iM 
 
 
 \mm 
 
 ti \
 
 ^z 
 
 THE 
 
 ERRINGTON MISSION. 
 
 A STORY 
 
 EVASION, EQUIVOCATION, DENIAL 
 AND SURRENDER. 
 
 I 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE NATIONAL UNION OF CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 ASSOCIATIONS, 
 
 ST. Stephen's chambers, London, s.w. 
 ONE PENNY.
 
 THE ERRINGTON MISSION. 
 
 Hansard, vol. 266, p. 141, February Sth, 1882. 
 
 Sir H. Drummond Wolff asked 
 the Under-Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs whether he could lay- 
 on the table any papers relative to 
 Mr. Errington's Mission to the 
 Vatican ? 
 
 Sir Chas. W. Dilke said he could 
 not produce any papers, because 
 there were none. Mr. Errington had 
 not been sent out by the Government, 
 but had gone to the Vatican on his 
 own responsibility without appoint- 
 ment and without salary. He believed 
 that Mr. Errington had been the 
 means of communicating information 
 to the Vatican; but there had not 
 been in any sense a mission sent out 
 by the Government. 
 
 Hansard's Debates, vol. 266, p. 376-7, February 10th, 1882, 
 
 Sir Drummond Wolff asked the 
 Under-Secretary of State for Foreign 
 Affairs whether the subject of the 
 communications that have passed 
 through the agency of private in- 
 dividuals between Lord Granville 
 and the Vatican has been embodied 
 in despatches to Her Majesty's 
 Ambassador in Rome ; and, if not, 
 what steps Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment will take, in compliance with 
 constitutional practice, to record in 
 such a manner as to be accessible to 
 Parliament communications on public 
 affairs carried on between one of Her 
 Majesty's Ministers and a foreign 
 potentate ? 
 
 Sir George Campbell asked the 
 Under-Secretary of State for Foreign 
 Affairs if he has any objection to 
 state the nature of the subjects 
 respecting which Lord Granville 
 communicated with the Vatican 
 through a member of this House, 
 and to explain whether such com- 
 munications imply any change in 
 the policy of abstention from diplo- 
 
 Sir Chas. W. Dilke : Sir, the 
 hon. member for Christchurch'-'' (Sir 
 H. Drummond Wolff) seems to 
 have framed his question under 
 some misconception of the facts. Sir 
 Augustus Paget is accredited to the 
 King of Italy, not to*" the Vatican. 
 The Pope is the head of the Roman 
 Catholic Church ; but he has ceased 
 to exercise temporal powers. Mr. 
 Aubin, Mr. Petre, Lord Lyons, Lord 
 Ampthill, and Mr. Jervoise, in the 
 active service of the diplomatic pro- 
 fession, were at various times 
 instructed to reside at Rome, in order 
 to communicate officially with the 
 Vatican. Mr. Jervoise was recalled 
 in 1874, and his post abolished. Mr, 
 Errington was not asked to go 
 to Rome. He has received no 
 appointment and no remuneration. 
 He stated that he was going to stay 
 there during the winter, and asked 
 whether he could be of use to Her 
 Majesty's Government. He was told 
 that we had no negotiations to pro- 
 pose to the Pope, and no request to 
 
 * Should be Portsmouth.
 
 matic intercourse with the foreign 
 ecclesiastic whose residence is the 
 Vatican ? 
 
 make of His Holiness. But there 
 was information, on matters interest- 
 ing to Roman Catholics in the United 
 Kingdom and in some of the Colonies, 
 which might usefully be sent through 
 a member of good position in the 
 House of Commons, who was so well 
 known at the Vatican as himself. 
 The question of the hon. member 
 virtually is, why Her Majesty's 
 Government did not transmit this 
 information through Sir Augustus 
 Paget. But the Vatican, rightly or 
 wrongly, has a general objection to 
 intercourse with the representatives 
 of foreign Powers accredited to the 
 King of Italy. 
 
 Hansard's Debates, vol. 266, p. 
 
