§ LORD CAIRNSMy Lords, the Question which I am about to put to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies is one which, in some degree, connects itself with the debate which is about to be resumed; but I have thought that it would be more consistent with the gravity of that debate, and at the same time more fair towards Her Majesty's Government, if I were to endeavour, so far as I am concerned, to disconnect the subject-matter of that Question from the debate itself. My Lords, anyone who has watched the progress of the debate up to the present time cannot fail to have been struck with one 2 circumstance—namely, the strong sense of responsibility under which every speaker upon each side of the House appeared to feel with respect to the course which he was about to take. My Lords, in determining the course to be taken upon any public question which may come to be decided by your Lordships, it is natural to feel considerable anxiety, even when nothing more has to be considered than the abstract merits of the question itself. But when, in addition to the abstract merits of the question, we find that the decision at which we may arrive may not be in unison with the expressed determination of the other House of Parliament, the situation becomes one of much graver magnitude and anxiety. My Lords, the first condition, as it appears to me, towards the exercise of the task which we have then to undertake is that every bearing of the question to be decided should be apprehended and considered by minds free from passion and from prejudice; and, above all, free from any appearance of pressure, except the pressure which arises from the overwhelming sense of public duty. Now, if there 3 be any quarter to which we may more rightly look than another for aid in the discharge of this task, under these conditions, it is, I think, to Her Majesty's Government. It is for them to endeavour, as far as possible both by the character and by the conduct of the legislation they propose, to secure the harmonious working of the two Houses of Parliament; and if there be one thing which, more than another, would be calculated to mar or to thwart that harmonious working, it would be any attempt to represent to this House that its deliberations should be influenced, not by reason or persuasion'—not by the merits of the question or by those considerations of public policy and expediency properly attaching to it—but by some selfish and timid apprehensions as to our personal interests, or under the pressure of menaces as to our safety as an institution. My Lords, on this score I certainly have no complaint to make of the noble Earl opposite the Secretary for the Colonies. Some nights ago a noble Lord on this side of the House (Lord Bateman) proposed a Question—which I believe in point of form was not actually put—which led to some observations from the noble Secretary of State. Referring to the statement of the noble Lord that he had seen the noble Earl that day on the subject, the noble Earl said—
I told him I could quite understand the anxiety which every Member of the House must feel with respect to the precise position in which they stood with regard to the Irish Church Bill, and I could also understand the wish of noble Lords for some information with regard to the threats to which he has referred as having been held out towards this House in case your Lordships should think proper to adopt a certain policy. I have seen those threats quoted in some detail in speeches made out-of-doors; but I am utterly unaware of any foundation there can possibly be for them. I shall not answer the noble Lord's question now, but I shall take an opportunity, on Monday, of explaining to the House in a manner which I trust will be satisfactory to any reasonable man, that Her Majesty's Government neither has nor ever had any intention of departing from that proper and respectful course which it is the duty of Her Majesty's servants to follow, whether they are dealing with the House of Commons or with your Lordships'House."—[3 Hansard,cxcvi. 1580–81.]That was said upon the 11th of June—I think upon Friday night of last week. And when the second reading of the Irish Church Bill came to be proposed on the Monday night following, the noble Secretary of State was charged with the duty of explaining the measure 4 to your Lordships. I need not say that that duty was discharged with the great ability which, on all occasions, is displayed by the noble Earl, and with that conciliatory manner which, I think, on no other occasion was ever more conspicuously manifested. The noble Earl stated the details of the Bill; he insisted upon the arguments in its favour on which he was disposed to rely; he appealed to your Lordships' judgment, to your reason, to your patriotism; and on that appeal he was satisfied to rest. I repeat, therefore, that I have nothing to complain of on the part of the noble Earl opposite. But while this was going on within your Lordships' House, a somewhat different scene was being enacted out-of-doors. I think my memory serves me right when I say that my noble Friend who moved the Amendment to the Bill gave notice of his intention of so doing upon the Monday of last week. "Well, a few days thereafter, a public meeting was about to be held in Birmingham for the purpose of expressing the opinion of those assembled at it upon the merits of the Irish Church Bill, and for the purpose of petitioning your Lordships' House upon the subject. A very eminent Member of the Cabinet—the President of the Board of Trade—whose name, I think, appeared upon the back of the Irish Church Bill when it was first introduced—was invited to attend that meeting, which was to be held in the borough which he represents. He was unable to attend; but, if my information is correct, he forwarded to the secretary of the meeting a letter, which, if it be correctly reported, appears obviously intended to be read at the meeting; in the first place to account for the unavoidable absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and in the second place to express his opinion as to the subject upon which the meeting intended to deliberate. I will take the liberty of reading that letter to your Lordships. It is as follows:—
§ "London, June 9.
