HC Deb 07 November 1893 vol 18 cc354-6
* THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,) North Beds.

I desire to ask for the indulgence of the House whilst I make a personal explanation, arising out of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition last night. Unfortunately, I was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman made his attack upon me. I came back as soon as I heard what was going on, but, unluckily, I was too late. This morning, in reading the report of the Debate in The Times, I found that the right hon. Gentleman said— The Under Secretary for India appeared to think that the establishment of Parochial Councils is going to re-introduce agricultural prosperity into the country, and 'that the golden grain would wave over fields now left desolate,' because, forsooth, the owners and cultivators of the soil have not now the advantage of electing members to Parish Councils. The leading article in the same paper, relying, I think unwisely, not on my speech, but on the parody of it in which the right hon. Gentleman indulged, says— It is true, indeed, that Mr. Gladstone was unfair as well as unkind in leaving to Mr. Russell the responsibility for the twaddle about flooding the impoverished or deserted farms of the country with 'golden grain,' which the Under Secretary for India, in his innocent ardour, merely borrowed from Mr. John Morley. All I will say as to this—and I desire to say it in as plain language as the courtesies of Parliament will permit—is that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman and adopted by the newspaper is untrue, both in substance and in form. I have never used the words; I have never heard the words; I have never seen the words which are attributed to me. They may or may not be attributable to my right hon. Friend. Of that I know nothing. The right hon. Gentleman was criticising a speech of mine, be it remembered, not one of the speeches of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There is not a word in my speech which could convey the sense that in my belief this Bill, when passed, would re-introduce agricultural prosperity into the land. There is not in my speech a syllable that would bear that construction, and, further, in the many speeches which I have delivered in the country I was always equally careful, and invariably said the opposite of what is now attributed to me. I said that it was impossible that this Bill should cause agricultural prosperity, but that it was valuable as introducing political and civil freedom into the life of the rural commu- nity. I am bound to enter this public and emphatic protest against what I cannot but call culpable carelessness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, if not culpable carelessness, deliberate misrepresentation. [Cries of "Oh!"] Of two things one. In either case I must enter my protest against attributing to a political opponent views and sentiments which he has publicly repudiated.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

I entirely share the hon. Member's regret that he was not in the House when I made my speech last night, for if he had done me the honour to listen to my observations he would have known that every single word which he has just uttered with so much passion is totally irrelevant, and, indeed, utterly absurd. The hon. Member tried to place me on the horns of a dilemma. He said that I was either careless in attributing to him the words which he has quoted, or guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. But there is a third alternative which does not appear to have occurred to him—namely, that I have been misreported. If the hon. Member had been in the House when I made my speech he would have known that the rhetorical gem which he says I attributed to him I really attributed to a right hon. Gentleman whom I would not for the world rob of the distinction of having uttered it—namely, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Never did I attribute to the hon. Member himself any of the sentiments which he thinks I attributed to him.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL

The right hon. Gentleman has in the handsomest way thrown over The Times, and, of course, I readily accept his explanation.