 Mr. Northcote asked the Under- 
 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs 
 if Her Majesty's Government intend 
 to lay any papers relative to Mr. 
 Errington's recent visit to Rome upon 
 the table of the house ? 
 
 497-8, Februarij ISth, 1882. 
 
 Sir Chas. W. Dilke : As I have 
 stated on two previous occasions in 
 the course of last week, Mr. Errington 
 had no diplomatic official communica- 
 tion to make, and, therefore, 7io official 
 correspondence to produce. 
 
 Hansard's Debates, vol. 266, p. 640-1, February lUh, 1882. 
 
 Sir H. Drummond Wolff asked 
 the First Lord of the Treasury 
 whether Her Majesty's Secretary of 
 State for Foreign Affairs, in the 
 autumn of last year, addressed a 
 letter to Mr. Errington, intended to 
 be shown to Cardinal Jacobini, and 
 designating Mr. Errington as a 
 gentleman through whom confidential 
 communications could be made on 
 public affairs to Her Majesty's Secre- 
 tary of State, or containing words to 
 that efi'ect ; whether, in acknowledging 
 this letter in a reply intended to be 
 shewn to Lord Granville, Cardinal 
 Jacobini declared himself ready to 
 confer with Mr. Errington as the 
 recommended agent (agente recco- 
 mandato) of the British Government ; 
 whether, since then, Mr. Errington 
 has been the channel of communica- 
 
 Mr. Gladstone : The House is 
 aware that it is contrary to the usage 
 of Parliament — there may be excep- 
 tions, 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 cause but to 
 decline to go further than the state- 
 ment already made by my hon. 
 friend near me (Sir. C. W. Dilke) on 

 
 tion between Lord Granville and 
 Cardinal Jacob ini ; and whether, if 
 so, Her Majesty's Secretary of State 
 for Foreign Affairs will, according 
 to constitutional practice, place on 
 record, in the Foreign Office, his 
 letters to Mr. Errington, and any 
 other correspondence with that 
 gentleman on the subject of his com- 
 munications with the Vatican, and 
 lay them upon the table ? The hon. 
 member said that since his question 
 had been put on the paper, he found 
 that the letter to Cardinal Jacobini 
 was written before the letter of Lord 
 Granville to Mr. Errington. 
 
 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 com- 
 munications 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 inaccurate in all its state- 
 ments — because they are both. It 
 has been said by my hon. friend near 
 me, as I shall state in the most dis- 
 tinct terms, not only that there has 
 been no appointing of Mr. Erring- 
 ton, and, of course, no remuneration, 
 but that there have been no negotia- 
 tions 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 exclu- 
 sively 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 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 per- 
 mit him to be supplied, with informa- 
 tion of tliat character. The purpose 
 has been entirely to convey informa- 
 tion, 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 communica- 
 tions ; and I may say that the journey 
 of Lord O'Hagan to Rome, which was, 
 like Mr. Errington's, a privatejourney, 
 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 CathoHc ^ibjects of 
 Her Majesty should be made known 
 at Rome in conjunction with the 
 very best information that is to be 
 had on the subject. 
 
 Hansard's Debates, vol. 266, p. 694-7-8, and 728, February 15th, 1882. 
 
 In the course of debate Sir H. 
 Drummond Wolff asked " Why 
 communications addressed on matters 
 connected with the Vatican by Lord 
 Granville were not on record at the 
 Foreign Office ? The late Government 
 were reproached with secret under- 
 standings ; but those secret under- 
 standings were recorded at the Foreign 
 Office, so that by a breach of confi- 
 dence they became public ; whereas 
 Lord Granville kept his papers in his 
 own despatch box, and nothing was 
 known at the Foreign Office on the 
 subject. '''' '■' '"' The right hon. 
 gentleman told the House last night 
 that Mr. Errington was to act as a 
 medium of communication between 
 the Vktican and the Foreign Office. 
 What was that ? Was Mr. Errington 
 to be a kind of animated telephone, to 
 receive messages from the Foreign 
 Office and from Cardinal Jacobini, 
 and to transmit them as they were 
 received by him ? What was the 
 difference between information and 
 negotiation ? If the Foreign Office 
 desired Mr. Errington to inform the 
 Vatican that we required this, that, 
 or the other, and that the Vatican, 
 in return, should inform Mr. Errington 
 that this or that would be done or 
 not done, was not that information 
 exactly the same as negotiation ? If 
 not, what w^as the difference ? " 
 