§ "Dear Sir,—I must ask my friends to excuse me if I am unable to accept their invitation for the meeting on Monday next. The Lords are not very wise, but there is sometimes profit to the people even in their un wisdom. If they should delay the passing of the Irish Church Bill for three months they will stimulate discussion on important questions which, but for their infatuation, might have slumbered for many years. It is possible that a good many people may ask, what is the special value of a constitution which gives a majority of 100 in one House for a given 5 policy, and a majority of 100 in another House against it? It maybe asked, also, why the Crown, through its Ministers in the House of Commons, should be found in harmony with the nation, while the Lords are generally in direct opposition to it? Instead of doing a little childish tinkering about life peerages, it would be well if the Peers could bring themselves on a line with the opinions and necessities of our day. In harmony with the nation, they may go on for a long time; but, throwing themselves athwart its course, they may meet with accidents not pleasant for them to think of. But there are not a few good and wise men among the Peers; and we will hope that their councils may prevail. I am sure you will forgive me if I cannot come to your meeting.
§ "JOHN BRIGHT."
§ Having read this letter I desire, with your Lordships' permission, to make a very slight digression before commenting further upon it. We have lately been occupied with the consideration of a Bill upon the subject of Life Peerages. When that Bill was first introduced, many Members of your Lordships' House entertained very considerable doubts with respect to its expediency. It was not a Government Bill, but it was warmly advocated by the Government. We were told by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) that he attached very considerable value to the measure, and that he considered its passing would be of great importance to the public; and we were accordingly urged by him to accept the Bill with or without Amendments. Considering the uncertainty which at first prevailed in many of your Lordships' minds with respect to the expediency of that Bill, I have no doubt you were considerably influenced by this statement of the representative of the Government in this House of their opinion as to its value and expediency. Moreover, I think an observation was made to the effect that it was a somewhat dangerous experiment to send down to the other House of Parliament a Bill inviting their consent to an alteration in our constitution; and no doubt this fact also weighed with your Lordships—that the Government having approved and endorsed the Bill in this House, it would be commended to the other House by the Government, who, possessing a considerable majority in that House, might have urged it there under circumstances which ought to have led to its favourable reception. I cannot but think, therefore, that some of your Lordships must have been surprised when, after this course had been 6 taken by the Government in this House, an eminent Member of that same Government, before the Bill had left your Lordships' House, and before even the other House could be supposed to be cognizant of its contents, rushed into the country, and before one of the most important constituencies in the kingdom proclaimed that he regards this Bill, approved of by his Colleagues in this House, as a mere bit of "childish tinkering" with, our Constitution. My Lords, I do not wish to make any comment upon two of the expressions contained in the letter which I have read to your Lordships—the expressions that "the Lords are not very wise," and that the course which they intend to take is, or amounts to, "infatuation." These are matters of opinion on which I do not care to enter into any discussion. But I may be permitted to express some doubt whether a Minister of the Crown, who is responsible for the conduct of the Government in both branches of the Legislature, and from whom, as a Minister, sitting in one branch of the Legislature, some appearance, at all events, of outward respect towards all branches of the Legislature might be looked for—I say I may be permitted to express a doubt whether a Minister placed in such a position, though he may be acquitted on a charge of want of courtesy, does, by these expressions, exhibit a large share of that excellent quality the possession of which he denies to your Lordships. But, passing by any comments on the