§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYMy Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships for a few moments while I refer 760 to a subject which certainly interests me personally, inasmuch as it appears to reflect upon an appointment which I made when I had the honour of holding the office of Minister for Foreign Affairs. I allude, my Lords, of course, to the charge made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government last night—a charge which, your Lordships will recollect, was somewhat to the following effect. The noble Earl having been told by my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) that it was extremely to be regretted that certain secret and confidential communications which had passed between the Governments of England and Russia should have been put forth to the country in the shape of a leading article in one of the daily journals of this metropolis before they were known to Parliament, some even after they had been refused to Parliament—the noble Earl replied in a manner so earnest that nobody could doubt the accuracy of what he said—and certainly I did not doubt it for a moment—that he himself had nothing whatever to do with those communications which the Times newspaper had received—that he was totally unable to conceive in what way the Times had obtained possession of those communications, but that he supposed it was very probable they had been given to the Times by a clerk in the Foreign Office appointed by me—one no longer a clerk in the office, who had—I here quote the words of the noble Earl as they are reported in the journals of this morning—"scandalously betrayed" his trust as a recent servant of Government. My Lords, I confess I was taken extremely by surprise when the noble Earl made that statement; and your Lordships could hardly have expected me to recollect immediately the persons who, during my tenure of office, however short it may have been, I had appointed as clerks in the Foreign Office, under what circumstances they were appointed, and whether they had left the office, or were still employed in it. But, my Lords, since last night I have been able to look over my memoranda upon the subject, and I find that during my tenure of office I appointed four gentlemen to be junior clerks in the Foreign Office. I have ascertained that at the present moment three of those gentlemen remain at their posts, and that the fourth—and who, therefore, can alone be the person to whom the noble Earl referred, if he alluded to any of the four—has left the office about six months; not 761 dismissed from any misconduct on his part, but simply in consequence, as I have been told at the Foreign Office itself, of having contracted a marriage with a lady of considerable fortune, My Lords, that being the case, I trust the noble Earl, for the sake of this gentleman himself, and for the sake also of the other clerks in the Foreign Office—who, certainly, as a body of men, are highly proud of their character, and who feel deeply the observations made upon one of their number last night—will not think it derogatory to himself, or to the high position he occupies, frankly to own he has been mistaken with respect to the communication of the documents in question to the Times newspaper. My Lords, when I consider the high recommendations of this gentleman which I received before I appointed him; when I recollect that not only he, but the other three gentlemen who were appointed by me, were strongly recommended, not alone by their previous merits and services, and by their education, but likewise either by the personal knowledge which I had of them myself, or by the recommendations of many Members even of this House, I cannot but think that the noble Earl was mistaken in some way or other when he made that charge. But your Lordships will probably have read this morning the statement of the Times newspaper itself with respect to this subject. As clearly, and as positively as it can write, it declares that it never had any communication with this gentleman on the subject-matter which he is supposed to have divulged in some way or other, and which certainly reached that journal; but more than that, I am authorised by a noble Viscount, whom I now see in his place, and who, I believe, is himself a kinsman of the gentleman who recently left the Foreign Office, to state that he called this morning upon the editor of the Times, and that that gentleman assured him that he never received any communication from the gentleman referred to whilst he was a clerk in the Foreign Office, that he had not received a word from him respecting any public matter since, and that for the good and simple reason that he is totally and entirely unacquainted with him. Under these circumstances, I trust that the noble Earl will—as I am sure every Member of your Lordship's House would do under similar circumstances—rise in his place, and state that, in whatever manner the Times newspaper has learned any 762 secrets—which it would have been certainly better for the public benefit had it never been divulged—he is convinced that these secrets were not obtained through the medium to which the noble Earl referred last night.
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENMy Lords, I am happy that the noble Earl has made this statement to the House, for I am very desirous that this matter should rest entirely upon the most accurate foundation. Your Lordships will recollect that the noble Earl who introduced this subject last night intimated in no very obscure language that he imagined I was the source whence this information was derived. Rejecting that insinuation in the most peremptory manner I possibly could, I certainly did say that it was possible—I never made the assertion, or expressed a belief—that the Times newspaper might have derived its information from the gentleman to whom I referred. What I had heard was this—and what I repeat is—that that gentleman had talked of this correspondence, and of his knowledge of the contents of that correspondence which has been communicated to the Times. I am so certain of this, that, although he certainly did not mention it to me, I have heard it mentioned in so many different quarters that I am quite satisfied to refer it to the gentleman himself; and if he says that he did not mention the existence of this correspondence, and the nature of its contents, then I will confess that I have been more deceived than ever man was. I refer it entirely to his own statement, and I am sure—for I have ascertained it from quarters I cannot possibly doubt—that the subject was mentioned with so little hesitation and concealment that the gentleman himself will avow that he has more than once referred to the correspondence in question. Now I never stated that the Times newspaper derived its knowledge from him; but in the heat of the moment, and in reference to the insinuation of the noble Earl, I certainly did refer to a quarter from which it might possibly have come. What is stated openly in one society may very well be known in another. But, after all, the noble Earl himself (the Earl of Derby) stated last night that he was aware of the existence of the correspondence at the beginning of the Session. How did he learn it? Certainly not from me. I again say that I make no charge with respect to this particular transaction; but I think it an act of imprudence on the part of this gentleman to 763 have talked in the way he did about the contents of correspondence of which, certainly, he had cognisance only in the most confidential manner, and the existence or nature of which he ought not to have revealed. Further than that, I make no charge; and I repeat that I believe the gentleman himself will not deny what I have stated.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYThe noble Earl has stated that, from his own knowledge, he is certain that this gentleman has divulged secrets which he ought, no doubt, to have kept to himself. But I do not quite understand the noble Earl, because he says he has heard this from so many quarters that he can have no doubt of its truth. From the statement made by the noble Earl last night, it must have been only to-day that he has learned even the name of the gentleman against whom the charge was brought; because the noble Earl distinctly told me last night, when I asked for his name, that he did not know it. Therefore, it is only to-day that the noble Earl has investigated the matter, and assured himself of that which he stated last night. [The Earl of ABERDEEN expressed dissent.] All I can say then is, that it is a most extraordinary thing that he should have heard statements of such importance as that made by his Colleagues or Friends, whoever they may be, that a clerk in the Foreign Office had divulged those secrets, and yet that the noble Earl should never have heard his name, or had the curiosity to ask who he was, for it is only to-day that the noble Earl has asked the question, and discovered who that gentleman is. When yesterday I asked the noble Earl the name, he told me that he did not know it, and yet he described him at the same time as a gentleman who had been engaged in the Foreign Office, but who was no longer in that department. I cannot help making the remark that the way in which the noble Earl has brought forward this subject has not been that which reflects credit on your Lordships' House. If this gentleman has been guilty of the scandalous breach of trust with which he is charged, he ought to have been dismissed from the situation which he held, by his superiors in that department, and ought not to be shielded by any Member of Her Majesty's Government. Again I say that the manner in which the subject has been brought forward, and the manner in which the noble Earl has closed it, has done little honour to your Lordships' House, and I 764 trust it will be the last, as it is the first time I have witnessed anything of the kind.