§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question about a matter of which I have been unable to give him private Notice, because it only appeared in the newspapers this morning; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the matter is one of the greatest public importance, and one which, if it took place at all, ought to be a matter of Parliamentary record. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to a report of a speech which he made at the Foreign Office yesterday, and particularly whether one passage was accurate or not? The passage was reported in the following words:—
We have been so anxious that some solemnity should be given to these pledges, that at the last moment we made an offer the night be 832 fore last to the Tory Party in the House of Lords. It was an offer that both Parties should be invited, on the responsibility of the Government, to pass an identical Resolution in which it would be set forth that each House had passed the Franchise Bill on the pledge of the Government to introduce a Redistribution Bill next Session, and to make the passing of that Redistribution Bill the great object of their efforts. The Resolution so passed should be presented by a Joint Address to the Crown, so that there should be the concurrence of the three Bodies which make the Law, and the Resolution would have the moral authority and make certain the devotion of next Session to the passing of a Redistribution Bill. That was rejected because, as the Loader of the Tory Party in the House of Lords says, he cannot discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck.I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether that is a correct report of what he said, and whether he will state the exact language and form in which the proposal to which he alluded was made, from whom it originally came, by whom the offer was made, to whom it was delivered, the exact time at which the proposal was made, and the nature of the reply received? I should like, also, to ask the Prime Minister whether the statement of the Loader of the Opposition in the House of Lords that he would not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck rested on mere verbal report, or on any documentary evidence? I might apologize for asking the Question without Notice; but the matter is of such importance that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will feel it should be placed before the House in such a manner that, if possible, a discussion may arise upon it.
MR. GLADSTONEI find no fault with the noble Lord for putting the Question without Notice. I rather regret that he wishes to have a very full statement of a matter at which I have only partially glanced, and on which it would be difficult for me to reply with absolute certainty in all particulars without having an opportunity of referring to documents and, perhaps, communicating with Earl Granville. But I will do the best I can, and if any further particulars are desired from me I hope they will be obtained at the earliest opportunity. I entered upon a series of statements to show that we had been anxious to conciliate or avert opposition, and that we had made an effort, even at the latest moment, for that purpose. The report 833 of the description of that effort read by the noble Lord is, I believe, verbally accurate. I think it is word for word, as nearly as may be, what was said by me. I have one observation to make on the last two or three lines of the passage—that is, the lines in which I am made to say that the offer was rejected because Lord Salisbury would not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck. I do not think these words can be verbally accurate, because I have not the slightest reason to believe that Lord Salisbury had used those words in replying to the offer made, or, indeed, that I used them, because I understood them to be the words used by Lord Salisbury at some time in developing his view of the argument. I thought the phrase an extremely appropriate, concise, and effective mode of conveying very intelligibly his objection. But I had no intention of ascribing to Lord Salisbury the use of the words on a particular occasion. What I meant was that the answer was an answer, in my view, equivalent to the answer expressive of the sentiment which has lain at the bottom of the proceedings of the Opposition, I think in both Houses, with regard to redistribution. The full statement of the case is this. The noble Lord asks by whom the communication was made to the Opposition.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLFrom whom it came first of all.
MR. GLADSTONEThe Government are responsible, and I myself personally am fully responsible, for this offer. It was made by Lord Granville to, I believe, Lord Cairns. Of course, in communicating with Lord Cairns, he conceived himself to be communicating, and no doubt he was communicating, with the Leaders of the Opposition in the House of Lords. There was no limitation or restraint. It was not a confidential communication. It was intended to be the basis of public proceedings. The noble Lord asks me when the communication was made. I believe it was made just before a quarter-past 4 on Tuesday, which is, I believe, the time now fixed for commencing Business in the House of Lords. The answer was received, as far as I can recollect, between three and four hours after, and the form of the answer was this—that the offer was not of value, as it did not add anything to the assurances already given. I am now speaking 834 from memory, and I think I am accurate as to the substance; but I cannot be certain as to the exact words.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLWas it in writing?
MR. GLADSTONEIt was in writing—a short, written memorandum. It said that the offer did not add anything to the assurances already given. There was no offer—there was nothing, at least, that could be interpreted by me as an offer—in reply; but there were words which I recollect, and which I will quote to the House, and leave the House to set its own value upon. The words were that the case would be different if one of two things were agreed to.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLWhose words?
