It would be most unjust on my part to press for an answer to an inquiry which, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, may be a hypothetical inquiry. I have no objection, therefore, to his taking time to ascertain the facts; but I ask for a distinct and intelligible answer to these Questions: First, whether language of this kind was used by the Duke of Richmond, now one of the confidential Advisers of the Crown; secondly, if it was so used, whether it is adopted by Her Majesty's Governmnet as signifying the relations in which they stand to the House of Commons, and the position in which they would ask the House of Commons to continue to discharge its functions in the execution of the legislative business of the country? Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Mr. Gladstone.) MR. DISRAELI: I would first observe that I had myself yesterday no wish whatever to again address the House; but pointed inquiries were made to me on particular heads, and it was necessary therefore that I should reply to them; and I had an opportunity of replying to them subsequently to my original statement, an hon. Gentleman having moved the adjournment of the House. That would have given the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone)-although he had spoken previously-an opportunity of speaking again. Therefore the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that he was silent and reticent then because the forms of the House would not allow of his noticing my observations really has no foundation. It was perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to make any comments whatever on any discrepancy which he may have thought he observed in my statements as to the audiences graciously accorded to me by Her Majesty. But the right hon. Gentleman was silent. I do not think that on subjects of this kind there ought to be any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. It is for the interest and the honour of both sides of the House that on a matter of such grave import there should be no misunderstanding. We may all use expressions which are liable to misinterpretation; but I do unequivocally maintain that there was not the slightest difference certainly not the slightest intentional difference between my original and my subsequent statement as to what occurred at the audience which Her Majesty graciously VOL. CXCI. [THIRD SERIES.] accorded to me. That there was a misunderstanding, however, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Gentlemen as to one point was very obvious to me as the discussion went on, and accordingly at the right time I took the opportunity of correcting that misunderstanding. I will again repeat very succinctly, but very accurately, what occurred when, by Her Majesty's gracious permission, I attended Her Majesty at Osborne. After putting Her Majesty in possession of the views entertained by the Government of their position, I did at once, considering the present state of affairs, recommend a dissolution of Parliament, not only in justice to Her Majesty's Government, but for the sake of obtaining the decision of the country I underon the great question at stake. stand that this is the statement I made last night, and I repeat that statement. I did also, when in audience of Her Majesty, add, in reference to the first and inferior motive of that advice-namely, the personal claims of the Ministers-that if Her Majesty thought a more satisfactory settlement of the question at issue could be attained, or that the best interests of the country would be better considered by our immediately retiring from Her Majesty's service, we should retire only with that feeling of gratitude to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The advice then which I gave, with the full consent of my Colleagues, was, to advise Her Majesty to an immediate dissolution-to a dissolution of Parliament as soon 46 as "-according to custom and the constitutional phrase"as soon as the state of Public Business would permit." That was the statement which I made, or certainly intended to make, to the House, and I believe that is generally recognized as the statement which I made. MR. BRIGHT: As I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to rise in order to explain again, I wish to ask him whether the recommendation made to Her Majesty referred to a dissolution with the present constituency? MR. DISRAELI: What I complain of, and what has led to misapprehension, is that when a person in my position comes here and makes what he intends to be a clear and plain statement of what occurred, hon. Gentlemen rise up and interpose matters which really have nothing to do with the question-["Oh, oh ! "]— nothing to do with what I am stating. I have stated what occurred in that audi3 M quence of the state of affairs, and in conse quence of the position in which we were placed, recommend a dissolution of Parlisment; and, as I have already stated to the House, I did, on behalf of myself and my Colleagues, tender our resignations. Her Majesty refused to accept our resignstions, and sanctioned a dissolution of Parleament as soon as the state of Public Business should permit. I am sorry to have been under the necessity of going at any length into this subject on the present occasion; but after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, it was absolutely necessary that I should put the matter clearly before the House. And now, Sir, I think that, having been the Minister who was in audience of the Queen, my statement on this subject may be taken as the authentic statement; and if a statement is made in "another place" by a Minister who is my Colleague, and which may be different from the statement I have made here and I must candidly say I was entirely unaware, until the right hon. Gentleman told the House this evening, that any remarks of the kind had been made, for I have had no opportunity of making myself acquainted with them-but if any of my Colleagues in "another place" have conveyed a different impression to the House in which they sit, it appears to me thatI having been the Minister who was in audience of the Sovereign, and who came down here to