 " Lord Granville twice gave Mr. 
 Errington a letter recommending him 
 in that capacity to the Holy See. The 
 
 Sir Charles W. Dilke : The hon. 
 member (Sir H. Drummond Vfolff) 
 also stated that Lord Granville gave 
 Mr. Errington a letter to the Papal 
 See. He certainly never gave him 
 any such letter. I really can only 
 repeat, with regard to Mr. Errington's 
 mission, that which I have said here- 
 tofore. The information that was 
 personally conveyed through him was 
 not of a diplomatic character, and 
 was not of a nature which could be 
 treated as an official communication, 
 or, as such, presented to Parliament. 
 Exaggerated notions appear to prevail 
 in the mind of the hon. member as 
 to the character of the communica- 
 tions that have been made. No 
 communications, proposals, or re- 
 quests have been made by Mr. 
 Errington to the Vatican, or 
 authorized by Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment. Her Majesty's Government 
 •were glad that information Mr. 
 Errington had himself collected, or 
 derived from official sources, on 
 matters of interest to the Roman 
 Catholic subjects of the Empire, 
 should be conveyed to the Vatican by 
 Mr. Errington, and, during his recent 
 stay at Rome, Lord O'Hagan suppHed 
 such information.
 
 hon. member seemed a kind of Reuter 
 recommended to the Papal See. It 
 was not denied by the right hon. 
 gentleman, the Prime Minister, that a 
 letter was written. If a letter was 
 written, by what right did the Secre- 
 tary of State write a letter which was 
 not placed on record at the Foreign 
 Office ? '^ ''' ''" I would , there- 
 fore, ask whether that letter did exist, 
 or whether it was on record at the 
 Foreign Office ? " (Page 697.) 
 
 Hamard's Debates, vol. 266, jt?. 769 and 712, Fehruary IQtli, 1882. 
 
 Lord Balfour asked "whether 
 Mr. Errington has received any 
 authority from him (Earl Granville) 
 to enter into communication with the 
 Vatican on matters of interest to Her 
 Majesty's Government and to the 
 Papal See ; whether any letter has 
 been addressed to Mr. Errington by 
 the Secretary of State with the view 
 of being shewn to the Cardinal 
 Secretary of State, pointing out Mr. 
 Errington as a gentleman who could 
 treat confidentially with the Vatican 
 on such matters, and whether 
 Cardinal Jacobini has not, in con- 
 sequence, received Mr. Errington as 
 the recommended agent {agente 
 recGomandato) of the British Govern- 
 ment ; whether any communication 
 has been made by Mr. Errington to 
 the Secretary of State, as well as to 
 Cardinal Jacobini, as the result of such 
 an arrangement ; and, if so, whether 
 those communications will be laid on 
 the table of the House ? " 
 
 Lord Granville : Mr. Errington 
 did not go to Rome at the request of 
 Her Majesty's Government. He has 
 received no appointment, nor any 
 remuneration for services or for 
 expenses. He has had no authority 
 from me, or any member of the 
 Government, to negotiate with, or to 
 make any proposal, or to proifer any 
 request to the Vatican. He told me 
 that he was going to pass the winter 
 at Rome, and asked whether he could 
 be of any use to Her Majesty's 
 Government. After consultation with 
 several of my colleagues, I stated to 
 him that a person of his standing in 
 Parliament, who was well known in 
 Rome, and who had the full confidence 
 of the Government, would have great 
 advantages in communicating au- 
 thentic information on matters of 
 interest to the Roman Catholic 
 subjects of the Empire. [The 
 Marquess of Salisbury : Authentic 
 information to Rome or to the Govern- 
 ment ?] Lord Granville : To the 
 Vatican. This statement he was 
 perfectly at liberty to communicate to 
 the Cardinal Secretary. There are 
 no official or diplomatic jmpers. It 
 is not usual to present any papers 
 which are not of that character. 
 ♦ # =;= Ij2 the present case
 
