OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 18 July 1889)

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN
, in rising to call attention to the report 688 in Hansard's Debates of a speech delivered by the Earl of Mar in this House on Monday, 1st July, in which report occur references to the conduct of certain noble Lords, Members of this House, which references were not contained in the speech as originally delivered, said: My Lords, perhaps it is scarcely necessary that I should do so, but I think it would be well that I should state, before I make any further remarks upon this subject, that I am speaking entirely in my private capacity as a Member of your Lordships' House. My Lords, the matter upon which I have ventured to address your Lordships is one of considerable delicacy, and I felt some hesitation before I placed it upon the Notice Paper. It is a matter of delicacy, because it must more or less bring into question the action of a Member of your Lordships' House; but I feel that the course that has been pursued by the noble Lord to whom the notice refers has been so very inconvenient, so very prejudicial to the reputation of your Lordships' House, and—quite unintentionally no doubt—tends to act with such extreme unfairness and injustice upon certain Members of the House, that I thought I should not be fulfilling my duty if I did not bring the matter under your Lordships' consideration. In any remarks which I may have to make, I wish the noble Earl, the Earl of Mar, who I see is present, clearly to understand that I shall make them in no spirit of hostility whatever to him, and I do not wish to impute to him any intention of acting unjustly or unfairly to any Members of the House in any course which he has thought it right to pursue, I may just shortly bring to your Lordships' recollection what happened in the course of the Debate on the 1st July. On that occasion there was a Debate in the House on the question of the Mar Peerage, and the noble Earl, the Earl of Mar, in support of the Resolution of the Earl of Galloway, made a speech. In that speech, to which I listened very attentively throughout, I say with the utmost confidence there was no reference whatever to my name. Not only was there no reference to my name, but there was no reference to the names of the noble Lords who appear in the report of the speech. My astonishment was considerable when two or three days after the 1st 689 of July my attention was called to a report in the Times, in which my name and the names of the other noble Lords occurred as having been mentioned in the noble Lord's speech. Perhaps your Lordships may ask why it was that immediately on this coming to my notice I did not, when the Debate was fresh in your Lordships' recollection, and when the matter could have been more easily discussed and dealt with, at once place a notice on the Paper of the House; but, acting under advice, I thought it was better to defer taking any notice of the circumstance until the semi-official Report had been published in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. There was another reason why I thought it was desirable not to take too hurried action in the matter. As we all know, there may every now and then be certain mistakes and inaccuracies arising from speeches being sent to the Reporters' Gallery before they are delivered in the House, and there may be certain sentences in those speeches which are either left out or inserted by mistake, and the deliverer of the speech may not have had an opportunity of correcting the mistake before it appeared in the papers the next morning. But of course if that had been the case the noble Lord would have had the opportunity of expunging anything which he was aware had not fallen from him before the report actually appeared in Hansard's Debates, because the report of the speech to which I am alluding bears an asterisk, which shows that it came under the personal review of the noble Lord himself. I have already stated to your Lordships that there was no mention made of my name by the noble Earl in the speech he made. Yet in the corrected speech of the noble Lord I find these two passages— Now, my Lords, to-day we are opposed chiefly by the few Scotch Peers, who, from the beginning, opposed even the rectification of the injustice that Lord Kellie was to hold the Earldom of Mar limited to males, and vote in right of my Earldom that has been acknowledged to be traced through seven ladies. Those Peers, notably Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the late Duke of Buccleuch, tried to prevent the protests made against Lord Kellie assuming a title the House had not given him being received; and if they could have stopped the protests, and could have carried out their endeavours, they would to this day have prevented justice being done to me, and allowed 690 Lord Kellie to continue to vote under the old Earldom. And again— Those who have supported Lord Kellie's supposed rights with regard to an Earldom of Mar since 1875—notably, those noble Lords—Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the Duke of Buccleuch, with the Earl of Selborne, whose action I shall briefly recapitulate directly—should have the courage of their opinions, and be the first to promote investigation into such an attack on the decision of the Committee of Privileges. Those are the words that appear in Hansard. Now, I think I need scarcely assure the noble Earl that I am perfectly willing to stand any amount of criticism from him. He may accuse me of anything he likes in your Lordships' House; he may accuse me of not having the courage of my opinions; he may accuse me, perhaps, of having unfairly stood in the way of his getting what he thinks to be justice in the case of the Mar Peerage. He may do that in the House or out of the House; but what I do object to is that the noble Lord should make these accusations not in the House, but should make them appear as if they had been made in the House when it is perfectly clear that they were not, and, therefore, make it appear that they were submitted to without any remark whatever, and that I should sit in this House and hear insinuations as to my motives and conduct without any protest whatever, and by implication that I accepted those imputations without any comment or denial. Now, as I said before, I do not in the least care about the noble Lord's imputations: he may make any imputations he may like against me, foolish or otherwise, in the exercise of his judgment, but I do say this, that they should be made when I am present, and when I should have an opportunity of contradicting them, or else that they should be made in such a manner that it may be generally understood that I was not present when they were made. My Lords, I think there is another reason, but not a personal reason, why I should venture to bring this matter before the House. I think it is very derogatory to the Official Debates, as reported in Hansard, that this kind of alterations and this kind of amendments of speeches should be allowed to proceed. We all look to Hansard's Debates as a book of reference, corrected by noble Lords themselves in 691 very many instances, and we ought to be perfectly certain that the speeches as they are reported are those delivered in the House. I do not know how far it may be carried, but in this instance I think your Lordships will admit that I am perfectly justified in bringing the matter before the House. Of course the difficulty about this question is, and I have felt it very strongly, the difficulty of proving a negative; but I have consulted with two of the noble Lords who are mentioned in conjunction with me, and I have asked many noble Lords who were present during the Debate, and no single one of them is able to say that the words in Hansard were used by the noble Earl. There is one thing which makes me absolutely certain that those words were not used, and that is that the noble Earl has ventured to introduce the name of the late Duke of Buccleuch in connection with this Mar Peerage case. Now, all who had the privilege of knowing the late Duke of Buccleuch know that he was absolutely incapable of taking any line of conduct except that which he thought absolutely right and just. I do protest most earnestly against the memory of a man who has gone being attacked in this way, not in the House, but by the noble Lord when correcting a report of his speech. I do not wish to pursue the subject any further. I have spoken, my Lords, simply as a private Member of your Lordships' House, and I hope your Lordships will not think that I have gone too far in calling attention to the matter. I leave it to your Lordships to say whether you think that the mere fact of having drawn attention to it is sufficient, or whether you think that any further notice should be taken of it. For myself, I am perfectly satisfied of the fact that I have done my duty in calling attention to it, feeling perfectly certain that the noble Earl will, after this, be more cautious and more careful in the corrections he may make of any speech he may address to your Lordships in the future.

