HC Deb 09 March 1883 vol 276 cc1939-67
MR. GORST

said, that, before the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies answered his hon. Friend, he should like to call attention to a very grave scandal in connection with the administration of their Colonial Empire. In 1877 a ship called the Florence arrived at Jamaica in distress, with a quantity of arms and ammunition on board. She landed her ammunition and proceeded into harbour with the arms on board, when the Governor of the Colony, acting upon the advice of the Attorney General, interfered and refused to allow the re-export of the ammunition, or to permit the vessel to sail with the arms on board, until the captain entered into a bond of £1,000. The words of the Opinion of the Attorney General of Jamaica were— I ought to point out that in the application of the law it must be remembered that it is one for the effectual administration of which the Imperial Government would, as I apprehend, be held responsible. When the action of the Governor was reported to the Colonial Office at home, they immediately sought the advice of the Foreign Office; and the latter, not the former, took upon itself the responsibility of approving of the advice of the Attorney General, and the action of the Governor. This, again, showed that by the Government at home the matter was treated as one appertaining to Imperial as distinguished from Colonial interest. An action was brought by the owners of the vessel against the Governor for detaining the vessel and ammunition, and in answer to that action the Governor pleaded that it was an act of State. This plea was, however, overruled by the Courts in Jamaica; and, on the advice of the Colonial Office, the Governor appealed, in order to obtain the decision of the Privy Council on that important question. An appeal made to the Privy Council in 1880 was rejected, and the Governor, by order of the Colonial Office, again tried to settle the claim against him. He failed in his attempt, however; and in 1881 judgment was finally given against him in both actions, the damages and costs amounting altogether to £8,000. Thereupon the Colonial Office directed that application should be made to the Legislative Council of Jamaica, for a Vote for the amount of the damages and costs. The matter having commenced in 1877, it was not until the 27th of August, 1881, that a single word was uttered by the Colonial Office, or by the Government at home, indicating that there was any idea that this sum could be charged on the Revenue of the Colony. The Colony had never been consulted from one end of the proceedings to the other. The Legislative Council of Jamaica, during the whole of those four years, never had any voice in the proceeding, and it was not until it had closed for the first time that the demand was made that the Colony should pay the whole amount. The Legislative Council nominated a Select Committee on the 5th of September, and while the Papers were under the consideration of the Council and of the Select Committee, there came to the Colony a despatch from the Colonial Office, dated the 15th of November, which was not to be found in the printed Papers, but which must be a most extraordinary production. Although, however, the despatch itself had not been printed, there was a sample or specimen of its contents to which he would invite the attention of the House. One despatch contained the following passage:— I am surprised and regret to learn from the first of your despatches under acknowledgment that there is a probability that the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council may object to the Vote; but the official Members must, of course, be required to support it. Why did not the Secretary of State for the Colonies, before he wrote that foolish despatch, take counsel with the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor)? In Jamaica one could see the system of government in its crude and naked simplicity, and could ascertain the regard which a Liberal Government had for the judgment of their supporters. The effect of this peremptory despatch was that Mr. Burke, a coloured gentleman of high talents, who filled the post of Crown Solicitor, resigned— Because," he said, "I could not conscientiously vote for the payment of the money out of the Colonial Revenue; and Mr. Mackglashan, the Auditor General, also resigned on the same ground. On the following day the Committee came to the conclusion that the detention was made entirely to protect Imperial interests, and that the Island would in no way derive benefit there from. On the matter being referred to the Legislative Council itself the Report of the Committee was rejected, five official Members voting against it, and four unofficial Members in its favour. On the 9th of December, when he was in a majority of one, the Governor foolishly allowed the matter to be adjourned till the 10th of January. Petitions, numerously and influentially signed, from nearly all the parishes in the Island, were then presented against the proceedings of the Legislative Council, and a Resolution was carried which was equivalent to the rejection of the Vote. There were seven unofficial Members who all voted against the grant, and five official Members who voted in favour of it. But the Go- vernor stifled the further discussion of the matter by refusing to allow any Motion to be put. The Colonial Office next applied to the Treasury to vote one-half of the costs, and it was this moiety which the House would be asked to vote when they had resolved themselves into Committee of Supply. In an application made on the 25th of February, 1882, it was stated that— His Lordship (Lord Kimberley) would therefore propose for the favourable consideration of the Lords Commissioners that half the amount of the costs in question should be met by a grant from Imperial funds; and if they assent to this he will take such steps as will insure payment by the Colonial Legislature of the remaining half of the costs. There was an example of Constitutional government. The answer of the Treasury was also a most remarkable document. The fact was that the Government dared not adopt the same course with respect to Canada, Australia, or any large Colony, which they had adopted towards Jamaica. The result of such a policy would be disruption of our Colonial Empire. He would go on with the history of the manner in which the Vote had been obtained to which he had referred. Private letters were sent by the Governor to two gentlemen—Mr. Alexander, Inspector of Immigrants, and Mr. Capper, Inspector of Schools. They were asked to accept seats at the Legislative Council on the express understanding that they would vote in favour of the Government, not only on the question of the Florence, but on all questions which might be submitted to them. Both these gentleman accepted the office offered to them and the conditions imposed. That was the way in which a Liberal Government managed the affairs of our Colonies. In the Council these nominees of the Government were called "creatures"—a term of Party warfare not yet introduced into that House, but warranted by the circumstances of the case. But how did Sir Anthony Musgrave, the Governor, defend the course taken by the Government? He said that at home Members sitting on the Liberal Benches were bound to vote as they were told by the Birmingham Caucus. He would be much interested to know whether the illustration was dictated from the Colonial Office, or was acceptable there, and also how hon. Gentlemen opposite liked it? Mr. Gordon Sewell, a coloured Member of the Council, resigned, and his resignation was accepted. There were in all 20 Members, 10 official and 10 unofficial. But of the unofficial Members one was dead, and one or two others were absent from various causes. Thus the Government was able to carry its proposal. Sir Anthony Musgrave had intimated, as far as he could venture to do so, his concurrence with the views of the non-official Members. But it was to no purpose. The consequence was that all the non-official Members resigned—a course which could hardly be wondered at, and was worthy of commendation. The opinion was expressed on page 94 of the Blue Book by one of the unofficial Members of the Council, that from that time it would be a degradation for unofficial Members to take part in the formal mockery of legislation that would henceforward take place. The question whether this was a Colonial, and not an Imperial, expenditure, was one he did not wish to press upon the House; but he did urge that Her Majesty's Government had no right, and were extremely foolish, to crush every appearance of Constitutional government in Jamaica, in order to screw a miserable £4,000 out of it. That object might have been accomplished without outraging the feelings—not only the feelings of the Colonists, but the feelings of all right-minded and just men. He did not believe that the most arbitrary Government in the world would have been a party to treating the most insignificant country in the way in which a Government which professed to be Liberal, and to regard liberty and to be supported by men who cherished freedom and independence, had treated the unhappy Jamaica Colonists. The language they had used, the letters they had written, the speeches made by the Governor to the Colonial Legislature, had reduced even the appearance of Constitutional government in Jamaica to a perfect mockery and sham. When it was remembered that up to 1869 Jamaica enjoyed a real Constitution, in which the people really had the power of controlling the expenditure of their money, and that the Constitution was surrendered in the alarm of a negro outbreak, on the understanding that another free Constitution should be granted by Order of the Queen in Council—when those facts were remem- bered the House would understand the indignation with which the whole of the people of Jamaica regarded the continuance of this wretched Legislative Council, and their desire for the restoration to them of a Constitution by which those who were in the Council as Representatives of the people might be allowed to vote according to their eon-sciences for what they regarded as right.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