words of the letter, there appears to me to be involved in the document four statements, not the less remarkable, and not the less palpable, from the circumstance that they are stated obliquely and indirectly. These statements I shall mention to your Lordships. There is, in the first place, the statement that the Lords are generally in direct opposition to the will of the nation. There is, in the second place, the statement—obliquely if not directly made—that if the Irish Church Bill be rejected, a fair question will be raised whether the House of Peers should continue as a part of the Constitution. There is, in the third place, the statement, that the rejection of the Irish Church Bill might very possibly lead to the overthrow of the House of Lords—described by the euphemistic expression of there possibly "meeting with accidents not pleasant for them to think of." 7 And there is, in the fourth place, the statement—which perhaps involves a proposition more remarkable than any I have stated—that if by any means this Bill were rejected there might arise a tumult of the people. Now, my Lords, I do not comment upon these propositions. I might, indeed, be permitted to express the opinion whether the direct consequences of statements of this kind, made in this way, may not be somewhat different to that which the writer of the letter might desire, and whether some of the Members of your Lordships' House, in consequence of a letter of this kind, might not even be driven to record a vote, which otherwise you would not have recorded, against the Bill of which I have been speaking. I desire not to be misunderstood on this point. I myself am anxious in my support of the Amendment proposed by my noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby); but I should regret if, in a matter of so great gravity, any of your Lordships should, by reason of the menaces contained in this letter, be deterred from voting for the Amendment; and I should regret—even more—if it were to happen that by that species of recoil, which frequently arises in generous minds, in consequence of this letter, a single vote should be recorded in favour of the Amendment which would not otherwise have been given to it. But the question which I put to myself is this—Are these expressions, and is this a letter, which ought to have been written by a Cabinet Minister of the Crown? I maintain that they are not. I maintain that no letter of a similar kind has ever before emanated from a Minister of the Crown. My Lords, I venture to ask you this question—If it had been the case that the President of the Board of Trade had had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, and if the expressions contained in his letter had fallen from him as a Minister of the Crown, would it be possible that your Lordships should have consented that the discussion upon this subject should have continued in the face of the menaces contained in this letter? My Lords, I want to know what is to be said of these expressions of a Minister of the Crown, coming from him not in debate in this or the other House of Parliament, but in a letter, not intended as a private communication, but meant as a manifesto to be read at a public meeting held for the purpose of consi- 8 dering the policy which was being pursued? I ask further, on what principle is the conduct of the Government to proceed with reference to this and the other House of Parliament? We all know—we recognize most gladly on both sides of this House, however, we may differ in opinion from him—not only the courtesy, but the dignity with which the conduct of the Government proceeds in the hands of the noble Earl the Secretary of State opposite. But, my Lords, I ask is the result to be this—that the Government is to be managed something like a business firm, with an affable Member within the House, who is to appeal to our reason and persuasion with bland accents in-doors, while there is out-of- doors another member of the same firm throwing all considerations of reason and persuasion to the winds, and coarsely substituting for them, as his only argument, a menace threatening our very existence? Now, that leads me to say a word as to the responsibility of any Government for the acts of one of its Members. A short time ago we had a conversation in this House with reference to some expressions upon a question of policy which had fallen from a Member of the Government—I think the same right hon. Gentleman. The defence made at that time by the Government was of