 Hansard, vol. 277, p. 791, 
 Mr. Macaktney asked the Under- 
 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs 
 whether his attention has been 
 drawn to a statement contained in 
 the Standard newspaper of the 
 10th of March purporting to be 
 written from Rome on Friday night, 
 the 9th instant, to the following 
 effect: — "I learn from the Vatican 
 that the English Government and the 
 Holy See have found the difficulties 
 of establishing a British Resident at 
 the Vatican too serious to be over- 
 come, and that, having regard to 
 the present circumstances of the 
 British Ministry, it is determined to 
 abandon the scheme for the present, 
 and to content themselves on either 
 side with endeavours to remove 
 obstacles and keep up a continual 
 interchange of communications. 
 Meanwhile, Mr. Errington was 
 received at the Vatican on the same 
 day as the regular Diplomatic Repre- 
 sentatives to congratulate the Pontiff 
 on the anniversary of his Coronation 
 and birthday;" and, whether, if the 
 circumstances are as alleged in the 
 correspondent's letter, Mr. Errington 
 is admitted with the other Diplomatic 
 Representatives to the presence of 
 the Roman Pontiff in the capacity 
 of an agent ofHer Majesty s Govern- 
 ment, though not officially accredited 
 as such ? 
 
 nothing could be more inconvenient 
 than to answer in detail a string of 
 leading questions, pointing out which 
 of the facts assumed were correct 
 and which were not so, about papers 
 which are not to be presented. 
 
 March 19th, 1883. 
 
 Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice : Sir, 
 Her Majesty's Government have not 
 proposed, and have, therefore, not 
 had occasion to abandon, a scheme 
 for estabUshing a British Resident at 
 the Vatican. I believe that Mr. 
 Errington was received by the Pontiff 
 on the occasion of his birthday, 
 among other distinguished foreigners, 
 many of whom were members of the 
 CoriJS Diplomatique, 
 
 Hansard, vol. 279, p. 765, May 2Uh, 1883. 
 
 Mr. CowEN asked if Mr. Errington 
 has again been the channel of com- 
 munication between the Foreign 
 Office and the Vatican, and, if so, 
 whether papers on the subject will 
 
 LordE.FiTZMAUEicE repeated that 
 the British Government never enter- 
 tained a scheme for establishing a 
 Resident at the Vatican. Mr. Erring- 
 ton has not been the channel of com-
 
 9 
 
 be printed ; and whether Lord Gran- 
 ville has written to Mr. Errington 
 congratulating him on his success in 
 securing the censure of the Arch- 
 bishop of Cashel by the Pope, and if 
 it is intended to remunerate Mr. 
 Errington for his services ? 
 
 Mr. CowEN : I 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 in 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 opera- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Newdegate : I wish to know 
 whether Mr, Errington, whose 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 Depart- 
 ment 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 ? 
 
 munication between the Foreign Office 
 
 and the Vatican Mr. 
 
 Errington,having received no appoint- 
 ment, will receive no remuneration. 
 There are no 2^(^V^'^^ ^o present to 
 Parliamept on the subject. Her 
 Majesty's Government highly appre- 
 ciate any measures which tend to 
 strengthen the respect for law and 
 order in Ireland ; but the document 
 to which my hon. friend refers was 
 not issued at the request of Her 
 Majesty's Government, and no con- 
 gratulations have consequently been 
 sent to Rome with regard to it. 
 
 Lord E. FiTZMAURicE : I make no 
 complaint of the question of my hon. 
 friend, but I think he will see that it 
 is to a great extent of an argumenta- 
 tive nature and dealing with a delicate 
 matter, and I must ask him to give 
 notice. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone : I 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 
 authority whatever to my knowledge, 
 and I do not think it could have been 
 given without my knowledge.
 