said, the first thing that struck him was that the hon. and learned Member, in his great anxiety to bring forward a Motion in the discussion of which he could utter a few amusing and telling sentences about the Birmingham Caucus, had shown his entire ignorance of the manner in which the numerous Colonies called Crown Colonies had been administered, were administered, and must be administered for a considerable time to come. The hon. and learned Member talked about the Government having crushed out Constitutional liberty in Jamaica by their action with reference to the ship Florence; but how could they crush out what did not exist? He hoped that some day a Constitution might be restored to Jamaica; but at present it did not exist, having been surrendered in 1869 by the unanimous vote of the Legislature. As he was informed, they did not surrender it on the understanding that another Constitution should be given to them; but on the understanding that it would be for the good of the Island, under the difficult circumstances in which it was placed, that it should accept the position of a Crown Colony, which, he might remind the House, had for its basis the absolute supremacy and predominancy of the official element. In August, 1868, a Circular was issued by the Duke of Buckingham, the then Conservative Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he described what, in the view of the Colonial Office of the day, were the relations between official Members and other Members of Council in Crown Colonies. The West India Islands at that time, following the example of Jamaica, had all surrendered their simulacra of Constitutions, and accepted the position of Crown Colonies. The Duke of Buckingham laid it down that there was one feature in common among the Legislatures of Crown Colonies—that the power of the Crown, if pressed to its extreme limit, was sufficient to overcome every resistance that might be made to it. The reason for vesting this ultimate power in the Crown was that it had been proved that the elective form of Representative Assembly, based upon the model of Elective Assemblies in this country and elsewhere, only brought about confusion, and did not contribute to the benefit of the Colony, and that it was necessary that the Colony should be governed by an Assembly where the Executive Government had a majority. He wished to know what was the use of a majority if it did not exercise its power? The doctrine in fashion on the other side of the House seemed to be that the minority should rule. They had been taunted on the Government side of the House with fidelity to Party. Well, that was not a taunt he could throw out to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends. If the hon. and learned Gentleman ever became a Member of a Cabinet—as he hoped he would some day—and he carried out the doctrine laid down by him that night, he would be a very troublesome Colleague to work with. As to the duty of official Members of Council, it was obvious that when persons accepted Office as Members of an Executive they were distinctly and rightly called upon to vote with the Government of which they were Members. Allusion was made in Lord Kimberley's despatch to a paragraph of the Duke of Buckingham's Circular, to which he had already referred, in which it was said that in the case of a nominee Member of the Legislature who was a salaried servant of the Crown, it would be highly expedient that he should give a general support to the Governor in the Legislature; and that if not disposed to do so on special occasions when the Governor required it he might be allowed to retire from the Legislature, but the Governor would be entitled to object to his continuance in his office or seat. The Earl of Kimberley, in his despatch, called upon officials who, under such circumstances, had refused to support the Governor, to resign their offices, and said that he wished it to be distinctly understood that, in the future, refusal to vote involved the resignation of the offices held. In the Constitution of Jamaica there were five seats which entitled the holders ex officio to be Members of Council; the remain- ing official Members were salaried officers appointed by name, and not by virtue of some office held. The Earl of Kimberley said that the whole of the official Members were bound, in the manner in which all Members of an Executive Government were bound, to support the Government of which they were Members, or otherwise the affairs of Government could not be carried on. That was a principle which existed in numerous Colonies, and which up to this time had occasioned no difficulty. No doubt in Jamaica there was a very strong desire to avoid the payment of this money, and there was a strong belief that by united action they could escape from payment of it. The precedent of the Have had been brought forward; but the fact that there was such a precedent constituted a greater reason why the Governor of the Colony should not sanction a second, which would inevitably be construed in Jamaica and in other Crown Colonies into the accepted doctrine that they were not to share in Imperial expenses. He would point out, however, with regard to the Have precedent, that in that case the Jamaica Legislature voted the money, and then appealed in, misericordiam to the Imperial Exchequer for the money it had disbursed. As regarded the case of the Atalaya, referred to by the hon. and learned Member, that case was not in point at all. The Atalaya was arrested under the Foreign Enlistment Act, which was an Imperial Act. The arrest was made by the direct act of the Governor General, without any intervention on the part of the local authorities. This matter, on the contrary, arose under a local Statute, and the initiative was not taken by the Governor. But although it might be pleasant to deal liberally with the Colony of Jamaica, particularly as her revenues were not so flourishing as they could desire, he submitted that there was a very important principle involved in the question. If the Colonies were to be exempted from any liability on account of mistakes made by their own recognized officials, then