this kind—It was said—"Mr. Bright has always entertained certain views of his own upon the Irish land question. The Government have not as yet announced any policy upon that subject. Mr. Bright, in the course of a debate in the other House, announced his adherence to a policy which he had recommended before. When the proper time arrives the Government will consider what policy they shall recommend, and it will then be seen whether they agree with the policy of Mr. Bright, or whether he agrees with theirs. In the meantime the discussion of the question is premature, and no Government can be held answerable for expressions which have fallen under those circumstances from one of its members." Now, I confess that although there might be a certain amount of inconvenience in the state of things so described, yet the answer of the Government was reasonably sufficient as regarded those expressions. But it is a very different matter when the question is not one of some future policy not yet presented to Par- 9 ment, but relates to an act actually and really done by a Member of the Administration. I say it is vain to call this letter a private communication; it is a manifesto as much addressed to the public as if it were addressed to them through the medium of a debate in either House of Parliament. The joint and entire responsibility of a Government for the acts of one of its members has been so well established that if I refer to it at all it is only for the purpose of saying that, so far as I know, only one exception has been made to that responsibility; and that exception is this—that if a Member of a Government, alone and without any communication with his Colleagues, performs any particular act connected with the course of policy of the Government, and if the Government, not having known of the act before, on being informed of it, do not approve of it, and state their disapproval forthwith, it would be the height of pedantry to suppose that the responsibility of the whole Cabinet existed with regard to that act under such circumstances. But then the condition of freedom from such responsibility is this—the immediate disapproval of the act in which they are not disposed to concur. Now, that is a test, which ought, I think, to apply to the letter to which I am referring, I think that with regard that letter the Government can only take one of two courses. They may say—'' We did not know of this communication; we did not authorize this manifesto; but now that we see it, we think that the expressions in it are perfectly justifiable, and the opinions contained in it are such as we are fully prepared to maintain." My Lords, I do not think the Government will take that course; but still it is a course which is open to them. If, however, that course is not taken by the Government, I maintain that there is only one other which is open to them, and that is to say—" We knew nothing of this manifesto before it was issued; we have now considered its contents; we do not agree with the expressions contained in it, or with the opinions which it represents; we repudiate both, and we stand free from all responsibility for that which we have not authorized." I venture to say that the Government must take one of these two courses, and that, if they do not take one of them, they will thereby introduce a principle 10 which puts an end to the collective responsibility which has hitherto prevailed among Governments. It would be impossible the Government should be conducted upon the footing upon which it has hitherto been conducted, if the Government were to maintain in either House of Parliament the doctrine that one of its Members may, out-of-doors, ennunciate opinions and contend for consequences as to a policy respecting which they are not bound to state whether they approve or disapprove, and which, however serious it may be as affecting the most venerable institutions of the country, they are content to leave without any expression of approval or disapproval. My Lords, I trust we shall hear from the noble Earl opposite a repudiation of the sentiments to which I have referred; and in the hope of hearing that repudiation, I put to him the Question of which I have given notice—Whether a letter which has appeared in the public newspapers bearing the signature of the President of the Board of Trade, and read at a public meeting at Birmingham, was written by the right hon. Gentleman, and whether Her Majesty's Government concur in the expressions and opinions in that letter?
