HL Deb 11 July 1884 vol 290 cc796-809
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I have some observations of a personal character to make with respect to a very remarkable speech which was delivered by the Prime Minister at the Foreign Office yesterday, of which a report appears in this morning's papers. The Prime Minister there stated that certain offers were made to the Tory Party in the House of Lords and were rejected; and some observation has been made on the fact that no notice of that circumstance occurred. As far as I know, what took place was this—I had no communication by word, or by writing, with any Member of Her Majesty's Government; but just before the dinner hour on Tuesday, my noble and learned Friend who sits by me (Earl Cairns) asked me to come out, and informed me that some communication had been made to him verbally by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville); that, in the course of conversation, the noble Earl had peremptorily refused anything in the nature of Colonel Stanley's Amendment, but had suggested a more emphatic and formal promise—made emphatic by the process of special Resolution—on the part of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Redistribution Bill next year. My noble and learned Friend, at the same time, informed me that he had obtained leave from the noble Earl to communicate the matter to me, and asked my opinion. I gave him the opinion that it made no change in the circumstances, because we did not suspect—we had never professed to suspect—the absolute sincerity of Her Majesty's Government—of noble Lords opposite, I should say—in their intention to propose to introduce a Bill of Redistribution next year. A simply more emphatic and solemn reiteration of that intention, however solemn and emphatic it might be, was simply superfluous; it was labouring a point that was not contested; it was giving us no security on the points on which we felt anxiety. The points on which we felt anxiety were two—first, that Her Majesty's Government, however sincere their intention of bringing in a Redistribution Bill, might not be in a condition to pass it before a Dissolution; and, secondly, that if they did, that Redistribution Bill might be of such a character as, in our judgment, to be so inequitable as not to form a reasonable basis for the settlement of the question, and that if the Franchise Bill were passed without a measure of Redistribution, we should not be so free as we otherwise should be to deal with that Redistribution Bill next year. I understood, however, and my noble and learned Friend understood, that the communication was absolutely informal and confidential. I felt myself absolutely precluded from making any allusion to it; and, indeed, when I was speaking in your Lordships' House, and referring to the indisposition of Her Majesty's Government to give us Colonel Stanley's clause, I was very careful to frame my words so that there should be no suspicion that anything had passed between us—so absolutely confidential did I believe the communication to be. But I have something further to say. Not satisfied with thus bringing forward and relating communications which, to our minds, were absolutely confidential, the Prime Minister goes further, and states a reason why these offers were rejected; and the reason he gives is this—that the offer was rejected because the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords said he could not discuss redistribution "with a rope round his neck;" and he went on to dwell upon this, and to make capital out of it; and he preaches a sermon, if I may say so, about the rope round the neck. It was, he said, a penalty inflicted in certain ancient Republics for innovators who failed; and he described it as being a "monstrous statement" on my part. He inferred from it that I considered the franchise as "a poison," and that I considered that the persons to be enfranchised were "a set of wild beasts;" and he goes on through a great number of sentences enlarging on all the enormities to be deduced from the circumstance of my having refused the proposal, as, he says, because of "the rope round my nock." Will your Lordships believe that this statement is an utter fabrication, and has not a vestige of foundation? I have made no communication to Her Majesty's Government by word or by letter. My noble and learned Friend is prepared to state to you that he made no communication of such a kind on my part; and there is not the faintest basis for the extraordinary statement which the Prime Minister has put forward. I will not dwell on the matter further; but I shall only ask, are these the poisoned weapons by which the Prime Minister is about to fight this battle? Is he not only going to use for controversial purposes the results of purely confidential communications, but to thrust into the mouth of his opponent statements which he never made, pretending that they were made at an interview at which the Prime Minister was not present, and with regard to which he could not have any certain information whatever? I think such a policy on his part not only shows but little confidence in the justice of his cause, but it is a sufficient indication to us that that misunderstanding of our actions, which it is essential for the Government to produce, will be compassed by the familiar and easy process of misrepresentation.

Earl CAIRNS and the Earl GRANVILLE rose at the same time to address the House.

Both noble Lords being called upon, after a short time it was

Moved, "That the Earl Cairns be heard."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

Amendment moved to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("the Earl Granville be heard.")

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 26; Not-Contents 27: Majority 1.

Resolved in the negative.

Amendment agreed to.

