§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any correspondence has taken place on public affairs connected with the Vatican between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington; and, if so, whether such correspondence has been deposited in the official archives of the Foreign Department, or whether it is of a private character, and not in any way recorded in the Foreign Office for the information of future Secretaries of State?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, I have nothing to add to the reply which was given by the Prime Minister to a similar Question addressed to him by the hon. Member on February 14 last year. The reply then given still holds good. The Answer to which I refer is a long one; but, if the hon. 1313 Member prefers it, I shall be happy to read it to the House. [Cries of "Read!"]
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFWould the noble Lord be good enough to inform the House whether any correspondence has taken place between the date mentioned in the noble Lord's Answer and the present time?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI have already stated that the Answer given by the Prime Minister on February 14, 1882, still holds good; and I will read that Answer if the hon. Member wishes. [Cries of "Read!" and "No!"]
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI should be glad if the noble Lord would road the Answer.
After a short pause,
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid: The noble Lord said that if I wished it he would read the Answer of the Prime Minister last year. I should like him to read it. ["No, no!"]
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI said I would read it if the hon. Gentleman desired it, and accordingly I will do so. The Answer of the Prime Minister is as follows:—
The House is aware that it is contrary to the usage of Parliament—there may he exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare—to produce or lay upon the Table Correspondence, or a single letter which are not of an official or diplomatic character. That being so, the question is open to another Parliamentary objection upon the details of such Correspondence, because it is well known that the House takes objection—it is an established rule to take objection—to accounts given by Ministers of public documents, which they were not prepared to produce. I am afraid, therefore, I have no course but to decline to go further than the statement already made by my hon. Friend near me (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on this subject; but I will endeavour to convey to the mind of the hon. Member with perfect clearness the nature and the aim of such communications as have taken place between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington. I will not enter into the subject as to whether this Question is accurate or in accurate in all its statements—because they are both. It has been said by my hon. Friend near me, as I shall state in the most distinct terms, not only that there has been no appointing of Mr. Errington, and, of course, no remuneration, but that there have been no negotiations with Mr. Errington, no proposal made to him, and no request tendered to Mr. Errington. The purport of any intercourse with Lord Granville by Mr. Errington has been exclusively with reference to his being a channel or medium of information. Mr. Errington is not exclusively the medium of information, because on any occasion of any 1314 other gentleman as well qualified as Mr. Errington by character and intelligence to convey just and accurate information to Rome, Lord Granville might, in the same manner, have been induced to think it well to supply him or permit him to be supplied with information of that character. The purpose has been entirely to convey information, and information upon matters interesting to the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty, and naturally, as connected with them, to the public at large. That is the purpose, aim, and limit of these communications; and I may say that the journey of Lord O'Hagan to Rome, which was, like Mr. Errington's a private journey, taken entirely on his own motion, might as well have been made the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry as that of Mr. Errington. It was a journey for private objects, with which we had nothing to do; but, with respect to the journey, we did think it useful—and we do think it useful—that many matters of great interest with respect to the question of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her. Majesty should be made known at Rome in conjunction with the very best information that is to be had on the subject.—(3 Hansard, [266] 640–1.)
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFSir, the Answer to which we have just listened does not convey any definite meaning to my mind. It has nothing to do with my Question, which I will venture to repeat. [The hon. Member read the Question already given.]
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICESir, I consider the Question fully answered by the Answer I have already given. I may add this much:—If my hon. Friend considers I did not answer the latter portion of it, I am of opinion that I did answer it clearly and by implication: and if he wishes for a formal Answer, I would say that the communications referred to in the commencement of the Answer which I read are clearly not communications which have been placed, or could be placed within the terms of the Answer, on what my hon. Friend calls the file of the Foreign Office.
MR. JOSEPH COWENI would ask the noble Lord if no communication has taken place between the Irish Office and Mr. Errington; if the late Chief Secretary, or the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, have not had communication with Mr. Errington? If the noble Lord cannot answer that Question I will put it to the Prime Minister, either to-day, or on a future occasion. I wish, further, to ask if Mr. Errington was not publicly received at the Vatican, along with other diplomatists and Representatives of Foreign Powers, as the Representative of this country?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI would ask the Prime Minister a Question arising out of the Answer of the noble Lord. It is this:—If the Mission of Mr. Errington has had beneficial results in producing a pronouncement from His Holiness the Pope, owing to Mr. Errington having been made the channel of communication between Her Majesty's Government and the See of Rome, whether it would not be of advantage to the Public Service, and of use to a future Government, that a record of those communications should be deposited in the Foreign Office?
MR. GLADSTONESir, that is asking for an opinion, and an opinion upon a case on which I am not prepared altogether to affirm the accuracy of the statement or implication of the noble Lord. The Answer read by my noble Friend rather tended to show that Mr. Errington had not borne any character whatever, so far as we were concerned, which was not exclusively his own. For example, Lord O'Hagan, who went to Rome at the time I think Mr. Errington first went there, was in a very similar position, and discharged very similar offices on his own account. In the matter relating to the state of Ireland, he took the opportunity, on his visit to Rome, to lay information before the Pope and the Vatican. I may add, Sir, that there are others who have done the same, one a friend of mine, well known to the House, who has been in Rome quite lately. With respect to him, it was by a note received by me from him after he left Rome that I learned of his movements. I am speaking of Lord Houghton. He wrote to me informing me that he had had an opportunity of communicating what he conceived to be information upon Irish matters to the Pope in Rome. Therefore, the noble Lord will see that there is nothing in the nature of the communications between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington which can properly be made the subject of official record. As to communications between Mr. Errington and the late Chief Secretary and the present Lord Lieutenant, I am not acquainted with the facts; but if the hon. Member likes to put down a Question I will endeavour to answer him.
MR. JOSEPH COWENWill the Prime Minister state if it be true that Mr. Errington is received in an official 1316 character at the Vatican, and that Lord Houghton was not?
MR. GORSTWith reference to the Answer of the Prime Minister, will he object to state whether either Lord O'Hagan or Lord Houghton received from Her Majesty's Government a letter of confidence?
MR. GLADSTONEI just stated I was unaware, and by implication I stated that my noble Friend (Earl Granville) was not aware, of Lord Houghton having had any communication with Rome until after the fact. With regard to Lord O'Hagan, I think, considering he had just been holding the Office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland in connection with Her Majesty's Government, it would have been quite unnecessary that Lord Granville should have addressed a note to Lord O'Hagan, as he did to Mr. Errington, stating that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, he was a person of character and capacity such as to entitle any statement he might make to consideration.