HC Deb 31 March 1882 vol 268 cc491-2
MR. LEWIS

said, he had to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while he referred to a statement made with reference to him on the previous evening by the Premier, and which he was perfectly astonished to read in The Times that morning. The Prime Minister said— We have to deal, for instance, with an amplitude of speaking. I am myself charged as an offender in that respect, and the other day I was taken to task for the length of my speeches by the hon. Member for Derry. I am not at all prepared to deny that there is ground for the complaint which the hon. Member made. A great deal of responsibility attaches to one who holds high office, or is the Leader of a Party; but look at the condition at which we have arrived. The hon. Member for Derry reproved me for amplitude in perfect good faith, though he is not the Leader of a Party, nor the holder of a responsible office, and yet the speech in which he reproved me for amplitude was very nearly two hours long. Now, he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was wholly and entirely mistaken with reference to the person whom he supposed to have made those remarks. Neither in the House nor elsewhere had he ever charged the right hon. Gentleman with "amplitude of speech"—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—and the only speech of any length that he had himself delivered this Session was on the occasion of the Motion censuring the House of Lords, when he had spoken, not for two hours, but for one hour and 10 minutes. He had looked at the report of this speech, and he found there was no trace whatever of the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman had made. He had only further to say that in this speech there was only one reference to the Prime Minister. He spoke of the right hon. Gentleman's speech as reminding him of one of those fitful Atlantic storms, through which he had frequently passed—it was very fierce, very grand, very short, and left no trace behind it. He was, in fact, a most intense admirer of the oratory of the right hon. Gentleman. He should, therefore, be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would either give him some reference to correct what must be his very bad memory, or would withdraw what he had said.

MR. GLADSTONE

I had no knowledge that the hon. Member was going to raise this question, or I would certainly have referred to the reports, in order that I might have been able to verify the accuracy of, or to withdraw, what I said. The House will bear in mind that in referring to the criticism of the hon. Gentleman, as I supposed it to have been given, I fully and frankly acknowledged its justice; but I observed that the criticism was delivered in a speech which I believed approached two hours in length. In the first place, then, I will give the hon. Gentleman my recollection, which, I think, is pretty accurate. He did say the speech was very short; but he added the very significant words, "for him"—a very concise and very effective criticism, of which I make no complaint whatever. In respect to the speech of the hon. Member, I really spoke according to what I believed to be the case, and I had paid some attention to the clock in the course of the speech. If I have over-stated the case against the hon. Member, I am sincerely sorry for it.