PERSONAL EXPLANATION. (Hansard, 12 April 1875)

§ SIR LAWERNCE PALK
Mr. Speaker, I feel great pain, Sir, in having to bring under the notice of the House a matter which I am sorry to say is of a personal character, and there can be nothing more distasteful to me than to trouble the House with any matter of a personal description. I have therefore to ask most respectfully for the indulgence of the House in bringing the matter before them. On Thursday last I felt it my duty to put a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), of which I not only gave him private Notice, but also the usual Notice in accordance with the Rules of the House. The question was to this effect—I asked 725 him whether he had appeared before the Lord Chancellor in a legal proceeding relating to the Paraguayan Loan. The hon. and learned Gentleman answered— On the 15th of December, 1874, I had to appear as counsel in an interlocutory motion before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice James, sitting as the Appellate Court in Chancery. I believe the main object of the suit was to enable certain persons to recover a certain sum of money from other persons for work and labour done in relation to the Paraguayan Loan; and the interlocutory proceeding' in which I appeared was for the purpose of determining whether certain witnesses should be examined in private or should be examined in public; that was the only manner in which I was concerned—the only proceeding in which I had to take any share or part. With the main purpose of the suit I had nothing to do. At the time, I had no intention of moving for a Select Committee on Foreign Loans. Before the sitting of Parliament, and when I determined to bring the question forward, I caused the retainer I had received in that suit to be returned, and I have taken no part nor share, directly or indirectly, as advocate or counsel, in that suit or any other connected with it. Well, Sir, that language conveyed to this House and to me the impression that that was the only suit in which the hon. and learned Gentleman was engaged; but it so happens that before I put that Question to him, I received evidence which to my mind was conclusive, that he had been engaged in another suit or action in which he received a fee of £132. On Thursday, therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman made this statement, I was very much inclined to get up and state what I am now stating to the House; but I felt that his declaration was so explicit, that either I must have made some mistake in the Question I had placed on the Paper, or that my information must have been incorrect. I therefore consulted with some friends, and finding that the evidence I relied on was such as would justify me in placing another Question on the Journals of the House I did so, and gave the usual Notice, both public and private. It so however happened—and I must apoligize to the House for the circumstance— that I was unable to attend in my place upon Friday last, and consequently I telegraphed to my noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Claud Hamilton), requesting him either to put the Question as I had given Notice of it; or, if it were possible, to postpone it 726 until to-day, that I might be in my place to put it myself. Under those circumstances, on Saturday as I returned to London, I was very much surprised to read the Answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said— I have to thank the noble Lord for having acceded to my request [that the Question should be put at once], and I am quite sure that the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire is attributable only to unavoidable circumstances. I must, however, repeat I do regret that he should have thought it necessary, after the answer I gave him last night, to communicate the Question to the public Press in the form in which it there appears. As I was out of London, and as I had no communication with any member of the Press, I at once wrote a letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and as I was uncertain where he might be found on Saturday, I myself took the letter to his club. In that letter I said— Dear Sir Henry,—I regret that I was prevented from being in the House of Commons on Friday last. On my return to London I read a report in The Times of your answer to the Question put for me by Lord Claud Hamilton, in which you you are stated to have said—' I do regret that he (alluding, I suppose, to myself) should have thought it necessary, after the answer I gave him last night, to communicate the Question to the public Press in the form in which it there appears.' Should this report be correct, I beg to request you will do me the favour to give me the name of your informant, also the authority on which you made the above assertion. I have also to inform you that, so far as the rules of the House will permit, I intend on Monday next to give that statement my unqualified contradiction, also equally to repudiate all intention of insinuating that which I do not declare, as I gather you stated to the House. I must now revert to the first Question. [Sir HENRY JAMES: Will you read my reply?] Most certainly; I had intended to do so, and here it is— Brooks's Club, April 11, 1875. Dear Sir Lawrence,—I trust it is not necessary for me to disclaim any intention of discourtesy to you personally, I do not remember the exact words I used in the House of Commons on Friday last; but I did intend to convey a complaint that the Questions proposed by you to be submitted to me should, in the form in which they appeared, have been communicated to the Press. Permit me to remind you that in The Times of Friday morning an announcement appeared of your intention to put certain Questions to me. Those Questions never appeared on the Notice Paper of the House, and, therefore, could not have been copied from it. As you were the Member giving the Notice which did appear. I certainly assumed the publication was with your sanction. If any one without your authority communicated to the newspapers Questions you never intended to put to me, I am sure you will 727 so inform the House; and if this he so, pray accept the expression of my regret that I should have assumed that the Member who framed and gave Notice of certain Questions was answerable for the announcement which some one made to several newspapers. Claiming from you that in making your statement to the House, you will read this correspondence, I am, &c., HENRY JAMES. Well, Sir, I am not aware what I have done that the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I have endeavoured, so far as my knowledge permits, to treat in this matter with every courtesy, should have made this charge against me. I can only say I think it is very hard that one in his high position and of his great Parliamentary reputation should have so attacked me. Still, I am bound to accept the apology he has made. There is, however, one portion of the letter to which I wish to allude, and it is that in which he speaks of "Questions you never intended to put to me." I beg leave to say that the Question which was put on the Notice Paper of the House, or as I sent it to the Clerk of the House, was as I arranged it should have been put. I must refer to the original Answer to my Question, in which the hon. and learned Gentleman says, as I understand, that he was only engaged in one suit. I may be wrong—I do not make any charge against him; but I am informed he was engaged in the one suit in which he says he was engaged, where he returned his brief, and that he was also engaged in another suit, in which he received a fee of £132, and in connection with which he was engaged in an application to the Court of Chancery for the examination of certain witnesses which was refused him. