§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I wish to be allowed, before the House rises, to make a few observations on a personal matter. I am told that the other House of Parliament has been occupying itself with the exciting, but somewhat irregular, pastime of discussing the discussions in this House. I do not propose to imitate a practice which appears to me inconvenient, and to bring before your Lordships in general anything which has been there said; but I would observe that if the practice of discussing elsewhere what has been said here is to prevail, it is very desirable that there should be some authorized form of reporting what takes place in each House of Parliament, which can be distributed to the Members of the other House, so that at least they may know what they are talking about. But my reason for rising is, that the most extraordinary language has been imputed to me—I believe, among others, by persons or by a person in the other House of Parliament, who was evidently wholly unacquainted with the matter of which he was speaking. It has been said that I was guilty of using with respect to the House of Commons the phrase "a blustering majority." That was said with the greatest confidence, and it was apparently accepted as absolutely true; and for two hours, I am told, the House of Commons went on discussing the interesting thesis whether it was "a blustering majority" or not. I am sorry, my Lords, to dispel the illusion which was the cause of so much effective speaking; but in justice to myself, I do not like it to remain on record that I made use of such an observation. I 1398 do not know who invented the idea, but it is a simple and absolute fabrication. I never said anything of the kind. I never said anything of the kind, in the first place, because it would be wholly untrue. There has never been of late years anything in the conduct of the majority in the other House to justify anybody in using such language with regard to it. The majority in the House of Commons possesses great power, but it has always exercised that power with self-restraint and dignity. Another reason why I did not use such language in regard to the other House is, because this is not the place where such language ought to be used. It appears to me to be the basis of our Constitutional system that the two Houses of Parliament should in their discussions always observe that profound respect for each other which I am sure as regards the vast majority of the Members of both Houses is generally felt. I have, therefore, to deny, in the most formal and positive manner, that I ever used the phrase "blustering majority" with regard to the other House of Parliament. I did use the word "bluster," but with this reference—It had been argued by somebody in this House—I do not enter into any further indication of who the person was—that we were bound so take a particular course because the House of Commons was very resolved, and because, if we did not take that course, this Bill would be lost. My Lords, I have always objected to the argument, when there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses, that it is the privilege of the House of Commons always to insist, and the duty of the House of Lords always to yield. It is not uncommon to use that argument when we come to the last discussions in conflicts of that kind, and I venture to think it is an argument of a nature which may be justly designated by the term "bluster." But, whether that be the case or not, what I am now concerned to say is, that it never entered my head to use a term in the least degree disrespectful to the other House of Parliament. I regret that the statement should have been made, because I should exceedingly dislike to have it attached to my name, and by such distinguished authorities, or to have it thought that I could be guilty of such an offence at all. There has been a 1399 good deal of excited language used; but I do not think it my duty to refer to that. It is very natural that those whose opinions are overruled should feel irritation. My only object is to clear myself of this imputation, and to express my hope that we may never again see the renewal of so great an irregularity as the discussion in one House of Parliament of the debates in the other.
LORD CARLINGFOEDMy Lords, as I was not present in the House the other night at the debate to which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) refers, and as I was in the same position as the Members of the other House in having to trust mainly to the report in the papers for what was said by the noble Marquess, perhaps I may be allowed to state, by way of evidence as to the effect of that report on ordinary minds, that the sense it conveyed to my mind was precisely the same as that which the noble Marquess has just described; and that I was much surprised to find that the other interpretation—which I should not have thought possible—which attributes to the noble Marquess the use of the term "blustering majority" to the House of Commons itself had apparently been adopted—almost by common consent—by the persons who took part in the debate in the other House yesterday; and, among-them especially, as I observed, by the Prime Minister himself. I certainly gathered from the report that whatever "bluster" there was went on in this House, and I understood that the person who had raised "the bugbear" was the noble Marquess's Colleague the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLORI am glad that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) has referred to this subject, and I hope that those who may hereafter discuss in the one House what has been said in the other will be induced by what has happened in this case to bear in mind two things—first, the importance of ascertaining accurately what has been said before they proceed to comment upon it; and, in the next place, what an immense difference the misquotation of a single word may make on a grave subject. Unlike the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Carlingford), I was present at the discussion in this House the other night, and heard what 1400 my noble Friend said, and also took a great interest in it, because my noble Friend followed the observations which I had made, and he was expressing his view, as he always does, with great clearness and point. And, in the first place, I join with my noble Friend in utterly denying that any such expression as that of "a blustering majority" ever fell from the mouth of my noble Friend. In the next place, I say that there was not a word said by my noble Friend which had reference to anything that had been said or done, or threatened to be done inside the House of Commons. Everything that my noble Friend said had, in the most legitimate way, reference to what had been said in this House, and in no place else. And I agree further with the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Carlingford), that when my noble Friend adverted to the "bugbear" of a majority in the other House, he was alluding to the remarks of no more important a person than he who now addresses your Lordships. That was my impression. I have refreshed my memory with the report of the discussion which appeared in The Times, and I find that it concurs entirely with my own recollection of what passed. This was the observation made by my noble Friend, as given in The Times:—"Much has been said of the majority in 'another place'"—I myself had said something about it—
Much had been said of the majority in 'another place', and of the peril in which the Bill would be if the clause under discussion were rejected.I think, my Lords, these were the very words that I used. My noble Friend then went on—There was a great deal of that kind of bluster when any particular course had been taken by the other House of Parliament.I certainly thought that referred to what I had said; and, with the attachment and regard that I have for my noble Friend, if he had used expressions twice as strong I should not have felt the least discomposed or annoyed by them. I am told, however, by my noble Friend that he did not refer to me, but still to what had been said in this House; and it was perfectly legitimate for him to refer to anything that was said in this House. Then my noble Friend added—It was absurd to suppose that if the clause were rejected, there would not be found 12 men 1401 with sufficient common sense to accept the Bill rather than lose it altogether. He, for one, therefore, utterly repudiated the bugbear of a majority in the House of Commons "—that is to say, the bugbear that was presented to this House in the course of what was said in discussion. Then, my Lords, what happened? A Gentleman of great distinction rose elsewhere, and, upon information which turns out to be entirely erroneous, represented that my noble Friend had spoken about a "blustering majority" of the House of Commons. There was no time for any correction, because the other House met at 12 o'clock on the day after the discussion in this House. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, accepted the statement made as to what had occurred here, and the other House proceeded with its discussion on that assumption; whereas, if there had been an opportunity of informing the House that that statement was inaccurate, the whole of what afterwards transpired might have been spared. I am glad, my Lords, that my noble Friend has referred to this matter; because I am sure nothing could be more unlike my noble Friend, or more unworthy of a Member of your Lordships' House than the use of any such expression as that which has been wrongly imputed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI wish to say that I did not, in what I said, at all refer to anything that had fallen from my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack in debate.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he had not lost a word of the whole of the discussion, and he begged to assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that he had never had any misapprehension as to the fact that no reference had been made to him by the noble Marquess.