 10 
 
 Lord Kandolph Churchill 
 I ask the noble Lord the Under-Secre- 
 tary of State,m 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 recom- 
 mendation contained in it has not 
 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. O'DoNNELL : Are we to under- 
 stand from the answers that have 
 just been given, that if Mr. Errington 
 represents himself to His Holiness the 
 Pope, or the Government of the Church 
 in Kome, 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. GoEST : Can the noble lord 
 give the House any assurance that 
 no part of Mr. Errington's expenses 
 have been paid out of the public 
 funds ? 
 
 Mr. Gladstone : If 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 conveys an assur- 
 ance of that kind. 
 
 No answer was returned to this 
 question. 
 
 Lord E. Fitzmaurice: I think 
 notice ought to be given of that 
 question. 
 
 Sir H. D. Wolff: The noble 
 lord, in his reply to the hon. member 
 for Newcastle, Mr. Cowen, said that 
 Lord Granville had not written any 
 congratulation to Eome. The ques- 
 tion 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. 
 
 Sir H. D. Wolff: I think the 
 House is entitled to more definite 
 information on this point. The noble 
 lord says that Lord Granville has 
 not written to Piome, but the ques- 
 tion is whether he has written to Mr. 
 
 Lord E. Fitzmaurice : I naturally 
 gave the answer to the question in 
 the sense in w^hich it was asked. 
 
 Lord E . Fitzmaurice : I gave a 
 perfectly fair and straightforward 
 answer. (Cries of " No," and a cry 
 of "Evasion! ") I made no verbal 
 distinctions whatever, and I believe 
 the House is satisfied with the
 
 11 
 
 Errington. That is a very simple 
 question, and one to which we ought 
 to have an answer, " Yes " or 
 ^'No." 
 
 Sir H. D. Wolff : I ask the ques- 
 tion distinctly, and I have a perfect 
 right to have an answer. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien : I would like to ask 
 the Prime Minister if he has any 
 objection that it should be distinctly 
 known in Rome that any representa- 
 tions 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 Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Sir S. NoRTHCOTE : The question 
 put by the hon. member for New- 
 castle was put very distinctly in these 
 words : " Whether Lord Granville 
 has written to Mr. Errington con- 
 gratulating him upon his success in 
 securing the censure of the Arch- 
 bishop 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. 
 
 Mr. CowEN : The question which 
 I put to the noble lord was clear 
 and distinct — namely, whether Earl 
 Granville has written to Mr. Erring- 
 ton expressly with reference to 
 certain transactions, or has he not ? 
 Yes, or no ? 
 
 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. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone : Perhaps 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. D. Wolfi) should give notice of 
 his question. (An hon. member : " It 
 is on the paper already.") 
 
 Lord E. FiTZMAURicE : I 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, wlio is, / believe, 
 at Rome. I must add I drew no 
 verbal distinction whatever. 
 
 Lord E. FiTZMAURiCE : I 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 Arch- 
 bishop of Cashel by the Pope, I 
 distinctly say that Earl Granville 
 has not done so.
 
 12 
 
 Hansard, vol. 279, p, 893, May 25th, 1883. 
 
 Lord R. Churchill asked whether 
 Mr. Errington had at any time 
 received money from the public funds 
 for the payment of his expenses 
 incurred by his mission to Rome ? 
 
 Lord E. FiTZMAURicE gave a 
 distinct negative to the question, 
 referring, at the same time, to the 
 answers in a similar sense given by 
 Lord Granville last year. 
 
 Hansard, vol. 279, p. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Cowen asked the Under- 
 Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
 if Lord Granville has written a letter 
 to Mr. Errington expressing satisfac- 
 tion at the success of his repre- 
 sentations to the Vatican respecting 
 the state of affairs in L:eland ? 
 
 953, May 2Sth, 1883. 
 
 Lord E. FiTZMAURicE : No, Sir, 
 no such letter has been -written. I am 
 asked by Lord Granville to add that 
 in answer to the question put to 
 me by the hon. member on Thursday, 
 I was directed by him to state that 
 he had sent no letter of congratula- 
 tion to Rome. By that Lord 
 Granville meant to convey that he 
 had sent no letter of congratulation 
 to Mr. Errington, who is in Rome, 
 or to anybody else. He wished me 
 to express his regret that from the 
 fact of the answer having been more 
 comprehensive than the question, any 
 trouble should have been given to 
 the House. 
 