the Imperial Government might find themselves exposed to demands on their purse which might be very large. In his opinion, nothing would tend so much to break up the idea of unity which had always existed throughout the Colonial Empire, and was still growing, than the notion that the Colonies were perfectly free from any share in our Imperial risks and responsibilities. When the hon. and learned Member said that they would not have dared to send such instructions to a large Colony, he begged to remind him that in such a case it would be a reductio ad absurdum. It must be borne in mind that Canada very largely provided its own defence; while Jamaica did not contribute one farthing to our military expenditure, although it was guaranteed protection. With regard to the Petitions alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, there could be no doubt that there were some who were anxious to return to a former state of things and possess a more free representation. A Commission of Inquiry was examining into these matters, and he hoped that before long they would be able to grant some sort of a return in a modified form to elective representation. But as long as the Colony remained a Crown one, he maintained that the Earl of Kimberley was right, and acted according to precedent in taking the steps he did. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Legislative Council was not consulted in the different steps and legal proceedings. But did he wish them to possess greater powers than the House of Commons would under similar circumstances? Such steps were left to the Executive. In short, the case came under two heads—first, whether it was right to make the Colony pay some portion of those damages; and, secondly, whether, if so, the means adopted to make it do so were also right. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not venture to say that they were not right as to the first head; and, if that were admitted, the other followed as a matter of course. Otherwise, how was the payment to be made? As to the question with regard to Pondoland which was put to him by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. P. N. Fowler), the Government had no detailed information as to what was going on there beyond that which had been already laid before the House. The Cape Government was a self-governing Colony, and had a right to settle this matter for itself. The present difficulty had arisen from the fact that the Cape Colony took over, in 1878, the Protectorate of a small tribe—namely, the Amaxesibes—living to the northwest of Pondoland. This led to loss and discontent on the part of the Pondos. The matter was submitted to Sir Bartle Frere, then High Commissioner, who seemed to approve of it, and from despatches of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) it appeared that the late Government approved of it also. As to what was going on at present, he might say that the Cape Government found themselves unable to retire from the position they had taken up; and it had been suggested to them that the best solution of the matter would be to send a cheque for £10,000 to the Chief of the Pondos, in order to compensate him for the loss of the territory. He hoped that the Cape Government would shortly be able to make some arrangement of that kind. The Correspondence on the matter was to be found in a Blue Book, and also in a despatch of 1882 from the Earl of Kimberley, in which he said he was glad to find that the Cape Ministers were directing their attention to the subject. They had heard nothing more since then; but he hoped they would soon learn that peace was restored. The Secretary of State would instruct Sir Hercules Robinson, the High Commissioner at the Cape, to offer his mediation if he saw any prospect of its being accepted, or being likely to effect any good.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that, in view of the transformation of Ireland into a Crown Colony, the Irish Members naturally took a great interest in the revelations that had been made. The despatch of the Duke of Buckingham laid down the doctrine that, in a Crown Colony, the power of the Crown, if pressed to its extreme limits, must overbear all opposition; but that suggested the question, in what circumstances should that power be pushed to its extreme limits, and was the case now before the House one in which all opposition ought to be overborne? It was admitted that the detention of the vessel showed a complete want of legal knowledge on the part of the Colonial jurists, and that the inhabitants of the Colony stronglly objected to pay for the blunder But for the impolicy of the Government a compromise might have been satisfactorily arranged; whereas, whatever had been left undone in the way of affronting the feelings of the Colonists of Jamaica, was completed by the extraordinary instructions from the Colonial Office on the 25th of February, when that Department formally gave notice that such steps would be taken as would insure the ratification of the Government proposal by the Legislative Council. In every stage of the proceedings the Government seemed to have taken a sort of delight in affronting the feelings of the Colonists, already excited in reference to the Florence case. If there was any disaffection in Jamaica, he considered that this action of the Colonial Office was calculated to increase it. The Government had acted in the most unfortunate manner all throughout the affair, and without reflecting that the violent enforcement of the rights of the Crown was calculated to weaken the loyalty of the Colonists. He thought the Government recognized that their conduct had had that effect, because their Representative in the House now stated that, in all probability, the pending inquiry would have the result of restoring to Jamaica, in some effective degree, Constitutional government. He therefore regretted very much that, on the eve of our giving up the government of Jamaica as a Crown Colony, the Representatives of the Crown should have seized the opportunity to leave such an unfavourable impression of Crown government on the inhabitants of Jamaica.

