CONTROLLER OF THE STATIONERY OFFICE—APPOINTMENT OF MR. T. D. PIGOTT.—RESCINDING OF RESOLUTION, 16TH JULY.

HC Deb 23 July 1877 vol 235 cc1688-728

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the appointment to the office of Controller of the Stationery Office."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

MR. GOLDSMID

thought some explanation ought to be given of this Motion. He saw no reason, because certain information had not been given to a Minister of the Crown who was called upon to reply to a certain Motion, that the usual course of procedure should be departed from. The House of Commons had been misled through not receiving that information, and some substantial explanation ought to be vouchsafed for proceeding with this Motion in order to whitewash the course they had taken respecting an exercise of patronage by the Prime Minister. In his opinion it would be much better to leave the matter alone, and proceed with the Business which legitimately came before them. At all events, he, for one, should object to the Motion.

MR. RYLANDS

agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester. He had seen the difficulties of the Government from the pressure of Business that Session, so much so that he had been voting with them, and therefore he thought they should not waste the time of the House in discussing a trumpery Motion like that, for which there was no justification. The subject had been brought before the House; a reply had been made in "another place," and he thought it was not desirable that they should again occupy several hours on the matter.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the reason for the Motion was stated by himself in the House on Friday last. The House had placed on its Journals last week a Resolution of a very marked character, being a censure upon the Government, and especially upon the Prime Minister, in respect of a certain appointment. He presumed there could hardly be found an instance in which such a Resolution as that had been adopted and not acted upon. But the Prime Minister, with the full consent and approval of his Colleagues, thought it was a case in which he ought not to accept the resignation of the gentleman whose appointment was thus censured. That being the case, the House was in this position—it had a Resolution on its Votes of a serious and important character upon which no action had been taken, and which was apparently set aside by the Government. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it right to state these matters to the House, and it certainly appeared to him to be right and due to the Government and the House itself, that there should be an opportunity given to the House of expressing their satisfaction or, as it might be, dissatisfaction with the course which the Government and the Prime Minister had taken with respect to the Resolution of the 16th of July. He would not enter upon the question itself, or how the Resolution came to be passed; that he stated upon Friday last, and it would not be desirable to enter upon it at greater length now. But the House would feel, not only in reference to the Prime Minister, considering his position in this country—and his position ought not to be indifferent to the House—but also with reference to the position of the House itself, it was impossible that such a matter as this could be kept longer in abeyance. Therefore he thought, as the Motion was of an unusual character, as being made under unusual circumstances, the Orders of the Day should be postponed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the appointment to the office of Controller of the Stationery Office.— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, Resolution [16th July] read as follows:— Resolved, "That, having regard to the recommendations made in 1874 by the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases, &c.), this House is of opinion that the recent appointment of Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is calculated to diminish the usefulness and influence of Select Committees of this House, and to discourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State.

SIR WALTER B. BARTELLOT

rose to propose the following Motion:— That this House, while most anxious to maintain the usefulness and influence of its Select Committees, and to encourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State, after hearing the further explanations concerning the recent appointment of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, withdraws the censure conveyed in the said Resolution. The hon. and gallant Baronet said, he thought no apology would be needed from him for introducing the Motion. The remarks which had just been made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had clearly shown to all those who had considered the question fairly, that some notice should be taken, or some Resolution should be passed by the House, particularly with regard to the action which had been taken by the Prime Minister with reference to the Resolution which was passed on the 16th of July, and he felt perfectly assured that in addressing the House on that rather difficult and grave subject he should have its kind attention in endeavouring to explain, as far as he was able, the reasons which had induced him to bring the Motion forward. In his opinion, that Resolution was passed on Monday last, mainly because certain statements were made which described the appointment to the Controllership of the Stationery Department as a gross job. He believed if those statements had not been made and believed in, no adverse Resolution would have been carried by the House. A most important statement, however, had been made on Thursday, in "another place," to which he would not further refer than simply to say that many hon. Members of this House were present and heard it, and he believed that many who had voted in the majority for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) had publicly and deliberately declared that their opinion had been changed by the statement then made. He thought he might venture to say that if his noble Friend had been sitting in that House as of yore, and had made that statement, instead of the Resolution being carried by a majority, there would have been a large majority in favour of the noble Lord and of the Government, and of the appointment. On Friday last his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and made a full and clear explanation of all the circumstances of the case, and with that characteristic frankness and truthfulness which always distinguished him, and which made him so respected in the House, he at once admitted that he had failed on Monday last to state all the circumstances bearing on the appointment, with which, as he said, he ought to have made himself acquainted. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) knew his right hon. Friend would forgive him when he said he believed that it was mainly due to that statement being made without sufficient explanation of all the circumstances that the Resolution was carried. He did not blame his right hon. Friend, for he did not see how he could have been prepared to make such an explanation, as he could not have expected an attack such as had been made by the hon. Member for Hackney, neither could he have come prepared to answer things which really had no foundation in fact. And though he was persuaded that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney believed that what he stated was actually the fact, yet the statements so made were of that peculiar character that unless his right hon. Friend had gone into minute details with the Prime Minister, he could not have arrived at them. That being the case, he thought it would be right that the House should have an opportunity— and he thought he was not wrong in his opinion that it had a desire to have that opportunity—of re-considering and of stating distinctly, aye or no, whether it did or did not, believe that the Prime Minister had exercised a wise discretion in the appointment he had made. He would now turn to the hon. Member for Hackney and the Committee over which he presided in 1873 and 1874. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was a Member of that Committee, and he might appeal to his hon. Friend whether it had not endeavoured to sift to the bottom the difficult and delicate questions which were brought before it. The Committee sat for 36 days in the two Sessions, and examined 92 witnesses, and he must say a more fair and impartial Chairman never presided over a Committee. His hon. Friend endeavoured by every means in his power to extract what was useful from the witnesses, and to place it on record for the benefit of this House and the country. But he must say, before his hon. Friend, who had shown himself to be so careful a man, brought such a charge against the Government, and especially against the Prime Minister, he ought to the utmost of his ability to have sifted it to the very bottom. The statements had no doubt been fairly made; but he ventured to think that they ought never to have been made by any man in that House, unless he was sure they were absolutely correct. And now a word as to Mr. Greg, who had lately resigned the office of Controller of the Stationery Department. His hon. Friend knew very well that the whole of that gentleman's case was most carefully considered, and that in framing the Report certain expressions which were likely to give pain to Mr. Greg were objected to. Knowing the difficulties in the Department and the calls that were made upon it by the other Departments not responsible to it for any extravagance they indulged in, he was one of those who endeavoured to cut out anything that might wound the feelings of that gentleman, for he did not think it fair that anything should go forth to the public in the Report which might damage an old public servant. No one in that House would deny that a grave censure was passed on Her Majesty's Government, and especially on the Prime Minister, by the Resolution which the hon. Member for Hackney had carried. The first accusation contained in the Resolution was that this appointment damaged the usefulness of Select Committees. When his hon. Friend made that broad and bold statement, he did not go carefully into what had been done by the present Government, or consider whether alterations had or had not been made in the Department, His hon. Friend said it was quite true that £45,000 had been saved in the Department during the last year, but that it was owing entirely to the peculiar knowledge of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). Now, the Secretary to the Treasury, as everyone knew, was a man of great ability, and when he turned his attention to anything of that kind, and brought his practical knowledge to bear, there was no one who could do so much. But it was not his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury who did that work; it was his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), who was so often seen with lynx eye outside that door, which many Members about this time tried to evade and avoid. But in many instances his hon. Friend was too sharp for those persons, and in this instance also he was too sharp for those with whom he had to do, so he saved £45,000—indeed, he believed the amount saved, the etceteras included, would be found yet to be something like £65,000. When the Government had most carefully considered the Resolutions of the Select Committee in order to give them practical effect, he failed to see how it could damage the influence of Select Committees. Then it was said this appointment would diminish the interest and zeal of servants in the public Departments. But who was the first man who had attempted to diminish the interest and zeal of our public servants? His hon. Friend, who actually proposed not only to go outside the Stationery Office, but outside all the other offices of the State in order to find a man to put at the head of this Department. If such a proceeding were for the benefit of the Service, he should not say a word against it; but the question was, would it be so? In such a case it had been well said by the Prime Minister that the only person from outside that could be found would be "either one who had retired from business, or from whom business had retired." They all knew the kind of men who would come forward. And if such a man had been taken, it was not easy to see how that would add to the zeal and efficiency of the public servants of this country. Then it might be asked, why not take one from within the Department. Now, if there was one thing which his hon. Friend wished, it was that economy should be carried out in the Office. But anyone of any experience must know how difficult it was, if a man, no matter how able, had been brought up in a particular school, to eradicate the principles in which he had been trained. Therefore, without saying anything against heads in the Office—in fact, they deserved the highest credit—it would have been unwise to place any men within it at its head. The Committee said the Office should have at its head a man of general intelligence and ability. The recommendations of the Committee were not disregarded, and the appointment of a particular person, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney, was not, and could not be, in accordance, as the hon. Gentleman said and believed, with the general interest of the country. The object and intention of the Report was that the most efficient and best man that could be found in the Service should be appointed to the office of Controller of the Stationery Department. When they had got an Office of that kind, where there were many departments, they required a man for its head who could bring together all the separate departments, and had power and will enough to control the whole. The Committee further recommended— That when a vacancy occurred, provision should be made for uniting the control of the Stationery department with the management of The Gazette by the appointment of a man possessing the requisite knowledge of stationery and printing. He was bound to say the Committee did arrive at that conclusion, perhaps unanimously; but was there a man in the House or in the country who, looking at all the circumstances of this case, would say that the recommendation of that or any Committee, considering how these Committees were formed, should be treated as a direct order to the Prime Minister, who alone was responsible for appointments of this kind? Were they to say that a responsible Government, and especially the head of it, must take for their guidance all the recommendations of a Select Committee. He should like to know what answer the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have made had such a doctrine been applied to them? Was this appointment well-considered or was it not? What was the course which was taken in regard to it by the Prime Minister? He had heard it said that an appointment of this kind should have been given to the best man in the Civil Service. That was most certainly done. He had a letter stating the fact, and that the appointment was declined. It might be that the emolument was not so great as was wished, but the fact remained. The appointment was not made hastily, and it was offered to the best man that could be found? What took place after that? Six names, after very careful sifting, were placed before the Prime Minister. ["Name, name! By whom?"] Why should he say by whom? He said six names were placed before the Prime Minister. [Mr. MACDONALD: By whom? If the hon. Member for Stafford denied that, let him get up in his place and say so. He was not going to say by whom. Why should he? Things had come to a new pass if the hon. Member for Stafford considered himself entitled to know whom the Prime Minister was to consult on all occasions. Six names were placed before the Prime Minister—two were from the War Office, one from the Treasury, one from the Board of Trade, one from the Board of Works, and another from the Geological Survey. ["Name!"] He would not give their names. Naturally the Prime Minister had a great liking to the Treasury, and would feel disposed to appoint a Treasury man; but, after mature and due deliberation, he appointed Mr. Pigott as a fit and proper person to be at the head of the Stationery Department. That gentleman had for 17 years served his country to great advantage, and distinguished himself in the War Office and various other positions where he had been placed. Was that a job? He had been surprised to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) say it was a gross job, although he ventured to say he knew nothing of the circumstances of the case. He fired his shot; but, as usual, it fell very far short of the mark. The hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams) had also called it a gross job. He recollected very well the statement made by that hon. and learned Member with regard to another so-called job—the appointment of the Official Referees. He got up in his place and defended that appointment; but now, careful and anxious as he was to get at what was absolutely right and true, he arrived at the conclusion that this was a gross job without knowing the real facts of the case. The hon. Member for Hackney said in his statement that Mr. Pigott was the son of a former vicar of Hughenden, who was a great friend of Lord Beaconsfield.