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe noble and learned Lord has put to me the two Questions of which he had given notice, and he has also been good enough—which I was not aware was the usual practice—to supply me with the exact answer which he wishes me to give to those Questions. I hope, however, I shall not depart from that conciliatory line which he has, with great courtesy, attributed to me if I take my own way of answering the Questions—which will be to state all that I know upon the subject—and I believe the noble and learned Lord will admit that the most willing witness cannot with propriety do more—and I will end with a declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I have made it my duty to ascertain that the letter which the noble and learned Lord read in extenso was written by Mr. Bright. But, while admitting the correctness of the letter, I must guard myself against being bound to admit the correctness of the paraphrase which the noble and learned Lord afterwards gave of it. I think it may be satisfactory to your Lordships that I should begin by telling you all that I know, as far as the 11 Government is concerned, with, respect to this particular Bill and their relations to your Lordships' House. I am not aware that even any independent Member has uttered in the other House any threat against your Lordships' House, although I have no doubt your Lordships remember that frequent threats were uttered to the House of Commons as to what your Lordships would do. With regard to her Majesty's Government, I do not believe that one Member of it made any allusion to your Lordships' House, with the exception of the Prime Minister, who alone, on the last stage of the Bill, in the most respectful terms, explained that he had no cause of complaint whatever against the decision of this House last year, and that he felt the greatest confidence that your Lordships now would act in a manner due to the country and to your own sense of utility and wisdom. These words, I apprehend, could not have been offensive to any one individual in your Lordships' House, unless anyone by any unfortunate accident should think at the bottom of his heart that he was going to do a useless or a foolish thing. Within the last hour the right hon. Gentleman has, I believe, had another opportunity of expressing himself upon this subject in exactly the same tone; and he added that, having received overtures from different parts of the country to answer the challenge which has been laid down by several Members of the Conservative party in great position, and to test the numbers which literally and bodily the Government could bring into the field, he had used all his influence to prevent that from occurring, especially with reference to what might in any way be considered an attempt to overawe the deliberations of your Lordships' House. I cannot help saying that that course, it appears to me, was more truly Conservative than that of those who have made so much and boasted so much of certain large assemblages in different parts of Ireland and England. My Lords, I have now stated all that I know with regard to Her Majesty's Government. I may freely state that I do not think one Member of the Government believed a fortnight ago that there was any possibility of your Lordships taking the step—which they thought unwise to the public and unwise even in a party view—of rejecting this Bill at the second 12 reading. Rumours, however, arose about ten days ago that that was to be the result. Well, what did we do? Why, there was an unanimous opinion among the Members of the Cabinet that we had no right to presume that your Lordships might take any particular course, and that we would absolutely abstain from discussing, even among ourselves, what the line of policy should be if an event which we certainly thought would be most unfortunate, should occur. That course was not, I think, disrespectful to this House. I am not aware, moreover, that any one Member of the Cabinet has stated what, in his opinion, should be the course pursued, supposing your Lordships were to reject the second reading, with one exception—namely, Mr. Bright. Mr. Bright was pressed ten days ago to say what would happen if this Bill was rejected. I do not know whether your Lordships will care to know his answer. His answer was, that he supposed in that case there would be a Cabinet Council—an answer which appears to me the very perfection of red tape, and which strongly confirms what I have already mentioned as a fact—that we had resolved not to discuss or open the subject. With regard to the letter which the noble and learned Lord has read, I know as a fact that none of Mr. Bright's Colleagues knew that it was written before it was sent, and that the first time they had an opportunity of reading the expressions contained in it was on the day on which it appeared in the public papers. Now, I do say that this being the view of Her Majesty's Government, and that the individual Members of it being totally unacquainted with the expression of the letter, although I could give an answer which would be perfectly satisfactory to your Lordships, I think your Lordships will hardly expect me to establish the precedent that I am to answer as to the individual opinion of a Cabinet Minister on passing events, when the subject matter has not been brought before the Cabinet, and when they have not consulted upon the matter. ["Order."] I am glad to find that Order is called, for I think it is better, when this House is taking up, with an almost sensitive feeling, an offence to itself, that we should, state what we think, and that individual Members of the House should not yield to the impulses of making 13 noises which have not much argument in them. With regard to Mr. Bright, I read in the newspapers quite recently a