 Hansard, vol. 279, p. 
 
 Sir H. D.Wolff asked the Under- 
 Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether 
 any correspondence has taken place 
 upon 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 ? 
 
 Sir H. D. Wolff : Would the 
 noble lord be good enough to inform 
 the House whether any correspond- 
 ence has taken place between the date 
 mentioned in the noble lord's answer 
 and the present time ? 
 
 1312, May Slst, 1883. 
 
 Lord E. FiTZMAURicE : Sir, 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 14th 
 last year. The reply then given 
 still holds good. The answer to 
 which I refer is a long one ; but i f 
 the hon. member prefers it I shall be 
 happy to read it to the House. (Cries 
 of *' Read.") 
 
 Lord E. FiTZMAURiCE : I have al- 
 ready stated that the answer given 
 by the Prime Minister on February 
 14th, 1882, still holds good, and I 
 will read that answer if the hon. 
 member wishes. (Cries of *' Read " 
 and "No." The answer was then, 
 read as given on p. 4.)
 
 13 
 
 Sir H. D. Wolff : Sir, 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. 
 
 Mr. CowEN : I 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-Lieu- 
 tenant of Ireland, have not had com- 
 munication with Mr. Errington ''' * 
 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 R. Churchill : I 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 an announce- 
 ment 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 Kome, whether 
 it would not be of advantage to the 
 public service, and of use to a future 
 Government, that a record of these 
 communications should be deposited 
 in the Foreign Office ? 
 
 Lord E. FiTZMAURicE : Sir, I con- 
 sider 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 com- 
 munications 'which hcive been placed 
 or could he placed, within the terms 
 of the answer, on what 7ny hon. 
 friend calls the file of the Foreign 
 Office. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone : Sir, that is ask- 
 ing for an opinion, and an opinion 
 upon a case on which I am not 
 prepared altogether to affirm the 
 accuracy of the statement or implica- 
 tion of the noble lord. The answer 
 read by my noble friend rather tended 
 to shew that Mr. Errington had not 
 borne any character whatever, so far 
 as we were concerned, which was not 
 exclusively his own. (Mr. Gladstone 
 then referred at some length to Lord 
 O'Hagan's and Lord Houghton's visits 
 to Rome as similar in character to 
 those of Mr. Errington.) Therefore, 
 the noble lord will see that there is 
 nothing in the nature of the communi- 
 cations between Lord Granville and 
 Mr. Errington which can properly he 
 made the suhject of oJf,cial record. As
 
 14 
 
 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 Hkes to put down 
 a question I will endeavour to answer 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Cowen: Will the Prime 
 Minister state if it be true that Mr. 
 Errington is received in an official 
 capacity at the Vatican, and that 
 Lord Houghton was not ? 
 
 No answer 
 question. 
 
 was returned to this 
 
 Hansard, vol. 279, p. 1982, 1988, Jime 1th, 1883. 
 
 Lord R. Chukchill called 
 attention to the circumstances of Mr. 
 Errington' s visit to Rome. He said 
 he had put questions as to the exact 
 nature of Mr. Errington's mission to 
 Rome ; and he had pressed upon the 
 Prime Minister that, ifthere had been 
 anything whatever about Mr. Erring- 
 ton's position at Rome of an official, 
 or semi-official, or officious character, 
 a clear and distinct record of the 
 manner in which that position had 
 been asserted and maintained should 
 be preserved in the archives of the 
 Foreign Office ; and if Mr. Errington 
 had made representations to the 
 See of Rome with respect to 
 the views of Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment as to what might be good for 
 Ireland, a clear and distinct record of 
 those representations should be kept ; 
 because, undoubtedly, the result of 
 Mr. Errington's stay at Rome had 
 been to produce a document, from 
 the College of the Propaganda, of a 
 very remarkable character, in which 
 the Pope undoubtedly came forward, 
 in a most distinct and pronounced 
 manner, as an ally and supporter of 
 Her Majesty's Government in Ire- 
 land ; and in which he pronounced, 
 equally and decidedly, in favour of 
 law and order, and against extreme 
 popular agitation. No doubt, that 
 would be accepted by many hon. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in reply, agreed 
 that there ought not to be any 
 mystery about a matter of this kind ; 
 but there is nothing mysterious in the 
 declarations concerning it which have 
 been made, from time to time, on the 
 part of the Government, either in 
 this House or the other, and I will 
 briefly refer to what has taken place. 
 Mr. Errington made known to Lord 
 Granville his disposition and intention 
 to go to Rome. He Avent there for 
 his own personal vocations. A Roman 
 Catholic gentleman going to Rome, 
 and taking a great interest in private* 
 affiiirs, very naturally has communi- 
 cations with the head of his Church, 
 and with the persons surrounding 
 that head. We have not catechized 
 Mr. Errington as to the purpose he 
 