MR. J. HOLMS

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to explain. I did not say that he was a son of a former vicar of Hughenden, a great friend of the Prime Minister, because I did not know that fact myself; but that he was simply a friend.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he was in the recollection of the House; but he thought the statement of the hon. Member was that the former vicar was a friend and political supporter of the Prime Minister. But it had been distinctly stated that Mr. Pigott's father voted against the Prime Minister when Mr. Disraeli stood for the county of Bucks. That was the absolute recollection of the Prime Minister, and it was confirmed by a statement made by one of the Pigott family. He was very anxious that on this point he should be clearly understood. Hon. Members could not always say who had and who had not voted for them. But the Prime Minister had done all he could do; he had sent down to where the records were usually kept, and endeavoured to ascertain whether or not the father of Mr. Pigott had voted against him; but he found all the records had been destroyed. [Ironical cheers from the Opposition.] What more could a man do? [Renewed cheers.] He was glad to hear those cheers, for they meant either that the statement was absolutely correct, or that the words of the Prime Minister were not taue. In any case a man had a right to vote as he pleased, and it would be very unfair to condemn a man in high position for an appointment of the kind merely because a man might or might not have voted for him. What had been done was all that could be expected of a man in the Prime Minister's position. But very curiously a letter had been sent to him written by a cousin of this vicar of Hughenden, also a clergyman, 83 years of age, living now in Lancashire; but who lived at the time referred to in the county of Bucks. He stated that the relations between the vicar and the Prime Minister were by no means those which had been represented by the hon. Member for Hackney. What did he say? He said that "some time after Mr. Disraeli came to his property I know the old parson and the new squire did not like each other at all." He thought that was pretty conclusive proof that the relations were not of that friendly character which had been pointed out by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He hoped he had succeeded in showing that the recommendations of the Select Committee were not disregarded; that the appointment was honestly and conscientiously made after the most due, careful, and deliberate consideration; and that the person appointed would do credit to the position in which he was placed. He was told by a Friend sitting behind him that a clerk who had retired from the Public Service on a pension had said that if ever there was a man who deserved promotion it was Mr. Pigott, who had always been appealed to for counsel and advice when a difficulty arose in his own Department. From the Division List he observed that the occupants of the front bench opposite had voted for the Motion of Censure. He did not complain in the least of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), with the information he had before him; but there was a Colleague of his, the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), whose illness he deeply regretted, who had been in the War Office and knew the worth of Mr. Pigott. When he remembered two appointments that were made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1872 that were, perhaps, within the letter, though against the spirit, of an Act of Parliament—["No, no!" "Yes, yes!" and "Question!"]—when he remembered how the right hon. Member for Greenwich, when he failed to carry the Abolition of Purchase in the Army, resorted to the Royal Prerogative—[Cries of "Question!"] The hon. and learned Member for Oxford called "Question!"

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Mr. Speaker, I will ask your decision upon the point. I wish to ask, whether it is competent on this question to discuss the subject of Army Purchase and the Royal Warrant?

MR. SPEAKER

The observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman are not altogether out of Order; but, at the same time, it seems to me tha the is wandering from the subject.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he submitted absolutely to the decision of the Chair; but thought he was not wandering from the question in speaking of the responsibility of Ministers who had made such appointments when they voted against the Prime Minister in this matter. He was delighted when he read the remarks made in "another place," in a far more generous spirit, by those noble Peers who knew from experience the worth of Mr. Pigott, and one of whom (Lord Penzance) described him as most intelligent, while others used equally complimentary expressions. When any hon. Gentleman in that House used language which was considered too strong for Parliamentary usage he immediately retracted it; and was that House, as a Body which professed to be the first Assembly of Gentlemen in the world, going to act in a different spirit. They remembered what the Prime Minister was in that House; how for 25 years, under every difficulty that could be placed in his way, he had, with great advantage to the House, led the Conservative Party; how, when in a minority, he had gained the respect and esteem of all by his courtesy, and, when in a majority, by his consideration; of one thing he was sure, whatever might be the opinions of hon. Members, there was one thing they would never do, and that was to allow the Prime Minister to remain under a suspicion that was not justified. It was because he felt that the Vote of Censure passed upon the Prime Minister and the Government was not deserved that he moved the Resolution which stood in his name.

