HC Deb 17 May 1878 vol 240 cc169-87
MR. BENETT-STANFORD,

in rising to move— ''That this House disapproves of the appointment of Colonel Wellesley, of the Coldstream Guards, to the post of First Secretary of Embassy at Vienna, over the heads of a large number of old and competent diplomatic servants, said, it was with considerable reluctance that he brought this subject before the House, because it was exceedingly disagreeable for one who was generally a warm supporter of the Government to expose what he regarded as a great piece of favouritism and jobbery. He had been asked not to bring the matter forward, as it might seem that he was attacking the Government; but he disclaimed all intention of attacking anything more than the principles which had been acted opon. Whether a job was a Conservative or a Liberal job, it was a job not with standing. If the supporters of a Government were never to make complaints, they might just as well be mere mutes or Lobby loungers at the beck and call of the Whips. He also wished to guard against its being supposed that he was attacking an individual, inasmuch as he had never, to his knowledge, seen Colonel Wellesley, and certainly had no personal feeling against him. He had heard it said on all sides that Colonel Wellesley was a smart young officer, an accomplished gentleman, highly connected, and a mo- derate linguist. But, in spite of all those qualifications, he considered him totally unfit to carry out the duties of the post to which the Foreign Secretary had appointed him. No less than four different debates had taken place in the two Houses of Parliament with reference to Colonel Wellesley. In 1871, he was selected to fill the post of Military Attaché at St. Petersburg, and there was immediately a debate on the appointment. It was explained by Lord Enfield, then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that it was a military staff appointment, and would only last five years, and that the great reason why he had been appointed was that he had been adjutant of his regiment, and that there were no other officers who were fit for the appointment. The fact was, that there were no less than five most competent officers who applied for that post, but were refused; while Colonel Wellesley, at 26 years of age, a subaltern in the Guards, never having seen a shot fired in his life, except, perhaps, at Hurlingham, was appointed. Among the officers refused were Captain Burnaby, Captain Hozier, Captain Gould—an officer in the Guards at the time—all excellent Turkish and Russian scholars, and Captain Vincent, also an excellent officer and linguist. When Colonel Wellesley obtained that appointment, he did not leave the Army; on the contrary, his diplomatic pay of £600 was continued, in addition to his regimental pay, and his promotion also went on. The principal reason assigned for giving him that appointment was because he had been adjutant to his regiment; but there was a large number of senior adjutants over whose heads he was placed, and, therefore, the fact that he had held that office was no criterion for his qualifications. In 1875, he was made a lieutenant-colonel without purchase, being promoted over the heads of 900 majors, he never having done any duty with his regiment for over four years, the whole of his work having been performed by another officer of the Guards. In 1876, his time was up, and he ought, in due course, to have returned to his regiment, and some other deserving officer appointed; but he did not blame Lord Derby for retaining him in his position, because at that time our relations with Russia were rather strained, and it was as well, there- fore, not to make any change in our diplomatic staff at St. Petersburg. In 1878, Colonel Wellesley, being then 33 years of age, and never having done a single day's duty with his regiment in the Guards for seven years, and having drawn pay for both his appointments, was made full colonel over the heads of 300 lieutenant-colonels, and of 1,200 field officers in the Army, many of whom were in active service when Colonel Wellesley was a mere child. He now came to the appointment of which he more particularly complained—namely, that of Secretary to the Embassy at Vienna, which carried with it a salary of £1,000 per annum. Colonel Wellesley obtained that appointment over the heads of 90 well-tried servants of the Crown, whose claims were superior. The Foreign Secretary was responsible for filling that post, and it would be for Parliament to say whether he had exercised a just and wise discretion in appointing one who had never been in the Diplomatic Service, and who was, in fact, a mere outsider, over the heads of a number of gentlemen of experience, and who were well qualified to fill the post. In reply to a Question put by him (Mr. Benett-Stanford), the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to Rule 18, under which the Secretary of State reserved to himself the right of recommending military officers to the higher and more responsible posts without previous diplomatic service, and had quoted as cases, in which the Secretary of State had exercised that discretion, Lord Strathnairn, Colonel Stanton, and Colonel Mansfield; but he found, upon reference, that each of those gallant officers had held diplomatic appointments before being preferred to the higher posts in the service. To give the House some idea of the officers whom Colonel Wellesley had superseded, he might mention that he had passed over