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, I do not feel any triumph on winning the Division. I regret very much interposing between the noble and learned Earl and the House; but I think that your Lordships will see that the vote of your Lordships' House just now is not a very unreasonable one. Here is a question raised, partly with regard to my conduct, and partly with regard to another person, for having done something in "another place;" and this without the slightest Notice having been given to me of the intention on the part of the noble Marquess, or of the noble and learned Earl—of the one to begin, and of the other to follow up an accusation against Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I apprehend that after what has passed, the noble and learned Earl has no objection to my stating what I believe passed between us. I will read to your Lordships a short memorandum of the interview that I had with him; and he will correct me, I am perfectly sure, if there is any inaccuracy contained in it. The memorandum is as follows:— On Tuesday I called on Lord Cairns in his private room at the House of Lords before the Orders of the Day were read. I said that, notwithstanding former success in averting differences between the two Houses, I did not feel sanguine now, and was only induced to trouble him because it had been suggested by a Conservative Peer that I should do so, and also by the assurance which he (Lord Cairns) gave in his speech that a special provision offered by the Government might settle the whole matter. I asked him whether he could make any suggestion. Lord Cairns made a suggestion, which, though not in similar words, was the same in substance as Colonel Stanley's Clause. I stated that such an arrangement was impossible for the Government to accept. I then suggested for his consideration that the Government should pledge themselves, if the House of Lords passed the present Bill, to propose an identical Resolution in both Houses, reciting that they have passed the Representation of the People Bill in reliance on the enagement tendered by Her Majesty's Ministers that they will, so far as depends on them, introduce and use every effort in their power to pass in the ensuing Session a Bill for the redistribution of seats in the United Kingdom, and a joint Address by both Houses, laying the same Resolution at the foot of the Throne. Lord Cairns asked whether I could give my words in writing, and, after my having done so, whether he might show them to Lord Salisbury. Later in the evening he returned my paper with the observations that—'This does not appear to give any higher security than that which is already given by the assurance of the Government. If the Government admitted an Amendment, either (1) that the Bill should come into operation on a day to be named in a subsequent Act of Parliament, or (2) should come into operation on January 1, 1886, unless an earlier day was named in an Act to be passed next Session, it would be sufficient.' Now, that is all that passed between us. The memorandum goes on— I communicated this result to Mr. Gladstone, and we agreed that the refusal of the Leaders of the Opposition was not decisive against our making the proposal to the House of Lords. But I had received an appeal for an adjustment from a Conservative Peer, not on the Front Bench, who expressed a desire, on the part of himself and some other Peers, to find a means of avoiding a vote against the Bill. I therefore sent him the proposal, which he returned with an intimation that it was not sufficient. Under these circumstances, the Lord Chancellor and I were of opinion that it was not desirable to make a proposal in the House of a somewhat novel character, as it was sure to be rejected by those to whom it was addressed. Now, my Lords, I should decline any explanation to-day without any Notice had I not got this morning a letter from Mr. Gladstone himself on the subject. Mr. Gladstone says—

"10, Downing Street, Whitehall,

"July 11, 1884.

"My dear Granville,—I see that in the report of my speech at the Foreign Office I appear to say that the offer made by you on Tuesday was rejected because the Leader of the Opposition said he could not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck. The report appears to me very careful, and I certainly cannot undertake to correct it from memory; but I had no intention of conveying that Lord Salisbury used those words in declining the offer. I understood that he had used the phrase in dealing with the subject. It appeared to me to be an apposite, concise, and summary statement of his view, and to be the ground of his refusal of our offer. My intention could have been more fully conveyed had I said the offer was rejected, as it appeared to mo, because Lord Salisbury considered that he could not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck. This idea was fully expressed in the first of two suggestions which were indicated to you (without, however, being tendered in a binding way) in the reply to our proposal. The second I could not regard as serious, since (in my view) it required the Government to agree to a proposal fully discussed in the House of Commons, and rejected on both sides of the House for reasons on which I need not now enter. I need hardly add that the purpose of my speech was not to give a history of the proceedings, but only to mark with exactitude the point up to which we had been willing to go.

"Sincerely yours,

"W. E. GLADSTONE."

My Lords, with regard to these two proposals I think it may be satisfactory to your Lordships to know the reasons why we objected to the first alternative. It was tantamount to Colonel Stanley's proposal, which was rejected by an enormous majority in the House of Commons, and was quite inconsistent with the lines which the Government had laid down for themselves. The second alternative was practically the same as that proposed by Mr. Albert Grey; and the objection to it appears obvious. It was repudiated not only by Sir Stafford Northcote, but by Mr. Gladstone. The addition of the words about the possibility of inserting an earlier date in the Redistribution Bill does not pledge anybody to anything, and it was always possible to introduce at any time such an earlier date. That addition would practically make it impossible to dissolve Parliament until the seventh year of its existence—a most inconvenient arrangement in itself, and which would practically interfere with the Royal Prerogative to fix a date. It would necessitate a second Dissolution almost immediately after the first. At all events, from the Government point of view, the argument against the alternative offered to us was such that we could not accept it. Well, my Lords, I excessively regret anything that has occurred between me and my noble and learned Friend, whom, I must say, I have always found one of the fairest of men possible in discussions of this kind; but I thought it better to state the facts exactly as they happened.

