§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, W.)I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact t hat Mr. Peter Esslemont Chairman of the Fishery Board for Scotland, 899 addressed a public meeting at Boddam, on 8th December, 1892, in support of the Parliamentary candidature of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire; anal, if so, whether the interference of officials, holding appointments under the Government, in Parliamentary elections is in accordance with regulations; and, if not, what steps he has considered it necessary to take to prevent the recurrence of such action?
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy)Is it not the fact that Sheriffs holding appointments under Government in Scotland had frequently taken a very active part in Parliamentary elections?
§ COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)Did not the present Secretary for War, during the period he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, dismiss the Member for South Belfast for a similar appointment in Ireland for a speech made at the Irish Church Synod, a non-political assembly?
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELLAnd did not the hon. Member for South Belfast hold exactly a similar position in Ireland—that of Inspector of Fisheries—as Mr. Esslemont now holds?
§ SIR GEORGE TREVELYANMr. Esslemont addressed a public meeting at Boddam. He went there to reply to personal attacks which had been made upon himself in the course of the election in reference to his position as Chairman of the Fishery Board for Scotland. I have read his speech carefully. He confined himself entirely to defending himself from these personal attacks, and the only words in which he referred to the contest were these. At the beginning of his speech he said—
ft should be understood that in the position which I now occupy—not being a candidate. and not seeking the suffrages of the electors in this or in any other part of the constituency—I should not be attacked by all y of the candidates who are before you, and in particular that one who has had the honour of representing you for the past seven years should not on any occasion or on any platform be placed in a false position.And at the end—You know the duty before you well, and Tam not going to ask any man here to give a vote for one candidate more than another. I am going to ask you to believe that I have undertaken this duty as an honest man.That was all the reference he made to the election, and those who on both sides of the House so long knew Mr. Esslemont 900 as a colleague will recognise that he acted as the fair and straightforward roan he always was in the House of Commons. The interference of officials holding Government appointments in Parliamentary elections is contrary to regulations. That was all the amount of interference Mr. Esslemont was responsible for, but I may say I expressed an opinion at the time I thought he was running rather too fine. I must say one word with regard to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast. I am sure he will allow that the Government of Ireland acted with the greatest regret in his ease. Over and over again we warned, or rather appended, to the hon. Member not to take a very marked part in political meetings of a very strong kind, and it was only after several of these warnings—I ought almost to say entreaties—had been put aside by the hon. Member that we were obliged to take the course we took.
MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)Is the House to understand that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman did either entreat or warn Mr. Esslemont not to go to this meeting, and that he did so notwithstanding?
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen)May I ask whether it is not a fact that the sole object which Mr. Esslemont had in going to the meeting was to contradict a lie propagated by the Tory candidate with reference to an act done by hint as Chairman of the Fishery Board?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANMr. Esslemont received from the Scotch Office a statement of what tire official custom was before be went to the meeting; but he was so deeply impressed with the necessity of vindicating himself personally against personal attacks that he chose to go there, feeling quite certain that he could keep within even the regulations of official custom.
§ MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)May I be permitted the indulgence of the House to say one or two words in reply to the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman? I did not take part after the communication referred to was received in any public political meeting. The meeting for which I was dismissed by Lord Spencer, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the present Secretary for Scotland, was a meeting of tire General Synod of the Church of Ireland, a body 901 which corresponds with the Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANAs I had some hand in communicating to my hon. Friend the decision of the Government, I think I can appeal to his memory, feeling confidence in my own. The hon. Member himself admitted to me that he did not think any other course was open to the Government in consequence of his action. I must say that I am far from withholding a certain amount of admiration for the hon. Member, because, in spite of repeated warnings and repeated promises to keep a little guard upon his mouth, he still persisted in using certain expressions, although he knew the disastrous results to his own career which the use of those expressions would have. It showed, at all events, that the hon. Member was a consistent man.