§ LORD LYNDHURSTMy Lords, it is a great satisfaction to me that your Lordships have assembled to-day, contrary to your usual course; for I feel it incumbent upon me, for a short time, again to call your Lordships' attention to a matter personal to myself. It is quite unnecessary to make the statement which I am about to make with reference to many noble Lords who are Members of this House, because they are perfectly aware what has been the course of the transactions to which I shall refer. But as many noble Lords may not be aware of the transactions to which I am about to allude, I 949 think it proper to make this statement with reference to them, and with reference also to the country. My Lords, it is not my intention to allude to the statement I made the other night, or to the facts to which I then referred; I must leave them to speak for themselves. But, in consequence of a representation supposed to have been made last night by a noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) in the other House of Parliament, I consider that some answer to that is necessary. My Lords, immediately after the present Government was formed, the different Members of the Conservative party appeared to me to show a desire again to unite and to forget their differences. That was the case in this House; and it appeared to me extremely desirable to effect the same object in the other House. I thought it desirable that I should make the attempt, because, from the position in which I stood, it was well known that I was not a candidate for official appointment, and I thought I might undertake the task without a suspicion that I had any personal objects in view. I therefore communicated with several of my Friends who were Members of the other House. I told them what I thought it desirable should be accomplished. I represented to them that it was of great importance that former differences should be forgotten, now that the great measure was passed which had led to those differences. I stated that not with reference to any particular measure or set of measures. I desired that the Conservative party might be re-formed, and that they might then take such a course as was considered advisable. I thought it desirable, in order that I might not be subjected to any misrepresentation, that I should let other persons know of my intentions, and also that I should communicate with the right hon. Baronet at the head of the late Government. I waited upon him, and stated what I intended to do—not for the purpose of obtaining any opinion from him—not for the purpose of obtaining his concurrence—but simply to let him know what I was doing. I stated on that occasion what I had stated to every person whom I had consulted, that what I was doing had no reference to any particular measure or set of measures, but that I desired to put an end to the differences that existed in the party. I made the same communication to the right hon. Baronet late at the head of the Home Department, almost in the same terms and with the 950 same qualifications. While this was going on, and after I had seen many Friends, a gentleman with whom I had formerly been much acquainted, but with whom my intercourse had been suspended from political differences, called on me for some explanation, and asked me what my intentions were. I communicated frankly to him the course that I was pursuing, and he did not disapprove of it. But I found it perfectly impossible to communicate with individuals who entertained a hostile feeling to myself and the late Government, to any extent sufficient to accomplish the object I had in view. Lord Stanley was then absent in a distant part of the country, and therefore it occurred to me that it would be best to open a communication with the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) who was at the head of the protectionist party in the House of Commons. I accordingly sent a simple message to him, requesting to know whether he would see me, for the purpose of conversing upon the matter, in order that we might see whether the differences could not be settled between the two sections of the party. I sent that message through the gentleman to whom reference has been made, who was not my personal friend. It was a mere message. No allusion was made in it to the Sugar Bill, nor did it ever enter into my contemplation. It was a mere simple message, whether he would meet me, either at my house or his own, for the purpose of talking over these matters. The answer I received was short and simple — that the noble Lord was disposed to decline the interview, because he would rather wish the proposition to be made to Lord Stanley, with whom I was acquainted, and who was a Member of this House. Nothing further passed. I had no personal communication with the gentleman who took the message. I did not know what passed at the interview; the only thing I heard, was the message I have just mentioned. It has been stated, or rather the report states, that I stated that three Cabinet Ministers were joined with on the occasion, and that the object of our union was to be an opposition to the Sugar Bill. I have only to state, that as far as I am concerned, nothing was said on that subject, nor was it in the most distant manner alluded to. I have only seen the gentleman, who is rightly described by the noble Lord as a merchant of great eminence, but once since that time. I never conversed with him on the subject. I sent a message; 951 I received an answer, and then I dismissed the subject from my mind. I tried in two or three quarters to see if I could advance the object I had view; but I found so much bitterness of feeling and personal hostility, that I abandoned it, and took no further steps. I made no concealment whatever; the whole matter was universally known; I even stated