the head of one officer who had seen 62 years' service, one who had served 38 years, another who had served 34 years, several who had served from 30 to 26 years, four 23 years, seven 22 years, four 20 years, nine 19 years, four 18 years, and twenty-four 9 years. One of the officers to whom he had referred—a Mr. Gerard Gould—had been employed for not less than 34 years on special and other diplomatic services in 17 different countries, including Hanover, Berne, Vienna, Venice, Mexico, Vera Cruz, Washington, Constantinople, Cyprus, St. Petersburg, Buenos Ayres, Paraguay, Athens, Berne (second time), Copenhagen, Stockholm, and lastly at Lisbon; while, of Colonel Wellesley's service, he found it stated that he "entered the Coldstream Guards, 1863; was ensign, 1863; lieutenant and captain, 1866; captain and lieutenant-colonel, 1875; Military Attaché at St. Petersburg, 1871." That was the whole of his service; and he thought if the printer had added—"Nephew of the Duke of Wellington, son of Lord Cowley, and son-in-law of Lord Augustus Loftus, Ambassador at St. Petersburg," he would have added some important information. It must be remembered that the gentlemen who entered the Diplomatic Service had to pass a severe examination, and then to serve for two years without any remuneration; that, at the expiration of that time, they obtained a salary of £150 per annum, which was increased to £300 per annum on their passing another examination. This was the first instance in which an outsider had been brought into the middle of the service. The main question, however, was whether Colonel Wellesley was competent to fill the office to which he had been appointed? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, the other evening, that Colonel Wellesley had held several diplomatic positions; but, on that point, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, inasmuch as he had merely been Military Attaché, which in no way qualified him for a diplomatic post. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that diplomacy was a thing to be caught, like small-pox or measles, merely by attending a foreign Court. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it could not be caught in that way. It was said that Colonel Wellesley, since he had been in St. Petersburg, had proved himself to be an efficient officer. He had certainly learnt Russian; and if there was one thing in which he had been unwise, it was in expressing rather too freely his opinion of the officers of the Staff in Russia. The officers of the Staff at St. Petersburg had, it appeared, all quarrelled with Colonel Wellesley. He did not say who was in the right, but the fact was as he had stated it, and the quarrel between the Grand Duke Nicholas and Colonel Wellesley was connected with the indiscreet way in which, the latter expressed his opinions about the officers of the Staff. Therefore, Colonel Wellesley was hardly the person to be placed in the post of First Secretary of the Embassy at Vienna, where, if anything happened to the Ambassador, the First Secretary would have charge of that important Embassy. They might just as well put him. (Mr. Benett-Stanford), because he was an officer of the Volunteers, and knew a little about drill, in command of a brigade of the Guards. In 1858, Lord Malmesbury, then Foreign Secretary, appointed a gentleman who had nothing to do with diplomacy—Lord Chelsea—as First Secretary to the Embassy at Paris; and what was the result? When Lord Palmerston's Government afterwards came into power, Lord Russell, then Foreign Secretary, finding that Lord Chelsea had been placed over the heads of many old diplomatic servants, removed the noble Lord from the service altogether. If a change of Ministry occurred—a thing he hoped would not take place for some time yet—what was there to prevent another Foreign Secretary from acting on the precedent of 1858, and dismissing Colonel Wellesley? Diplomacy had been spoken of as if it were not a special art and science, whereas it was really the science or art of conducting negotiations between nations, particularly in securing treaties; and he doubted if Colonel Wellesley had any such knowledge. Every member of the Diplomatic Service, before he received a place or any pay, must possess, among other things, a knowledge of Constitutional History, Blackstone's Commentaries, Hallam's Constitutional History of England, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Mill's Political Economy, the Political History of Europe, and Political Economy generally, and must also be acquainted with Latin, as well as with two foreign languages. But had Colonel Wellesley these qualifications? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in defending Colonel Wellesley's appointment, had said they must have a competent person to put in the post of First Secretary of the Embassy at Vienna. That was a slur on the whole Diplomatic Service. There was an abundance of excellent public servants who could fill the post, and who had looked forward to filling it, instead of which a member of an entirely different profession had been put over all their heads. In conclusion, he might say that in bringing that Motion forward he did not mean to attack the Government, but to attack the principle on which they had acted; because, when they saw a gross piece of injustice, and, he might add, of nepotism, the House ought to express its disapproval of it, and to defend well-tried servants of the Crown, who had no one in the House to represent them or protect their interests. