§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I do not know whether the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council can answer a Question which I desire to put to him, and of which I have given him private Notice. It refers to a matter which has already formed the subject of a Question in the House. I allude to the publication by The Globe newspaper of a Memorandum purporting to be a Memorandum of Agreement between England and Russia, and in respect of which a person now stands charged before the magistrate at Bow Street. Of course, I shall say nothing that could reflect in the slightest degree upon the Government, or on the person who is accused of having made the communication to The Globe; but it is perfectly clear, from the proceedings before the magistrate at Bow Street, that the Memorandum had been put into the hands of a writer who did not belong to the regular Establishment of the Foreign Office, and I think there is internal evidence that there is no rule at the Foreign Office which prevents confidential communications from being so dealt with that it is Possible for them to obtain publicity. In the course of 20 years I have been three times at the Foreign Office, and during my experience there, the system pursued was that of placing absolute confidence in the gentlemen belonging to the Establishment. That absolute confidence was not confined to one department, but was extended to the whole of the gentlemen of the Establishment, and they manifested so high a sense of honour, that the strictest secrecy was inviolably observed, and I think that without a single exception the confidence reposed in them was justified. But I am not aware that at the periods of which I speak a confidential communication could have got into the hands of a person employed in the Office by the hour as a copying writer. Placing confidential documents into the hands of persons not belonging to the Establishment is certainly at variance with the system with which I am acquainted 481 Therefore, I hope the noble Duke will be able to make some satisfactory statement, from which the public at large may see that the confidential character of the relations between the Government and the clerks of the Foreign Office has not been destroyed, and that he will also give your Lordships an assurance that steps will be taken to prevent confidential documents from getting into the hands of persons not belonging to the Establishment, or in the position of the person who is now charged with the abstraction of the Memorandum in question, and of further publishing it?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONMy Lords, I regret that I cannot give my noble Friend the information for which he asks. The whole matter, as my noble Friend stated, is now before a police court, and the person charged with the offence is under a remand; consequently, the whole subject must be matter of judicial inquiry. It is therefore impossible for me to give an answer to my noble Friend, without going into such a statement of facts as would be very inconvenient considering the state in which the case before the court now is. That being so, I am sure my noble Friend will not press the Question; because it is obvious that in any statement respecting the affair I might make, I must go into details the mention of which would not now be advisable.
§ LORD SELBORNEUpon one point I should like to ask the noble Duke a Question. A gentleman belonging to the Foreign Office is reported to have stated at the police court that there is no rule of the Office against the employment there of persons known to be connected with the public Press. I hope, if the statement which has been made on that head is incorrect, the noble Duke will be able to tell us so?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONAs the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) has given me no Notice of his Question, it is impossible for me to give him a very satisfactory answer. As I understand it, the statement referred to by the noble and learned Lord was made on oath before the magistrate.
§ LORD SELBORNEIt was; by Mr. Marsh.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONI presume that if the gentleman referred to made the statement on oath, he conscientiously believed it to be true; but whether it is true or not, I personally cannot undertake to say.
§ LORD HAMMONDYour Lordships will, I am sure, considering the position which I so long held in the Foreign Office, extend to me your indulgence while saying—though I may not be strictly in Order—a few words on the painful transaction connected with the publication of the Schouvaloff-Salisbury Agreement of the 30th of May in The Globe newspaper of the 14th of June. I am sure, however, that it is satisfactory to your Lordships, as it certainly is to myself, that it has been ascertained that not a shadow of suspicion can any longer rest on the Russian Embassy of its having been directly or indirectly party to its publication. Attached as I justly am to an Office in which I have so long served, and deeply interested in the character and reputation of its members—to most of whom I am indebted for their most friendly and zealous assistance throughout many years during which we have worked together—I cannot but feel the utmost concern at an occurrence which, on the first blush, would seem to attach an evil imputation upon the Foreign Office; and it is but a poor consolation to find in it a justification of the opinion, which I have always entertained and enforced, that it would be a very hazardous experiment to introduce into an Office, where the work is essentially of a most confidential character, and where the principle of the most unreserved confidence in every person employed in the transaction of it, from the very first day on which a clerk enters on its duties, is, and must be necessarily, acted on, persons of whose antecedents and connections the Secretary of State has no other knowledge than is afforded by a certificate of proficiency and fitness granted to them by the Civil Service Commissioners after open and competitive examination. Of the soundness of this principle of unreserved confidence as applied to the Foreign Office I never, during nearly 50 years while I was employed in it, and specifically during nearly 20 years while I held the Office of Permanent Under Secretary of State, had reason to doubt. It secured friendly 483 and harmonious feeling among all who were employed in carrying on the public business of the Office, and it stimulated zeal and industry among them, without which the confidential and at times oppressively laborious duties imposed upon them could not have been efficiently and cheerfully discharged. I trust most earnestly in the interests of the Public Service, no less than for the comfort of the individual members of the Office, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will maintain that principle. The practice which, in conformity with it, has been observed in carrying on the public business of the Office has been proved by the experience of many years to be singularly well calculated to insure its efficient, regular, and speedy transaction. I found it in existence when I entered on the Office in 1824; I have studied during my own service to maintain it unimpaired. I can appeal to many Members of this House to bear mo out in what I say on this subject, and I know that in foreign countries the English Foreign Office is held in honourable estimation. While I hope that I shall have carried your Lordships along with me in what I have now said in behalf of the Foreign Office, I would further remark that its members are deeply grieved at what has occurred, and if any word could go forth to satisfy them and the country that there is no imputation on the Office generally, it will be highly gratifying to them. I can speak from long experience of the zeal and devotion to the Public Service and the deep sense of personal responsibility which is entertained by every member of the Office. I think it is due to them that one who has served with them so long should rise in his place in this House and defend them. It is not impossible, I would trust, that some useful lessons may be drawn from what has occurred which may be of general benefit hereafter. The first is, that greater attention should be paid than has been proved to have been paid in the present instance, in the assignment of copying clerks to such Departments as have assented to their introduction; and, secondly, that greater liberality should be shown in remunerating copying clerks than the miserable pittance of 10d. an hour, which would seem to be the estimate entertained of the value to be attached to their services.