§ EARL SPENCERMy Lords, I think it due to your Lordships' House that I should make an explanation as to a statement which I made during the debate of Friday last. I said—
Would the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) think the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) a judge of those matters? Would he think the late Lord Chancellor a good judge? Perhaps the noble Marquess is not aware that both these distinguished Gentlemen recommended Mr. Fottrell.The noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), in terms perfectly courteous to myself, denied my statement as to Mr. Gibson, and added that he had had no opportunity of referring to Dr. Ball, who was in Ireland. My Lords, I was under the impression that both those learned Gentlemen had written to recommend Mr. Fottrell. With regard to Mr. Gibson, I find that what occurred was this. An influential Member of the other House, in recommending Mr. Fottrell for the appointment of Solicitor to the Land Commission, informed the Chief Secretary that Mr. Gibson had spoken favourably of Mr. Fottrell's personal qualities, without reference, how- 1494 ever, to the position he was seeking; but I was mistaken in supposing that Mr. Gibson had written any letter on the subject. With reference to my statement as to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland under the late Government, I will read to your Lordships the following letter from Dr. Ball to Mr. Fottrell, winch was submitted to the Government with his other testimonials:—
§ "George Hotel, Buxton, August 6, 1881.
§ "Dear Mr. Fottrell,—I have much pleasure in giving my testimony of your ability and knowledge of your profession and fitness to fulfil the duties of Solicitor for the Land Commission or other public Board.
§ "Yours faithfully,
§ "J. T. BALL.
§ "Mr. George Fottrell, jun."
§ I apologize for not making this explanation before, but I have postponed it for two reasons—first, the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who only returned to London yesterday; and, secondly, because I wished to give the noble and learned Earl opposite an opportunity of being present.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI regret my noble and learned Friend is absent to-night; but I have seen a letter from Dr. Ball, in which he states that his recommendation was purely of a professional nature. He had not at all touched upon the question of the political proclivities, or political connections of Mr. Fottrell, which, as their Lordships were aware, had been the point under discussion in the House.
§ EARL GRANVILLEWith regard to that remark of the noble Marquess, the words used by Dr. Ball are—
I have much pleasure in giving my testimony of your ability and knowledge of your profession and fitness to fulfil the duties of Solicitor for the Land Commission.Surely that was a strong recommendation. If Dr. Ball had thought Mr. Fottrell unfit on other than professional grounds, he would have stated it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWhat I said was that Dr. Ball confined his letter to a professional recommendation, and I pointed out that the letter did not trench on political matters.
THE LORD CHANCELLORThen the conclusion is to be drawn that Dr. Ball was ignorant of the existence of the political proclivities—of any political proclivities—of Mr. Fottrell.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYBut the Government surely knew?
THE LORD CHANCELLORIt appears, according to the statement of the noble Marquess, that Dr. Ball gave this recommendation, he being ignorant of any political proclivities on the part of Mr. Fottrell. Others, of course, were as ignorant as Dr. Ball. I should have thought the noble Marquess would not give the Government credit for knowledge, on that point, superior to that possessed by Dr. Ball, who gave this testimonial.