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House disapproves of the appointment of Colonel Wellesley, of the Coldstream Guards, to the post of First Secretary of Embassy at Vienna, over the heads of a large number of old and competent diplomatic servants,—(Mr. Benett-Stanford.) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he felt that he ought not to allow a single moment to pass before he replied to the hon. Gentleman who had brought for ward that Motion. He had been prepared from the first to accept—and he was bound, in a Parliamentary sense, still to accept—the hon. Member's very general disclaimer of being actuated by any personal motives on that occasion; but he could not help thinking that, in view of some of the terms of his Resolution, some of the matters on which the hon. Gentleman had touched in his speech were, to say the least, slightly out of place. The hon. Gentleman disapproved the appointment of Colonel Wellesley, as First Secretary to the Embassy at Vienna, over the heads of a large number of diplomatic servants. Now, he would concede that that was not the first time Colonel Wellesley's name had been brought before the House. And on the present occasion, as on the former one, he had no doubt that the same answer which could be given about Colonel Wellesley would be as fully satisfactory as it was before. But when the hon. Member thought it necessary to revert to previous debates, to criticize as minutely as he could do, and to comment, in terms which very barely avoided being ironical, on the performance of Colonel Wellesley's military duties, he could not but think that that went rather beyond the terms of the Motion, and partook somewhat of the character of a personal attack on a gentleman who was not there to defend himself. ["No!"] He was glad to hear that disavowal, and hoped it would be fully understood. With regard to Colonel Wellesley's services, they had already been pretty well recited to the House. But it was not right to pass by that which had been said about his previous appointment as Military Attaché at St. Petersburg without giving in some slight detail, the reasons why he had been selected for the very important post that he had so lately vacated. It would be recollected that, in a recent discussion in that House, his noble Friend Lord Cranbrook stated that Colonel Wellesley's appointment was made in 1871; that he was appointed, although an officer of very junior rank, very much owing to the special qualifications he possessed for the particular post to which he was sent as Military Attaché, and that no fewer than eight officers to whom the post of Military Attaché, had been offered had declined it, partly on the ground of that which was very notorious—the expense of living at St. Petersburg—and partly for other reasons, into which it was unnecessary to enter. Colonel Wellesley, although a junior officer, was selected for the appointment; he had held it since 1871, and he thought it was, indirectly, no slight praise to him that, although there was no term, in the strict sense of the word, yet, when the ordinary period of five years expired, it was deemed for the benefit of the public service that he should be continued in the important post which he occupied. His noble Friend also stated that Colonel Wellesley was well fitted for the post, that he was not only an able officer, but an accomplished linguist, able to speak Russian, and that it was agreed on all hands that, although he had been appointed in 1871, it would have been injudicious to remove him last year, when events in the East of Europe took so important a turn. He had thought it right to bring to the notice of hon. Members, who were not present on a previous occasion, the fact that so far as concerned Colonel Wellesley's special fitness for the post of Military Attaché, it had been accepted by the House. As to the question of supersession, the hon. Gentleman said he did not mean to make any attack on the Government, but only attacked the principles on which they had acted; and if it could be shown that those principles were contrary to those which had been deliberately affirmed on more than one occasion, undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman's facts might have some force. But, so far from that being the case, the appointment which had been made—although, undoubtedly, somewhat out of the usual course—was one of a nature which had been foreseen and expressly provided for. If he turned to the 18th Rule of the Foreign Office, he did not find, nor had he heard, that there was any reservation in that clause. The Secretary of State preserved to himself the power of naming any person, even though he might not be a member of the Diplomatic Service, for the higher and more responsible posts in it; and with regard to any promotion, he would not be restricted by claims founded on seniority from making such appointments as he might deem right. The hon. Member had spoken as if that Rule had been inserted in the Regulations without any intention that practical effect should be given to it, and he would recount the circumstances under which it had been made. A Committee, which had been moved for by the then Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), had conducted a very laborious and exhaustive inquiry for two years, and in their recommendations with regard to the Diplomatic Service, there was a paragraph in