MR. WODEHOUSE

said, he must contend that not merely one-half, but that the whole of the sum required for the payment of damages in the case of the Florence should be found by the Colony of Jamaica. The facts of the case were very simple. The damages had been incurred by the Governor of Jamaica, acting in his public capacity, to the best of his judgment—or, rather, to be quite accurate, to the best of his proper legal adviser's judgment. The character of the vessel detained was suspicious, and nobody, even in Jamaica, asserted for a moment that the action of the Government was prompted by anything but a desire to vindicate Colonial law, and insure the fulfilment of international obligations. An error of judgment was committed, but committed with absolute bona fides; and, in such circumstances, the damages should be paid out of the public revenues of the Colony in which the transaction took place. But the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council had protested against the payment by the Colony of even a moiety of the damages; and upon what grounds did they rest their protest? They claimed exemption from all liability because the Florence had been detained for the protection of Imperial interests, without any benefit to Jamaica. In other words, they declared that the fulfilment of international obligations by the Empire to which they belonged was no concern of theirs, and of no advantage to them. But that doctrine of Colonial irresponsibility for international obligations should never be accepted or countenanced on this side of the water. The House must remember that international complications might at any time easily arise in their West Indian Dependencies. They lay, as it were, in the shadow of the United States; Cuba was in the midst of them; and near them, on the mainland of Central and South America, were a cluster of States subject to periodical disturbances and revolutions. In those States power and authority passed from hand to hand, and from party to party, in constant fluctuations, and thus the West Indies and the Spanish Main generally swarmed with adventurers and conspirators. These men organized raids and revolutions, and Jamaica might be for them a convenient base of operations. Preparations for their enterprizes—clandestine armaments and so forth—might be good for trade in Jamaica; but they were not at all good for the peace and quiet of the British Empire. And when men holding a responsible position in a Colony, like these Jamaica Councillors, talked of Imperial interests and international obligations as no affair of theirs, it was about time to remind them that, if the several advantages to England and Jamaica of the connection between them were weighed in the balance, it was not England that would be found to be the principal gainer. And they should be reminded that the entire expense of the military protection of the Island was borne by Imperial Revenues. Ceylon—another Crown Colony which, like Jamaica, had been passing through a period of depression—repaid to the Imperial Government every penny of military expenditure there, but Jamaica repaid nothing; and yet this was the Colony which disclaimed all interest in proceedings of a kind that might embroil the foreign relations of England, and possibly involve an issue of Imperial peace or war. It had been said that it was hard to make a Colony pay for the mistakes of Governors and other officers selected and appointed by the Imperial Government; but, if the principle were accepted that British taxpayers ought to pay for all the errors of Colonial Governors, honest errors of judgment in the discharge of difficult duties, we should be carried very far indeed. There was really no hardship upon the Colony. Appointments of Governors and other officers from home were of great advantage to small Colonial communities; and if these officers, like other fallible mortals, sometimes made mistakes, the Colonies must take the rough with the smooth. Much had been said about the position of the official Members of Council, and about the inadequacy of the representative element in the existing Constitution of Jamaica. As to the official Members of Council, if we were to have a Crown Colony at all, it was absolutely necessary that they should vote as required by the Government, or resign their offices. [Lord RANDOUII CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord cheered ironically; but he (Mr. Wodehouse) repeated that, without the enforcement of that condition upon the official Members, the very essence of a Crown Colony would vanish, and the name become a mockery and an illusion. Whether Jamaica should continue to be a Crown Colony pure and simple, or whether it should have a Constitution on a more popular basis, was another question altogether, and it was too large a question to discuss on the present occasion. He would only remind the House that the old House of Assembly in Jamaica, which happily disappeared from the world about 16 years ago, was a scandal and a by-word throughout the West Indies. It was little better than a bear garden of shouting and screaming negroes and mulattoes, with a sprinkling of Jews. He would not longer detain the House; he had only risen to express the strong feeling with which he regarded a repudiation on the part of Jamaica of her legitimate liabilities in this transaction.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was rather sorry the question had not come before a fuller House, because, as brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst), it was an appeal to the House of Commons of the absolutely unrepresented inhabitants of Jamaica from the representatives of the Government. He would therefore entreat the attention of hon. Members to the question, on account of the peculiarly unprotected character of the 600,000 blacks, who formed the bulk of the population of the Island. They were unprotected—desperately unprotected—as was shown by the speech of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and by the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Wodehouse), in addition to the despatches laid before the House. The Under Secretary of State evidently thought he could make short work of the question; for he devoted less than a quarter of an hour to a very complicated case that was brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend. He said the hon. and learned Gentleman had shown but little knowledge of Colonial matters; but the taunt was very ill-timed, as his hon. and learned Friend was in the Colonies before the Under Secretary of State had commenced his official career. Throughout his entire speech the Under Secretary of State had manifested an utter ignorance of the case. He stated that the arrest of the Florence took place under a local Act, when it did nothing of the kind; and tried to make out that, because it occurred through the action of the collector of Customs, it did not occur through the Government—a proposition he would never have made if there had been more than six hon. Members in the House. The arrest of the Florence was made under a Proclamation issued in 1859 by the then Governor, for the purpose of prohibiting the exportation of arms or ammunition from the Island under the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The case of the Florence was on all fours with that of the Atalaya, which was similarly detained, and for whose detention the Imperial Government had to pay damages that were to be voted that night. Yet because, in this ease, it was the wretched Colony of Jamaica, peopled mainly by 600,000 blacks, and not one of the powerful Colonies of Australia, they sought to saddle it with a half.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

said, that if the noble Lord would refer to the first page of the Blue Book, he would find that the Act was a local one.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was aware of the contention of the Jamaica Attorney General, who, when he first pleaded the case before the Courts, urged that it was an Imperial Act. But the moment the Government at home wished to make the Colony pay the whole of the damages, round went the Attorney General, and argued that the Act was a local one. Consequently, the opinion of the Attorney General was worthless.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

pointed out that it was the statement of the Governor.