it to some noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, and particularly to one noble Lord whom I have now in my eye. I told him of the attempt I was making, and that I found so much bitterness of feeling that it was impossible to carry it out. What is the story built on this? It is, that I wanted to raise a factious opposition to the Sugar Bill. That I utterly deny. I took no part in the discussion on that Bill, and did not even vote. But there is this insinuation—that I desired to make a prudent connexion with the noble Lord, with the view of coming into office in conjunction with him. Every one knows that I am no longer a candidate for office; that in consequence of a severe illness the holding of office during the past Session has been a painful and irksome task for me, and that I am desirous of passing the short remainder of my days among my family and my friends; and nothing even on this occasion should have drawn me forth, but the virulent personal attack made on me. My Lords, I have thought it right to communicate with the gentleman who was the bearer of the message. I communicated with him this morning, and he authorizes me to state what are the real facts of the case, and to read this statement; it was taken down from his dictation, with a view to being read to your Lordships:—
I stated to Lord George Bentinck that I had come with a message from Lord Lyndhurst, the object of which was to express the desire, on the part of his Lordship, that the Conservative party, which was now unfortunately split up, should be reunited as speedily as possible, and that several of his political friends joined in this feeling with him. That he would be happy to come into personal communication with Lord George Bentinck with that view, either at his own house or that of Lord George. Lord George Bentinck's answer was, that as he was acting under Lord Stanley, who with Lord Lyndhurst were Members of the House of Peers, he thought it better that all communication on the subject should pass between those noble Lords; that he was in full and cordial co-operation with Lord Stanley, or words to that effect. This is all that passed in reference to Lord Lyndhurst.What conversation took place between the noble Lord and that gentleman, the bearer of the message, I do not know; but that is 952 a correct representation as far as I am personally concerned of what passed. It is said that I was not justified in making the observations I made the other night, because I was desirous of holding office with Lord G. Bentinck. On a reference to the document which I have just read, your Lordships will see that there is not the slightest foundation for such an imputation. Any one who will consult the Peerage, will satisfy himself that there are sufficient reasons for the decision I have made, no longer to hold any office, but to retire from office, as is much more befitting the period of life to which I have now attained. I thought it due to your Lordships to make this explanation, and your Lordships will see that there is nothing inconsistent with the statement I made, or inconsistent with the course which I pursued in repelling the attack made on me by the noble Lord. I have only one word more. I received this morning a message from the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and he authorizes me to state that it was not true that the office had been pressed upon his brother, or that he had ever interfered to persuade him to accept it. On the contrary, it was not until his brother had determined to accept the office that he (the Chief Baron) told him he had done perfectly right; and that if he had been in a similar situation he would have done the same thing. Your Lordships will be satisfied that I have done right in stating the circumstances to which I have now referred, for the purpose of repelling the inferences attempted to be built by the noble Lord from the message which I so sent. The noble and learned Lord then resumed his seat; but again rose in a few moments, and said that the reason why he sent this message by a gentleman with whom he was not in personal communication was, that his secretary said, "I know a gentleman of great respectability, who is an intimate acquaintance of Lord George Bentinck." In consequence of that he sent the message in question by that gentleman, without seeing him at all on the business.
§ The DUKE of GRAFTONthought it was the duty of the House, after the statement they had just heard, to express either their satisfaction or dissatisfaction. For himself, he begged to express his most humble satisfaction with the statement of the noble and learned Lord.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTI can't be understood as referring to what really fell 953 from the noble Lord. I see in the public papers what he is reported to have said, and I refer to that report alone.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEbegged to express his satisfaction with the perfect propriety of the course taken by the noble and learned Lord, in referring only to what was reported to have been said by a noble Lord in the other House, and not to that noble Lord's speech itself. The noble and learned Lord had expressly avoided stating what had happened in the other House. Under the specific circumstances of the case, he perfectly acquiesced in the course taken by the noble and learned Lord; but the House had paid that respectful attention to the noble and learned Lord which his great talents and high character demanded, and he thought it not expedient that the discussion upon it should proceed any further.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTI did not make the statement with a view to elicit any expression of opinion upon it by the House.
§ The subject then dropped.
§ House adjourned.