§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKSir, with great reluctance I ask for the indulgence of the House, while I call attention to a personal matter. Yesterday afternoon, it came to my knowledge that the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase) had published in the Plymouth Western Morning News a letter which bears the date of May 15th, in which the hon. Gentleman professes to describe what happened in this House in respect to the second reading of the Sunday Closing Bill for Cornwall. In that letter the following passage occurs:—
With respect to the Cornwall Sunday Closing Bill, you know I always do my utmost to further it. I endeavoured to induce Sir E. Watkin to put off his Bill, which had priority, and I think he would have done so, had it not beer, for a man who openly speaks of temperance advocates as hypocrites—I mean Mr. Cavendish Bentinck. This gentleman made, as I dare say you saw, a very long speech on the Channel Tunnel Bill, the real object of which, since that Bill had no chance of passing, was to leave so little time for our Bill that his coadjutor, Mr. 1185 Warton, could easily talk it out, which in due course he did.Now, I desire to say that there are three statements in that letter concerning myself which are absolutely at variance with the facts. In the first place, I had no communication, either direct or indirect, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), who is now in his place and can confirm what I say. In the second place, I did not, openly or otherwise, speak of temperance advocates as hypocrites. I should certainly not be likely to speak of them in that way, because I am a temperance advocate myself. In the third place, there is no foundation whatever for saying that I made a speech unduly long and obstructive on the Channel Tunnel Bill. I was the only Member of the House, besides the hon. Member for Hythe, who was connected with the promotion of that measure, and at the request of the hon. Baronet I purposely delayed any observations I thought it right to address to the House until other hon. Members had finished their speeches, so that what I said might be in the nature of a reply. In point of fact, I almost limited my observations to answering the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and endeavouring to meet the charges of mala fides which the right hon. Gentleman had brought against the hon. Baronet and the promoters of the Bill. More than that, the Messenger who is in charge of the door took the time which my speech occupied, and it was only 13 minutes, so that I cannot be charged with having unduly occupied the time which was then at the disposal of the House. Having made this statement, I wish to ask the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase) whether he admits the authenticity of the letter which I have quoted, and whether he has any explanation to offer concerning the statements which it contains?
§ MR. BORLASEI have, in the first place, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in having communicated to me privately his intention to bring on this matter to-day; and, in the second place, I have to thank him for affording mo an opportunity of recalling to his memory words which he may have said in haste, and, perhaps, forgotten, and of stating to the House, which it is very painful for me to do, the incident 1186 which made me make use of the expression to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes. In my opinion, there is far more cause for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman to myself and to the advocates of temperance reform, than there is for an explanation of anything in the letter with regard to the right hon. Gentleman. However, I will state the facts to the House. On the Wednesday morning, while the House was being made, I was sitting in my place in this part of the House, and I happened to be next to the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe, there being at the time not more than 10 or 12 Members in the House altogether. The right hon. Gentleman crossed the floor of the House and sat next to the hon. Baronet on the side away from me. Whilst sitting there, after some general conversation, the right hon. Gentleman made use, in an emphatic manner which is peculiarly his own, of these words— "Those hypocrites, the teetotallers, have got a Sunday Closing Bill to-day for Cornwall, or some such place." That was said not to me—
§ MR. WARTONA private conversation.
§ MR. BORLASEI have not the honour of the right hon. Gentleman's personal acquaintance; but it was said at me, and in a manner which was naturally calculated to aggrieve anyone who was taking—as the right hon. Gentleman might have known I was taking —a keen interest in a Bill which was approved, as this one is, by all parties and classes in my constituency. Now, Sir, on these grounds I venture to justify that part of my letter which deals with the word "hypocrites" as applied by the right hon. Gentleman to the temperance party. The object of the letter was to point out to one of my constituents, who was wondering why we could not pass the Bill, that it was utterly useless to attempt to introduce into this House temperance legislation on a Wednesday, when debate is limited, owing to the peculiar course which is so often taken with regard to it by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). I now wish to say this, that I at once withdraw all intention of imputing collusion, between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe, who met me so graciously by offering to make his speech 1187 on the Channel Tunnel Bill as short as I possible. But, at the same time that I do that, I must in turn request that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw those words he used in my hearing, and which cast a direct imputation upon the advocates of temperance reform in this House.
§ SIR EDWARD WATKINIt is very painful to me to have to take part in a personal discussion, and already the few hours allotted to the Franchise Bill to-day have been largely trenched upon. But so far as I am concerned I am bound to say there is not one word of justification for the statement, contained in the letter, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) interfered in any sense whatever to prevent the postponement of the Channel Tunnel Bill. The hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase) asked me to postpone it for a week, at the same time remarking that he was an advocate of the Tunnel, but saw the many difficulties which surrounded his request. I explained to the hon. Member that had I known his wishes four or five days earlier I might have been able to comply with them and have postponed the Bill for another week, but now the Bill had been ordered for that particular day by arrangement with the Board of Trade, and hon. Gentlemen were coming up from the country to discuss it, and, therefore, it was impossible that the second reading could be delayed. At the same time, recognizing the interest of the hon. Gentleman in the question he had in hand, I volunteered to shorten my speech as much as possible and to use my influence in the same direction with the supporters of the Bill. In moving the second reading, I did, accordingly, curtail my speech, leaving out important matter, which was afterwards made the subject of controversy by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to my prejudice, and consequently exposing myself to some injury in the discussion. I repeat that there is no justification for charging the right hon. Member for Whitehaven with having interfered in any way whatever. As to the conversation referred to by the hon. Member for East Cornwall, I have not the slightest recollection of it; but if it occurred at all it was a private conversation at a time when the second 1188 reading of the Tunnel Bill was practically before the House, and, therefore, it could not have affected the question of the postponement of the Tunnel Bill in order that the Cornwall Bill might come on. That is all I have to say on the matter.
§ MR. SPEAKERI hope that, in the interest of the House, I may be allowed to intervene, and to act as a mediator between the right hon. and the hon. Gentlemen. I understand the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase) to say that he was annoyed at an expression which he overheard, and which the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) says he either never used, or certainly did not intend the hon. Member for East Cornwall to hear, and in consequence of those words the hon. Member for East Cornwall made a statement, in a letter to a newspaper, reflecting upon what he supposed to be the action of the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the hon. Member for East Cornwall to say that he withdraws the charge of collusion between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe, provided the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw on his part any offensive expression which he might have made use of. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, he is quite willing to say that he had no intention in anything he said to give any pain to the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase); and, if so, I respectfully submit to the House that the whole question falls to the ground, and there is no occasion to pursue a painful personal matter any further.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKI can only add that, like the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe, I have no recollection of having used the words "those hypocrites the teetotallers," or any other opprobrious epithet, either in joke or any other way, and I should not think of doing so. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) knows that I have never applied an offensive epithet to him or to anyone else who shares his views. Therefore, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member, although I have no recollection of having used such an expression, I am bound to say that 1189 if such an expression did fall from me it must have been in a moment of thoughtlessness, for I should be sorry to give pain to the hon. Member or to anybody else.
§ MR. BORLASEI thank the right hon. Gentleman for his disavowal, and I merely rise for the purpose of saying that it is possible I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's remark at the time. If so, I beg to apologize to the right hon. Gentleman for having misunderstood him.