LORD RANDOLPH CHUECHILL

retorted that the Governor acted on the advice of the Attorney General. He had shown that the present contention of the Government, that the arrest took place for local purposes, was upset by the Minute of the Hon. Constantine Burke, the Crown Solicitor, who quoted the Proclamation under which the act was done. In order to prove to the House the Imperial character of the whole transaction, and how little Colonial interests entered into it at all, he had only to remind them that the Governor acted throughout under the direction of the Foreign Office. What had the Foreign Office to do with purely Colonial matters? When this affair arose, in 1877, the Governor applied to Lord Carnarvon to know what he was to do, and his Lordship immediately applied to the Foreign Office, which gave directions to Lord Carnarvon. The Government thought that they would be successful before the Courts, and that they would not have to pay; but when they were unsuccessful, they tried to make the wretched Colony pay the money. The Governor knew that he was acting in Imperial interests; for, in these Papers, he said over and over again that he concurred in the views of the official Members of the Legislative Council as to their immunity from liability in the matter, who resigned rather than consent to the Vote. There were two points which the House ought to consider—firstly, should the Colony pay? and, secondly, what was the attitude of the Colonial Office towards the Colony? If the contention were correct that the Colony ought to pay, and that this was purely a local matter, on what grounds could the Government demand from the House of Commons £4,000 odd? Compromises were absolutely fatal. Either it was an Imperial matter, in which case we ought to pay all; or it was a Colonial matter, in which case the Colony ought to pay all. There was no escape from that dilemma. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made one or two most amusing remarks. He said, for instance, that the precedent of the Have case ought not to become a precedent. His (Lord Randolph Churchill's) own contention was that that case, which occurred when the present Prime Minister was in Office, in 1868, was an exact precedent for our guidance. In an extraordinary despatch, the Secretary to the Treasury, who evidently considered himself an authority on the subject, laid down the principles which should regulate the intercourse between the Colonies and the Crown. The hon. Gentleman said— My Lords "—namely, Sir Ralph Lingen and himself—"cannot allow the case of the Have to be quoted as a precedent, binding the Imperial Government to take upon itself liabilities of this nature. Why not? It was a precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman who was at the present moment Prime Minister. While on the subject of that despatch, he would ask the hon. Gentleman to give the House a few explanations of it. The hon. Gentleman said— My Lords think that it is, primâfacie, the duty of a Colony to hear its share of the international obligations of the Empire. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had no hesitation in saying that it was the principle laid down in that naked form, which brought about the revolt of our American Colonies. The hon. Gentleman then went on to speak of Colonial responsibility and partnership arrangements. Let him give the House his ideas of Colonial responsibility and partnership arrangements as between Jamaica, which was despotically governed, and Great Britain. Then, after stating that he was going to refund one-half, the hon. Gentleman said that was a concession justified by peculiar circumstances, and that Her Majesty's Government held it to be the rule that the obligations of neutrality should be discharged in the territory where the necessity for those obligations existed. "Was Jamaica to be liable for any international engagements that this country might enter into? The Government apparently thought it was the duty of a Colony to bear its share of Imperial engagements. Upon that principle Jamaica ought to bear a share of the cost of the Egyptian Expedition. Would any hon. Member opposite or any Member of the Government get up and say so? In the interests of the Colonies, which possessed no representation, he would ask, did they agree in the doctrine laid down by the laws of the Treasury, that they, the Colonies, were to bear a share of Imperial responsibilities? Sir Anthony Musgrave, in his speech to the Council, stated that the claim made on the Island was not a claim of the Secretary of State, but was based upon a particular principle approved by Parliament. That was not so, and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was perfectly certain that the Government would not dare to write such a letter to Australia, or any of the larger Crown Colonies. There was another point. The Secretary of State had shown great ignorance respecting the Constitution of Jamaica; for he had said that the Island had no Constitution, whereas, in fact, it had a Constitution. What was this Legislative Council, which was to vote automatically at the bidding of the Government? Was it a mere phantom, a simulacrum, and not a consultative Body? Was it to be a check on the Governor, or merely a Body for registering decrees? It was established in order that Jamaica might have a representation; but if it was a Council, such as it was stated to be in the Government despatches, then Jamaica had no representation at all. It stood in the same position as the Legislative Council of India. Would anyone venture to say that it was the duty of the Council of India to vote just as the Governor directed them? There was one other point on which he desired an explanation. What happened when the Governor was cast in damages for £8,000? He went to the Colonial Treasury, and on his own account took, without any authority whatever, £8,000 from the Treasury Chest, and with that sum he paid the damages. Was that one of the new principles of Colonial Government? Did the Lords of the Treasury approve a Colonial Governor, when embarrassed by pecuniary demands, going to the local Treasury and helping himself to money in order to free himself from those demands? Was there any precedent for such a course of conduct? He believed that Sir Charles Darling was dismissed from his office for an analogous act. Some of the remarks made during the debate in the Legislative Council were worth reading. Mr. Henderson, an aged Member of the Council, who refused to vote this money, was very outspoken. He said that if the British Colonial Minister expected to rule Jamaica as with a rod of iron, he made a great mistake, and he went on to speak of the "iron hand" and "thoughtless head" of the British Minister. When this old Member talked of the "iron hand" of Lord Kimberley, he was, of course, only using a metaphor; but when he talked of the "thoughtless head," he was very near the truth. He concluded by professing himself ready to fight to the death for Jamaica's rights and liberties; so that it seemed Jamaica had a "Grand Old Man." He really hoped that the Government would condescend to offer some fuller explanation of their action in that matter than had been given by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; but if they did not choose to do so, he could not help thinking that the country would conclude that the reason why they made no answer to the strong charges brought against them was that there was no satisfactory answer to make.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that although the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had complained of the brevity of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, he (Mr. Courtney) must follow the example of his hon. Friend in that respect—first, because the House had plenty of work to do to get through the Supplementary Estimates; and next, because the noble Lord, although speaking for nearly an hour, had really added nothing to the able statement of facts and arguments made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). Personally, he (Mr. Courtney) would defend and endorse every word of the despatches which defined the local responsibilities of the Colony. There were two questions of considerable interest involved in that discussion. The first was the measure and limit of Colonial respon- sibility in observing the duties of neutrality, on which there was a difference of opinion between the noble Lord and himself. The Government had laid down the principle, that primâfacie it was the duty of the Colony to bear its share of responsibility in connection with transactions which took place within its own boundaries; and, further, that the obligations of neutrality should be discharged by the local resources of the territory within which those obligations had arisen. The adoption of the contrary rule would, he maintained, lead to the terrible consequences which had been indicated in the able speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse). The noble Lord had suggested that that case was on all fours with that of the American Colonies and the imposition of a duty on tea at Boston; but the two cases were entirely different. They were not forcing upon Jamaica the responsibility for action, or any share of action taken by England; but they placed on Jamaica, as they would place on any other Colony, the primâ facie responsibility for action taken in the Colony itself. The duty of international neutrality within a Colony must be observed and maintained in that Colony. That rested on the simple rule of expediency that those who had the control of their own action should be responsible for the consequences of their own action. There were, he admitted, cases in which it would be manifestly unfair that the whole weight of the responsibility should be thrown upon the Colony; but, on the other hand, it would be a most dangerous principle to lay down that the British taxpayer should pay the entire cost of any infraction of neutrality by any British Colony. