THE END OF THE PIGOTT INCIDENT, 1Vi[ R. HOLMS found an
unexpected friend on Monday in Sir Walter Barttelot. Except for his speech, the debate might have been as unanimous as the division. It would have been too much, perhaps, to expect a Conservative Member not to show some irritation at there being any occasion for him to propose the reversal of a vote of censure on Lord Beacons- field. But Sir 'Walter Barttelot might have remembered that if it was annoying to Conservative Members to have to pro- pose such a motion, it was at least equally annoying to Liberal Members to have to support it. Such a recollection would have led him to put a little less recrimination and a little more conciliation into his observations. If his object had been to tempt the House into affirming its resolution, he might have made just the speech he did make. Consider- ing that his purpose was to get the vote rescinded, it showed remarkable confidence in the fair-dealing of Liberal Members that he should appeal to their sense of justice, and awake their sense of annoyance, in one and the same breath. Mr. Helms may be excused, therefore, if the speech in which he assented to the reversal of the vote of censure which the House of Commons, at his invita- tion, had passed on Mr. Pigott's appointment, was not alto- gether in the best taste. He did but take a leaf out of Sir Walter Barttelot's book. It was a leaf, however, which he would have done better to leave in its original place. The truest and. the. wisest thing to say about the original vote is that it was passed under a misconception of the facts. The House of Commons perfectly knew what it wished to censure, but it was mistaken in its belief that what it wished to cen- sure was before it. It did not in the least intend to limit the discretion of the Prime Minister as between one fair appoint- ment, and another, but it wished to mark its seine that in appointing to one of the best posts in the Civil Service a young man .who had no claim except that of belonging to a family who had done him some electioneering service, Lord Beacons- field had gone beyond the limits of diecretion. So soon as it was made clear that there had been no transgression of these limits, that Lord Beaconsfield had taken considerable pains to find a good man for the vacant place, and that he might fairly have supposed. that in appointing .Mr. Pigott he had taken. one of the best, if not the best man at his disposal, the House felt that it had voted without due knowledge of the facts, and that there was nothing to be done but to get rid of the vote as soon as possible. Mr. Holins'e speech would have been more in harmony with this temper if he had accepted the new facts without questioning them, instead of alleging reasons for thinking that they might not have been stated quite accurately. It was eminently a case for the application of the saying, "Least said soonest mended." Mr. Helms was quite willing to mend, but he wanted to have his say at the Same time.
Nor is this, the only blame to which Mr.. Holms's action in the matter is open. He will do well to give careful considera- tion to the speech with which Lord Hartington virtually closed, the debate. It .cannot be denied that in first passing and then rescinding a vote of censure, on the Prime Minister, the. Liberal party •did uudesignedly give their opponents an advantage. The measure of the ultimate loss is the exulta- tion caused by the original triumph. There might, of course, have been no choice but to run this risk. The apparent abuse of patronage might have been too glaring to be passed over by any party that knew its business. In that case, the vote of censure would have been brought forward after careful consul- tation with the leader of Opposition and with his full consent: Lord Hartiugton's speech shows that nothing of the kind was done in the present instance. His words on this point are sufficiently important to be worth quoting :—" I have no hesi- tation in saying to my h.onourable friend Mr. Hohns—he is perfectly aware of it—that I had some doubts when lie first showed me the terms of his motion ; I thought he attached somewhat too much weight and authority to one isolated re- commendation of a Select Committee. I also frankly owned to my honourable friend that I had some doubt as to the re- commendation itself ; I told him that I much doubted whether a man practically acquainted with the details of this business could be found, at any rate at the salary that was offered." It is plain from this that the whole bent of Lord Hartington's judgment was against raising the question at all, and in a matter of this kind, the judgment of the leader of Opposition ought to go for a great deal. It is in these comparatively small things that it is important, because possible, to maintain party discipline. In grave questions of policy, independent action cannot be stifled. Men. feel too strongly to forego their freedom in deference to party necessities. But the more inevitable these assertions of independence are in great matters, the more careful an Opposition should be to avoid them, when they. are net imperatively called for. In this case, Mr. Hellos was evidently. led away by zeal for the recommendation of the Select Committee, and he ought to have distrusted his own enthusiasm when he saw how little it was shared by his leader. Lord Hartington had the instinct of an ex-Minister that•Lord Beaconsfield would not be likely to lay himself open to cen- sure in the singularly transparent way which Mr. Helms sup- posed. If Mr. Helms had taken his leader's instinct as a guide, in preference to his own, he would have been spared some annoyance, and the Liberal party a needless defeat. The reasons which led to the vote of censure being carried were very instinctive stated by Lord Hartington. To all appear- ance, his belief that Lord Beaconsfield would not have committed himself in the way Mr. Holms'imagined.had turned out to be unfounded. The Government explanation justified the worst suspicions entertained of the appointment. They had been appealed to to say if there was any excuse to be alleged for the selection of Mr. Pigott. They had been asked to say whether the recommendation of the Committee had been fully considered, whether any steps had been taken to discover if such a man as the Committee had suggested could be had, and what course had been adopted to find a suitable can- didate for the post. The only answer they had given was that Lord Beaconsfield had watched Mr. Pigott's career with great interest. It was a doubly-unfortunate answer, because it was not to the purpose, and it was not true. Lord Beaconsfield had not watched Mr. Pigott's career with interest, because until his name was submitted to him among others for the vacant appointment he had known nothing about him. And if he had watched Mr. Pigott's career with interest, it would have proved nothing as to the merit of the career thus watched. As this was the only explanation forth- coming., there was no choice left to the Opposition but to vote as they did. Sir Stafford Northcote has been a great deal blamed for not making himself better acquainted with the facts of the case as regards Lord Beaconsfield. There was another Member of the Government, however, who took part in the debate who ought, one would think, to have shown himself specially well acquainted with the facts of the case as regards Mr. Pigott. It is strange, uodoubt, that the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer should not have remembered the statement of Mr. Pigott's services which Lord Beaconsfield caused to be sent to him. But it is stranger still that the Secretary for War should not have had in his mind any of those facts relating to Mr. Pigott which, if they had been submitted to the House last week, would have saved it from the necessity of eating its words this week, The mere list of Mr. Pigott's appointments is enough to justify his selection for the Controllership of the Stationery Office, on any of the usual theories of promotion. He has served as Private Secretary to three Ministers in sue- cession. He was Secretary to the Royal Commission on Army Promotion. Since that Commission came to an end, he has been chiefly employed on special work connected with the Report, for which he was thanked by Mr. Hardy in his Estimate Speech this year. And at the date of his appointment he was acting temporarily as Assistant Private Secretary to Mr. Hardy. All or most of these facts must have been known to Mr. Hardy, and yet when he had to take part in the Prime Minister's defence, he made next to no use of them. He had not even Sir Stafford North- cote's excuse that he had not read his brief, for he had his brief already in his head. The impression which the language of both Ministers made on the House was that they had been so fearful that a job had been committed, that they had thought it best not to cross-examine its supposed author. Mr. Hardy, even more than Sir Stafford Northcote, ought to have known that Mr. Pigott's career had been such as to make his promotion a natural recognition of previous useful labour in the public service.
Previous page
