§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDI rise for the purpose of putting a Question to the noble Duke opposite, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, relative to certain language which has been attributed to him, as having been used at a dinner over which he presided during the past week. I have carefully examined the different accounts of what took place on that occasion which appeared in various newspapers, and I scarcely think that the expressions attributed to the noble Duke in those accounts are incorrect. In anticipation that the noble Duke will not be able to contradict those accounts I will venture to protest in the strongest manner against the way in which he is stated to have introduced Her Majesty's name in the course of his speech. I cannot conceive anything more irregular, more unconstitutional, or, happily, more uncommon than the language attributed to 649 him. Upon all festive occasions in this country it is the invariable custom for the loyalty of Englishmen to be displayed by drinking the health of Her Majesty the Queen, and that toast is on all occasions and in all societies received with the loyalty and acclamation which the character of Her Majesty demands that it should be received with. But on the occasion to which I refer, of a Liberal dinner held by a Liberal club—possibly in anticipation of a not far distant Dissolution of Parliament— the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) presided over the banquet as President of the club. He was supported by a noble Earl, who spoke on the occasion, but to whose speech I shall not allude further than to remark that it partook too much of a personal character, and gave a detailed statement with regard to various Members of your Lordships' House in no very elegant language. But the noble Duke was also supported by a Cabinet Minister who appears to have gone down specially for the occasion; and it appears also that other Cabinet Ministers were expected, but that various duties detained them in town. The intention of one of these Cabinet Ministers to attend the dinner was defeated by his having to give evidence before a Committee of the other House of Parliament, which was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Department over which he presides, in connection with the Zanzibar Mail contract. Under these circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to visit the county which had the honour of giving him birth. The noble Duke, in proposing the health of Her Majesty, said—
I may remind you that her earliest impressions on Government were guided by the great Liberal leader of the day—Lord Melbourne—and she is supposed never to have forgotten the principles and party of her teacher.Although I do not want to make too much of this matter, I feel bound to say that statement is an insult to the Queen. If there is one point in Her Majesty's character which has been more often alluded to than another, and for which she is more remarkable than any other—and if there is one point in her character which has been referred to by Prime Minister after Prime Minister in both this and the other House of Parliament—it is this, that it does not sig- 650 nify what party is in power; whether Liberal or Conservative, the Ministry of the day have the undivided confidence of the Sovereign; and that nothing of any kind ever escapes from Her Majesty which would enable the party in power to know what her political opinions are. From the time she first ascended the Throne until the present moment Her Majesty has always acted in a constitutional manner, and therefore I must most earnestly protest against the assumption that by any act or deed on her part the political opinions of Her Majesty have become known. Under these circumstances, I feel bound to say that the statement of the noble Duke was an insult to the Queen, and that it is most irregular and unconstitutional to couple her name with that of any party, however respectable. I beg to ask the noble Duke the Question which stands in my name—namely, Whether the following is a correct report of expressions attributed to him in proposing the Queen's health at a dinner at Nottingham:—I may remind you, that her earliest impressions on Government were guided by the great Liberal leader of the day, Lord Melbourne, and she is supposed never to have forgotten the principles and party of her teacher.
THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSThe noble Duke deprecates Her Majesty's name being brought into political discussions, and to carry out his principle he has brought up in Parliament words spoken by me at a political dinner in a provincial town. Your Lordships can decide on the consistency of the course he has adopted. He has correctly stated my words in giving "The Queen!" on that occasion. They were unnecessary to secure the reception and acceptance of her health with every mark of loyalty and respect; but, as is the usual custom, I sought for appropriate remarks in proposing this toast. I therefore thought, and still think by the facts of the case, I was justified in my allusion to Lord Melbourne. It is a just cause of congratulation to the party to which I belong that an accident of time and circumstances should have given to one of our most eminent leaders the opportunity of being the first adviser of Her Majesty when, in her early youth, she began the long and successful reign which has been attended with so many blessings to this country, and which has marked her place in history as the most 651 constitutional Sovereign who has ruled dote I quoted should apply personally in England. The manner in which Lord and in an offensive manner to the noble Melbourne performed the task, his devotion to her honour, and the care which he bestowed on her political education in constitutional doctrines are matters of history. They were acknowledged at the time by no one with more warmth and cordiality than by the late Duke of Wellington, who, in the course of the debate on the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech in 1841, said—
I am willing to admit that the noble Viscount has rendered the greatest possible service to Her Majesty. I happen to know that it is Her Majesty's opinion that the noble Viscount has rendered Her Majesty the greatest possible service in making her acquainted with the mode and policy of the Government of this country, initiating her into the laws and spirit of the constitution, independently of the performance of his duty as the servant of Her Majesty's Crown—teaching her, in short, to preside over the destinies of this great country." [3 Hansard, lix. 77.]I do not mean anything personal to the noble Duke in saying I thought it well to have this high authority before using these words—on the principle of the American carpenter who was called as a witness in a ease of' assault and battery. He was asked how far was the defendant off when he advanced to strike the blow—"4ft. 11½in., Sir." "Why, you seem to be very accurate. How is it possible you can be so exact?" "Why, Sir, in case some fool might ask me the question, I went and measured the distance."