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham asked whether they would apply their doctrine to great Colonies like those of Australia, for example? But in Australia the question would never arise. "Whatever was done in a self-governing Colony, the action of the Ministry was brought before the Colonial Parliament and was settled by the Colonial Parliament. But in Jamaica, on the other hand, if the noble Lord's doctrine was to prevail, anything might be done within the Colony that would imperil our relations with friendly Powers, and we were to bear all the consequences. That principle was to be carried all over the world, and the taxpayers at home were to pay every fraction of any sum required to meet the consequences of action taken within the Colony, without the Colony itself being under any responsibility whatever to bear any of the burden! The noble Lord said that the action of Jamaica was taken under an Imperial Statute; but the Governor, writing to Lord Carnarvon, stated that it was taken under a local Statute. The noble Lord was misled by the use of the words "Imperial interests." The interests of the peace of the British Empire were certainly Imperial interests; but the duty of maintaining that peace, by observing the obligations of neutrality, was a local one. Wherever the matter was mentioned in the Blue Books, it was stated that the action was taken under a local Statute. It was, however, suggested that the responsibility rested on us in some degree, because Jamaica was a Crown Colony. Well, it was partly on that ground that the Government recommended the House to pay one-half of these charges. [An hon. MEMBER: It rests on us wholly.] The hon. Member then seemed to hold, because it was a Crown Colony, that the responsibility for the acts of the officers in that Colony was to be borne entirely by the Imperial Government. [An hon. MEMBER: They are appointed from home.] If they rested the responsibility of the Mother Country to pay those charges on the fact that the Governor and other officials of Jamaica were appointed from home, they might as well argue that the whole cost of the government of Jamaica should be borne by England, because there was not a person engaged in the administration of the Colony who did not either directly or indirectly derive his authority from the Home Government. If this case of the Crown Colonies was to be raised at all, it was most unfortunate that it should be raised in this fashion. The duty of the Government at home in regard to Crown Colonies was to select the best persons it could find for discharging the duties to be performed on the spot; and, having done that, the Colony took those gentlemen with all their defects and their merits. The noble Lord dwelt on the pressure put upon the Council; but he (Mr. Courtney) feared that he had confused the official and non-official Members. The latter were free to vote as they pleased; while the former must, like the Members of the Government at home, either vote with the Government or resign. As to the payment of the Governor's expenses, that was approved because it stopped the payment of interest at 6 per cent.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he felt bound to take exception to one remark which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Fnancial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney)—namely, that there was very important Business before the House, and, therefore, his remarks on this subject must be very brief. He could not conceive of a more important matter than the relation of the Country to the Colonies, and he was accordingly entirely at variance with the hon. Gentleman, for there could not be any subject which it was more important to discuss. His hon. Friends were, therefore, justified in bringing forward this Motion and insisting on having it thoroughly discussed. There were two questions involved in this discussion—first, whether the doctrines that the Government followed were right? and, secondly, whether the application of them was right? The doctrine might be right primâ facie, but its application was a totally different matter. It must be remembered that Jamaica not long ago had a Constitution of its own, and after that was taken away for reasons of State—[Mr. COURTNEY: No; surrendered.] He maintained that it was taken away for reasons of State and reduced to the position of a Crown Colony. Under those circumstances, the Government ought to have been very tender in their treatment of the Colony; but, on the contrary, they had replied in this matter in the baldest, crudest, and harshest manner. Moreover, the Statute under which the proceedings were taken was passed under the old Constitution, and, therefore, hardly applied to the existing circumstances. The Government had acted through the advice of the Law Adviser, appointed by the Government of this country; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) should have thought that, considering the peculiar circumstances of the Colony of Jamaica, whatever the general principles laid down in such cases might be, the proper, the generous, and the right thing to have done would have been to have paid the whole of this money out of the Imperial Treasury, and have accepted the whole of the responsibility. Then, again, after writing to the Government of Jamaica, saying they would pay nothing at all, the Government now came forward and said they would split the difference. He could not conceive a more undignified course to pursue. They should either hold by the principle they laid down in the first instance, throwing the entire responsibility on the Colony and paying nothing at all, or they ought to discharge the entire obligation. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had compared the matter to the ordinary expenses of the Colony; but there was no analogy whatever between these cases. The Government had taken the worst course they possibly could take by agreeing to pay half the cost, in order to avoid further complications; and the effect of this action of the Government was that the whole of the official Members of the Council had resigned, and a very strong feeling was excited against the Mother Country. The object of the Government ought to be to knit the Colonies to the Mother Country as much as possible; but they had chosen to disregard the inhabitants of Jamaica, and instead of uniting to disunite the Empire.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, that, as a supporter of the Government, it was not an agreeable thing to find himself opposed to them; but, on that occasion, he differed entirely from the policy which they had laid down. His personal acquaintance with Jamaica enabled him to judge, better perhaps than any Member of the House, of the feelings of that Colony. For over two centuries Jamaica had enjoyed the privilege of free representative institutions; but in 1866, at the suggestion of Governor Eyre, the House of Assembly, in a moment of panic, gave up its Constitutional rights to the Crown. At that time, however, it asked for a simpler form of Constitutional government; but that request was ignored by the Imperial Government, and Jamaica was placed in the position of a Crown Colony, against the wishes and the protests of the people. The House must not forget that the Island was one of the most ancient of our possessions, for it had received a Charter from Charles II., and had been peopled almost entirely by the English, the Spaniards having for the most part retired from the country soon after its conquest by Cromwell. He quite admitted the general principle that, when a Colony received the benefit of the Imperial connection and protection, it was bound to share in the obligations which that protection necessitated; but this was a case of a Crown Colony, administered directly from Downing Street, called upon to pay for the mistakes of officials in whose appointment it had no voice, and over whom it had no control whatever. A most egregious blunder had been committed by the Attorney General for Jamaica in the matter. It was not a question of £8,000 or so; it involved the far higher principle as to the administration of Crown Colonies generally. It could not, therefore, be regarded as surprising that the inhabitants of Jamaica resented this treatment. They resented it deeply, and certainly never contemplated such usage by this country, when they were persuaded to divest themselves of their long-enjoyed rights of representative government.

