§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I beg to ask the indulgence of the House for a moment, while I make a personal explanation. Yesterday the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) adverted to a word used by me which at the moment could not be exactly specified, but which, he proceeded to say, went beyond the due licence of debate. I was not precisely aware at the time what the word actually used by me was; but I have since endeavoured to refresh my memory by reference to the usual 1197 reports of our debates. I find that I stated with reference to a particular letter relating to the Federal Execution that it had been "falsely" quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. My memory does not serve me as to the fact whether this word was used by me or not: as it is, however, ascribed to me, I am bound to suppose it was. I certainly consider that such words have a tendency to do that which is extremely objectionable—namely, to enlarge the due freedom of speech which we already abundantly possess, I think the expression was a very improper one, and I sincerely regret that I have used it.
GENERAL PEELI wish to give the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary the opportunity of correcting a great inaccuracy into which he fell in his quotation from my speech, and which he gave on the authority of his own notes. I do not object to the first part of it—namely, "if such a thing occurred in common life the greatest coward in the world would rush forward to protect the weak against the strong, without even asking the cause of the quarrel." But the hon. Member then omitted four distinct sentences, and then quoted as follows:—"I see no reason why the Foreign Minister should not be guided in the affairs of his office by exactly the same principles." But what did say was this, "I was anxious to maintain the honour and peace of the country," and I added, "I see no reason why the Foreign Minister of this country should not be guided in the affairs of his office by exactly the same principles as those which would guide his conduct in private life."
§ MR. LAYARDIt is quite true that I did omit four sentences, but I certainly did not wish to misrepresent the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The fact, how ever, is that these four sentences compared the breed of men with the breed of horses, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he did not see any difference between the two. ["Oh, oh!"] I did not leave out these sentences from any desire to misquote the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I admit that they were left out. The House will now, perhaps, allow me to say a few words by way of personal explanation as to the date of the delivery of certain papers about which there was some difference of opinion yesterday. I have informed myself from the printers, the officers of the House, and the Foreign Office, and I find that I was strictly accurate. The papers containing the despatch asking 1198 the French Government whether they were inclined to co-operate with us—and it is upon that despatch the whole question turns—it is to be found in Correspondence No. 4—were laid upon the table on the 1st of March, and were distributed on the 3rd of that month; and, therefore, my only inaccuracy was that I said it was on the 2nd. The other papers, which came down to the 25th of March, were laid upon the table before the House separated for the Easter recess. I laid them "in dummy" on the table, because I wished that Members should have them as soon as possible. They formed No. 5, and they were in the hands of Members on the 5th of April,