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that the object of my Question has been to cast some reflection upon his public and private character. I beg leave to say nothing was further from my intention, and nothing is further from my intention at the present moment. I have watched the hon. and learned Gentleman's career with great admiration, and certainly I am not a likely man to attack him in the way he was good enough to attack me in the concluding part of his speech on Friday night. He said— I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire if he does intend to suggest upon these two Questions, that my object in bringing forward that Motion had been influenced by any other considerations than that of what was duo to the public, he should give 728 me the opportunity of giving a refutation to any facts within his knowledge, and not content himself by insinuating that which he does not declare. I beg leave to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am not in the habit of insinuating charges, and that I would never condescend to so mean an artifice as has been implied; if I had a charge to make, it should be made after due Notice had been given, and when he had full opportunity to refute it. But while disclaiming any intention or any desire to cast any imputation on the hon. and learned Gentleman, I have still a great regard for the honour of this House. I have had a seat in this House for more than 20 years and I look with great veneration upon the pureness of its Committees and upon the justice of their decisions, and in asking these Questions I had no other intention, no other thought, than that of ascertaining, as I believed I was justified in ascertaining, whether the Rules of this House had been infringed or not. For myself, I have only to say that, although I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly justified in moving for a Committee in a matter in which he has taken so much interest, yet it is not fair to try individuals in the House of Commons and in the Courts of Law at the same time. It only remains for me to thank the House for the kind consideration with which it has listened to my explanation, and to move that this House do now adjourn.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
I am sure that the House will accept my statement how sincerely I regret that the public time should be occupied in any way by a matter which appears to affect me personally; but I hope it will feel that it is not my fault that its time has been thus taken up. In relation to what I understand is the first complaint of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire—that I assumed he communicated to the public Press a Question which had never appeared on the Notice Paper of this House—hon. Members will recollect that on Friday morning there appeared in The Times and other newspapers a notice of several specific Questions which, I repeat, had never appeared on the Notice Paper of this House. As the hon. Baronet's name was attached to those Questions when they appeared in the public Press, and as his name afterwards appeared to some Questions, 729 I may say, similar, which were printed on the Notice Paper, I did assume that he was answerable for that communication. If he did not send that Notice to the public papers, who did? I have written to him what I repeat now—that if the assumption I made was inaccurate, it was such a natural one that I am sure he would forgive me for having drawn that conclusion. I say no more on that point; but I must now, after the course the hon. Baronet has taken, ask from the House a few minutes' consideration while I meet that which, notwithstanding what he says, does appear in some respects to cast an imputation upon me. It is true that on Thursday evening last the hon. Baronet asked me a specific Question, whether I appeared as counsel in December, 1874, and again in January, 1875, before the Lord Chancellor in a legal proceeding relating to the Paraguayan Loan. I answered that I did appear in an interlocutory proceeding, which I then explained, in a cause which without doubt had a connection with that Loan, and I certainly did not intend, when I said that I took no other part in that suit, to convey that I had no connection with any other suit. With reference to the cause to which the hon. Baronet referred on Friday I did not appear in Court—it was settled several days before it should have come on for trial. I wish to add a few words more on the general proposition which the hon. Baronet puts forth. He tells the House that his only object is to maintain its honour, and to secure that its usages should be followed. I accept that statement, but does he know for what cause and reasons these Questions have been suggested to him? I think the House will suppose, because I had been connected with matters relating to the Paraguayan Loan, that therefore the persons connected with those loans had objections to this investigation. As far as I can learn, no objection proceeds from any person connected with the Paraguayan Loan, and if such objection should be made, I am sure that the Committee will do what is right in the matter. It so happens, however, that we are now investigating matters connected with the Honduras Loan. Let me remark that the hon. Baronet's second Question contained a specific quotation from a certain bill of costs, in which the name of Mr. Waring was introduced. 730 Now that Gentleman, who was formerly a Member of this House, having been alluded to, he has written to me this morning the following letter as a defendant in that suit, and also a contractor of that loan— Dear Sir,—I can scarcely express to you the regret with which I have seen an extract from a "bill of costs delivered to my firm as quoted in Saturday's newspapers. I fear it might he thought that I was endeavouring to stay you from continuing to inquire into matters in relation to which I and my firm have nothing to conceal. I wish, therefore, to state to you the manner in which the extracts which have appeared were obtained without any communication from me, and without my cognizance or that of my firm. Sir Philip Rose obtained from one member of the firm who act as my solicitors, the loan of the plaintiff's hill of costs, which was in their possession. Equally without my sanction or knowledge, or that of my firm or my solicitors, Sir Philip Rose gave the same to 'a member of Mr. Bischoiffsheim's family,' through whose hands it must have passed to Sir Lawrence Palk. Sir, as my conduct is somewhat severely criticized of late, I beg to explain that the words "a member of Mr. Bischoiffsheim's family" do not occur in the letter. The name of that member of the family is given; but I prefer employing the general words. I will, however, hand the letter to the hon. Baronet, and he will see my reason for not mentioning it.