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that he has a Notice on the Paper upon this subject, and that it is out of Order for him to discuss the subject-matter of that Notice.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

With all deference to you, Sir, I postponed my Notice, in consequence of an answer which I received from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member is mistaken. The Motion still stands upon the Order Book.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

I shall be very glad, Sir, if you will call my attention to it.

[Mr. DODDS handed a copy of the Order Book to the hon. and learned Member.]

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he saw that the right hon. Gentleman was correct, and he was glad that he had called his (Mr. Serjeant Simon's) attention to the fact. He gave Notice of the Motion; but he postponed it, and that was the cause of his error. Of course, he would not pursue the matter further. There were questions involved that went beyond the payment of money. Were they going to carry on a system of government in complete antagonism to the feelings of the people of the country? Two of the official Members of the Government had resigned rather than vote for that payment, and we had filled up their places by appointing two subordinates of inferior position, who never would have dreamt of belonging to the Council, on condition that they would vote for the payment. There was no analogy whatever between this transaction and the selection by our Prime Minister of Colleagues who would support his policy. [Interruption.] He appealed to the Liberal Members below the Gangway, as the friends of free institutions, to listen to what he had to say. But there were unofficial Members of the Council not appointed by the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER

the remarks of the hon. and learned Member are entirely out of Order in discussing the system of government in Jamaica.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he was only about to refer to a fact which was on record in the Blue Books, that the unofficial Members of the Council all resigned their seats rather than Vote for this payment. [Cries of "Order!" and"Name!"]

MR. SPEAKER

the hon. and learned Gentleman is still discussing the question of the system of government in Jamaica, in reference to which he has placed a Notice upon the Paper. His observations, therefore, are quite out of Order.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and he was only sorry that he had unintentionally trespassed upon the Rules of the House. He had no desire to do so, and, after the ruling just given by Mr. Speaker, he would say no more upon the subject, except that there was a strong feeling entertained on the part of the people of Jamaica in reference to the payment of this money. He therefore hoped the Government would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, and would not press the Vote.

