HC Deb 19 March 1888 vol 323 cc1621-2
MR. MUNDELLA. (Sheffield, Brightside)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely. Whether his attention has been directed to a letter of Sir Thomas Farrer which appeared in the morning papers of Saturday, in which he denies the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday last, that while a member of the Civil Service he (Sir Thomas Farrer) "scarcely allowed a month to pass without taking part in political controversies in periodicals;" and whether, upon perusal of that letter, the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that the imputation made upon this distinguished public servant should be withdrawn?

THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I thought that the language I used with regard to Sir Thomas Farrer would have satisfied him that I had no intention whatever of casting any aspersion on so distinguished a public servant. I spoke on the spur of the moment of the general impression which his literary work had left upon my mind. I should be exceedingly sorry if anything which I said has caused him any pain whatever. It is clear from his account of the transaction, or at all events in his judgment, that he neither wrote frequently nor with a political object; and I am quite satisfied to leave his statement in the possession of the public as an accurate representation of his view.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

said, arising out of the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to ask whether, in reply to a Question put by him (Mr. Healy), the right hon. Gentleman stated that although Mr. Brougham Leech had written a pamphlet against Home Rule and antagonistic to the views of the majority of the Irish people, he would not ask him to withdraw that pamphlet, because Sir Thomas Farrer had also written a pamphlet; whether, as it now turned out that Sir Thomas denied he was the author of the pamphlet, he was aware of any other gentleman being allowed to take part in a political controversy except Mr. Brougham Leech?

THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is in error in stating that I took all Sir Thomas Farrer's writings as a reason for not calling upon Mr. Leech to withdraw his pamphlet; but it must be within the knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there has been a good deal of writing at different times by public servants; and I should be exceeding my authority if I were to request the Irish Government to call upon Mr. Leech to withdraw the pamphlet in question. I am not aware that I have any authority or power to do so.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether there was any other case of a pamphlet being written against the views of the majority of the Irish people, except in the case mentioned above, and in the case of Mr. Holmes, Treasury Remembrancer, who had also written a pamphlet against Home Rule?

MR. W. H. SMITH

No doubt there are other cases.