§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETSir, in moving that you do now leave the chair, I wish, if the House will permit me, to advert for one moment to certain circumstances which occurred on Thursday evening last on the Navy Estimates. I am sure the House do not desire that anything should go forth to the country to the effect that any Government, or any Member of any Government, should have endeavoured to do that which would be most improper, namely, smuggle a Vote through this House. As this is rather a personal ques- 1912 tion, which has reference to myself and others, I thought the House would perhaps permit me to state shortly what took place on Thursday evening. On that occasion it was my duty, when Mr. Massey took the chair, to place Vote No. 8, for the Wages of the Artificers in our Dockyards, in his hands. My hon. Friend and Colleague, the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had promised that he would take that opportunity of making a statement—and I think a very interesting statement it would have been—to the Committee, having particular reference to the artificers in our dockyards. I had likewise, on a previous occasion, stated that such was the intention of my hon. Friend. When I placed the Vote in Mr. Massey's hands, my hon. Friend got up to make his statement; but he failed, unfortunately, to catch Mr. Massey's eye. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me to conclude, I think they will see that their laughter has been rather out of place. My hon. Friend got up to make a statement, according to promise. He will best be able to explain the course he took, and what occurred as regards himself; but I wish to refer to what took place as far as I was a party to it. The Vote was put and passed; and I confess, very naturally, the surprise of the Committee was loudly expressed by several hon. Gentlemen, that, whereas the Government had promised that a statement should be made, in point of fact the Vote had been passed without any statement at all, and no opportunity had been given to the Committee to express any opinion upon the Vote or any objection to it. This was perfectly natural on the part of the Committee, and I was not surprised at it. Several hon. Gentlemen spoke on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) insinuated that there had been, what I may call, foul play. He felt perfectly certain, he said, that my hon. Friend and Colleague did desire to address the Committee; but he hinted that some one had pulled him down. I could not help thinking at the time, that if anyone were to venture to attempt to pull my hon. Friend and Colleague down, he would run great risk of being pulled up for it. The hon. Member for Sunderland was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. My hon. Friend said, he thought an insult—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe noble Lord is not entitled to repeat the words spoken in the debate on Thursday night.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETMy object is to satisfy the House, if you will permit me, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to deceive the Committee of Supply.
§ MR. SPEAKERThese are matters of personal explanation; and it is exceedingly inconvenient to refer at such length to a previous debate.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETIf I am not allowed to quote what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham said, I shall not be able to state that which is very honourable to him—namely, that having expressed himself in terms which he felt afterwards he would desire to retract, he, very handsomely, acknowledged his mistake. Perhaps, however, the rules of the House will allow me to read a letter I wrote to my hon. Friend, and, likewise, his letter to me in reply. My hon. Friend said in his place that there had been a trick practised by some one, and an insult passed upon the House; and I agree with him that the affair bore that aspect. When he sat down, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up, and assured the Committee that there was no intention on the part of the Government to deceive—that it was a miscarriage—an accident. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham then said in answer that he acquitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but there was another Member of the Government whom he did not acquit, and who, he hoped, would be sorry for what he had done. I then rose in defence of my hon. Colleague the Member for Halifax, not believing that I was supposed to be implicated myself, and I said I was perfectly aware his intention was to address the Committee. So the debate ended. What was my astonishment when hon. Gentlemen informed me in private that I was the culprit—that it was I who had attempted to pull my hon. Colleague down, and so prevented him making his statement! I thought it was due to myself that I should set the matter straight, and accordingly I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham a letter which I hope the House will permit me to read, and likewise the letter he wrote to me in reply. I wrote the following letter:—
My dear Bright,—From any one but an eminent man I should treat such insinuations as were uttered by you last evening with silence, but, coming from you, I cannot allow the matter to drop. I shall, therefore, on Monday evening, in the debate on Navy Estimates, feel it to be my duty to give, unless you withdraw the insinuation 1914 that I was a party to a 'trick,' a full explanation, and shall leave it to the opinion of the House whether your most unworthy suspicions were in any way justifiable.My hon. Friend wrote to me the following answer:—Dear Lord Clarence Paget—I am sorry you are annoyed at what happened on Thursday night. I have spoken to Mr. Stansfeld and to Mr. Massey, and I come to the conclusion that the whole affair was a blunder of a mixed kind, and I think if you or Mr. Stansfeld had at the time explained the exact circumstances of the case, the little unpleasantness would not have occurred. I shall be quite willing to say this in the House on Monday evening.I have only to add that I was no party to any trick, and that I regret what occurred as much as any Member of this House.