MR. SPEAKER

the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to find it impossible to avoid the question of the Crown government of Jamaica, and I really must call upon him to desist.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was not sure whether he understood rightly one of the closing sentences of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon), or whether if he understood it rightly, it expressed his hon. and learned Friend's real meaning. His hon. and learned Friend fervently urged Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Vote which they intended to ask the House of Com- mons to concur in; hut the effect of withdrawing that Vote would be to leave the Colony of Jamaica the whole burden, whereas the Government proposed that it should be relieved as far, at least, as the moiety of the sum was concerned, if the Vote were agreed to. The opinion that the Vote should be withdrawn could not be reconciled with other parts of his speech. He would not enter upon a discussion of the very glowing eulogy which his hon. and learned Friend had bestowed upon the Colony of Jamaica in its past history, as a notable and praiseworthy example of free institutions and of the spirit of liberty, because it would be unwise and likewise ungenerous, at a period when the Colony had been deprived of its legislative institutions, that any criticism should be opened upon the principle of those institutions when they were in action. But of one thing he must remind his hon. and learned Friend. He said that an influence from Downing Street deprived the Colony of those institutions; and that while it was the intention of the Legislature that, in surrendering its own powers, some other and simpler form of popular government should be substituted, the will of the Executive Government at home defeated that purpose, and caused the existence of the present state of things. Now his hon. and learned Friend was in material error in his reference to what took place. He (Mr. Gladstone) was a Member of the Cabinet at the time; and he most deeply and profoundly regretted the imperative necessity under which they lay, after the painful and horrible circumstances of the rebellion then existing in Jamaica, of suspending the legislative or representative institution in that Island. But the desire and proposal of the Government were not what his hon. and learned Friend supposed. They felt so much the gravity of the proposal they were making, and the anomalous character of any suggestion to withdraw representative institutions where they had once been given, that they proposed to Parliament that the suspension should take place for a very limited period of time. He would not trust his memory absolutely as to the terms of years; but he thought the proposal was for a suspension of three years. At any rate, he was quite certain of this—that the proposal was for a short term of years in order that the attention of Parliament might then be again called to the subject. It was the unanimous feeling of that House—of every portion of the House—that compelled the Government to exchange this proposal into a permanent suspension of those institutions, and to remove the limit of time which they had introduced into the Act. He did not deny that among the White population of Jamaica a portion—and perhaps a considerable portion—had shown a great deal of dissatisfaction, in consequence of the course that had been pursued in this matter by Her Majesty's Government, and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in admitting that this was a question of very great importance. It was also, in his opinion, a question of very great simplicity; and, notwithstanding the vigour with which the right hon. Gentleman delivered himself against the offence of brevity in the House, and the indignation which he had bestowed so freely on the offences of his (Mr. Gladstone's) hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) in that respect, he should endeavour to pursue the course recommended by his hon. Friend, though under some fear of the displeasure which might be drawn upon him from another quarter. Now, the contention of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was really this—that because Jamaica was a Crown Colony, or was in the condition of a Crown Colony, the charge ought to have been borne entirely by the people of the United Kingdom. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made an accusation against the Government, which was the very last that he (Mr. Gladstone) should have expected to hear; and, in fact, he was bound to admit that the right hon. Gentleman effectually contradicted it himself in the later portions of his speech. For, in the earlier portions of his speech, he said the head and front of the offence of the Government was that they had applied a principle, to quote his own words, in the baldest, crudest, and harshest manner possible; while, in the later portions of his speech, he proceeded to censure them for having compromised the principle upon which they stood by the arrangement they had adopted of charging only one-half of the charge on the Colony. The question whether a compromise was just or judicious in this matter might be a very serious question. He thought it was a very disputable one; but, at the same time, it was a pretty effectual answer to those who contended that the principle had been applied in the "baldest, crudest, and harshest manner possible." It had been applied, however, in a manner in which the offence was—if it was an offence at all—that there had been an express desire to spare the people of the Colony, even in refusing to place upon the shoulders of the people of that country a burden which, in the opinion of the Government, did not belong to them. The case had been felt to be one of very considerable difficulty. He perfectly understood that there might be differences of opinion about it; but he must confess for his own part that he was more inclined to believe that, if there had been an error at all, it had been in asking the people of England to bear one-half of the charge. In point of fact, more than one-half would be borne by the people of this country, according to the proposal of the Government, because the legal expenses of the appeal in this country had been borne out of the Consolidated Fund. He was quite ready to admit, therefore, that there might be force in the argument of those who said that the Government had no right to impose this charge on the people of the United Kingdom, and who had said that, if the Government had stood upon their principle, and had required the whole charge to be borne by Jamaica, where the acts occurred that brought about the charge, the dissatisfaction in the Colony would not have been greater than it was at this moment. He would not enter into that point; the Government had taken their course, and were bound to abide by it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and those who supported him should consider what was involved in their contention; and in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, he affirmed that the argument of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury was strictly correct, and that they could not distinguish in principle between this charge and the other legitimate expenses of government in Jamaica. But the miscarriages of a Government were among the legitimate expenses of a Government, if they were miscarriages of such a nature as were ordinarily incidental to it—that was to say, where everyone acted in good faith, and where there was neither corruption nor incompetency, but only that kind of error in the interpretation of law which would insinuate itself here and there in the proceedings even of the best and the ablest men. Charges arising out of such a case must be considered as among the legitimate exigencies of government. Now, he wanted to know why the people of England should bear a charge for the people of Jamaica because it was a Crown Colony? Hon. Gentlemen opposite replied because the people of Jamaica had no control in the matter, and because they did not appoint the Attorney General. Did they appoint the Governor? Did they appoint any one who held office in the Colony? Had they any control over any act of the Governor? None whatever. They were entirely deprived of Constitutional privileges. Then, if they said this charge ought not to be borne by them on that account, then every charge ought not to be borne by them on the same reasoning—or, in other words, because Jamaica was a Crown Colony, therefore the taxpayers of this country ought to bear the whole charge of the administration of the Island. Now, that was a proposition which, in his opinion, was totally untenable. If the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury said the time had now come when we ought to think of restoring representative institutions in Jamaica, he (Mr. Gladstone) could only say that when the hon. and learned Member made his argument upon that subject, he would find in him (Mr. Gladstone) a willing hearer, and one with every predisposition to adopt his conclusions. But, for the time, they must assume that Parliament was right in saying that, for the benefit of Jamaica itself, it was necessary that these representative institutions should be suspended. If they were rightly suspended, which he must assume to be the case, then the necessary expenses of governing that Colony were still a legitimate charge upon the Colony itself. And although it was very well to come there and talk of pursuing a generous and a high-minded course, what did all that come to? It did not mean making any sacrifice on their own behalf. It did not mean a Parliamentary subscription, or that Members should be invited to subscribe to reduce the charge against the Colony. No; it simply meant that they would make this addition to the vast expenditure of the United Kingdom and lay the burden on the shoulders of their own constituents. Now, that was simply their contention. Let it be judged of by the country and by that House. That contention consisted of these two points—that the argument adverse to the course they had taken of imposing a certain charge on the Colony involved nothing less than the proposition that the people of England were liable for the expenses of the government of Jamaica. That was a proposition which the Government could not admit, because, if they did admit it, they must extend it to every Crown Colony in the Empire, and if they did adopt it, they should be guilty, in their opinion, alike of an absurdity and an injustice.

MR. SALT

said, he wished to say that he reserved to himself the right, if any proper occasion arose at any future time, to raise this important question again. In some respects, he believed the Government might have acted rightly; but, after all, this was neither a question for an attack on, nor a defence of, the Government, but one for the House and the country. It was a question of great Imperial policy, which ought to be considered solely in the direction of attaining that which was best, not for the Government or the Opposition, but for the country at large.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.