HC Deb 16 June 1882 vol 270 cc1423-5
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I wish to ask the leave of the House to make a short personal explanation with reference to a Notice which I quoted yesterday, and which was publicly given last Friday by the hon. Member for Greenwich. The hon. Member for Greenwich yesterday said that the words of his Notice on Friday last were—"Also, in view of the recent cession of Assab Bay to Italy"—not "by Her Majesty's Government." I have refreshed my memory of the Notice as he gave it publicly before the objectionable words were struck out by the Clerk at the Table as being argumentative. They spoke of "the further danger caused," in respect of the security of the Suez Canal, "by the recent cession, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, of Assab Bay to Italy." It was on these words that I severely commented at the time.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

I am anticipated, to some extent, by the action taken by the hon. Member for Chelsea; but I think, Sir, the explanation which the hon. Member has given fully shows how correct I was in the statement which I made yesterday, and how utterly incorrect were the words which he attributed to me. I should have thought that with the experience which the hon. Member has had, or ought to have had, of foreign affairs, he would have recognized the vast difference between the words "by Her Majesty's Government" and the words "with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I objected to the whole statement of a cession. There has been no cession of any kind, either with or without the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

That is a question which does not arise. The hon. Member said yesterday that in my Question occurred the words, "the cession of Assab Bay to Italy by Her Majesty's Government." I ventured then to get up and deny that. The hon. Gentleman did not accept my denial, but repeated his statement, and added these words—"I will place the Question as originally printed before the hon. Member." In order to satisfy myself on a point as to which I was more or less certain—that I could not have put into a Question such an absurdity as the cession of a part of one country to another by a third country to which it did not belong—I went to the Record Office of the House, and there I found the manuscript of my original Question. It stands as follows:— With respect to the recent cession of Assah Bay, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government. And bore, again, I must ask permission of the House to make a remark. The hon. Member said that these words had been struck out by the Clerk at the Table. I hold in my hand the original manuscript of my Question, and these words are not struck out.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

There is no difference of opinion on the mere point of fact. The words did not appear in the Notice as printed in the Questions on the Paper next morning; and they wore not put in the Question which was really asked.

BARON HENEY DE WORMS

I quite accept that explanation; but I should be glad to know how the hon. Member knows that the words he read had been struck out?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I have already informed the hon. Member that I was present at the time when he gave his Notice; and I have refreshed my memory this morning by referring to no less than four newspapers, in which it appears at full length; and perhaps I may be allowed to add that one of the greatest difficulties in answering Questions on foreign affairs is that Notices which are given here publicly, with a certain set of words, appear in the newspapers with that set of words; but words which are argumentative being struck out by the Clerk at the Table, Questions have to be answered in an altogether different form.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

On that point I may be allowed to say that this Question was given publicly, and, moreover, it was read over by me to the Clerk at the Table, and no objection was taken by him to the words. I therefore reasonably assumed that those words would be inserted in the Question. But when the hon. Gentleman stated so positively that those words had been expunged at the Table, he led the House to the impression that when I gave my Question to the Clerk the words were expunged, and that I was aware of it. Moreover, he said that he regretted that they had been expunged, as otherwise they would have met with an indignant reply from the Prime Minister. I can, of course, accept that indignation by proxy from the hon. Gentleman; but, at the same time, I do not think it affects the question at all. I think it is very much to be regretted that an hon. Gentleman in the responsible position of the hon. Member for Chelsea should have attributed openly in this House to another Member words for which there is not the slightest foundation.