EARL CAIRNS

My Lords, when I proposed to follow my noble Friend be hind me I thought that it was more convenient and more courteous to the noble Earl that he should hear all that was to be said on this side with regard to a transaction which was divided between two persons, and should not only hear one part of the statement. I had no intention when I came into the House to say anything; but, without finding any fault with the version of what took place as given by my noble Friend, I thought it was incumbent on me to rise immediately and supplement what he had said. I do not think that the noble Earl can fairly complain of want of Notice. It is for me to complain of want of Notice. He comes down here completely furnished with his materials. He has even reduced to writing what passed at a private and confidential interview between himself and me.

EARL GRANVILLE

It was reduced to writing before.

EARL CAIRNS

Before the meeting?

EARL GRANVILLE

Not before the meeting; but before this morning.

EARL CAIRNS

I do not say it was reduced to writing for this special purpose. It is quite new to me. And he is also prepared with a letter from Mr. Gladstone, a letter which, I think, ought rather to have been sent to my noble Friend behind me, and not sent to the noble Earl. I am very sorry to have to speak of what passed at the interview, which I considered to be entirely private and confidential, and as to which I should sooner have cut off my hand than spoken of it to anyone without permission. It is a lesson at my age to be more careful in future of entering into those communications which are frequently very useful, but which experience of the last 24 hours shows may be turned to a dangerous purpose. If communications of this kind between men who are engaged in public life lead to a good result, so much the better; if they do not, I have always understood that they were swept out of the way, because that is the only way business can be transacted as between public men. What occurred is simply this. There is no material point of controversy between me and the noble Earl as to what occurred; but I must remind your Lordships what my noble Friend complains of. I do not understand that anything approaching to an explana tion can be given of Mr. Gladstone's statement. Here is the statement— We were so anxious that solemnity should be given to these pledges, and that they should be placed beyond all possibility of evasion, that even at the last moment a mode was devised for giving them additional solemnity, and an offer was made to the Tory Party in the House of Lords the night before last, but was rejected. It was an offer that both Houses should, on the responsibility of the Government, be invited to pass identical Resolutions, in which it should be set forth that each House had passed the Franchise Bill in reliance on the pledges of Her Majesty's Advisers to introduce the Redistribution Bill next year, and to make the passing of that Redistribution Bill the great object of their efforts, and that this Resolution, as so passed, should be presented by a Joint Address to the Crown, by which the matter could be formally accepted, so that there would be the concurrence of the three Bodies which gave the authority of law; and although it would not have the form it would yet have all the moral authority of law, and make certain, if anything future can be, the devotion of the next Session of Parliament to the settlement of this question of redistribution. That offer was rejected, because the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords said he could not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck. A rope round his neck! That used to be a penalty inflicted on innovators who failed. At least it was a warning applied to innovators who failed in certain ancient Republics, and the warning was sometimes applied in a manner more effective than agreeable. But what is this rope round his neck? It is the prospect of a large addition to the franchise. I utterly deny that that large addition to the franchise ought to be regarded as a rope round the neck of Lord Salisbury. Mr. Gladstone then went on to explain that all contentious business would be abandoned, with a view of bringing the Session to a speedy close. Now, my Lords, that is a statement as exact, as categorical, as precise, as even a master of words, which the Prime Minister is, could make it. It goes out this morning all over the country; it is the key-note of the agitation. It is this which every man, woman, and child in the country is to hear from the lips of the Prime Minister and by his authority—namely, that my noble Friend refused an offer which was made to him for the reasons which are here described in these words. My Lords, that is what the noble Earl had to meet, and how has he met it? The noble Earl on Tuesday evening, before the resumption of the debate, was good enough to come to my room; and I understood him to say to me that he had come to speak confidentially on the subject of the Bill, and about what the Government would do. The noble Earl said—"What would you think if the Government were to propose accepting something in the way of a Resolution?" I said—"I do not exactly understand what that means; put it more precisely." Then the noble Earl took a piece of paper, on which was the writing which he has read, and handed it to me. I read it, and said—"Would you have any objection to my showing it to Lord Salisbury?"