 had in 
 
 going 
 
 to Rome.. We had 
 
 confidence in his abilities and his 
 general views;, and, therefore, we 
 felt glad that he was going, and 
 obliged by his offer to represent, as 
 well as he could, the true state of 
 things in Ireland. We entertained 
 that sentiment exclusively in the 
 interest of public order, peace, and 
 legality ; and no question comiected 
 with politics, as distinct from order, 
 peace, and legality, entered, in the 
 slightest degree into our contem- 
 plation. But when it is considered 
 what kind of countenance has been 
 
 * ? Public.
 
 15 
 
 members on both sides of the House 
 as decidedly a good result of any 
 negotiation that might have taken 
 place. However, those were the 
 grounds upon which he pressed upon 
 the Government — and if matters had 
 not altered he would have pressed 
 upon them again — that the clearest 
 and most succinct record of all that 
 had taken place should be preserved 
 in the Foreign Office, in order that 
 future Governments might have 
 something to guide them, in case it 
 might be thought advisable hereafter 
 to enter into similar relations with 
 the Holy See. That course was 
 forced on himself, and those sitting 
 near him, because they had heard it 
 stated, on good authority, that what- 
 ever communications might have 
 passed between Lord Granville and 
 Mr. Errington, up to the present 
 moment they had been of an extremely 
 secret and confidential character. It 
 had been impossible to ascertain their 
 nature. All they knew was that 
 there had been communications, and 
 constant communications ; and they 
 were informed, on the best authority, 
 that those communications had 
 passed, not directly from Lord Gran- 
 ville to Mr. Errington, but through 
 Lord Granville's private secretary to 
 Mr. Errington, and that when Lord 
 Granville should leave the Foreign 
 Office every document relating to the 
 transactions would be destroyed or 
 carried away. Now, that was not 
 the way in which the foreign policy 
 of this country ought to be con- 
 ducted, and he considered it a 
 dangerous method. * * If the 
 House would only consider what had 
 occurred, they would come to the 
 conclusion that it was extremely 
 difficult to make out, on this point, 
 as well as on others, the foreign 
 policy of Her Majesty's Government. 
 For, undoubtedly, Mr. Errington 
 had been to Rome as a recommended 
 
 given within recent times in 
 Ireland to breaches of the law, 
 and to a state of things menacing 
 to both pubhcand private security, 
 I think it was right that the 
 Government should feel an interest 
 in all means likely to convey just^ 
 impartial, authentic, and inde- 
 pendent information to the Head 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, 
 naturally in communication with 
 members of that Church, and, I 
 presume, entitled, as the heads of 
 all churches are entitled, to 
 advise the members of his own 
 church upon the performance of 
 their duties in obeying the law of 
 the land. I am not surprised at 
 the manner in which hon. gentle- 
 men below the gangway opposite 
 receive these remarks ; it is 
 too much, I am sorrj-- to say, 
 their habit to indulge in this 
 mode of proceeding, which can 
 hardly be termed Parliamen- 
 tary. These are the motives of 
 the Government, and the limits of 
 the interest they felt in Mr. Erring- 
 ton's mission to Rome^ It has been 
 stated, over and over again, that Mr. 
 Errington has had, and will have, no 
 pay ; that he received from the Gov- 
 ernment no instructions ; and that 
 we made no demands either of him 
 or from the Pope through him ; but 
 Lord Granville gave him such infor- 
 mation with regard to the state of 
 affairs in Ireland as he might, with 
 perfect propriety, give to him or to 
 any other person in whom he had 
 confidence, and who had confidence 
 in him. The noble lord made some 
 slight allusion to Lord Granville's 
 private secretary. I am not sure 
 that I understood him. [Lord Ran- 
 dolph Churchill : It had been told 
 me.] Lord Granville s private secre- 
 tary had no other share whatever in 
 these matters than such as necessarily 
 devolves on a private secretary with
 
