§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he intends to adhere to his Statement, that no verbal communication was made by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell of the substance of the Despatch addressed by Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams on the 11th day of July, or whether he desires to withdraw it? It had been whispered that a noble Lord, whose statement the hon. Gentleman was bound to respect, had given an account of the proceedings diametrically opposite to his own.
§ MR. LAYARDI think, Sir, I might appeal to the House whether this Question is not entirely opposed to Parliamentary usage, and whether I might not decline to reply to it. My respect for the House, however, leads me to answer the noble Lord. I stated most distinctly the other evening that that Despatch had not been communicated to Earl Russell, and that no written or verbal communication in the sense of that Despatch had been made to the noble Lord. I trust that now at least the noble Lord opposite will be satisfied.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILThe hon. Gentleman's words are still indefinite enough to make me desire to address to him another question, and that is, Whether any verbal communication intimating the nature of that Despatch has been made to the noble Lord?
§ MR. LAYARDI believe, Sir, that a Member of this House answers as a gentleman and a man of honour, and not as a special pleader.