make an authentic statement by Her Majesty's command and permission ence; but when I have made what I think was a very clear statement on that subject the hon. Gentleman gets up and says, "But did you refer to something else ?" I repeat my statement as I made it. We recommended absolutely and unequivocally, without reference to any particular circumstances, that Her Majesty should dissolve Parliament for a particular reason, as soon as the state of Public Business would permit. And Her Majesty, without reference to any point such as the hon. Gentleman mentions, ultimately sanctioned that advice, refusing to accept our resignations, and expressing her readiness to dissolve Parliament as soon as the Public Business would permit. That was the statement which I made last night. I afterwards, having Her Majesty's permission to speak frankly to the House, and wishing, as indeed, it was my duty, to conceal nothing, but simply to discharge my duty to the House, made a statement in reference to the meaning which the House might wish to ascribe to the phrase "when the state of Public Business will permit." And I need not remind the House that I was in a position in which no Minister was ever placed before, because the circumstances which now exist never existed before. Therefore it was my duty to lay those circumstances before Her Majesty; but this had nothing to do with the original advice given, or with the original decision of Her Majesty. I had to state facts which are perfectly familiar to every Gentleman in this House-that there is an existing constituency and a newer constituency-which matters Her Majesty must have been well acquainted with, although I nevertheless felt I ought to bring them directly under Her Majesty's notice. I did hope that if we gave up all the Bills which we had introduced into the House, and confined our attention merely to the supplementary measures connected with the Reform Act, the House would act cordially with the Ministry, so that we might be able to bring affairs to so expeditious a conclusion that the General Election might be taken by an appeal to the new constituency. That is what I conveyed to the House yesterday-that was the observation which I felt it my duty to make to Her Majesty, and I could not have appeared in this House upon the subject without frankly communicating the fact in the same spirit to the House. But that has nothing whatever to do with the original object of my visit to Osborne. I did at once, in conse the logical consequence would be that my Colleague in "another place" should be called upon to explain the differences between the statement alleged by the right hon. Gentleman to have been made there and the statement made by the Chief Minister, who has been in audience of the Queen, and who, by Her Majesty's command and permission, came down to the House of Commons to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. MR. BOUVERIE: If a Member of this House wished to ascertain what had been stated by a Member of the Government in "another place," the proper course to take would be to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. My right hon. Friend does not sit in the other House, and consequently has no opportunity of questioning the Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman. He has, however, a legitimate and proper opportunity of questioning the right hon. Gentleman here, and why the right hon. Gentleman has complained of my right hon. Friend's giving him an opportunity of giving an explanation in this House I, for one, am at a loss to understand. I admit there may be a defect of understanding on my part; but still I think there is an ambiguity in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who has not told us whether the dissolution which he recommended to Her Majesty, and which her Majesty sanctioned, will be with the present or the future constituency. Now, the Duke of Richmond, as I understand, stated in "another place"-and the accuracy of the report is not disputed that the power of dissolution was in the alternative, and the important business still before this House is to be conducted under the impression, at any rate in this House, that if the Ministry are defeated a second, or rather a fourth, time, then, at last a dissolution is to come. Those who have been at a public school know what "a first fault" is; but it appears that, according to this new constitutional doctrine, the right hon. Gentleman, according to the explanation of the Duke of Richmond, has gone a step further than he enunciated yesterday, and now the doctrine seems to be that, if the Government suffer a tremendous defeat once, or twice, or three times, it shall count for nothing; but that, if they are defeated again, there shall certainly be a dissolution and an appeal to the existing constituency. Now, that seems far worse than anything which has been yet proposed. On this point let me appeal to the good sense of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has a considerable knowledge of constitutional practice. How is it possible for the deliberations of this House to be fairly conducted, or for the relations between the House and the Crown and its Ministers to be properly maintained, if this is to be the understanding? I think all this follows from the course which the right hon. Gentleman has pursued. I insist upon it that it is a sound doctrine that, under such circumstances as exist at present, Government ought either to resign or dissolve; and, in the latter event, they ought to state distinctly and clearly that they will only just conclude the business already in hand, appealing to the good sense of the House to assist them in doing so. Now, if you are determined, as the right hon. Gentleman intimated yesterday, to carry on this Parliament till the new constituency have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion, eight or nine months must certainly elapse-and possibly eighteen or nineteen months-before we can have a dissolution, because the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills now stand in the position which the English Reform Bill occupied last year; and, if we are to have long