which they expressly said that, having considered the question whether outsiders should be brought into the profession of diplomacy, they thought that, under certain circumstances, the power of appointing them should be left to the Secretary of State, and they gave it as their opinion that he should not be confined to the service alone in filling up vacant appointments. It could not be said, then, that that power was so novel that it was inexpedient to exercise it. Under ordinary circumstances, there might have been something to say about this appointment; but, considering the present position of affairs, he contended it was justified by the facts of the case. The hon. Member seemed to think that no one had been taken into the Diplomatic Service from the outside; but there was the noble Lord (Lord Strathnairn) who, as Sir Hugh Rose, was appointed Secretary to the Embassy at Constantinople, and there were many other instances he could mention in which military men had received similar appointments. He observed that the hon. Member attached great importance to the regulations as to promotions in the Diplomatic Service; but these were only meant to apply to minor posts, and it seemed to him that he did not draw a distinction between those and appointments of a higher rank—

MR. BENETT-STANFORD

I rise to explain. It has always been considered in the service that gentlemen from the outside—Members of Parliament and such like—might be placed in the upper posts, but that minor appointments should always be conferred on gentlemen of the Diplomatic Profession only.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he would give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of his contention, for Lord Strathnairn formerly filled an appointment of some importance before he was promoted—namely, that of Consul General, and, unless he was very much mistaken, had been appointed to that very important place directly from the Army and while serving in it. He need not point out that there had been other cases, and notably that of Mr. Layard, where gentlemen had been taken from the outside to fill important places in the Diplomatic Service, and he would not weary the House by recounting the numerous instances in which transfers from the Consular to the Diplomatic Service had been of much public advantage. He drew from the fact of those transfers the argument that the Diplomatic Service was not a close profession; and it had always been understood that, on the authority and responsibility of the Secretary of State, it should be open to him to appoint those who would, in his judgment, best serve the required purpose. The hon. Gentleman had said that in the duties of Military Attaché there was nothing of a diplomatic character, and that he only had to collect details about arms, ammunition, and troops, which were in no way concerned with diplomatic matters. To that statement he was obliged to demur. In the first place, the information which it was the duty of a Military Attaché to procure was of very great importance, and it was no inconsiderable advantage to him to have facilities, from his position as an officer, for procuring proper information. In almost every country there was a very large number of questions connected with the military service which intimately concerned diplomacy, and the Military Attaché went through a course of training which would thoroughly fit him for duties more strictly of a civil nature. It was not to be lost sight of that in these days and in certain countries military rank had distinctly its advantages; and, particularly in relation to the Court to which Colonel Wellesley was about to be accredited, his military rank and his position as a personal aide-de-camp of the Sovereign gave him considerable advantages, and also enabled him better to discharge the duties to his country which he was sent to perform. ["No!"] Hon. Members might dissent from that view, but it was a matter of fact and not of opinion, and he felt sure that Colonel Wellesley would justify his prophecy rather than their interpretation of it. However, Colonel Wellesley had discharged other than military duties; and hon. Members, if they looked at last year's Parliamentary Paper, No. 9 on Turkey, would find records to show that Colonel Wellesley had the highest authority abroad, and a memorandum of the communications which passed between him, as the Representative of Her Majesty's Government, and the Emperor of Russia. It was only necessary to refer to those Papers to prove that Colonel Wellesley had already been trained to negotiations of extreme delicacy and importance. There was one point on which he would only touch very lightly. It would be difficult for him, acquainted though he was with many members of the Diplomatic Service, to take a series of names and point out the particular qualification which this or that man could show in competition with Colonel Wellesley. One gentleman had served for 62 years—perhaps that was no special qualification, nor was it necessary that a man should have experience of every clime in the world. He had rather not discuss the merits of those gentlemen; but, when he found that there were rules laid down upon principles which had been accepted by a Committee of the House and acted upon by successive Ministers, and that, according to those rules, Colonel Wellesley had been appointed as the fittest person, he was content to set the opinion of Lord Salisbury and Lord Granville against that of the hon. Member, and to leave the hon. Gentleman to draw his own conclusions. He had endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid giving offence to anyone, and if he had spoken with warmth he must apologize for having been betrayed beyond his duty. He did not think he had said anything which could not be justified, and he believed he had sufficiently proved to the House that this appointment was consistent with the rules of the service, that it could be fully justified by the circumstances of the case, and that it did not fall under those terms of condemnation which the hon. Member sought to impose upon it.