MR. J. R. YORKE,

in seconding the Motion, said, it did appear last week that a formidable indictment had been laid against the Prime Minister, and it was suggested, by facts and inferences, that he had not only disregarded the decision of a Select Committee, but that he had been influenced by considerations of personal friendship in appointing to an important office a man without special qualifications. To the astonishment of many hon. Members on that side of the House, little or no defence appeared to be offered from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer simply said it was useful to introduce a fresh man into an office, and the Secretary for War paid a general tribute to Mr. Pigott's worth in the War Office, and believed he would equally distinguish himself in the higher position to which he had been promoted. In those circumstances he (Mr. J. R. Yorke) and others felt that there were only two courses open to them—either to walk out of the House, or else to vote adversely to the Government. He had always a great dislike to the former course, for he felt that if you had heard a case stated, and had listened to the defence, it was your duty to give a verdict on the evidence, and it was moral cowardice to avoid doing so. He therefore took the extreme course of voting for a censure on the Minister at the head of the Government. A day or two afterwards the Prime Minister made a statement which put a totally different aspect upon the matter. Not only had the noble Lord considered the recommendations of the Select Committee, but he had made exhaustive efforts to give effect to them, and he found it impossible to do so. He had, further, consulted the heads of Departments, who supplied him with the names of six gentlemen competent to discharge the duties. The gravamen of the charge was that he had appointed not merely a personal friend, but the son of a political supporter; and, although no authentic records were producible to show whether Mr. Pigott did 30 years ago vote one way or the other, he was informed that Mr. Pigott was at the time engaged in litigation with the Prime Minister, while the Pigott family now believed he voted against the Prime Minister, and at any rate was not on speaking terms with him. The vote, however, was a matter of infinitesimal importance; the main fact was that at no period during the 30 years had there been any friendly relations between the family and the Prime Minister; it was not alleged that the son had done the Prime Minister any service; and there was not the shadow of a ground for the allegation that private interest had anything to do with the appointment. The Prime Minister's statement appeared to him so conclusive that he did not hesitate to second the Motion for a reversal of the Vote of the House. He did not consider the House was responsible for the Vote given the other evening, inasmuch as his, and many other hon. Members' votes constituting it had been given under an entire misapprehension, arising from the fact that whether by the insouciance of the Prime Minister, or by a misplaced confidence in respect of his position in the House of Commons, the facts of the case had not been freely communicated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that he was not in a position to meet the gravamen of the charge against him. The Treasury Bench were responsible for putting the House, and especially their more candid supporters on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, who had felt compelled to vote against them, in a false and difficult position. He comforted himself with the reflection that, although some unmerited pain must have been given to the Prime Minister and to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), who discharged his duties so courteously, yet that the Vote of Censure would not be so unsatisfactory in its result. It would enable the Prime Minister to give a conspicuous refutation to the statement that he was from physical causes incapacitated from taking the part he had hitherto filled in defending his policy in one or the other House of Parliament. What would have happened if the eight Conservative Members had not voted as they had done? The Prime Minister would not have had the opportunity of giving his explanation, and this appointment would have gone down to all posterity as one of the great scandals of the Conservative Party, worthy to be paired with the Ewelme and Collier scandals, and would have been used to point the moral that neither Party was immaculate in these transactions. This Vote of the House, given upon such a knowledge as it had at the moment, would be a caution to every future Minister that no position, however lofty, and no position, however distinguished, would emancipate him from the duty of defending on its merits any appointment which he might make for the Public Service. More than this, he thought that what had happened would not be without a salutary effect upon the fortunes of the Conservative Party. He had heard it said that they were too apt to come down and give their brute votes at the dictation of a Minister. That was, no doubt, a frequent and constant allegation; but it could not be said again when the Conservative Party had carried by a majority a vote which showed that it was not in the power of any Minister to carry the House of Commons in his pocket If this incident had no other good effect, it would, at any rate, be the means of vindicating the independence of the Conservative Party, and would prove that such allegations were altogether without foundation. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had once made the bad joke that the Conservative Party were so much given to acting en bloc, that they might be regarded as the "blockheaded party." The Conservative Party on Monday in last week certainly did not vote en bloc, and showed that they could be as independent as hon. Members opposite. He trusted this incident would now shortly terminate. The Prime Minister's defence had been overwhelming and crushing, and he hoped the House of Commons would by an overwhelming majority, not only relieve the Prime Minister from any censure as to the course he had taken, but declare that practically he had no other alternative than to do as he had done.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, while most anxious to maintain the usefulness and influence of its Select Committees, and to encourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State, after hearing the further explanations concerning the recent appointment of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, withdraws the censure conveyed in the said Resolution."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

MR. J. HOLMS

said, he deemed it his duty to lose not a moment in rising after the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had been proposed and seconded. His hon. and gallant Friend had submitted that Motion with great fairness, and he acknowledged the kind expression he had used with regard to himself in connection with the Committee of which his hon. and gallant Friend was a very valuable Member. The House must feel that they were in a very peculiar position. The Motion was nothing more nor less than the outcome of an explanation made "elsewhere" on Thursday last. The House was, in fact, in invited to displace the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer made here on last Monday by the explanation of the Prime Minister last Thursday. It would be his business to compare the statement with the explanation; but before he did so, he frankly accepted the opinion given by his hon. and gallant Friend when he said that a Member should be very careful of any statement he made in that House. A Member should make no statement unless he had good and sound foundation for it; but when a Member had information of that solid kind to convey, it was his business—it was his imperative duty—if he thought it for the good of the country, boldly and openly to state it in that House. On the other hand, it was equally the duty of a Government on all occasions to give the fullest, the most complete, and ample information in its power. If new light could be thrown upon any matter, it should be advanced; but when they were asked to accept one statement which displaced another, they were in a position which demanded very careful consideration. He thought that as plenty of time was given to prepare anything that could be urged in reference to the appointment in question—the Notice having been given on the 18th of June—the House was entitled to more information than it had received from the Government when the Motion was before the House. But he would show that the difficult and he thought humiliating position in which they were placed arose from the fact that there seemed to have been a great want of frank intercourse between Members of the Government. Before he compared the statement of Monday with the explanation of Thursday, he desired to give the House an instance of the want of that full information which Members of Her Majesty's Government seemed to have had. On Thursday, in "another place," when the Prime Minister commenced his explanation, he informed the House of that which was scarcely correct. The noble Lord said— The immediate question before us arose in this manner. There was about the time when the present Government was formed—now more than three years ago—one of the Departments of the State which was not deemed to be administered in a manner entirely satisfactory to the public. A Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the general state and conduct of that Department. Now, these words would lead one to believe that this Committee was appointed for the sole purpose of inquiring into the condition of the Stationery Department, and had been appointed under the auspices of the present Government. The truth was that it was appointed at the commencement of 1873, when the late Government were in power.

MR. PERCY WYNDHAM

rose to Order. Was it, he asked, competent to the hon. Member to quote from speeches made in the course of a debate in the other House, in replying to a speech made in this House?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that question, which referred no doubt to a very valuable Rule of the House which ought to be strictly enforced, he would remind his hon. Friend the Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Wyndham) that it was stated the other day, when Notice of the present Motion was given, that it was desirable as great latitude as possible should be afforded in its discussion. He was anxious to state that on behalf of his noble Friend, Lord Beaconsfield, because it would be unsatisfactory to him if, under a technical rule—however good and important it might be—any part of which the House should be in possession upon the question before it should be shut out.

MR. SPEAKER

observed that, strictly speaking, having regard to the Rule to which reference had been made, the hon. Member was not in Order. The Resolution before the House, however, referred to further explanation, and reference to that explanation could not be avoided.