report of a conversation of Mr. Sumner's. In that conversation Mr. Summer, complaining of Mr. Bright, said that notwithstanding the grandeur of character of Mr. Bright, there was a "John Bullism" in him which would break out. He added that this was a quality which was not sufficient in Mr. Cobden to do any harm. Now, I venture to say that, although I am not inclined to agree generally with Mr. Summer's opinions, I am very much inclined to agree with the opinion which he then laid down. I believe he described the character which, united with great ability, has given Mr. Bright a great hold upon public opinion; and I also believe that Mr. Bright has an amount of "John Bullism" which your Lordships, perhaps, may not have recognized, and which, I dare say, the right hon. Gentleman is himself not aware of. I cannot help thinking it possible that influenced at the time by that somewhat rash combative feeling which "John Bull" is supposed to possess, Mr. Bright—exaggerating I admit, the latitude which exists even with regard to a letter to a constituency from a person who, besides being a Member of Parliament, is a Minister of the Crown—may have felt some little desire, having been so constantly attacked in a place where he could not defend himself, at last, like a real "John Bull," to hit out in return. ["Oh, oh!"] There is another quality which I think may be attributed to his "John Bullism"—which is a frank explanation of anything he may have done; and I am now giving Mr. Bright's own interpretation of the letter which he has authorized me to make. Mr. Bright has authorized me to say that when he wrote that letter he was not acting under any feeling of indignation at any act of your Lordships as a whole; but that he did feel very much moved by the account he had heard of the proceedings and speeches at a certain meeting in St. James's Square, which has now become a matter of history. As to threats with regard to your Lordships' House, Mr. Bright distinctly repudiates having intended in his letter to convey any such threats whatever. Mr. Bright says that what he meant to convey, and believes he did convey, in that letter, was those opi- 14 nions as to matters of fact and matters of judgment which he believes have since been either stated or implied in the speeches of some of the most eminent Members of your Lordships' House; and further, he has authorized me to say that if any expressions in that letter have given pain to your Lordships, collectively or individually, he regrets that pain should have been given to you, and assures you through me that it was not his intention to do so. Now, I certainly feel regret that Mr. Bright should ever have applied the word "unwisdom" to a House to which I belong. I also regret that Mr. Bright should have applied the epithet of "tinkering" to legislation which has been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, and in which I took part—though I am very much afraid that notwithstanding the high character for conciliation which has been given me, I used almost a similar phrase in describing, as a whole, the Amendment which was at one time proposed in Committee by the noble and learned Lord. But is this my only regret? The noble and learned Lord spoke with great force, and amid the cheers of both sides of the House, of the responsibility which all who speak in this House should feel. He spoke of the delicate relations between the two Houses, and the necessity, where some difference of opinion existed, of care being taken to avoid any irritation. May I not, then, feel a little regret that the right rev. Prelate, in a speech, the brilliancy of which it is perfectly impossible to exaggerate, should have begun, at a time when the noble and learned Lord's words are so true, even before he was warmed by that great eloquence which he possesses, by saying, amid the cheers of the leading Bench opposite, that the House of Commons had "howled down" every attempt to argue against the Bill?
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHI feel compelled to interrupt the noble Earl. I did not say that the House of Commons had "howled down" any person. What I said was, in that House certain persons were howled down. ["Oh, Oh!"] That is a very different thing. I take it that the acts of the House of Commons are the collective acts of the whole body. I did not use the words "House of Commons" in my speech at all; nor did I say or mean that the House of Commons had howled any 15 person down. I did say that certain persons in the House of Commons did howl down certain speakers.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI accept any interpretation the right rev. Prelate may think fit to give of his words, and I only hope, if by chance any Members of that House should be present, it will be satisfactory to them to learn that no want of courtesy was intended to their House. But I will go further. I must also express regret that one of the most kindhearted men in this House—the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill—should have accused the party to which Mr. Bright and I belong of having been dishonest in the course which we took. I must express regret that, by a Member of the right rev. Bench, the Government to which Mr. Bright and I belong should be accused of being spoilers of the Church and robbers of the poor.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI rise to Order. The question before the House relates to Mr. Bright's letter, and I appeal to your Lordships whether it is a convenient practice that all the hard words which have been used during the last three months should be re-produced.