§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he rose for the purpose of making a personal explanation with regard to a Motion which he made in that House, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the appointments made to Official Receiverships under the Bankruptcy Act of last Session, by the President of the Board of Trade, 50 and into the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had exercised his patronage under that Act. That Committee was refused. On a subsequent day, when he was unfortunately absent through illness, the President of the Board of Trade read two letters to the House, which he should have answered if he had been present. He wished, therefore, to make some remarks in reference to those letters. He would have been prepared to answer the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday last; but the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place, and he thought it more courteous to defer the statement until the right hon. Gentleman was present. The first letter was from a person named Messent, who was appointed Official Receiver in Bankruptcy at Ipswich. That letter would be fresh in the memory of the House. The first part of the letter expressed indignation at the charge which he had made that Mr. Messent had asked for the indulgence of his creditors; and the second part stated that Mr. Messent, before his appointment, was permanently resident at Ipswich. It would be more respectful to the House if he stated the reasons on which he made that charge. He went to Birmingham specially to investigate the case; and he heard, not from one, but from dozens, that what he had said was the fact. He was not satisfied with that, but applied to one of the principal Trade Protection Societies. [Loud cries of"Order!"]
§ MR. DILLWYNI rise to Order, Sir. Is this a personal explanation?
§ MR. SPEAKERI understand that the hon. Member wishes to proceed to a personal explanation.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that he had made certain charges, and wished to explain why he had done so. He, therefore, applied to one of the Trade Protection Societies without giving his reasons for doing so. The reply he received was as followed:—
It is understood that F. M. has recently been appointed Official Receiver under the new Bankruptcy Act at Ipswich. He was in difficulties when in Birmingham, hut has since paid 20s. in the pound.Not satisfied with that, he repeated his question in another quarter, and the reply was that Mr. Messent had not actually failed, but had been in difficulties, and that he had since paid 20s. 51 in the pound. He applied to another Trade Society, and got the same answer. He thought that was sufficient reason for his statement that Mr. Messent had asked for the indulgence of his creditors; but, as his (Mr. Dixon-Hartland's) object was to perform a public duty, and not to wound anyone's feelings, he would wish to withdraw those words. But that did not alter one jot or tittle—[Cries of"Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is not entitled to enter upon matters of debate. So long as he confines himself to a personal explanation, he is in Order.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDThe rest of Mr. Messent's letter was that he was really an Ipswich man; but that did not alter the fact that he was a tailor living at Birmingham, a voter for Birmingham, a Guardian of the Poor for Birmingham, and an active member of the Birmingham Caucus. The second letter read by the President of the Board of Trade was from Mr. Hughes, the Mayor of Oxford; and if the right hon. Gentleman had examined the facts at first hand, instead of trusting to Mr. Hughes's testimony, he would have found that Mr. Mallam gave evidence on the Oxford Election Petition. ["Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERI have allowed considerable latitude to the him. Member, because I understood that he was going to confine himself to a personal explanation; but he is now introducing matter of fresh debate. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but he is really out of Order.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he was only referring to the eases mentioned in the letters read the other night. [Cries of "Order!"] Might he not refer to those letters?
§ MR. SPEAKERSo long as they have any reference to the personal explanation which the hon. Member desires to make. But, as I said before, to go into those cases would be to inaugurate a fresh debate, and that would not be in Order.
§ MR. DIXON- HARTLANDonly wished to vindicate what he had said before. ["Order, order!" "Name!" Did Mr. Speaker rule that he could make this personal explanation?
§ MR. SPEAKERYes.
MR. DIXOX-HARTLANDsaid, he would read the evidence given upon the 52 Oxford Election Petition by Mr. George Mallam, the Official Receiver just appointed—
What was the next election in which you took any part?—The first election of this year. William Harcourt, with Mr. Chitty, called on my brother, and they sent for me. I came up, and they said they hoped they should get both our services. Who was acting as principal agent?—Mr. Bickerton. Did you act under him?—I acted wish him.He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), therefore, thought that in this case also he was justified in saying that the appointment was for political services.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINPerhaps the House will allow me to make one or two observations, which shall be very brief. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI wish to ask, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to continue this debate?
§ MR. SPEAKERAfter the statement which has just been made, and which has certainly exceeded the limits of a personal explanation, I do not think that anything more should be said on the subject.