MR. J. HOLMS

went on to say that the Committee in question was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into not one, but several Departments of State. It was re-appointed in 1874 to continue its work and make its Report, and it made its Report which took a wide survey of several Departments and not of one only. But he would come at once to what concerned himself—the personal part of the question. He had been asked to explain why he used certain words in that House, and that he would most frankly do. It was perfectly true that he stated as a fact that the gentleman in question who had been appointed to the post of Controller of the Stationery Department was a junior clerk in the War Office; that he was one of a list of 101; that he was 69th on that list, and that he was receiving £300 or £400 a-year. But he said also that he was afraid there was something behind the appointment. Furthermore, he said it was understood that Mr. Pigott was the son of a late vicar of Hughenden, who, with his family, had rendered valuable services to the Prime Minister in the county of Buckingham, which he had so long and so creditably represented. What he intended to convey by this statement was that the Pigott family was one of considerable influence in the county. [Murmurs.] He (Mr. Holms) had no business to make any such statement unless he felt that it was well founded. But although it was rumoured in that House and out of it, and in all the newspapers, that Mr. Pigott was the son of the late vicar of Hughenden, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the matter was brought forward, was quite prepared to accept the statement to that effect, he did not think that mere rumour would have been sufficient ground for a Member to make such a statement to the House. He entertained a higher opinion of the kind of information which was essential to the House in any case of this kind, and he took care that what he stated could be properly supported. He therefore obtained direct and authoritative information from Buckinghamshire on the subject only the other day. This information was contained in a letter dated the 7th of July, which stated that Mr. Pigott's father had been vicar of Hughenden, who had been dead for some years, that the family was an old family, that the eldest branch of the family now lived at so-and-so, that Mr. Pigott's eldest brother held the living of so-and-so, and that they were a family of very decided Conservatives. He appealed to the House whether they did not think that he did everything which was due to it to get information—that this Conservative family in Buckingham had rendered important service to the Prime Minister? But what was the reply of the Prime Minister to that information? It was that this was really a romance. He said that the father of Mr. Pigott was vicar of Hughenden some 30 years ago; that he left the county soon afterwards, and that one of the last political acts of the rev. gentleman was to register his vote against him (the Prime Minister). But why did the noble Lord say nothing about the family which had existed so long in Buckinghamshire, which was still there, and had always been known as a Conservative family? His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had spoken of the vicar recording his vote against the Prime Minister, and had said that everything had been done with the view of making inquiry" as to the registration of the vote, but that the register had been destroyed. Now, while he (Mr. Holms) admitted that statements made to that House ought to be made carefully, he thought, at the same time, the same care ought to be exercised in "another place." He held in his hand the poll-book for the district, and he must beg the House to give attention to this statement—that in 1847 there was no contest in that county; that in 1857 and 1859 there was no contest; that in 1863, 1865, and 1868 there was no contest; and that the only contest where Mr. Pigott's vote could possibly have been recorded against the Prime Minister was that of 1852. Referring to the register of 1852, he found, Register No. 1,526, the Rev. John Robert Pigott, of Hughenden, freeholder of house and land on the hill near the village. With respect to that reverend gentleman the records in the Crown Office contained no statement that the rev. gentleman had voted on either one side or the other. He should go on a little further with the question. On Monday night, when they had the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they had a very frank and distinct reply, and he must say that the defeat arose entirely from the Government's own statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that great stress had been laid on the fact that Mr. Pigott was the son of a former vicar at Hughenden, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for himself did not deny it. He said that Lord Beaconsfield knew very little about Mr. Pigott personally, although that gentleman had often been brought under his notice as a rising man, aud that the noble Lord had watched his career. On this statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer one hon. Member after another began to feel that this did show that some interest was taken by the Prime Minister in Mr. Pigott, and there- fore the Government need not be surprised that their own statement should have brought about their defeat. Hon. Members began to say to one another—"How fortunate for a young man entering the Civil Service to have a Prime Minister to watch his career." He appealed to the House, whether it was the statement which he (Mr. Holms) made, or the statement made on the part of the Government, that brought about their defeat? Lord Beaconsfield had said that he had no personal acquaintance with Mr. Pigott, and that he did not know him even by sight; whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the noble Lord watched Mr. Pigott's career with great interest—a statement which certainly gave colour to the idea that family and political influences had brought about his promotion. He (Mr. Holms) did not care to dwell on the personal question; he was sorry that it was ever introduced, and he wished to pass on to what alone gave it importance—the national question, and to the consideration of the statement made on Monday night, and the explanation given on Thursday as to how the appointment was made. The gist of the recommendations of the Committee was simply this—that the Stationery Department demanded the supervision of someone possessing technical knowledge. Immediately on the Report being issued, the Treasury took that Department especially under its guidance, and the country was greatly indebted to the Treasury for the action it took in the matter. They effected last year a saving of some £40,000 or £45,000, with a prospective saving of from £20,000 to £25,000 more; and that justified the Committee so far in having pointed out that a change was essentially necessary with the view to obtaining more technical supervision. What he had wished to establish before and wished to establish now was, that for this the country was indebted to the Treasury and particularly to the Financial Secretary to that Department. He now came to the explanation made upon this point by the noble Lord in "another place" last Thursday. The noble Lord had changed the whole case. The noble Lord had made out that the country was not indebted to the Financial Secretary at all for the reductions of expenditure which had been effected in the De- partment and for the technical knowledge that had been displayed, but to a country gentleman, the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn). In fact, either the Prime Minister must be under some grievous misapprehension, or he changed the matter backwards and forwards in such a way as to make it appear that technical knowledge had nothing to do with those reductions of expenditure at all. The exact words of the Prime Minister were these— Since the publication of the Report of the Committee, and very much in consequence of its suggestions, the expenditure of the Department has been reduced by £40,000 a-year, and at this moment there are changes in progress which will bring about a further reduction of £20,000 a-year. I think this is evidence that Her Majesty's Government have not in any way neglected the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons. Upon this point, my Lords, I may perhaps make an observation. It has been said this great saving of the public money, and the great and beneficial changes that have been effected, are striking proofs of the advantage of having as superintendent of the Office a person who has a technical knowledge of stationery and printing; for they have been ascribed to the influence and exertions of a distinguished Colleague of my own who is Secretary to the Treasury, and who before he entered into public life—happily, I think, for the public—was himself the head of one of the greatest establishments in this country connected with printing and with stationery. I allude to Mr. W. H. Smith, the Secretary to the Treasury—a name known and honoured. Now, I assure you my Lords—and I make this statement with his full authority and at his special desire—that none of those alterations in the Stationery Office are at all attributable to his influence and exertions. As Secretary to the Treasury, he has signed all the documents which have appeared connected with that Department, but the truth is, he signed them formally, with the full confidence that the work which had been done had been done properly. That work had been done by a Lord of the Treasury, Mr. Rowland Winn. It was solely by his individual exertions and unceasing care that those great improvements and that saving were effected; and I need not remind you, my Lords, that Mr. Rowland "Winn has no technical knowledge of stationery and printing, but is a Lincolnshire country Gentleman. So that the very basis of the argument offered in this House on the part of the Government on Monday last, that the reductions were the work of the Financial Secretary, were declared on Thursday by the Prime Minister to be a perfect myth. All this showed that the Prime Minister had made this appointment under a misapprehension, he evidently believing that technical knowledge was altogether unnecessary for the dis- charge of the duties of this office, and that any clerk in the Civil Service, or any mere country gentleman, could discharge those duties "efficently." Was it not rather remarkable that the House should have obtained information as to the opinions of the Financial Secretary, not from the hon. Member himself but from a statement made in "another place?" The Financial Secretary was the man who, of all men, could have given perfect information to the House as to the working of the Department, and the savings effected, and it was a very strange thing when hon. Members were showering compliments on the Financial Secretary for his technical knowledge, the Financial Secretary himself did not get up and repudiate all those compliments, saying that they belonged entirely to his hon. Colleague the Member for North Lincolnshire. He wished to know whether the Secretary of the Treasury had objected to the appointment when made? He looked at this matter as one in which administrative ability without technical knowledge had been preferred to technical combined with administrative ability. It had been asked in the course of the late debate—"Why should they complain of a rising man being put into that Department, when they had men in high places in Departments who were unacquainted with the technical details of them?" This view had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, who had instanced his own case, and that of the First Lord of the Admiralty, as those in which a man without any knowledge of military or naval matters had been placed at the head of the military and naval