§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to what appeared to him to be a breach of good faith on the part of the Government. He was obliged to bring the subject on at that late hour (1.30 A.M.) and he was sorry to be obliged to do so in the absence of the Prime Minister, of whom he had asked a Question earlier in the Sitting. They had Ministers of consequence in the House early in the day; but late at night only Ministers of less consequence remained, and it was sometimes a misfortune to hon. Members that they could not address themselves to all the Ministers. He was about to mention a breach of faith on the part of the Colonial Office; and if he did not obtain an answer he should renew it tomorrow, and whenever it might be open to him to do so. Before the 9th March he had brought before the House a question concerning Gibraltar. He had asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there would be any objection, on the 9th of March, to lay Papers on the Table relating to the 642 appointment of the Vicar Apostolic of Gibraltar, and the hon. Gentleman had informed him that there would be no objection. The next day, after the hon. Gentleman had arranged with him that he should put down a Motion for an unopposed Return of these Papers, the hon. Gentleman came to him and asked him to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the Papers would be presented to both Houses of Parliament. He waited until the 17th of March, when he again asked the hon. Gentleman a Question on the subject, and the answer he received from him was that the Papers were already on the Table of the House. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was certain the hon. Gentleman would not, knowingly, have made a mis-statement; but what had taken place showed an enormous administrative carelessness on the part of the hon. Member, inasmuch as he was the Minister who ought to have placed the Papers on the Table, and they had not been handed in up to the present moment. On the 24th March the hon. Member for Hertford, on his behalf, asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies when the Papers, which he had been told were laid on the Table on the 17th, would be presented; and the hon. Gentleman replied that he had been promised proofs on the following day—the 25th—and would then present them to the House, if no unforeseen circumstances occurred to prevent him. Another week passed, and on Friday last a noble Lord asked a Question of the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) in the other House, the reply being that these Papers would not be laid on the Table until after Easter. There were particular reasons why these Papers should be presented; but he would not detain the House by explaining them. He would merely say that he believed acts of great illegality had occurred at Gibraltar. At the present moment British subjects were imprisoned on accusations brought against them before a military magistrate. They had been condemned, and were not allowed to appeal; and it was for this reason, he believed, the Government dared not produce these Papers. But there was something more. It was perfectly well known that the action of the Government at Gibraltar had been taken at the dictation of the Vatican, and that this subject had an 643 intimate connection with the negotiations between Mr. Errington and the Pope. [Lauqhter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but it was, nevertheless, the fact. If he was to be interrupted in this way he should move the adjournment of the debate, and bring the subject on again to-morrow. What had been done was part of the arrangement with the Vatican for the appointment of Archbishop M'Cabe to the rank of Cardinal. That, he believed, was beyond a doubt. The Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Courtney) chose to laugh at what he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) said; but before he did that he ought to learn to keep his word.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. To say that an hon. Member has not kept his word is an expression hardly befitting an hon. Member.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that if he had used an improper expression he would withdraw it, and express regret for having used it. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) chose to treat with contempt statements made on the Opposition side of the House, and considered himself entitled to make allegations which were not borne out by facts. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was the intention of the Government to lay these Papers for which he asked on the Table? If it was not, he should have to bring the matter forward again to-morrow.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he quite allowed that the hon. Member, at 5 o'clock that afternoon, had considerable ground for complaint; but at 1 o'clock in the morning he could not be said to have the same ground for complaint, because a letter explaining the delay which had occurred in the publication of the Papers, which letter was in the House at 5 o'clock, but, unfortunately, had not been delivered, had since been received by the hon. Member. For his own part, he was as much annoyed as the hon. Member could be at the delay which had occurred in the printing of the Papers in question, and he still hoped that they would be on the Table on Tuesday. With regard to the suggestion that the matter to which the hon. Member referred was connected with Archbishop M'Cabe's Cardinal hat and Mr. Errington's visit to Rome, it might just as reasonably have been connected with the transit of Venus.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he really did not know whether the hon. Member had any ground for his opinion that there was some connection between Mr. Errington's visit to Rome and the proceedings at Gibraltar. But, whether he had or not, it was quite time that some official information of what had occurred should be furnished to the House. He understood the hon. Member to say that before the 9th of March the Under Secretary for the Colonies had promised him these Papers as an unopposed Return, and that on the 17th he had told the hon. Member that they were already on the Table of the House. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) certainly thought it did not speak well for the arrangements in the Colonial Office that, in spite of those statements, the Papers should not have been laid on the Table by this time, and that it should be impossible to say that they would be delivered on Tuesday. The hon. Member had a Notice of Motion down for an early day after the Recess, and it was obviously essential that he should be in possession of these Papers before he brought on the discussion. He trusted, whether or not the Papers were presented to the other House, that there would be no delay in presenting them to this House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it appeared that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had not carried out a promise he had given. He had first promised to lay certain Papers on the Table, had afterwards declared that they had been laid on the Table, and it now turned out that they had not been presented at all, and were not likely to be until after Easter. The Under Secretary had just stated that he had written a letter to the hon. Member which ought to have appeased his indignation at the non-laying of the Papers on the Table. Well, the hon. Member had shown him (Mr. A. J. Balfour) the letter, and he was bound to say there was no more explanation in it than there was in the speech they had just listened to from the Under Secretary. The letter, written by the Private Secretary to the Under Secretary, merely said that the hon. Gentleman "was sorry he could give no other answer than that which was given on Friday by the Earl of Kimberley"—that was to say, that the Papers would not be laid on the Table until after 645 Easter. If the indignation of the hon. Member was justified at 5 o'clock, his indignation was not likely to be allayed by the receipt of that letter.