EARL GRANVILLE

Yes; that is quite correct.

EARL CAIRNS

That is all that passed. I am searching for "the rope round my neck," and that is why I go into those details. I was not able to speak to my noble Friend until between 7 and 8 o'clock. I then showed him the paper. Our communication was of a very brief kind. I am quite certain that my noble Friend said nothing to me about "a rope round his neck." I am very glad my communication with the noble Earl opposite was not by work of mouth, lest there should be any words about it. The noble Earl sent the paper across the Table, saying he should be glad to have it back with any observations I had to make. Thereupon I sent back the paper, and said—"This does not appear to be any greater security than we have in the promises of the Government;" and here terminated the whole of this mysterious and wicked communication. I do not know where the "rope round his neck" came from. I am bound to say that it is the purest imagination. I should not care about it, for anyone may make mistakes, if it were not for this—that this speech of the Primo Minister is almost a State Paper sent out to the country to instruct the mind of the country. Is that to be met by a private note from the Prime Minister to the noble Earl opposite, and saying—"Well, I do not recollect; but perhaps Lord Salisbury said something to justify it?" Now, is that the way to deal with your opponents?" The question is not whether the terms offered ought to have been accepted; but whether the Prime Minister was justified, when addressing a meeting confined to Members of the House of Commons, which was reported for the instruction of the whole country, in making a statement with regard to my noble Friend which has not a shadow of foundation? Now, my Lords, I will go a little further. In this speech of the Prime Minister I do not find any justification for the expression with regard to "a rope round his neck;" but I do find an idea of the Prime Minister's which is quite new to me, and which seems to me to be a view of the Prime Minister's own, which is very like in substance to the metaphor which "a rope round his neck" would come to. I have hitherto been under the impression that the case of the Government was, that redistribution could not be accompanied with enfranchisement by reason of the great delay and complexity consequent on joining the two; but there is a flood of new light thrown on this matter by the speech of the Prime Minister. There is another reason, not given before, for this disconnection of the two subjects, and it is that this disconnection seems now, from the statement of the Prime Minister, to be a matter of careful and deliberate strategy and policy, and not to be connected in any way with time or delay. This is the strategy of the Government. The whole thing is now unveiled. Let this go to the country, too, and let the country know what it means when the Government say that redistribution cannot be joined with enfranchisement. His remarks, I am glad to see, do not apply to the House of Lords alone, but to the House of Commons. Nothing can be more grave or more deliberate than the Prime Minister's words. He says— I can only say—and I say it firmly—that with the view I have of the conditions under which alone Business can be managed in the House of Commons, and with the experience, not inconsiderable, that I have had for now more than half-a-century, I affirm to you, positively and absolutely, that you will not and cannot pass a Redistribution Bill unless the Opposition have some motive for allowing it to pass. Now, what is the motive? The good-will on the part of the Opposition, which we require in order to give redistribution a chance, cannot be had unless they know —that is, the Opposition in the House of Commons— that the extension of the franchise is to take place, and that if they will not have it with redistribution they must have it without. The result of this disseverance would be that practically both Houses of Parliament would be legislation as to redistribution under duress. That has all along been my opinion. But I did not know that it was designed. This design is now openly avowed and revealed by Mr. Gladstone to his supporters. I tell you," he says, "that we must get the Franchise Bill passed first, so as to get that momentum and motive power which alone is to put the wicked Opposition into motion; because, if it does not like the redistribution which we offer, it will have to take this large extension of the franchise without any redistribution at all. All these references, therefore, to the delay and toil of attempting to deal with the franchise and redistribution at the same time are nothing short of what many people would call hypocrisy.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, there are two things to which I wish to address myself separately in a few words. First, as to the actual facts with respect to Mr. Gladstone; and, secondly, to the latter part of the noble and learned Earl's speech. With regard to Mr. Gladstone, I am quite sure that, whatever may be the influence of political differences on the mind of any of your Lordships, you do not want the facts to be misstated or misunderstood. Mr. Gladstone wrote a letter, which my noble Friend has read to your Lordships—wrote it spontaneously, and without having been challenged on the subject, for the express purpose of calling my noble Friend's attention to an impression which he conceived would arise from the report of the speech which he made at the Foreign Office yesterday. This letter, so spontaneously written, expressly disclaims any intention of conveying the idea that the noble Marquess used those words about the rope round his neck as the motive for refusing the overture of the Government. Mr. Gladstone, before any explanation was asked for, wrote this letter spontaneously, in which he says— I had no intention of conveying that Lord Salisbury used these words in declining the offer. I understood that he had used the phrase in dealing with the subject; it appeared to me to be an apposite, concise, and summary statement of his view, and to be the ground of his refusal of our offer. My intention would have been more fully conveyed had I said the offer was rejected, as it appeared to me, because Lord Salisbury considered that he could not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck. The noble Marquess had made a great many speeches on this subject before the debate took place in this House. I cannot profess to have read all those speeches, and I cannot verify the impression on Mr. Gladstone's mind from any recollection of my own; but the noble Marquess might have used that expression. Of course, if he states that he did not—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I cannot carry all my speeches in my mind. What I deny is, having used it as it is quoted here.