* THE EARL OF MAR
My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for calling attention to this matter, for I am anxious not to transgress any rules of this House, written or unwritten, though I venture to think that I have scarcely done so. I am sorry if any slight irregularity in the report of my speech should have occurred 692 through misadventence on my part. I must explain that, in consequence of the Earl of Selborne having opposed Lord Galloway's Motion in a speech of very considerable length, introducing many assertions which I felt bound to answer and refute, the Debate lasted to a late hour, and it is possible, of course, that in my speech, the time being very short, I omitted to say very fully every word of the particular observations which Lord Lothian complains that I left out, though I certainly expressed the substance of them, and I meant to say the whole of them. Messrs. Hansard, as is customary, after the Debate, asked me for my notes, and a few days afterwards I received from them a printed proof for my revision. Now, my Lords, after the somewhat long Speech which it was my duty to make to your Lordships, I found it naturally rather difficult, as all your Lordships I venture to say find on similar occasions, to recall every word said, and I am sure many noble Lords present will admit that it frequently happens that on revising proofs of speeches you may revise them to rather a fuller extent, by way of explanation, than the words actually used. On the other hand, as in the case of my speech on the 1st instant, the printed reports omit some passages that are said. That is but natural considering the difficulties under which Messrs. Hansard labour in this House in consequence of their representative being placed where he cannot hear every word spoken. I understand that Messrs. Hansard have addressed a letter to the Marquess of Lothian on the subject of their reports in general, and in allusion to the Debate on the Mar Peerage they say— Whether the revised speeches accurately represented the utterances in the House could only be tested by a comparison with the notes of a competent shorthand writer placed in a position to hear everything. Now, in justification of these remarks which the noble Marquess says I did not completely state to the House—and I have been rather severely taken to task for those remarks appearing in print—it is my duty to make an explanation, which I will do in as brief terms as possible. Those noble Lords, Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour, and the late Duke of Buccleuch (I am bound to mention his Grace's 693 name in the matter, but I must say that it is a fact known to many Members of this House that his Grace was seriously misled as to my position, and he committed himself to several actions in regard to the Mar Peerage which he otherwise would not hare done; that is my excuse for introducing the name of the late Duke of Buccleuch)—these Peers I have named were almost the only peers who took action against me in the——