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, it was impossible to discuss a personal matter without personal allusions, and he claimed the right of saying everything with regard to Colonel Wellesley which he should have said if Colonel Wellesley were sitting opposite to him. In the first place, he admitted the contention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was right and proper that the Secretary of State should have the power of making these appointments in the Diplomatic Service; but to that high power attached a grave responsibility, and he did not think that any Secretary of State should put a man in any position in the Diplomatic Service unless he was prepared to meet, in the most distinct and categorical manner, any challenge in that House as to the merits of the person appointed. Two cases had been referred to in the course of this discussion. When the present Viceroy of India was appointed, the diplomatic post he vacated at Lisbon was conferred upon a gentleman whose preferment caused a certain amount of dissatisfaction among the friends of persons who thought they had a better claim to the position. But the reason why the gentleman in question was sent there was so obvious that no one on either side of politics in that House challenged the appointment. The other case was that of Mr. Layard, who was appointed to a very high position—to the Legation at Madrid; but his appointment, also, was not challenged in Parliament, although Mr. Layard had been a militant politician for many years, and had, as such, a fair share of enemies. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would show that, in the present instance, there were thoroughly good reasons for the appointment of Colonel Wellesley, he should have nothing more to say on the subject. But, in looking at the case of Colonel Wellesley, the first thing that struck him was the fact—it was rare for any man to develop ability entitling him to exceptional promotion in two totally distinct lines of life; but this fortunate person had developed not only great diplomatic, but also great military ability. Although he was a comparatively young soldier, being only 33 years old, and having had only 15 years' service, he was put over the heads of hundreds of officers, many of whom had seen a great deal of service, and was made aide-de-camp to the Queen, thereby attaining the rank of full colonel in the Army. This happened in the month of January. Then it was a remarkable circumstance that, immediately after a connection of this fortunate young gentleman became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it was discovered that Colonel Wellesley possessed extraordinary diplomatic ability, as it had previously been discovered that he had extraordinary military ability. Accordingly, he was put into a high position in the Diplomatic Service, and was put over the heads of some 95 men, many of whom had done good service to the Crown. It ought not to be forgotten that the military position of this fortunate gentleman was an exceedingly irregular one—for either he would now draw his full military pay, in addition to his pay from the Diplomatic Service, or else he would draw his half-pay after only 15 years' service; whereas the usual period after which half-pay was drawn was 25 years. It was said that Colonel Wellesley had peculiar qualifications for the office—that he had acquired a certain knowledge of Russia and of the Russian language. The fact was that he had been in Russia for something over six years. Well, if he had not learned Russian, and had not obtained some knowledge of Russia in that time, he would have been an idiot, and would have been perfectly unworthy of any position in Her Majesty's service. If Colonel Wellesley's appointment was to be justified by his exceptional military ability, either the gentlemen over whose heads he had been appointed had grossly neglected their duty, and thus disqualified themselves for this post, which should have fallen to them by seniority, or else they lacked ability in a remarkable degree. But the fact was that a good many had been passed over who were much more competent to fill this position than Colonel Wellesley. If he had been sent as Military Attaché to Vienna, that would have been a natural course of promotion; but why was he advanced to a position for which he had evinced no aptitude? It had been alleged that the fact of Colonel Wellesley being a military man would give him some special advantage at Vienna. This, however, he wholly denied. It was well known that, although the policy of Austria might, on various occasions, be divergent from that of Russia, yet the alliance of a personal kind between the two Empires was very close, and the circumstance that Colonel Wellesley had had an unpleasant quarrel with a Russian Grand Duke was not likely to commend