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe noble Marquess has really enforced the point of my argument, for I think it is not desirable that we should be discussing every hard word which has been used. I think it is undesirable that we should use such words either on the one side or the other; but I must be permitted to say—and it is a matter perfectly relevant to the question which has been raised—that if I am to be called one thing or another, I should prefer being described as "tinkering" and "unwise," to being described as dishonest and a thief.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYI wish to explain. I admit that, commenting on the course taken by the party now in power to prejudice Lord Mayo's suggestions for improving the position of the Roman Catholic priesthood, I asked, "Is that honest?" but I cannot see that that language is un-Parliamentary. If I used expressions which appeared to cast imputations on the Members of the Government, it was unintentionally, and I think the noble Earl should, particularize the occasion and circumstances. Surely one may be permitted to describe a specific course of action as dishonest without being supposed to 16 make a general charge of dishonesty against an individual.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI have not the slightest doubt that it was perfectly unintentional on the part of my noble Friend that he used the words he did. After describing the course which the party with which I am connected took last year, he turned round to your Lordships and asked the question—"Is this, my Lords, honest?" But I entirely believe that the noble Earl had no intention of applying such a dishonourable imputation to the Government with which I am connected. Now, will your Lordships allow me to say one word as to the wisdom or unwisdom of your Lordships' House? I suppose we shall admit that where there are 400 or 500 persons, there must some of us be less wise than others; but this I will take upon myself to declare—and I believe I am not moved by any esprit de corpsin saying it—that there is no assembly in the world which, considering that it is not specially selected for a special purpose, contains among its members more men of ability, knowledge, and experience than your Lordships' House. If there was any doubt upon the question I would venture to appeal to the debates which have been going on the last two nights, to the brilliant, original, and imaginative speeches of two right rev. Prelates, and to one of the most extraordinary expositions I ever heard or read of the principles of Protestant Christianity from another Member of the right rev. Bench. When, too, I am asked whether I agree with certain opinions, I will venture to refer to the logical argument brought forward by the noble Earl on the cross-Benches—
THE EARL OF DERBYI must really rise to Order. The noble Earl will have another opportunity of replying to any observations which have been offered on this or the other side of the House. He must be aware that it is quite irregular to refer now to anything which has been said in the course of the debate.
§ EARL GRANVILLEOn the point of Order I yield, and I will not, therefore, state what I think are strong points, showing how perfectly justified I am with regard to my opinion of the wisdom of this House. But, at the same time, and when the noble Earl complains of me, it is rather strange that the noble and learned Lord should not only have 17 been, allowed to ask a Question, but to preface it by a speech of twenty-five minutes, and that in answering that speech, from my point of view, I should be repeatedly called to Order and interrupted. I will not, however, refer to what I was going to say, and which I believe it would not have been disagreeable to your Lordships to hear. I remember fourteen or fifteen years ago—this reference I wish to make, because it has some bearing on my present point—that the financial policy of an eminent Member of the other House was perpetually attacked by a noble Lord who is not now present, and that he was reminded that it would have been more convenient if some of those attacks had been made in a place where the person attacked could have defended himself. Now, I cannot but think that a course has been taken this Session to which the same remark would apply. I do not, however, complain of the noble and learned Lord having put this Question, for I think it must be agreeable to your Lordships, as it is satisfactory to me, that I should have another opportunity of most emphatically declaring, as I declared the other night—not as an individual Peer, nor as an individual Member of the Government, but speaking with authority for the whole of Her Majesty's Government—that we utterly repudiate any notion of menace or threats to this House; though I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that, whether those menaces should come from us or from parties having strong influence in the sister country, your Lordships' line is to follow only that course of duty which your consciences may dictate.
EARL GREYI think the House has good ground of complaint both against the noble and learned Lord and my noble Friend, for departing from the ordinary rules of its procedings; and the character of the discussion is still more to be regretted, for I entirely concur with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the irregularity of references to what has happened in former debates. It was natural that the noble and learned Lord should ask whether the Government approved the letter which had been written by one of its Members; but I wish he had done so without a preface, which has led to a long reply, and a reply 18 which has ended without containing that which, I confess I had hoped for, and we had a right to look for—a statement that Her Majesty's Government, as a body, decidedly disapprove a letter which—I cannot forbear from saying, is, in my judgment, in the highest degree indecorous and improper for a Minister of the Crown to have written.