HC Deb 29 April 1867 vol 186 cc1706-9
MR. DILLWYN

said, he had placed a Motion on the Paper of his intention to put a question to the hon. Member for Nottingham, as to certain Papers which he read to the House on the 12th April, purporting to be the Copy of a Memorandum made by the Member for Swansea; and to ask that Gentleman by what means he obtained such Papers. He would beg to ask leave of the House to make a personal explanation with reference to this subject. He had that morning received a note from the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne), and, as he had found that in dealing with matters in which the hon. Gentleman was concerned it would be better not to trust to memory, he would read the communication he had received from the hon. Gentleman in answer to a private notice he had given him of his intention to bring this matter forward on that occasion. The note was dated "April 28, 1867," from "New-market, near Cambridge," and was to this effect— Sir,—In case you still wish to address to me the question that stands in the Notice Paper in your name for to-morrow, I beg to inform you that it will not suit my arrangements to be in London before Thursday next. I have the honour to be, your most obedient servant, R. OSBORNE. He should make no comment in the absence of the hon. Gentleman upon the occurrence of the other evening, further than to remark upon the want of courtesy shown by the hon. Gentleman in not giving him notice of his intention to bring the memorandum of which he (Mr. Dillwyn) was the author before the House. Owing to the abrupt manner in which the hon. Gentleman had thought fit to bring the matter forward, he (Mr. Dillwyn) had been taken very much by surprise and had felt himself in a very awkward position in having to explain at a minute's notice, and in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel Taylor), transactions in which he and that hon. and gallant Member were concerned. The question he had put upon the Paper was intended to elicit from the hon. Member for Nottingham the means by which he had become possessed of the paper he had read to the House on the 12th of April, which purported to be a copy of the memorandum he (Mr. Dillwyn) had made of the conversation he had had with the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin. The original memorandum made by him was not strictly of either a public or a private character, as it was well known in the lobby that such a memorandum had been drawn up. The right hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), in a letter of the 15th of April, explaining how the paper came into the possession of the hon. Member for Nottingham, said— It struck me that this statement was of the greatest importance as affecting the question before the House, and I accordingly asked Mr. Stanley if he would give me the terms of the memorandum. He thereupon dictated the memorandum, which was afterwards read, and assured me that it was strictly correct. This, therefore, gave the required explanation as to the means by which the hon. Member for Nottingham had obtained the paper he read to the House. The statement it contained that the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin had said that the Earl of Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) upon the Reform Bill was incorrect, inasmuch as the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin did not allude to the opinions of the noble Earl in any way. That document did not refer to the question at issue before the House in any way, but related exclusively to the propriety of adjourning the debate until after the recess, so as to allow time for the consideration of Mr. Hibbert's Amendment by the Cabinet, that consideration being for the time prevented by the illness of Lord Derby. That was the whole purport of the memorandum, and in justice to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the county of Dublin, he (Mr. Dillwyn) felt bound to explain most explicitly that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hint in any manner whatever that Lord Derby was favourable to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). The memorandum was one merely affecting the adjournment; it was no secret, and he showed it freely to several hon. Members. He thought, however, that in order to prevent such misunderstandings and the necessity for such explanation in future, it would be better if hon. Gentlemen of the experience of the right hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand) and the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Owen Stanley), when they next made a memorandum from recollection, would act a little more cautiously and with a better sense of fair play, and show the memorandum to the hon. Member concerned. They ought, in his opinion, to have shown him the memorandum, and to have ascertained that it was substantially correct. In this case, however, he had nothing further to say than that the memorandum brought forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) was incorrect, both in form and in substance.

MR. OWEN STANLEY

said, he was very sorry to be obliged again to address the House upon this subject; but, after the statement made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he felt that it was incumbent on him to say one or two words. As to giving the hon. Member for Swansea notice, it was not the hon. Member for Swansea who had asked him to read the document; it was another hon. Member—the hon. Member for Lincoln. He was not on terms of private intimacy with the hon. Member for Swansea, and he did not regard the document as in any way a private one. He mentioned it to the right hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand) because he had had communications with the right hon. Member with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). When he found that the document was being shown to hon. Members at eleven o'clock at night—for that was an important fact—he mentioned it to the right hon. Member for Lewes. The hon. Member for Swansea had said that it was drawn up at five o'clock, previous to the Motion for the Adjournment being made by the noble Lord the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor). It was, however, eleven o'clock when the document was being shown to hon. Members, certainly with a view to induce those Members favourable to the Amendment to support the Government. It was, of course, difficult, after the perusal of a document, to remember the exact words. The right hon. Member for Lewes, wishing to speak to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), asked him (Mr. Owen Stanley) for the substance. He accordingly dictated the memorandum read by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne), which he still believed to be substantially correct. ["Oh!"] That, at all events, was his impression, and was the impression which remained on the minds of other hon. Members who had seen the document. He hoped that he had now convinced the House that he had only acted in this matter in the way that any other hon. Member in his position would have acted. The document was not a private one. It would have influenced the votes of hon. Members on an important question, and might have probably influenced his own. The only inaccuracy might, perhaps, have been the statement professing to be made on the authority of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel Taylor) that Lord Derby was personally in favour of the Amendment. He (Mr. Owen Stanley), however, certainly thought that the document was so worded, and after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea the House could easily believe that it was a little involved. At any rate the matter could be easily cleared up. If the hon. Member would only produce the document, it would speak for itself.