MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Mr. Errington has again been the channel of communication between the Foreign Office and the Vatican; and, if so, whether papers on the subject will be printed; and, whether Lord Granville has written to Mr. Errington congratulating him on his success in securing the censure of the Archbishop of Cashel by the Pope, and if it is intended to remunerate Mr. Errington for his services?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, I stated on March 19, in reply to the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) that the British Government never entertained a scheme for establishing a Resident at the Vatican. Mr. Errington has not been the channel of communication between the Foreign Office and the Vatican, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given in this House on the 7th and 10th of February of last year by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and on the 14th of the same month by the First Lord of the Treasury. Mr. Errington, having received no appointment, will receive no remuneration. There are no Papers to present to Parliament on this subject. Her Majesty's Government highly appreciate any measures which tend to strengthen the respect for law and order in Ireland; but the document to which my right hon. Friend refers was not issued at the request of Her Majesty's Government, and no congratulations have consequently been sent to Rome with regard to it.
MR. JOSEPH COWENI should like to ask the noble Lord for an elucidation of this point. Mr. Errington went to Rome last year; he carried with him a letter of recommendation from the Foreign Minister; and, in consequence of that letter a Circular was issued to the Irish Bishops. Mr. Errington has since been to Rome. ["Order!"] I am perfectly in Order, Sir. Another Circular has been issued, and I wish to know if the letter of recommendation which Mr. Errington formerly carried has been withdrawn, or is still in operation?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI make no complaint of the Question 766 of my hon. Friend; but I think he will see that it is to a great extent of an argumentative nature and dealing with a delicate matter, and I must ask him to give Notice.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEI wish to put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury. It is manifest from what has appeared in this House that certain communications have had the authority of Her Majesty's Government. ["Oh!" and "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now entering on matters of controversy. He can put any Question he thinks proper arising out of the answer to the last Question.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEI humbly apologize, Sir. I thought it necessary to make a statement. I will put the Question in this shape. I wish to know whether Mr. Errington—whoso success I need not refer to—[Cries of "Order !"] I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Mr. Errington has had any authority from any Department of Her Majesty's Government in approaching His Holiness the Pope; and, if so, under what Act of Parliament the Department which has authorized Mr. Errington has acted?
MR. GLADSTONEI rather think, Sir, although I will not trust my memory at this distance of time absolutely, that this Question was put and answered last year, and that it was explained last year in one or more of the answers to which my noble Friend has referred, that Lord Granville had written and addressed a letter to Mr. Errington, of which the nature was then distinctly explained. If I am wrong, and the hon. Member does not find that information in former answers, there will be no difficulty in repeating the nature of the letter. There has been no other authority whatever to my knowledge, and I do not think it could have been given without my knowledge.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEI will put the Question, in a more regular form, on Monday.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLMay I ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State, in reference to his answer, whether the letter to which the Prime Minister has just alluded, given by Lord Granville to Mr. Errington, still remains in force, or whether the recommendation contained in it has not 767 expired; and, if it has not expired, whether the recommendation will be contemporaneous with the life of the present Government; and I also wish to ask whether the noble Lord is prepared to state positively that Mr. Errington has not had any part of his expenses paid out of public funds?
MR. GLADSTONEIf I am right in my impression of that letter, the noble Lord will see that it must undoubtedly remain in force until Mr. Errington ceases to be a Gentleman of honour, intelligence, and good information. The letter simply convoys an assurance of that kind.
§ MR. O'DONNELLAre we to understand from the answers which have just been given that if Mr. Errington represents himself to His Holiness the Pope or the Government of the Church in Rome as in any way authorized by Her Majesty's Government, he is acting under false pretences? Either "Yes" or "No" can be given to that Question.
MR. GORSTCan the noble Lord give the House any assurance that no part of Mr. Errington's expenses has been paid out of the public funds?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI think Notice ought to be given of that Question.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThe noble Lord, in his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), said that Lord Granville had not written any congratulation to Rome. The Question that the hon. Member for Newcastle asked was whether Lord Granville had written to Mr. Errington a letter congratulating him on his success; and, therefore, I would like the noble Lord to be good enough to answer that Question.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI naturally gave the answer to the Question in the sense in which it was asked.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI think the House is entitled to more definite information on this point. The noble Lord says that Lord Granville has not written to Rome; but the question is whether he has written to Mr. Errington. That is a very simple question, and one to which we ought to have an answer, "Yes" or "No."
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI gave a perfectly fair and straightforward answer. [Cries of "No!" and 768 a cry of "Evasion!"] I made no verbal distinctions whatever, and I believe the House is satisfied with the answer. ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] If the hon. Member is not satisfied, he is, no doubt, at liberty to ask a further Question on giving Notice.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI ask the Question distinctly; and I have a perfect right to have an answer.
MR. O'BRIENI would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has any objection that it should be distinctly known in Rome that any representations made by Mr. Errington have only as much weight as is given by Mr. Errington's position as Member for Longford, and that he is in no sense a Representative of the Government?
MR. GLADSTONEPerhaps the hon. Member will be kind enough to put that Question on the Notice Paper. It is also most reasonable that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) should give Notice of his Question.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEWe have adopted lately, Sir, in this House a practice which has been convenient, no doubt—namely, instead of reading the Questions out aloud, they are merely referred to by their number; and, therefore, there may be some mistake as to the Question which was really put. The Question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle was put very distinctly in these words—
Whether Lord Granville has written to Mr. Errington congratulating him on his success in securing the censure of the Archbishop of Cashel by the Pope?The Answer which was given by the noble Lord did not appear to be a direct Answer to that part of the Question. I think the noble Lord will see that the Question having been put upon the Paper in these terms, it should be answered directly.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman; but I have said already that I gave my answer in the sense of the words on the Paper. When I said that Lord Granville had not written to Rome, I was answering the Question whether Lord Granville had written to Mr. Errington, who is, I believe, at Rome. I 769 must add I drew no verbal distinction whatever.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFIn consequence of the answer of the noble Lord, I beg to give Notice that I shall again bring this subject forward on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MR. JOSEPH COWENThe Question which I put to the noble Lord was clear and distinct—namely, whether Earl Granville has written to Mr. Errington expressly with reference to certain transactions, or has he not? Yes or no?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI should very much regret if, through any want of clearness on my part, any misunderstanding should have arisen in reference to this subject. I have already answered the Question twice. [Cries of "Yes or No?"] When my hon. Friend asks whether Earl Granville has written to Mr. Errington congratulating him on his success in securing the censure of the Archbishop of Cashel by the Pope, I distinctly say that Earl Granville has not done so.
§ MR. HARRINGTONI beg to give Notice that on Monday I shall ask the Prime Minister, Whether any instructions were given to Mr. Errington by Earl Granville; and, if so, what the nature of those instructions was?
MR. JOSEPH COWENI beg to give Notice that on Monday I shall ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Earl Granville has written to Mr. Errington a letter thanking him generally for his success at Rome, without thanking him specially for having procured the censure of the Archbishop of Cashel?
§ MR. O'DONNELLI beg to give Notice that on the same day I shall ask the noble Lord, Whether he has any objection to lay the letter of Earl Granville to Mr. Errington upon the Table of the House?