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDMy Lords, the noble Duke says, in effect, that he has prepared this extract in case any fool should ask him a Question such as I have done. I do not suppose that the noble Duke in interposing this American anecdote intended to be personal—I am, of course, in the hands of your Lordships in such a matter as this—but I should wish to know whether that is a proper mode of replying to a Question put by a Member of your Lordships' House. In my remarks I carefully avoided everything calculated to give offence; but the noble Duke, by the terms in which he answers my Question, leads it to be believed that he has been asked the Question by a fool. I leave it to your Lordships to say whether I am one or not.
THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSMy Lords, I did not intend that the anec- 652 dote I quoted should apply personally and in an offensive manner to the Duke. It appears to me a matter of praise that Her Majesty has "never forgotten" nor departed from the constitutional principles which it was Lord Melbourne's endeavour to instil into her youthful mind. I do not see that my words can be fairly taken to mean that Her Majesty is a partizan. It may have been an error on my part to have made use of the word "party." On referring to a very usual book of reference called Maunder's Biographical Treasury, under the head "Melbourne, Viscount," I find the following statement—
In 1837 Lord Melbourne's Government, which had become gradually weakened by the attacks of a powerful majority in the Upper House and the hostility of a growing and powerful minority in the Lower, gained new strength from the accession of Queen Victoria, whose personal sympathies, it was alleged, were enlisted in favour of the party then in power.I hope, however, your Lordships will consider it a venial fault to mention that, unlike some of her predecessors, Her Majesty has remembered and acted up to the popular views of her youth, while she has behaved with admirable impartiality and fairness to men of all parties in the State whose services Her Majesty has required. I have to thank the noble Duke for the opportunity he has afforded me of explaining any misconception my words may have conveyed, and for kindly attracting so public a notice to the late Liberal meeting in Nottingham, over which I had the honour to preside.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Duke (the Duke of St. Alban's) instead of exculpating himself from the charge which was brought against him, appears to me to have repeated the offence by calling his adversary a fool. I do not know to what extent the Ministers of the Crown consider they are responsible for what their subordinates may say—but when I heard that quotation from Maunder—a very suggestive word—brought up by the noble Duke, I fully expected some Cabinet Minister would have risen in his place to call him to Order, and that we should not be blamed for objecting to language in which Her Majesty is described as a partizan. The rule, my Lords, which almost invariably prevents the use of such language, is one which is just not 653 only to Parliament but to the Queen, because she cannot answer these accusations. It may be true or false—we believe it to be thoroughly true—that the Queen has the most perfect appreciation in the performance of her duties of that which becomes her as a Constitutional Sovereign. But when one of those who hold a place in her Government accuses her of the contrary conduct, her mouth is closed and she cannot repudiate the charge. I feel the danger of a practice which if it extended to the higher ranks of the Government would assume a much more serious character than it does in the present instance. If this sort of thing is done in the case of one Sovereign it will be done in the case of another; and are we, I would ask, to take it as a rule for our future guidance that it will be fair at any future time to charge any future Sovereign with having adopted all the opinions of any statesman or party whom he might have honoured with his friendship or acquaintance in his youth? If any such course is pursued it may be a great libel on that Sovereign. I feel it, my Lords, very dif-cult to comment on this extraordinary dinner at which the noble Duke presided, because all the guests there appear to have dwelt in an enchanted land, and to have been entirely confused by something that I will not attempt to define. My noble Friend opposite, who represents the Board of Trade in this House (Earl Cowper)—than whom there could scarcely be a more calm and sagacious representative of the Government—felt himself tempted to indulge in some very remarkable phraseology with respect to Members of your Lordships' House, whether belonging to the Liberal or the Conservative party; but the word which he used was somewhat more elegant than that which has just now been applied by the noble Duke to my noble Friend behind me. But the noble Duke at this dinner made some other startling observations. He told the country that the House of Lords was divided into two classes—those who attended the debates and voted according to their convictions, and those who were brought down to the House from time to time and voted as they were told. I did not at first see who it was that used this language. I thought it must be the utterance of some unruly guest who was referring to the subordinate Members of the Govern- 654 ment in the House of Lords. I believe they are the only Members of the House whose convictions by