affairs of this country. But was not that merely an additional reason why the permanent officials at the head of the different Departments should have a perfect acquaintance with the technical details of the work of their different offices? Would the First Lord of the Admiralty think it very wise to suggest that one unacquainted with ships should be appointed Constructor of the Navy? He held it that in the Stationery Department, more than any other Department, it was essentially necessary that a man should be acquainted with the business. It was not a question only of a man being acquainted with his trade, for a man who was in the trade knew the traders, the men with whom he would have to deal. He would like to ask this question—was it not possible in that great country to get a man who had technical knowledge and at the same time administrative ability? Was there any other country in the world where there was so much technical knowledge and administrative ability combined in great undertakings? As to the recommendations of the Committee, the Prime Minister, on Thursday, went so far as to say that in appointing the particular kind of man who was recommended by the Committee, he should have to appoint a man who had retired from business, or from whom business had retired. He could not conceive how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. He held that such a man as the Committee recommended could be got, and at a fair and moderate amount of salary. There were plenty of men who were managers in the large stationery businesses in the country and in that town who had at the same time admirable technical knowledge and administrative ability. When he stated that during the period between 1865 and 1876 the amount of money expended in the Stationery Department had been over £4,000,000; when they looked at that sum and remembered that last year, by the good management of those acquainted with that particular trade, a saving amounting to 12 per cent had been effected for the country, it would be seen that had the same system extended over that 10 years, it would have amounted to something like £460,000 or £480,000. As regarded the question of giving this appointment to anyone inside the Department, the statement of the Prime Minister had only strengthened the position of those who were in favour of adopting that course. The Prime Minister had said— But if, speaking generally, as I think it will be admitted, it is not wise that it should be considered a matter of course that a subordinate should succeed to the Chief on his promotion, certainly that rule would particularly apply when we were dealing with an Office, the administration of which was admittedly unsatisfactory. I say this particularly with reference to the Chief Clerk of the Stationery Department (Mr. Reid). I believe him to be an efficient and able officer; I believe that all that was good, or much that was good, in the late administration of the Office may be attributed to him. But, at the same time, the general administration has not been satisfactory, and it appeared to me of the utmost importance that fresh blood should be introduced into the Department. The truth was that what was wanted was not fresh blood, but fresh brains, and if the choice was between a clerk in the War Office and the Chief Clerk, he thought the appointment ought undoubtedly to have been given to the gentleman who was acquainted with the work. What were they asked to do to-night? They were asked to reverse a decision of the House of Commons come to only a week ago, and that because the information which the Government was able to furnish the House last Monday was not so complete as it might have been. Let him remind the House of a dictum once laid down in this House by the Prime Minister. On the 9th of June, 1873, they had a discussion in that House on the Cape and Zanzibar Mail Contract. On that occasion certain statements were made which the Government were not prepared to meet, and they wished for an adjournment of the debate. What did the Prime Minister, who was then Leader on the front Opposition bench, say on that day? He said this— The House was in possession of all the information which would justify a decision; and if not the fault lay with the Government, who had chosen their own time and opportunity. There had been a full discussion; but because the Government could not give a satisfactory answer to the charge, they wanted to waste the time of the House, and arrest the Business of the country, by adjourning the debate."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 711.] They were asked to-night to do that which the Prime Minister on that occasion seemed to think ought to have been resisted. The Motion itself was a Motion referring to an explanation made on Thursday last. Why this delay of four days for an explanation? It ought to have been given at 2 o'clock on the Tuesday. There should have been no delay on the part of the Government in coming down to the House and giving that explanation, whatever it was. He, for one, would be extremely sorry to be ungenerous in dealing with a question of this kind. He would, therefore, not be sorry to see that part of his Motion expressing censure withdrawn; but in the interests of the country he could not but come to this conviction—that this appointment was not in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, nor in furtherance of the best interests of the country.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that as his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Holms) had referred in such pointed terms to him, he hoped the House would give him its indulgence for a few minutes. He regretted that he was not in the House on Monday last when the hon. Gentleman made his speech; but, as hon. Members were aware, the duties of the Secretary to the Treasury were not light, and he was often obliged to pass his time in a room not far off, which was the case on Monday last when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. He was not aware that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to refer in any way to him, or he would have been in his place. The hon. Gentleman had given him great credit for the reforms effected in the Department. But the fact was, though he had most cordially and heartily seconded the efforts made by his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), he wished distinctly to state that the great reforms which had been effected were due altogether to his hon. Friend's unceasing exertions and attention at the Stationery Office. It had been said that those reforms had been due in a great measure to the technical knowledge which he (Mr. Smith) possessed. But though for many years, as the House and the country were aware, he had been, at the head of a very large business, it was nevertheless the fact that he never had any practical knowledge of printing at all. He had no doubt paid large sums for printing; but what he had done was to exercise his judgment to the best of his ability in the selection of a manager, and he had always to rely upon the advice of faithful and able assistants, who had served him well in the positions to which they belonged. He never was a technical stationer, he had not served an apprenticeship to the trade, his knowledge, such as it was, had been the result of observation and that practical power which came to men in the management of great business affairs. He did not desire to enter into the personal affair further than to say one word as to one who had been an officer of the Stationery Department, who had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and who had communicated with the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire and himself on this subject—he meant Mr. Greg. There could be no doubt that Mr. Greg did not treat his office in any way as "a deanery;" but had rendered faithful service to the State as Controller of the Stationery Office. Mr. Greg did not perhaps take the same views on all points as his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire; but to the best of his ability he enforced economy, and managed his office ably and well according to its established order and traditions. It would be harsh, unfair, and injurious to the Public Service that censure of the kind intimated by some hon. Members should be thrown upon a gentleman who, both in his literary capacity and as Controller of the Stationery Office, had rendered good service to the State. He was challenged by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) as to this particular appointment, and he was referred to the Report of the Committee and to the strong representations it had made that technical knowledge was necessary. The appointment, however, did not rest with him, and he was not in the slightest degree responsible for it. He confessed, however, if he had to make an appointment of this character he would strongly object to have his hands tied, or to be limited in the field of selection to persons having a technical knowledge. It was infinitely more important that in the Civil Service for the heads of the great Departments we should find men who possessed administrative ability and knowledge of the world, who were capable of dealing with other great Departments, who understood what human nature was made of, and who had not been educated in the comparatively narrow school of trade. In saying that, he cast no reflection on trade, because it was to trade he owed all he possessed. He believed trade to be honourable in this country; but undoubtedly if we looked around us, we should not find men capable of taking a very large view or of administering great public Departments who would take the comparatively miserable salary of £1,200 or £1,500 a-year. His hon. Friend said it would be possible to find an assistant in a great stationery business who would be glad to accept a post of the kind. [Mr. J. HOLMS: Not an assistant, but a manager.] He did not doubt that persons would be found of great technical knowledge, but it would be a mistake to appoint them. Without casting the slightest reflection on trade, it was inevitable that there should be something narrow, something careful, something minute in the training and education of a person in such a position, which would make him. less qualified to take a wide, a large, and, ultimately, an economical view. ["Oh, oh!"] He could only speak from his own experience, though he was always unwilling to introduce his own affairs. Some time ago it became necessary for him to find a person for the management of interests of the last importance to him. He had a very wide field of selection—3,000 persons. The man he selected was a University man, who had no technical knowledge, who was master of a public school, who had forced his way on in the world, was about 30 years of age, and had given great evidence of capacity; but his position was precisely that of Mr. Pigott at the present time. He was receiving an income of about £300 or £400 a-year. That gentleman was now the managing partner in a great concern. In the same way Mr. Pigott was selected, not because of his knowledge of trade, but for his knowledge of the world and his general capacity. He ventured to think these were the considerations which should guide the Ministers in the selection of the Chiefs of the great Departments of the State. He wished to speak with the greatest possible respect of Mr. Reid, the Chief Clerk of the Stationery Office. Mr. Reid had done very good service, and was a most faithful public servant. He did not, however, on that account doubt that the selection which the Prime Minister had made would conduce greatly to the public interest. He could not help saying again that the Government and the country owed practically the entire saving which had been effected in the Stationery Office to the exertions of his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire.