and elaborate discussions in Committee on the clauses of those Bills, it is not at all unlikely that, at the close of the discussions, some demand may be made that the register of the new voters in Scotland and Ireland should not come into operation till the succeeding year, so that a further lease of Office will be given to the Government. It comes to this-the House of Commons have distinctly expressed this want of confidence by an overpowering vote. [Cries of "Move!"] I say there has been a Vote of Want of Confidence of the House on the Irish ecclesiastical policy of the Government. I contend, and without dread of dispute, that this was not, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged yesterday, an unprovoked and unnecessary move on the part of the Opposition; but that it was provoked by the Government stating and inviting an opinion upon their Irish Church policy. Then, what was the meaning of the vote to which we came? It was that we had no confidence in the Irish ecclesiastical policy of Her Majesty's Government; that we did not approve the principle of levelling up rather than the principle of levelling down; that we had a distinct policy which was the exact contrary of that of the right hon. Gentleman, and that in this most material respect we had not the slightest confidence in the Government. That is equivalent to what has been admitted in the past practice and history of this House to be substantially a Vote of Want of Confidence. It is idle, after a Resolution of that kind has been carried by such a majority, to say-"It is true you may not like our Irish Church policy; you may not think it right to endow a new Roman Catholic College, nor to increase the Regium Donum ; but look how unassailable are our foreign administration, our Indian government, and our financial management. That is no answer to the vote of this House that, in respect of their Irish Church policy, the Government does not possess our confidence. MR. SANDFORD said, that the statement of the noble Duke in "another place" was perfectly plain, straightforward, and was expressed in language not so cautious and not so mystifying as that of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The statement that the right hon. Gentleman had just made was in perfect the question. It is our bounden duty to accordance with the narrative of the noble see whether there is any mystery, or wheDuke; but he must confess that, after ther there is plainness and straightforwardhearing the first statement of the right ness on the part of the right hon. Gentlehon. Gentleman, he laboured under a very man and the Government. In the reply different impression of what had taken of the right hon. Gentleman last night be place than he did after hearing the expla- used these wordsnations of this evening. What he understood this evening was that the right hon. Gentleman had advised a dissolution of this House, and Her Majesty had consented to it, and, further, that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to press that dissolution, not upon any necessary measures for completing the Reform Bills, but only if, upon the introduction of any new matter or subject, a vote equal to a Vote of Want of Confidence were carried. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman and it was a point that should be cleared up-the House was at perfect liberty to alter the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills and the Boundary Bill as it pleased. He hoped the House would not endorse that it should enter into legislation on these matters with the threat of dissolution hanging over its head. He could have understood the right hon. Gentleman stating that the Government were perfectly willing to complete the work of Reform and then to dissolve, that would be a fair and just proposition; but if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say he had the power in his pocket to dissolve the House if it altered the Scotch or Irish Reform Bills, or rejected the Boundary Bill, that was a most unconstitutional proceeding on the part of any Minister. The declaration of the noble Duke appeared to have been amply borne out by the right hon. Gentleman. "Her Majesty did not accept our resignations, and gave her unqualified assent to a dissolution of Parliament, without the least reference to old or new constituencies."—[3 Hansard, exci. 1742. Now, Sir, in those words, taken by themselves, there is not rising to the surface, perhaps, the appearance of a menace or threat; but these words do not stand by themselves; they are explained by other words which have been used by a person justified in speaking on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He refers to the same transaction, and his words are these— MR. CARDWELL: The right hon. Gentleman says that if anybody questions a statement that has been made, or sup. posed to have been made by one of his Colleagues, the logical course is to put a question to that Colleague himself. It appears to me that when we want to know whether the language of a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman is the language of the collective Government, acknowledged, approved, and avowed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and when we speak of transactions in which the right hon. Gen tleman, and not his Colleague, took a part, whatever the logical course may be, the fair and straightforward course is to propround a question to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and if there is no mystery at the bottom of this matter there will be no difficulty in giving a simple answer to "We intend to conduct the affairs of the country so long as we are able to do so; and in the event of any difficulties arising Her Majesty was graciously pleased to state she would make no objection to a dissolution of Parliament. It, of course, will de lution shall be a dissolution under the existing pend upon the state of affairs whether that dissoconstituency or whether it shall be a dissolution under the new constituency to be formed under the Reform Acts.”