§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK
As far as I am concerned, I would much rather that the whole of the letter should be read.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
I will take upon myself the responsibility of not reading the whole of the letter, which, however, may be placed in the hands of the hon. Baronet. It proceeds— If it is not out of place, I should wish to add that the matter involved in the action to which that bill referred, and in which you were engaged as counsel against me, does not appear to involve the question of the system of issuing foreign loans brought by you before the House of Commons. Pray make any use you like of this letter. Yours faithfully, CHARLES WARING. Sir Henry James, Q.C., M.P. With regard to the part I have taken in the matter, I gave a full explanation that I had ceased to have any connection, directly or indirectly, with any suit relating to these foreign loans. What, however, has been, and what is now the suggestion of the hon. Baronet? If he means that my object is to promote pri 731 vate ends, rather than what I consider is due to the public, I would ask what object I could have in severing myself from professional duties, in giving my attention to the consideration of these loans, involving day after day attendance upon the Committee, and affording assistance, as far as I can, to Members of it? How could that be beneficial to me in any other sense? May I also add one fact with regard to these foreign loans? From the commencement of this investigation it was arranged between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams) that he should take charge of the inquiry relating to Paraguay, and that I should take no part or share whatever in that branch of the subject, and he knows how far I have interfered with his discretion. There is one matter only which I wish to correct. I stated to the House that I had determined to bring this subject before the House without consultation with any one. In that respect I made one slight error. There is one Friend I did consult, and that is the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) and it was after long consideration with him that we jointly determined to bring forward the Motion for a Committee. I take credit for nothing that I have done, but I shall not be deterred by Questions such as these from performing what I deem to be my duty.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must apologize to the House for having allowed the discussion to proceed as it has done, but as it is a personal matter I have abstained from interference. I now wish to point out that, the Motion for Adjournment not having been seconded, there is no Question before the House.

§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELL
As my name has been introduced into this discussion I wish to say a few words, and in order to be able to do so, I beg to move the adjournment of the House. I desire, in justice to the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, to state that some months ago he did consult me with regard to moving for an investigation into certain frauds of which he was aware I had some acquaintance. Such knowledge as I had of these loans was simply—

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that it is irregular to discuss a matter which is now 732 the subject of inquiry before a Select Committee.

§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELL
I was not aware that I was discussing matters which are before the Select Committee, and I have no desire to do so; but, as some doubt has been expressed as to when and how the hon. and learned Member for Taunton first thought of moving for a Select Committee, I merely wish to say that he did communicate with me some months ago. I will only further add that as far as regards the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk), who seems to have some apprehension that the dignity of the House may suffer from the course of action taken by the hon. and learned Member, I can only hope that for the sake of the dignity of the House of Commons there will long be found men within its walls who have enough of courage and capacity to come forward and frankly expose any malpractices which they may believe to exist.