MR. A. H. BROWN

observed that every one who was examined before the Select Committee said that technical knowledge was the great want at the Stationery Office; and when the Committee distinctly recommended that the person appointed at the head of that Department should be a man possessing technical knowledge, it was not right that their recommendation should have been set aside. That being so, he wanted to know what it was that had induced the Prime Minister to make the appointment? He believed there would have been no difficulty in finding a man in the trade perfectly fitted in every respect for this office. For example, one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, Mr. Howell, was appointed Director of Contracts in the War Department because of his technical knowledge, acquired in a trade from which he retired to accept that office. The Prime Minister said that he made this appointment on his own responsibility, and that Mr. Pigott's name had been laid before him by a gentleman of great experience in the Public Service. He should very much like to know who that gentleman of great experience was. The Prime Minister said that the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), to whom the recent saving in the Stationery Office was due, was not a printer, but a country gentleman. He was in the recollection of the Committee, however, when he said that the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire, when sitting on the Committee, was particularly distinguished for his knowledge of the printing trade, and put some very pertinent questions on the subject, so that it was clear his hon. Friend was possessed of some information, which he had used for the benefit of the public. That was, he thought, an additional reason why some person with technical knowledge should have been appointed Controller of the Stationery Office. He held that the appointment was a great mistake, and hoped the House would not withdraw the Resolution it had passed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I feel, Sir, in common, I am sure, with many hon. Members, regret that it should be necessary to take up so much time as we have done this evening in discussing a question of this kind. But, on the other hand, I feel, as I said an hour ago, that the House must be satisfied that it would be impossible, with a due regard to its own dignity, and with a due regard to the character of a man, which, not only from personal associations, but from the important office which he fills, ought to be of great importance, and ought to be valued by every Member of the Legislature—that it would be impossible, I say, with a due regard to those considerations, that this matter should be allowed to remain and rest where it stood. The question which had been raised with respect to this appointment of Mr. Pigott divides itself into two parts. There is, as has been said by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms), the national and the personal side of the question. I do not intend, though it is a very important part of the subject, to say much on what he termed the national side. It is undoubtedly the fact that the judgment arrived at by a Select Committee of this House two or three years "ago is at variance with the course which the Prime Minister on his responsibility deemed it right to pursue in making this appointment, and it may very well be argued, without any reflection on one side or the other, either that the view taken by the Committee was correct, or that that taken by the Prime Minister was the right view. There can, however, be no disgrace arising out of a question of opinion on a matter of such intricacy and delicacy as the precise amount of value to be attached to the particular qualifications for a special office. I may say a few words on this part of the question before I sit down, but I may spare myself much trouble with regard to it, because I believe what I stated on Monday last, and what my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury stated with so much authority just now, has very fairly placed before the House the views by which the Prime Minister was actuated in coming to the decision at which he arrived. I, therefore, pass by for the present that part of the subject for the purpose of coming to another, and in many respects the most important and delicate part of it—I mean the personal part of the question. I speak of it as the most important part of the question for two reasons—in the first place, because if my noble Friend, Lord Beaconsfield, in selecting Mr. Pigott was influenced by considerations of a personal character, then undoubtedly all the arguments by which he defends, and by which we also defend the selection are tainted and vitiated by the suspicion which would be thrown upon an appointment said to be made from personal motives; and the reasons which were given, and which I hope to show are the true and only reasons, are cast into the shade from the suspicion that they were put forward merely as after-thoughts for an appointment that was made on very different grounds. But, besides that, the question of the motives with which the appointment of Mr. Pigott was made is one of the highest delicacy and import- ance, because it would be intolerable that the character of a man in the high position of Prime Minister of this country should be allowed to rest under an imputation that in making a selection for an appointment he was governed by unworthy motives. Now, in this House a very large majority of hon. Members—indeed, I may say, with very few exceptions, the whole House, has for a greater or smaller number of years known the Prime Minister as the most distinguished, or one of the most distinguished, ornaments of the House. They know very well that his life has nearly all been passed here. They know that although he has now been removed to another sphere, yet in the judgment of history it will be as a Member of the House of Commons that he will be chiefly remembered; and those who know him well are well aware that there is nothing nearer or dearer to his heart than that he should retain that which everyone, I think, will admit he acquired—the respect and affection of the House of Commons. This I may venture to say, speaking as for my Friend as well as for my Chief, that I know nothing that has ever hurt him so deeply within my recollection of him as the censure and the reflection cast upon him in the Vote of last Monday night. I do not think it needs any intimate acquaintance with my noble Friend to believe that, but it has come home to me in an especial manner, because it is impossible for me not to feel that to a very great extent the Vote which was passed on that occasion was passed through a fault of my own. ["No no!"] Yes, it is true; for it has been said to-night, and justly said, that it was because of the imperfect manner in which I met the charges and repelled the accusations of the hon. Member for Hackney that many hon. Members either voted in the majority, or abstained from voting upon that occasion. Sir, I have felt very deeply that it may have been owing to some laches, or, at all events, some fault of my own that that result was arrived at. This very evening I have felt that again, because the hon. Member for Hackney, on getting up and beginning to argue this ease said he was bound to call attention to the discrepancies between the statement I made on Monday and the statement which was made by my noble Friend, Lord Beaconsfield, a few days later; and he said that what the House was asked to do on the present occasion was to displace the statement I made in this House by the statement made by Lord Beaconsfield in "another place." Sir, I must answer, therefore, and I must answer as carefully as I can, the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I must endeavour to state as clearly as I can exactly what occurred with regard to this Motion, and with regard to my own language on the subject. Now, Sir, it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Hackney has reminded us, that he put this Motion down some considerable time before he brought it on. He says he put it down on the 18th of June. I have no doubt that was the day—at all events, it was some time ago—and it did so happen when the Notice was put down that, my attention being attracted to its terms, I spoke to my noble Friend, Lord Beaconsfield, on the subject. I will say in a moment what passed between us; but I may also say this—that from that time till the Motion was brought on, I never had any further communication with him on the subject, and I may very possibly have imperfectly recollected some of the things which passed between us on that occasion. Now, when the Notice was first put down I observed its terms. They were to the effect that the appointment which had been made was calculated to diminish the weight and influence of Committees of this House, and, of course, it immediately occurred to me that what was meant by that statement was, that the appointment was made in contravention of the recommendations of the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman had been Chairman. That, therefore, was the point which was particularly in my mind; and when I spoke to the Prime Minister on the subject I said to him—"What is to be said with regard to this Notice of the hon. Member for Hackney?" and his answer to me was to this effect—"You can say that I considered the recommendations of the Select Committee; that I did not think that I was bound by those recommendations; and that I did not approve them; that, in my opinion, to appoint a gentleman taken from the trade would either be impossible, because you would not be able to get a man who was in a flourish- ing business to leave his business for the salary you could offer; or it would be objectionable, because you would have to take a man who has failed." That was an argument simple and common enough, and I will not stop to inquire whether it was a good argument; but with regard to Mr. Pigott, my noble Friend said—I cannot remember the precise words, but I think he said—"I do not know much about him except that he was recommended to me very strongly. He is the son of a former vicar of Hughenden, and I have heard of his being often employed in the Public Service in a manner which has been very creditable to him." Now, the impression I own I carried away from that was, that at different periods, or from time to time, the Prime Minister had heard that Mr. Pigott had been well employed. My noble Friend also said—"I will send you a statement of his services." Well, he sent me a statement of his services, and I will read the exact words. I do not know by whom it was written, but it was dated from the War Office. It says— Thomas Digby Pigott, aged 37, appointed a temporary clerk in the "War Office on the nomination of Lord Beaconsfield, and to the Establishment, after competition, in 1860. The House will observe that although he was appointed a temporary clerk on the nomination of Lord Beaconsfield in 1859, he subsequently gained his place on the establishment by competition in 1860, under a Government with which Lord Beaconsfield had no connection. Was in temporary charge of the Militia branch for some months during a time of unusual pressure in 1870, and was told that if he wished it, his position there should be confirmed, but it would be more convenient if, instead of remaining permanently in charge himself, he helped to enable a senior clerk to take the post, and accordingly did so. At the end of 1870 he was offered Lord Northbrook's private