§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I have no desire to re-open the debate of last night; but I wish to clear up one or two matters of personal importance to myself. Nothing can be worse to a public man than to be accused of indulging in inaccurate statements without foundation. The noble Marquess yesterday said that my quotation of his remarks did not bear even the most fantastic resemblance—
§ THE PRIME MINISTER, AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)What I said was—"did not bear any but the most fantastic resemblance."
§ EARL GRANVILLEWell, that is a serious charge of which I wish to clear myself; and while I do so I wish in the most complete manner to accept any declaration of the noble Marquess as to anything he has said, for I know that even the ablest reporters are not infallible. I am also bound to say that 134 he is more likely to be well-informed as to what Prince Bismarck has said, and also he may be better acquainted with what his Colleague the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said, than I am; but I can only say that I quoted yesterday from reports published, and I believe it has generally been the practice of those who are not in Office to do so when allusion is made to any speech delivered by Ministers. With regard to Prince Bismarck, the noble Marquess was good enough to say that he was able to defend himself. I am perfectly aware of that fact, except on one condition only, and that is that someone must attack him. Now, I never attacked Prince Bismarck, nor had I the slightest intention of doing so; my observations were limited to the noble Marquess himself. I will read what I said—
Our negotiators were so modest that they abdicated the care of the negotiations, and placed themselves unreservedly into the hands of the ablest and most powerful diplomatist of Europe. The choice was excellent; but, unfortunately, he announced himself the Plenipotentiary of Russia, and in that capacity advocated and obtained for her every object she desired.I am bound to say I have no authority but what appears in the message of The Times Correspondent from Berlin, the general accuracy of which is confirmed in the next day's message. The Correspondent, in his own words, states that the Chancellor said he almost tried to act as if he had been the fourth Plenipotentiary of Russia; and he then quotes—Nay, I can almost say the third, for I could not look upon Prince Gortchakoff as an advocate of the Russian policy as it was then represented by its real champion, Count Schouvaloff. During the whole Congress there came to my knowledge no Russian wish which I did not advocate and even carry through, in consequence of the trust reposed in me by Lord Beaconsfield.I think that with this information respecting a remarkable speech, the report of which is uncontradicted, I was perfectly entitled to make the observations I made without being charged with having given a version which only bore a fantastic resemblance to what was said. I now come to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. What I said was—The Chief Secretary with great candour had acknowledged that there had been an alliance between the Conservatives and the 135 Parnellites. He defended it on the ground that it was casual, and had only lasted a short time.I will now quote in full from the report in The Times a passage from the speech which Air. Balfour made at Manchester on December 15. He said—The truth is that there is a vital and essential difference between the temporary and casual alliance, the temporal and imperfect co-operation, which occurred in 1885 between the Tory and the Irish Parties and the complete fusion and identification of interests which has now occurred between the Radicals and the same Irish Party.There may be room for argument one way or the other as to the meaning of that passage; but it certainly justifies my saying that Mr. Balfour at that time had acknowledged that there had been an alliance, although he qualified it by saying that it had been only temporary and casual. The remark I reluctantly made on another point was that a suggestion had come from the Prime Minister that a great majority of the Conservative Party would prefer not to hold conversation with Mr. Gladstone. I have looked back, and I find from The Times report that what the noble Marquess said was this—My impression is that the great majority of Conservatives would rather not have a conversation with him (Mr. Gladstone) if they could avoid it.The report in The Daily Telegraph was the same. The report in The Daily Chronicle was—My impression is that the majority of the Conservatives would rather not have a conversation with him.The report in The Standard was the same. I leave it to your Lordships to say whether it is correct to state that what I said had only a fantastic resemblance to the original; but I will entirely accept any repudiation by the noble Marquess. I feel, however, I have not been guilty of any offence to your Lordships' House in what I said last evening, and how the noble Marquess can say that the words I had founded on these reports bear only a fantastic resemblance to them passes my imagination.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am afraid I must adhere to my interpretation of the reference made by the noble Earl to the speech of Prince Bismarck. I have not got the original report of his speech here, as I was not aware the noble Earl intended to refer 136 to the matter; but I do not think the words he has quoted, even from the summary report, contain the meaning which his own language appears to attribute to them. He said that Prince Bismarck advocated and obtained for Russia every single object she desired. But what Prince Bismarck, as I understand, said was that anything brought to his knowledge during the negotiations at the Conference he obtained for Russia. That is quite a different thing.