him to the Court of Vienna. He knew there were some persons in this country whose passion at present was hatred to Russia, and that the mere fact of a man having rendered himself peculiarly distasteful to Russia and having seen the seamy side of Russian society, was likely to make him very popular indeed. He, however, took a totally different view of the matter. Such experiences were not a qualification for a man becoming a member of a profession, whose honourable motto ought to be—"Peace on earth and good will towards men." It had been stated in the course of the discussion that the Earl of Malmesbury, when Foreign Secretary, appointed a defeated Conservative candidate to the post of First Secretary to the Embassy at Paris—the Ambassador at the time being Earl Cowley, the father of the gentleman to whose appointment attention was now called. But no mention was made of the fact that the position of the gentleman appointed was made most disagreeable to him, and that he was removed as soon as the Government of Earl Russell came into Office. Colonel Wellesley might be very well received by the Embassy at Vienna; but, if he were, the members of the Embassy were not possessed with the usual passions of human nature. Of this the Government might be perfectly certain, that the appointment would be criticized most bitterly in every capital of the world. It would be criticized not only by persons who thought that a grievous wrong had been done to the public service, but by men smarting under a sense of personal wrong, and they would be members of a society which had no superior in point of honour, and they would, on that account, be listened to. He would say no more on this subject. There were two kinds of truths. There were truths which it was wise to speak, and there were others on which it was better to keep silent. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to make a reasonable defence of this appointment, and to justify it on the ground of peculiar qualifications.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I must begin the few observations I have to make by saying that it is wholly out of my power to answer accusations which are not fit to be made, and I can only regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff), after having made a tolerably severe attack upon Colonel Wellesley, and upon this appointment, based on grounds which I think I shall be able to show have been perfectly untenable, has thought fit to wind up his remarks with a vague kind of charge which he does not choose to define. It may be that he took this course because he thought he had not made out a sufficiently strong case against Colonel Wellesley, or because he desires to throw a little discredit in a way it is utterly impossible to measure, and which we can only deal with on the principle of omne ignotum pro magnifico—or, in other words, on the suggestion implied in his observations that there was a good deal more behind to say, but that it was so bad he would not bring it before the House. I must say that I think this a most unfair way of dealing with the question before us. It is true, as has been said, that Colonel Wellesley is not present among us in person, but he is represented by his official superiors, and I think it was peculiarly desirable that no attack of the kind should have been made without full Notice having been given of the intention to bring the matter forward. It is true that the Foreign Secretary makes these appointments on his own responsibility, and it is also true that the hon. Member for Elgin has expressed his opinion that the Secretary of State ought to defend his appointments; but it is also a fact, as the hon. Member knows, that the Foreign Secretary has no voice in this House, and that he can only be defended by his Colleagues in this House after they have been made fully acquainted with the nature of the charges to be brought against him. The hon. Gentleman has implied that there are some personal and family reasons for this appointment, and he also spoke of Colonel Wellesley as a connection of Lord Salisbury. "Connection" is a word of wide meaning, and personally I know nothing of the matter as far as the present question is concerned; but I have the authority of my noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury for saying that his connection with Colonel Wellesley, as far as his recent appointment is concerned, has been purely official, and therefore only dates as far back as the time at which my noble Friend became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I am further authorized by my noble Friend to say that the appointment was made entirely apart from any pressure from without, and solely because he thought, on public grounds, that Colonel Wellesley was eminently fitted for the office to which he has been appointed. Colonel Wellesley, as the House must know, has great personal experience of the peculiar circumstances existing at the present time, as far as foreign politics is concerned. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that Colonel Wellesley's peculiar qualification was that he talked Russian, that that was all he had done during the last six years, and that he must have been a great fool if he had not learned to talk Russian in that time. That is not the point. Nobody ever said a word about it. Colonel Wellesley was, I believe, able to talk Russian before he was appointed Military Attaché. ["No, no!"] It was one of the grounds given.