MR. GLADSTONEThese words were written words brought in writing by Lord Granville to me, coming, I presume, from Lord Cairns, and believed by us to express the view of the Leaders of the Opposition in the House of Lords. One of the two things was that the Government should agree to insert in the Franchise Bill a clause providing that it should take effect at a date to be named in an Act to be passed hereafter. That was the first, and, as I supposed, the material suggestion. I hope I am not misstating anything; but I am speaking from memory. There was also a second suggestion—that the Franchise Bill might be passed with a clause providing that it might take effect on the 1st of January, 1886, unless some Act was passed previously providing for an earlier date. That second suggestion I understood to be—I attach no consequence whatever to the words "unless some Act were passed in the interval"—a revival for every practical purpose of the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) in this House, and which had been opposed in principle by us, and likewise refused on the other side of the House. These were the two suggestions that were put forward, and the words were that the case would be different—the meaning of which I do not know—if these things were done. I am not sure whether I have now answered all that the noble Lord has asked me; but, as far as my memory goes, I give this as a complete account of the transaction. What I stated yesterday 835 was to show that we had made every effort we could. But I wish to correct what I think is an inaccuracy in the report. I refer to the statement with respect to Lord Salisbury having said that he would not discuss the question of redistribution with a rope round his neck. I meant that to be my description of what I understood to be another expression of Lord Salisbury's opinion; and I by no means referred to any language used by Lord Salisbury on that occasion. I am asked whether I was correct in saying "the 1st of January, 1886." I think I was; but the House will well understand that under those words what would accrue on the 1st of January, 1886, would be a right to be registered, and the right to vote would become living and effective only on the 1st of January, 1887.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish to state on behalf of Lord Salisbury that he never made use of the expression in regard to a rope round his neck, or anything of the sort; and I think we are entitled to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to how he came to use words of that sort, with the obvious effect of producing a prejudice against Lord Salisbury. Lord Salisbury has made, I believe, already in the House of Lords a statement of the facts of the case. I am authorized on his behalf to say that the communication made to him was made to him as a private and confidential communication. It was made to him some time after the debate on the second night of the discussion had opened, and after it had proceeded through two or three speeches—about dinnertime. That communication was made to him by Lord Cairns, and was, as he understood, a perfectly private and confidential communication, not intended to be brought forward publicly, otherwise he would have referred to it when he made his speech subsequently. But the communication, being one of a private and confidential character, was made through Lord Cairns and through Lord Granville at a private conversation; and the conversation, as I understand, was somewhat to this effect:—Lord Granville, having asked what kind of terms would be acceptable to the Opposition, was answered, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that terms equivalent to those of the Motion of my right hon. and 836 gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley), and rejected in this House, would be acceptable; that these were, of course, put aside, as might have been expected, by Lord Granville; and that this other suggestion in regard to an Address on behalf of both Houses was made as an alternative suggestion. That appeared to Lord Salisbury to be a suggestion that "was entirely beside the question; and he had no opportunity of bringing any proposal of this sort before his Party, or of making any proposals before the debate was actually in progress and the time had come when it was necessary that some action should be taken by the House of Lords. I complain of the manner in which Lord Salisbury's words and action have been entirely misrepresented. I do not wish to say that the words of the right hon. Gentleman were intended to create a prejudice against Lord Salisbury; but that they have done so, and have done so most unjustly, is most certain.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEMisrepresentation.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman does not mend the matter by that rather rude expression. A phrase of that kind spoken across the Table is not usual between persons in his position and mine. I have never known it done before, and I hope it will not be repeated. I am very much at a loss, indeed, to understand the wrong that was done to Lord Salisbury in treating him as I did. I believed he had expressed his objection to the proposals of the Government with regard to redistribution by saying that he could not discuss it with a rope round his neck. The right hon. Baronet treats that as a wrong done to Lord Salisbury, and he founds it upon a charge of misrepresentation. What is there in that phrase of which any man need be ashamed? It is a most pointed phrase, as Lord Salisbury's phrases generally are. I do not say I should quite have expected the phrase from the right hon. Baronet; but coming from a gentleman who has the faculty of pungent expression I should not have been surprised. It was once said from this box that Lord Salisbury was a man who dealt largely in gibes and flouts 837 and jeers, and some other expressions. I should say, therefore, that, so far from the expression being a misrepresentation, it was a singularly happy and expressive phrase for the purpose of expressing a particular view, and well adapted to the purpose, and having nothing in it of which any man ought to be ashamed. That is my view of it. But if the noble Lord never used such a phrase, or, at any rate, thinks such a phrase ought not to be imputed to him, and conveyed something discreditable, I am extremely sorry. I think the phrase one of the most innocent, as well as one of the most expressive, I ever heard; and I should be very happy myself to have been the inventor of such a phrase for such a purpose if I had that object in my view. But if I am mistaken in the fact, and Lord Salisbury thinks it conveyed a reproach, I am very sorry indeed. Well, now, the recital of the right hon. Gentleman I can neither understand nor agree to. I do not think it is accurate, and it is exceedingly difficult to comprehend. He speaks of one point upon which I must meet him by stating that he is entirely in error. There was nothing, so far as I know, in these communications which was of a private and confidential nature. It was intended to be the basis of a proceeding the most public that could possibly be. It was a responsible message conveyed from the Prime Minister on the part of the Government through the Leader of the Government in the House of Lords; and I want to know what are the written or spoken words of Lord Granville upon which rests the allegation so confidently made by the right hon. Gentleman that this was a private and confidential communication? I wish the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention, if he will be good enough, to what I say, and to give me, in particular, an answer to this question—What were the written or spoken words of Lord Granville upon which he has founded the statement that it was a private and confidential communication? This was not a matter of mere conversation. The words conveyed by Lord Granville were written words, and the words which conveyed the answer were written words. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this plan, if I hear him right, of an identical Resolution and a Joint Address as an alternative suggestion by us to some 838 other plan. It was nothing of the kind. It was a distinct and substantive proposition. It was a last offering, if I may say so—but I have no doubt that I shall receive the jeers from the other side—it was a last offering upon the altar of peace—upon the altar where we had previously made many offerings, and made them in vain. The right hon. Gentleman said it was very late. It was very late. We had very little assistance given us in devising means of accommodation. It was only on that morning that it had occurred to some of us that such a proposition might be made. Believing it to be good—that it supplied the most absolute guarantee which could possibly be given with respect to future action, we made the offer. I quoted it, not for the purpose of founding any particular charge upon it, but for the purpose of showing how far we had gone in the attempt to avoid a quarrel. With regard to the phrase—"A rope round the neck," it is certainly a phrase which, if the person believes to be offensive, he should be very careful indeed about imputing to another person. I say frankly that I think it was an admirable phrase; and from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, I would congratulate him if he had been the author of it. He could not possibly have done better. A less offensive phrase to opponents I cannot possibly imagine. That, however, is quite a different matter. That phrase I used as a description of the general argument of the noble Lord in relation to the subject of redistribution. I by no means wish to say—and I do not think I did say—that any such words as these were used by Lord Salisbury in dealing with this particular question.