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI do not know whether the noble Marquess is stating what he imagines to be the case or is speaking from information he possesses.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am speaking from what the noble Earl himself said last night and to-night, and I maintain that what he has quoted to-night as Prince Bismarck's statement is not what he said last night, and the difference is material. The impression conveyed by the noble Earl in his speech last night was that Lord Beaconsfield had obtained no object of English policy, but that Prince Bismarck obtained everything Russia desired. That is not supported by any fair construction of the words actually used by Prince Bismarck. I may say the same with respect to other quotations. With respect to the quotation the noble Earl has made from my right hon. Relative the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as to the alliance which was said to have existed between the Conservatives and the Parnellite Party, the noble Earl left out the words "imperfect co-operation." If he will read the whole passage he will see it was something very different from "temporary and casual" alliance on which Mr. Balfour rested his defence. With regard to the quotations which the noble Earl did me the honour to make from my speeches, he does not seem in his explanations to have exhausted the number of quotations. For instance, I see the noble Earl stated that I had said in Lancashire "that nothing but a direct Vote of Censure would turn the Government out of Office." I beg to meet that statement with a most absolute contradiction. Those words were not the words I used, and I defy the noble Earl to find any report in which those words occur. The noble Earl said that I had stated that no legal provision could prevent the practice of Boycotting. I 137 never said such a thing, although I said there were certain forms of Boycotting, such as leaving church upon the entrance of certain persons, which law could not deal with. But what the noble Earl said is absolutely at variance with the fact, and it only showed that the noble Earl relied on his memory when he said that the previous opinion of the Prime Minister was that no legal provision could prevent the practice of "Boycotting." Again, the noble Earl said—
The Government of the noble Marquess declined to introduce any repressive measure, but they did not say it was for want of time.I said again and again it was for want of time; and I cannot conceive where he got the idea that I did not say so. It is true that other grounds were mentioned by myself and by others; but want of time was the ground which we alleged and dwelt on again and again; and if this were a fitting opportunity I could show that we dwelt upon it with very great reason. I now come to the question of the Boycotting of Mr. Gladstone. The noble Earl used in this House a very ambiguous phrase. He said I was guilty of a "suggestion" of pure and simple Boycotting. The word "suggestion" is a word with a very common meaning, and one that is very rare. It is generally used to indicate a mitigated sort of advice put into a man's head; and sometimes it is used, especially in Courts of Law, for indicating a fact. I presume, by the light of the noble Earl's present explanation, that it was in the latter sense he intended to use it. I understood the noble Earl to accuse me of advising the Boycotting of Mr. Gladstone. I can only say that if he did accuse me of any such thing, there is not the most fantastic resemblance to such a suggestion in the speech I actually made. What I said I abide by. I said Mr. Gladstone was guilty of a most unjustifiable act in stating to a correspondent that the Tories in private said that they expect that some measure of Home Rule must be passed. I said it was unjustifiable, first, because it was not true; and, secondly, because it suggested that Mr. Gladstone had means of knowing what the Tories said. To show that Mr. Gladstone had no means of knowing what the Tories said, I mentioned the undoubted fact that on such subjects they would be very 138 sparing in their conversation with him. I believe, as a matter of fact, that the Party, as a whole, would be sparing in conversation with him in the present excited state of feeling. They may be right or wrong. But their views of Mr. Gladstone's conduct are not those which are attached to the errors which an ordinary statesman may make. But let that pass; at all events, upon that subject they certainly would not converse with him. I maintain that that fact supports my contention that he was not justified in attributing to the Tories that they made statements in private inconsistent with their public utterances, and which he could not possibly have known if they had been made.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must express regret at hearing the last portion of the noble Marquess's statement. He protested with his noble Friend behind him against the doctrine which had been laid down. Whatever might be his own opinions in regard to the Chief Secretary for Ireland's political action, he would not object to holding conversation with that right hon. Gentleman. However strong might be the feelings of public men in respect to public questions, it was on every account extremely desirable that they should not allow their political animosities to pass into the daily relations of life.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI spoke as to a fact I observed with respect to others: I did not utter a word to indicate any opinion of my own on the subject.