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Upon that point there is no difference between us. Mr. Gladstone in this letter, spontaneously written, expressly says that he did not intend to represent the noble Marquess as having so used it. Mr. Gladstone does not challenge the accuracy of the report, but he says he is quite sure that if the words he used were faithfully reported they did not convey his intention. I must say that in the course of the debate there was an expression used, if not by the noble Marquess, certainly by others, to the effect that the course taken by the Government would lead to the House having to discuss redistribution under duress. I think it was the noble and learned Earl who used that phrase, or something equivalent to it; the other phrase about the rope is a stronger and more picturesque way of putting the same thing. But the material thing is this—that Mr. Gladstone did not represent the noble Marquess as having used that expression, because Mr. Gladstone spontaneously disclaims having done so. In whatever words he may have expressed himself, I do not think that there is any man in this House who believes that Mr. Gladstone did intend to convey that idea. Mr. Gladstone has done everything he could to make this correction known to the noble Earl (Earl Granville); and, beyond all doubt, your Lordships may assume that if Mr. Gladstone had had any intention of conveying that meaning he would not have written this letter. But now I must make a few observations upon what the noble and learned Earl has said as to another part of Mr. Gladstone's speech. I believe none of the noble Lords who addressed your Lordships in support of the Government in the late debate dwelt more than I did upon the difficulties of doing that which was urged upon your Lordships and upon its impracticability. But I greatly failed to convey my own meaning if I did not put before your Lordships the very same view which the noble and learned Earl now represents as a new discovery and as a new light thrown by Mr. Gladstone upon the matter. I have over and over again urged that among the practical reasons against the attempt to combine the two questions was this—that the sure and certain effect would be that the one would be played off against the other—redistribution against franchise; franchise against redistribution—and that common sense dictated to those who really wanted an enlargement of the franchise this course—to do first what you can, and when you can, so as to settle first the natural basis for redistribution, and that then you would get out of the difficulty which would arise from the reaction of the two questions against each other when not separated. Those who wanted to go forward with redistribution would begin, if they could, with settling the franchise. I endeavoured to press that argument upon your Lordships; and I also said that I could see no reason whatever why 2,000,000 of our fellow-countrymen, who we are all agreed are fit to be enfranchised, should be refused the privilege until redistribution is passed; and that if redistribution is a matter of difficulty, it is far better that they should have the vote with the present distribution of power than that the vote should be refused to them until the question of redistribution is settled. I can see nothing whatever in that speech of Mr. Gladstone which I myself did not endeavour to impress on your Lordships in the course of the debate.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

My Lords, I would ask the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) or the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to answer this question. How can anyone form any opinion whatever, until he knows what the redistribution is to be, as to what effect the extension of the franchise will have upon the constitution of the House of Commons?

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

asked why Mr. Gladstone had made public what was understood to be a private communication?

LORD WAVENEY

gave it as his opinion that when a Redistribution Bill was brought in by the Government they should have had and received from the country such an indication of the opinion of the constituencies as would guide them in the principles of redistribution. No doubt, that would take the form of a very large disfranchisement of the small boroughs, and he would limit the retention of Irish boroughs to the maritime ports, including Dublin.

EARL GRANVILLE

I think I ought to say, in answer to what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), that his statement of what occurred is exactly the same as mine, except that he has introduced the word "confidential," and I do not think I used that word.

EARL CAIRNS

Nor "private?"

EARL GRANVILLE

I do not think I used that word, either. I do not think the words "private" or "confidential" passed; but, at all events, the written record which Mr. Gladstone read does not contain them.

EARL CAIRNS

Does the noble Earl mean to say that our conversation was not "private or confidential?" My own impression is that it was confidential.

EARL GRANVILLE

I do not think I used the word "private," but I considered it as such.

EARL CAIRNS

I should be sorry to differ from the noble Earl.