some miraculous intervention invariably coincide with the decisions of others in which they have themselves no concern. I found, however, on looking more attentively at the Report, that the remarks of the noble Duke were intended to be applied principally to those who sit on the Conservative side of the House. It is a favourite topic with noble Lords opposite that the Conservative party have a large majority within these walls, and that the decisions of your Lordships are come to by a blind majority at the back of my noble Friend the leader of the Opposition. I would however, remind the House, in the case of a critical division, 10 years ago, on the subject of the Danish War, the Conservative majority turned out to be nine, and that since that time the present Prime Minister has added 28 Members to this House; so that if you deduct 28 from nine you have the Conservative majority. The truth, I suppose, is, after the exhibition of this evening, that the Conservative party generally do carry out those Constitutional principles which Lord Melbourne recommended to Her Majesty, while those who were brought up under him do not continue to support them. I wish also to call attention to another point in the speech of the noble Duke—but he so seldom indulges in this refined epigrammatical style of speaking that I fear he may not have followed the proceedings in this House with great attention. I am afraid that I may be looked upon as one of those who are brought down here to vote as they are told; because he complained to the Nottingham dinner party that the Conservative party had not resisted a Bill brought forward by noble Lords opposite on its second and third readings in this House. Now, the noble Duke could not have been acquainted with the facts, or he would not have made the assertion. It is perfectly true that we found it hopeless to resist the second reading of the Bill in question. But we fought hard against its provisions in Committee for a whole night, and the irresistible Conservative majority was beaten. Though, therefore, it is literally true that we did not resist the second or third reading, the noble Duke has, nevertheless, been guilty of a suggestio falsi, because we re- 655 sisted the Bill in Committee, not because it was hostile to the licensed victuallers, but because we objected to it on principle. I now hope that when any portion of the Body Guard of the Government is in future retained to storm the provinces—and it is a remarkable fact that not a single independent Peer attended on the present occasion—they will abstain from representing the proceedings of this House and those who are opposed to them in politics in a way which will not bear criticism. Some of us may be fools and others may be bores, but that fact need not be openly proclaimed in every borough which Her Majesty's Government may desire to conciliate. Another observation which was made at the dinner was that the irresistible majority of which the noble Duke was speaking put forward inferior men in debate, and that the leaders did not take the trouble to explain their own policy. All this is really very hard on us who sit on this bench. My noble Friend near me is called a fool, and he is besides designated as an "inferior man," because he generally supports his own policy, and I, who in a humble way pursue the same system, must take my rank by his side in the list which has been assigned us. I am sure, however, there is no more mistaken charge which can be brought against my noble Friend and those who sit near him than that they shrink from supporting, on all possible occasions, the measures they approve. I sincerely hope that the next time the House of Lords is toasted there will be no Member of the Government present to respond for it, because otherwise I do not see how the character of this House is to be maintained.
§ EARL COWPERsaid, he had perhaps, used an unfortunate expression on the occasion to which the noble Marquess referred, and he would not repeat it. He would remind the noble Marquess, however, that when the Petition signed by a certain number—450 he believed—of clergymen in favour of confession was under discussion a few days ago, he himself had spoken of the number of fools among the clergy as probably not being greater than were to be found in either House of Parliament.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained that he had said that these were only 2½ per cent of the clergy, and that 2½ per cent of folly was not greater 656 than might be found in Parliament; but he had left it in doubt whether there was the greater amount of folly in that or in the other House of Parliament.
§ EARL COWPERsaid, he did not wish to retract what he had said, but wanted the House to know fairly what it was he had said. He stated that their Lordships' House might be viewed in two aspects—first, there were the ordinary nights when certain noble Lords who devoted themselves to politics came down to attend to the public business, and next there were the great occasions when noble Lords appeared whose faces were not so familiar and were not seen there at other times, but who then gave their votes, and it so happened that a large majority of them were Conservatives. That statement of his rested on evidence which was open to the whole world—the published records of their Lordships' Votes and Proceedings. If, therefore, it was erroneous, the whole country could judge of its error; but he believed that it was correct.
§ House adjourned at Nine o'clock, 'till to morrow, Eleven o'clock.