—[3 Hansard, exci. 1690.] Now, Sir, we have a practical object in endeavouring to obtain an answer to this question. As long as I have been in Parliament, or have read anything even of the rudiments of the Constitution, I have believed there were two things which to violate was to violate the essential condition of freedom in this country: one was to give the Sovereign the appearance of expressing an opinion to Parliament, and the other was placing Parliament in reality or in appearance under the menace or threat of dissolution. Now, Sir, it appears to me upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman-it is not yet clear, but we are giving the right hon. Gentleman a fair and straightforward opportunity of saying whether it be the case-firstly, that he tendered simple, unqualified, direct advice to his Sovereign, and not contingent or optional advice; and secondly, he is not now placing us under the menace or threat of a dissolution in regard to the future conduct of our business in this House. That was the object of the question propounded by my right hon. Friend. I humbly submit to the House it cannot be put off by clever phrases and ingenious evasions in debate; and that we are entitled to be told in what character we are about to legislate during the short remainder of the Session, and whether we are the free representatives of those who sent us here or we only hold our places at the will and pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman ? to think this confusion arose from the fact that the Prime Minister had given the House, not a statement of what took place between himself and his Sovereign, but a SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: My short summary of his own idea of the comright hon. Friend the Member for the city munications which passed between them. of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), has put an in-["Oh !"] He must repeat that assertion, telligible and very simple question, to and adhere to it, because the right hon. which the Government are able to give a Gentleman did not profess to give an acvery intelligible and simple reply. But count of the communications between his the question as it was originally put by Sovereign and himself; but he gave only the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. the effect of it; and the communications Gladstone) was one which it was not per- could not have been of the brief nature he fectly easy to understand, and still less had described to the House. In attempteasy to answer. The question as it was ing to give a short version of what must put had reference to what had been said by have taken place he might have done jusmy noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) tice to himself; but it was not so clear he in "another place." My right hon. Friend had done full justice to his Sovereign. A the First Minister had not read or seen the very painful impression would be created report of what the Duke of Richmond had throughout the country, and more especially said; and I may say for myself, that I in Ireland, when the full nature of the right also had not seen it; but a question has hon. Gentleman's statement of the result now been put by the right hon. Member of his communication with his Sovereign for the City of Oxford to which the Go- was understood. For what was that revernment have not the smallest difficulty sult? Did the right hon. Gentleman tell in giving an answer. The right hon. his Sovereign that a great majority of the Gentleman asks, whether it is to be under- House of Commons had, after full discusstood that the Government hold out to the sion, deliberately resolved upon a policy House any menace of a dissolution. ["No, with the object of satisfying the people of no!" It will be in the recollection of the Ireland, and that it was necessary, in the House whether that was not the question opinion of the great majority of the House, of the right hon. Gentleman. We were that that policy should be immediately carasked, unless I misunderstood the right ried into effect? Did he tell his Sovereign hon. Gentleman, this question, whether it that he was determined to resist that policy was to be understood, in the account which to the utmost, and would use all the power my right hon. Friend had given of his and influence of the Government for the interview with Her Majesty, and of Iler purpose of setting at defiance the deliberate Majesty's expressions of approval of the judgment of the House of Commons? Did recommendation that had been made to he ask to be left in Office for that purpose; her, that a menace was held out to this and was it for that purpose his Sovereign House by which the House was to be con- said he should not resign, but should considered to proceed to wind-up the business tinue to administer public affairs? The which now lies before it under the threat of House must know something more of the a dissolution. I say at once, on the part circumstances under which the right hon. of the Government, there was no intention Gentleman said he tendered his resignation, of that sort, and that no such menace was which his Sovereign refused to accept? held out. Did the right hon. Gentleman advise his Sovereign to accept his resignation? This practice of tendering a resignation was unintelligible unless it was accompanied by the most solemn advice to the Sovereign to accept it, and unless all the arguments were used which were necessary to induce the Sovereign to accept it. ["Oh, oh!"] If this were not done, how could a Minister of the Crown suggest that the Sovereign was keeping him in Office for the purpose of resisting the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons? It was absolutely necessary to explain the whole interview, MR. AYRTON said, that, having listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government yesterday, he had failed to understand the exact situation of affairs, which, therefore, might not be so well understood by other hon. Members and throughout the country as it ought to be. He had been enlightened by the statement made in another place," and he had listened to the further explanations that had now been made, and he was now more confused than he was before any explanation was given. He was inclined to |