MR. BENETT-STANFORD

It was a wrong ground, then. Lord Enfield said so, but he was mistaken.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I am informed that the Report made upon Colonel Wellesley, before his appointment, or at the time he was appointed Military Attaché, was to the effect that he had served in the first battalion of the Coldstream Guards, that he was much above the average ability, and in capacity was an exceedingly smart, zealous, and intelligent officer, and that he was acquainted with the French, German, and Russian languages; also that his knowledge of the world particularly adapted him for the position of Military Attaché. But that is not the point upon which we go. The point is the peculiar position that he has occupied during the last year or two, and the peculiar nature of the appointment which he has accepted. If the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs had only looked at the Papers which have been laid on the Table of the House, he would have seen that within the last year Colonel Wellesley has been the medium of important diplomatic communications at times when the Emperor of Russia was far removed from St. Petersburg, and when, therefore, it would not have been possible for Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Court of the Czar to have been in personal communication with him. In these transactions Colonel Wellesley showed that he was something more than a Military Attaché, and that he was capable of dealing with delicate questions of diplomacy. Under all these circumstances, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs came to the conclusion, in which all his Colleagues agreed, that Colonel Wellesley was eminently fitted for the post, and accordingly appointed him to it. This my noble Friend did on his own responsibility, believing the appointment to be the best that could be made for the public service. It therefore comes to be a question of opinion between my noble Friend and the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs as to the eligibility of the appointment, and I must leave it to the House to decide the point between them; but I can confidently assert that the grounds on which the appointment was made were those which I have stated, and no other. I shall not go into the general question of the mode in which appointments of this kind are made. The names of the late Lord Lyons and of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe might be mentioned as eminent instances of the fact that in former times the Diplomatic Service was by no means a close service in the sense of being one confined entirely, or almost entirely, to men who had been brought up in it; but I admit that in more recent times—since 1861—it has had more the character of a close service. Still, I agree with the opinion expressed by a Committee which sat some seven years ago, namely— That it is undesirable in the interests of the public that promotion in the diplomatic service, especially for the higher and more responsible posts in it, should be by way of seniority; and the Committee are of opinion that the Secretary of State should be distinctly understood to make his appointments to such posts on his own responsibility by way of selection, and not by way of seniority; and that, while paying proper regard to the due claims of those in the service, he should not be confined in his freedom of choice in filling up such appointments. Upon that was founded the Rule observed in the present case. I admit that, as a general principle, the Foreign Secretary ought to be very careful—as he is—not to disappoint the proper hopes and expectations of men serving in the lower ranks of the service; and I admit that such an appointment as this is not one for which there is frequently reason and justification, except for the special circumstances under which it was made. Those special circumstances I have stated, and I can assure the House that the appointment was made by Lord Salisbury for no other reason than because he believed it was the best appointment under the circumstances.

MR. KNATCHBULL- HUGESSEN

said, he should vote against the Motion. He was personally acquainted with Colonel Wellesley, and he had formed a high opinion of his ability. That fact alone, however, would not have been sufficient to induce him to vote against the Amendment before the House, but he took a broad constitutional ground. When Ministers took an unconstitutional course and slighted the House of Commons, no one was more ready than he to oppose them. But, on the other hand, he thought it most dangerous for the House of Commons to interfere between these appointments and the responsible Ministers of the Crown, unless there was marked incapacity shown—and especially at such a time as this. The responsibility of the Government was great in choosing proper officers, and it was impossible that the House could form so good an estimate of the capacity of the men that were appointed as those whose special duty it was to appoint them. Here there was no proof of incapacity, nor even any allegation that such existed. If there was any matter in which a Minister ought to be left to act upon his responsibility, it was in the case of an appointment such as that of Colonel Wellesley, and, happily, no question of Party politics arose to complicate the matter. The late Government was attacked because they placed Sir Robert Collier in his present position, but the result had shown that they were justified in doing so; and their main defence had been that, whatever technical doubts there might be as to the meaning of an Act of Parliament, they had, upon their responsibility, selected one whom they believed to be the best man for the place. Such, no doubt, would be the case in the present instance, and he should therefore support the appointment, because he believed it to be a good one.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he had been a Member of every Committee that had sat on the Diplomatic Service, and he could state that the general opinion of those Committees was that the Diplomatic Service should be thrown open as far as possible. Some five or six of the English Ministers abroad had never been attaché or secretary to an Embassy; and, as the First Secretary of Embassy had, in the absence of the Ambassador, to perform his duty, it was desirable that such appointments should be open. He believed Colonel Wellesley was fitted for the post to which he had been appointed, and he had no doubt the appointment would be attended with advantage to the public service.

MR. W. LOWTHER

said, that it was with great regret that he had heard the answer given the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said the other day that nobody was so well qualified to fill the post as Colonel Wellesley, and he (Mr. W. Lowther) regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way to give a slap in the face to the whole of the junior members of the profession. He had not the honour of Colonel Wellesley's acquaintance, but he could not but regret his appointment as a departure from the invariable practice in such cases, and one which the Diplomatic Profession would very much deplore. The position of Military Attaché was quite different from that of other Attachés; and his firm opinion was that Colonel Wellesley would be equally useful at Vienna as Military Attaché, and he would have more ready access to the Court than if he were a Diplomatic Attaché. The action of Lord Salisbury might be legally right, but he (Mr. W. Lowther) could not help thinking that it was morally wrong.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 83: Majority 167.—(Div. List, No. 141.)

Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee deferred till this day.

The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.