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
I rise to order. I think the noble Lord is rather travelling outside the point. What I understood the noble Marquess below me to complain of was that in the corrected version of the speech which the noble Earl behind me delivered on the occasion of Lord Galloway's Motion he had not then, in his speech in the House, mentioned the names of certain noble Lords whose names afterwards appeared in the corrected version in Hansard, and it is to that that I understood the noble Marquess drew attention in order to ask the noble Earl behind me whether he could explain how it is that there appeared in Hansard the names of noble Lords who had not been mentioned whilst he was speaking in the House. Now, I think it would be irregular for the noble Lord to go into, and to travel back upon, the old controversy, and to enter into an argument as to the position taken up by any noble Lord in the matter.

* THE EARL OF MAR
My Lords, it is very possible that I did not mention the names of these noble Lords who are alluded to, individually, but I am perfectly sure that in this House I referred in very full terms to the action of these noble Lords, with certain others, who were opposed to me. I still think that I must trust to the indulgence of the House to allow me to explain in a very few words the answer I make to these charges. ["No, no!"] I am in your Lordships' hands. I would like to say one thing with your Lordships' permission. It is but due to the noble Lords—Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, and Lord Balfour—to state that they were good enough, two or three years ago, to express gratification at the recognition of my rights, and in consequence of that it was a great surprise to many noble Lords.—["Order, order!"]

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I rise to order. I think that after what the noble Duke has said, the House is entirely of opinion that the noble Earl should confine himself to the point which has been raised, which is rather a serious one, whether this report in Hansard was made to show something which did not take place in the House. He ought not to go beyond that.

* THE EARL OF MAR
The statement in Hansard is very full indeed, and—I will fall back upon what I just said—if I left out anything inadvertently, as very often happens when speeches are made in this House, I explained the substance of it, and the greater part of my speech was to explain in very full terms what had been done by these who had acted in opposition to my rights, and in support of Lord Kellie in his assumption of the title. That is really the substance of my speech in support of the Earl of Galloway's Motion for the rectification of the whole matter. My Lords, I still venture to think that I am entitled to the indulgence of your Lordships' House to give me an opportunity of explaining; but if that is denied me, of course I am in the hands of the House. I must again thank the noble Marquess for calling attention to the matter, because, as far as I am concerned, the more the matter is aired the better in the cause of truth and justice. And, my Lords, it is but right that I should say, it is but due to myself and to my heirs and to all these after me to say, that the unprecedented and grievous wrong under which I have suffered for so many years should be rectified by, if necessary, even an unprecedented remedy.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
My Lords, in saying what I have to say about this matter, I wish to deal with it in the most impersonal way. I feel that there is a certain difficulty in noticing the particular irregularity that has taken place on account of the very anomalous position in which our system of reporting stands. If our reporting was official, as it is in the French Chamber, the matter would have been brought to the notice of the House the very next day, and would have been corrected by order of the House. We still retain the 695 fiction that there is no report at all, and there is, therefore, some difficulty in expressing our condemnation of reports the existence of which we affect not to believe in. But passing that anomaly by, I must say that this is the first time I ever heard of such a mode of dealing with the reports as that which the noble Earl behind me has thought fit to take. My impression is that the whole world knew that when any noble Lord had to make a correction of a report sent to him, it has always been held a matter of duty not to insert anything which the speaker did not say. In Committees it has happened more than once that witnesses having got their evidence to correct have inserted a large amount of matter which they did not give in their evidence, and whenever that circumstance has been brought to the notice of the Committee, the intruded matter has always been struck out. I can only repeat that I have never heard of a similar thing being done in either House of Parliament before. I did not think it right to remain silent lest it should be thought that the matter was of slight moment, or that we were not concerned to prevent the repetition of such a proceeding in future. I wish to state my opinion that it is against the unwritten custom and law of Parliament; and I earnestly hope that no noble Peer may take such a course again.