secretary ship and served with him during the Session in which Purchase was abolished, and until 1872, when Lord Northbrook went to India. Lord Northbrook has taken occasion publicly to express his sense of Mr. Pigott's services. Served as private secretary to Lord Lansdowne from April, 1872, to February, 1874, and to Lord Pembroke from March, 1874, till his resignation in 1875. Served as Secretary to the Royal Commission on Army Promotion from November, 1874, to August, 1876, and has since been chiefly employed on special work connected with the Report of the Commission, for which he was thanked by Mr. Hardy in his Estimate speech this year. Is now acting temporarily as assistant private secretary to Mr. Hardy. That is the statement which was put in my hands; and I confess that coupling what the Prime Minister had told me as to his having heard that Mr. Pigott had often been well employed—or, as I understand him, that he had often heard of his being so employed—and as to his being the son of a former vicar of Hughenden, with the fact that his original appointment was due to Lord Beacons-field, I—perhaps wrongly, but I think not altogether unnaturally—derived the impression that he had been known to Lord Beaconsfield, and that Lord Beaconsfield had from time to time heard of him in his career. But it really was a matter which did not dwell upon my mind at all, and when that appointment came to be challenged, my impression was simply that I should have to argue the case as from the national point of view, and show why a stationer or a gentleman connected with the trade should not be appointed, and why the office should be given to an eligible man in the Public Service. I took it for granted that almost everyone would acknowledge that if a man was to be selected from the Public Service, the appointment of Mr. Pigott was probably as good an appointment as could have been made. Now, I find that to a certain extent I was in error, because it is perfectly true, as was afterwards stated by Lord Beaconsfield, that he did not know Mr. Pigott; and although he was, in a manner which I will explain in a moment, responsible for Mr. Pigott's original appointment as temporary clerk to the War Office; yet he had not known or heard anything of him until just a little while before the time came for making this appointment to the Stationery Office. Now, with regard to the original appointment of Mr. Pigott to the Public Service, I have made inquiries as to the circumstances under which he was first nominated. I believe it was at the time when General Peel was Secretary of State for War. There was a demand for a considerable number of temporary clerks at the War Office, and General Peel asked a number of friends to recommend young men suitable for the post. He placed a nomination at the disposal of Mr. Disraeli, who gave it to a clergyman in his county for his son. That clergyman not having occasion for it declined it, but asked as a favour that Mr. Disraeli would give it to a very promising youth—Mr. Pigott. The appointment, therefore, in the first instance, of Mr. Pigott, was really made, not on the recommendation of Lord Beaconsfield, but on the recommendation of a gentleman to whose son he had offered it. To go to the other end of Mr. Pigott's career, so far as it has gone, the question was raised, how came he to be selected for the appointment at the Stationery Office? Well, I confess that when I was speaking on Monday last I had known so little of these questions of patronage that I was really not aware of what had occurred; but I have since communicated, of course, with Lord Beaconsfield, and I have received from him a full account of the steps he took when this office had to be filled up, and have been shown by him the names of the persons who were under his consideration as eligible for the appointment. It is not right to give the names, but the House will accept my assurance that I am well acquainted with the names, and that I know the manner in which they were brought under Lord Beaconsfield's notice. Two of the gentlemen hold appointments of considerable eminence in the Civil Service, men fairly of the rank of the Controller, of the Stationery Office; those gentlemen were known to Lord Beaconsfield, as their names would be known to many hon. Members of this House, if they were mentioned; and it appeared to him that either of these gentlemen might properly take the office if he wished. The first declined it at once, because he preferred the office he held; the second, after some hesitation, also declined. In the meantime, there had been sent to Lord Beaconsfield the names of a good many persons who were recommended for the appointment. It is asked by whom they were sent. They were recommended by a great number of persons, for the most part by the Chiefs of their own Departments. One gentleman of whom I have some personal knowledge, though he is in a Department I am not connected with, was recommended by the Secretary of that Department, who is certainly neither politically nor in any way a friend of Lord Beaconsfield, and who yet had a very fair reason for recommending a gentleman he was acquainted with. Some others were recommended by hon. Members of this House; one or two gentlemen personally made application for the post; and others were recommended by gentlemen who knew them. These names were referred to the Prime Minister in the ordinary way through his private secretary, not as recommendations made by the private secretary, but as recommendations made by different persons; and in some cases there were several backers to the same man. Mr. Pigott did not apply, and was not in the number of those who were so recommended. He had recently been serving as Secretary to the Army Purchase Commission, and Lord Penzance, as Chairman of that Commission, has borne testimony in the strongest terms of the value of Mr. Pigott's services. Mr. Pigott's term of service in that Commission had expired, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who was at the head of the Department, thought he had done his work in that Commission so well that he sent his name to the Prime Minister as that of a proper man to be chosen in case any other Commission required a secretary. My right hon. Friend knew nothing about the Stationery Office; it was simply and solely because my right hon. Friend shared the opinion of all Secretaries and Under Secretaries who had cognizance of Mr. Pigott's service that he gave Mr. Pigott's name for employment. The name arrived at a time when Lord Beaconsfield, having twice failed to obtain the services of gentlemen to whom he had offered the appointment, had several names before him, and, having considered them, he came to the conclusion that Mr. Pigott's services showed him to be a man of such general administrative ability as to promise exceedingly well for an appointment of this sort; he preferred him to the others, and that is the simple history of this case. If you compare the history of Mr. Pigott's career and the manner in which he was selected for the appointment which he holds with that of any gentleman who holds any position whatever—I do not care what it is—in the Civil Service—though you may have your opinions as to whether it was wise or not to appoint a man without technical experience, whether it would have been right in that respect to defer to the opinion of the Select Committee—there is no man whose appointment was made more honourably and in a more straightforward and thoroughly pure manner than this. A collateral question has been raised with regard to the statement made by Lord Beaconsfield as to the vote given at an election by Mr. Pigott's father. I really think, if I may venture to make such an observation, that Lord Beaconsfield need hardly have gone into such a matter, because, even if Mr. Pigott's father had been his best friend and supporter, that would not in any way disqualify the son; it would have been exceedingly hard that a young man who had shown talent and capacity should have been excluded from positions for which that talent and capacity fitted him simply because his father had been a supporter of the Prime Minister of the day. I own I did not expect to hear in this House from any hon. Member of it expressions such as were used early in the evening which seemed to throw a doubt on the veracity of Lord Beaconsfield; but as the statement of Lord Beaconsfield on the subject has been challenged, it is right I should say a word upon it. As Lord Beaconsfield stated, Mr. Pigott was the vicar of Hughenden some 30 years ago, at the time at which Lord Beaconsfield became possessor of the property. As has been stated in an independent letter read by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), and as is perfectly well-known to many persons, there were some unfortunate differences between Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Pigott; in fact, there was a lawsuit between them, and I believe they were not at all upon friendly terms. The House will bear in mind that the original appointment of the younger Mr. Pigott was made, not on the initiative of Lord Beaconsfield, but at the suggestion of another person, Mr. Disraeli generously giving a nomination to the son of his former opponent in the Law Courts. After the statement had been made in this House that Mr. Pigott was the son of a gentleman who had been a political supporter of Lord Beaconsfield, a member of Mr. Pigott's family addressed him a letter stating that the vicar voted against him, and on this information, which coincided with his own impression, Lord Beaconsfield made the statement with regard to the vote. Since then he has endeavoured, by reference to the proper authorities of the county, to obtain precise evidence of the fact; but he was informed that no document existed which would afford that evidence. The grounds on which Lord Beaconsfield made the statement, therefore, were quite sufficient to justify him in saying what he did in his speech. These are really the facts of the case, and I do not think the House wishes, or that it is all desirable, to go any further into the matter. I fully admit it is desirable to pay proper respect to the recommendations of a Select Committee; but there are many recommendations of such Committees that have not been followed. The only point on which I am anxious there should be no mistake is the question of the personal character of Lord Beaconsfield. I think I may appeal to the hon. Member for Hackney himself, and to the great body of hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, as well as to my Friends on this side—and I am sure I shall not appeal in vain—when I ask them to unanimously withdraw a censure which I am convinced would not have been passed—at all events, in the terms it was—upon this appointment, if it had not been for the impression which prevailed—and I must say I take great blame to myself for allowing it to prevail—that something had been done in this matter which would not bear the light. I am quite sure after all the contests in which we have been engaged in this House one with another, and after all the sharp passages which from time to time have passed between my noble Friend and his opponents, here and "elsewhere," there is that kindly feeling of regard among ourselves for the man, and, above all, that sensitive jealousy for the character of the great office he fills, which would make us all desire in every way we can do it to clear a character which must be dear, not only to us, but to all Englishmen.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