 16 
 
 agent; Mr. Errington had obtained 
 from the Pope of Rome, by means 
 of his recommendation as agent of 
 Her Majesty's Government, a mani- 
 festo which had produced a remark- 
 able effect in Ireland, an effect which 
 they were in every way entitled to 
 consider a good effect, and there was 
 no doubt whatever that the Govern- 
 ment received that document from 
 the College of the Propaganda with 
 feelings of satisfaction. This had 
 been, in a great measure, brought 
 about by the policy adopted by Lord 
 Granville in sending Mr. Errington 
 to Rome, and by communicating 
 with Rome by means of Lord 
 O'Hagan. 
 
 regard to communications which are 
 not carried on through the regular 
 machinery of the Foreign Office. 
 Such was the attitude of the Gov- 
 ernment relative to Mr Errington, 
 and such was the independent part 
 with regard to this matter which 
 Mr. Errington was to take upon his 
 own judgment and upon the infor- 
 mation he had. The use he might 
 make of that information, and the 
 recommendations he might make, 
 were matters for his own considera- 
 tion, and were conducted by him on 
 the basis of his own judgment with 
 regard to Irish affairs. But the 
 admission I make to the noble lord 
 is, that, although I think it was quite 
 right and natural that this should be 
 treated without any reference what- 
 ever to transmission when Mr. 
 Errington first went to Rome, I am 
 of opinion — and my colleagues are 
 of opinion — that the prolonged and 
 repeated visits of Mr. Errington to 
 Rome — always, I must say, at his 
 own suggestion — have tended to give 
 another character to his visits ; and, 
 therefore, I have to say that a record 
 will be made and kept of these pro- 
 ceedings for the purpose of trans- 
 missio7i to future Secretaries of State. 
 Then, I have a few words to say 
 with regard to a question by the hon. 
 member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph 
 Cowen). I have communicated 
 with my right hon. friend the Chief 
 Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of 
 Ireland, and likewise with Earl 
 Spencer himself. The Chief Secre- 
 tary informs me that his communica- 
 tions with Mr. Errington amount to 
 7iil. He does not say he never made 
 any ; but that is the result. Earl 
 Spencer describes his own communi- 
 cations sufficiently in these words : — 
 " With respect to Mr. Errington, I 
 have seen him several times when he 
 has passed through Dublin. He has 
 called upon me, and we have talked
 
 17 
 
 over Irish affairs ; but I have never 
 asked him to take any particular line 
 or action at Rome." That is the 
 nature of the instructions. I think I 
 have now said as much as will meet 
 the points which have been raised. 
 
 Hansard, vol. 280, p. 218, June 11th, 1883. 
 
 Mr. BouRKE asked the Under-Secre- Lord E. Fitzmaurice : No depart- 
 
 tary of State for Foreign Affairs, ment of the Foreign Office will be 
 
 what Department of the Foreign charged with making and keeping the 
 
 Office will be charged with making record of any correspondence with 
 
 and keeping, for the purposes of Mr. Errington. The record of it will 
 
 transmission, a record of Mr. Erring- eventually he placed in the archives 
 
 ton's proceedings during his pro- of the office for the information of 
 
 tracted and repeated visits to Rome ? successive Secretaries of State. 
 
 [84.]
 
 
 fvi/"^: