished the noble Lord had not attended the dinner, for he could not help thinking that in that case the noble Lord's brother-in-law would come into the field at the next election with a much better grace. He thanked the House for listening to these remarks. He trusted that the Secretary to the Admiralty would forget the matter, as he should, but he hoped the noble Lord would not go to Chatham again.

Question put, and negatived.