Sir, I hope the very full, candid, and generous explanation which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite may enable us at all events to come to a decision upon this subject without further loss of time. I do not deny that a matter of this sort, which involves the distribution of the patronage of the Government, is an important one; still, at this period of the Session, time is of some importance, and a question of this sort may be discussed at too great a length. I quite agree that it was due to the dignity of the Government and of the House that some action should be taken in the matter to put the Government and the House into harmony with each other, seeing that a Resolution has been passed by this House which, I think, requires some justification. Beyond that, the further explanation that has been given relates almost entirely to the personal aspects of the case, and nothing has been said as to the subject of the recommendation of the Select Committee which was referred to in the debate. But I must say there was much in the speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) that I heard with very great surprise and regret; and it seemed to me that the speech was, to a great extent, irrelevant to the Motion he asks us to adopt. Explanations might have been confined almost entirely to the personal aspect of the case, and yet the hon. and gallant Member unnecessarily went at great length into the arguments which the House had before it previously as to the conduct of the Government in relation to the recommendations of the Select Committee. But I thought a good deal of the hon. and gallant Member's speech was of a somewhat trivial character. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it was hardly right even for the noble Lord at the head of the Government to refer to that matter about the vote. It was necessary for my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Holms) to refer to the matter, because doubts were cast on the accuracy of his original statement; and it was very natural that he should have wished to say as much on that subject as was requisite to show that he had not made his statement without due consideration. But it was really a waste of the time of the House for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to read at length a letter which he had received from a correspondent, who, he said, was 83 years of age, in order to show the nature of the relations which had subsisted between the Rev. Mr. Pigott and Lord Beaconsfield. There was a part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which I thought was not only irrelevant, but also rather wanting in the good taste which usually distinguishes his remarks; for on a question such as this, when through the fault of somebody—but not of anybody sitting on this side—the House and the Government have been placed in a position of antagonism and difficulty, I cannot see how that situation is made any better by the references he made to certain appointments which, in his opinion, were improperly made by the late Government. Sir, a more injudicious speech in which to introduce a conciliatory Motion, which I hope we shall all be unanimously disposed to support, I have seldom heard than that of the hon. and gallant Member. I have said that I hope we shall unanimously agree to this Resolution. I have no hesitation in saying to my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Holms)—he is perfectly aware of it—that I had some doubts when he first showed me the terms of his Motion. I thought he attached somewhat too much weight and authority to one isolated recommendation of a Select Committee. I cannot but think that if too much weight is attached to any such recommendation, the responsibility of the Government would be diminished, and that the responsibility for administration would be practically removed from the Minister and placed upon Committees. I also frankly owned to my hon. Friend that I had some doubt as to the recommendation itself. I told him that I much doubted whether a man practically acquainted with the details of this business could be found, at any rate at the salary that was offered. My hon. Friend gave me some further particulars respecting the appointment; and I informed him that I should be glad to hear the arguments on both sides, without pledging myself as to how I should vote. Well, I heard the statement of my hon. Friend, and I unfortunately also heard the statement made on the other side; for after the explanation, or rather the want of explanation, from the Government on the matter, it was impossible for us to do otherwise than we did on that occasion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) spoke in the course of the former debate. He attached little weight to the personal side of the question, but he appealed strongly to the Government to tell us whether there was any excuse which could be made for this appointment. He said—"Can you inform us that the recommendations of the Committee were fully weighed and considered; what steps were taken to inquire whether such a man as the Committee recommended was to be found or not; what course was adopted to find a suitable candidate for this office?" We were told nothing, except that the Prime Minister had watched the career of this young man with great interest from his youth; and I must say that the impression conveyed to everybody's mind, until it found expression from the hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams), was that there was something in this business which savoured strongly of a job. That was the impression under which a number of hon. Gentlemen on this side voted; it was also the impression under which a large number on the other side voted for the Motion, and a larger number abstained from voting at all. I think that, as a general rule, nothing could possibly be more inconvenient than that a reply should be given to a debate in this House in "another place." But still, those explanations have been made; and although we may all have our different opinions as to whether this is the best appointment which could have been made or not, as to the weight which ought to be given to the recommendations of a Select Committee, and as to the recommendation itself, still, I think that in very few minds will any impression now remain that this appointment has been made without consideration, that it has been made solely on personal grounds, or that the gentleman who has been selected is not well qualified in many respects for the appointment. I quite admit the force of the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it is quite impossible, with all the business which passes through his hands, that he should be able to make himself acquainted with every detail in a case like this. And if this explanation could have been given on a former occasion, I am strongly of opinion that the decision of the House would have been different. In those circumstances, although the subject comes before us in a somewhat irregular and inconvenient manner, I believe there is no hon. Gentleman, on whatever side he may sit, who would wish that a decision of the House arrived at under a misapprehension should remain unreversed, and therefore I hope that my hon. Friends on this side will think fit to agree to this Motion.

SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY

said, he could not congratulate himself or the House on the position which they occupied on that occasion. They had, he thought, been acting the play of Much Ado about Nothing. He still retained the opinion he had the other night that, the appointment of a junior clerk over the heads of so many other people was a mistake. But between an error of judgment in such a matter and the use of the patronage of the Crown for personal or private ends there was a very wide distinction. He was bound to say that he voted on the last occasion from a misapprehension, as the hon. Member for Hackney's (Mr. J. Holms's) statement was not founded upon facts. At the same time, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had misled the House on Monday last by withholding information from them. The right hon. Gentleman was in the position of a counsel who undertook to defend a client without having received a brief. If the right hon. Gentleman had on Monday last said as much as he had that night, he should have voted differently; but the right hon. Gentleman's speech upon that occasion influenced him (Sir Rainald Knightley) to vote for the Resolution. That showed the fallacy of the saying that the speeches made in that House seldom influenced the votes given in it.

SIR GEOEGE BOWYER

said, that the House would be doing no more than a simple act of justice if they rescinded the Resolution of Monday last. The Resolution was agreed to because the House thought the appointment was a job. But what was a job? Why, an appointment made to serve private interests as against the public interest. It having been shown that the Resolution was founded on a mistake, it ought to be rescinded.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, while most anxious to maintain the usefulness and influence of its Select Committees, and to encourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State, after hearing the further explanations concerning the recent appoint- ment of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, withdraws the censure conveyed in the said Resolution.