§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in replying to a Question which the Attorney General put to me, that at the meeting of the House to-day I would ask the leave of the House to make a personal explanation with respect to a Question which I put to the Attorney General yesterday; but after I had made that remark, the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs came to the Table and made a very unqualified and uncompromising statement with respect to the Question I had put. Under these circumstances, I would be the last person in this House to suggest that even a shadow of doubt could possibly remain after the statement of the hon Baronet, and therefore I would not think of pursuing the matter further. But perhaps the House will allow me to remark that the Attorney General, in replying to me, permitted himself to suggest that I had pursued a course of conduct which, in his opinion, was not a proper one. [Sir WILLIAM 1033 HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] It appears to be a foregone conclusion in the mind of the Home Secretary. It is a remarkable proof of his judicial mind. I do not wish to be drawn into any controversy with the right hon. Gentleman; but it is a matter of some importance to myself to point out that I put a Question after having received information which, if correct, was of undoubted gravity. On that information I put a Question to the Government, and I venture to say that course was perfectly Parliamentary. The Attorney General said I made charges against individuals; but I made no charges at all. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, in my view, I did not make charges. I asked for information; and I have never heard it laid down before that if an hon. Member upon certain facts or information asks a Question of the Government, he is to be accused of making charges against individuals. The Attorney General stated the course I ought to have pursued was to have conferred with his Colleagues before putting the Question. I venture to say that would not have been a Parliamentary course at all. Whenever it happens to be my good or bad fortune to be in conflict with a political opponent, it is on the floor of this House that the explanation shall take place, and it shall not be by conferences in the Lobby and whisperings in the Corridor, which invariably lead to misunderstandings, and which will inevitably produce a whole crop of insidious and slanderous rumours. That is the course which the Attorney General suggested. It is not the Parliamentary course. It is a course which may suggest itself to a legal mind, but which is not usually adopted by Members in this House. I merely wished to make these remarks in order to defend myself, and to say that in putting the Question I did to the Government across the floor of the House I was pursuing a perfectly Parliamentary and proper course, and one which I shall invariably pursue again in spite of any strictures of the Attorney General.